On October 13, November 13, November 24 and December 1, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 60903, 67714, 70549 and 75241) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

The following comments pertain to Laundry Service, Stratton Medical Center, 113 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York.

Comments were received from a Member of Congress, a nonprofit agency and from counsel for the current contractor. The Member claimed that the addition of this service to the Procurement List would reduce the current contractor's revenue substantially and could cause people with disabilities employed by the contractor to lose their jobs. The Member also indicated that the Government might pay higher prices for inferior laundry service.

The nonprofit agency in Utica, New York, was concerned that the loss of the contract would force the current contractor to lay off people who are severely disabled and that this was counter to the purpose of the JWOD Program. Counsel for the current contractor made these same points, noting also that the contractor had been given an award by a local disability organization for its hiring of people with disabilities. This commenter claimed that the original estimated price for the laundry service was based on an unrealistically low estimate of the Government's service requirement. The commenter also claimed that the contractor had become dependent on the revenue from this Government service after providing it for five years. The commenter also indicated the assertion that the nonprofit agency would provide inferior service at a higher price was based on the belief that the nonprofit agency is new to the laundry business.

The nonprofit agency that would be performing the service currently operates a laundry service under a State program for nonprofit agencies employing people with disabilities. The Committee has found the nonprofit agency to be capable of performing the service being added to the Procurement List, based on an assessment by the central nonprofit agency, in which the Government contracting activity concurred, and review by its own staff.

The Government's need for laundry services at this location is declining, as shown by the fact that the contract price for the last full year declined considerably from the previous year. This decline is expected to continue, although not as much as the original estimated price, which has been revised upward, would indicate. The revised estimate, which the Committee is adopting as the fair market price for this service, also reflects supply economies available to the nonprofit agency because of its ability to use Government supply sources when providing this service under the Committee's program.

Laundry service at this location uses the Government's laundry facility in Albany, NY. The current contractor has its own facility in Utica, NY, which is also the location of the disability agency which honored the contractor for its hiring of people with disabilities. Because of the distance between Utica and Albany, it is unlikely that employees with disabilities at the Utica facility are being used to provide services in Albany. Any employees with disabilities at the Government facility in Albany would be offered employment by the nonprofit agency. The commenter indicated that such offers have been made. Consequently, the Committee does not believe that addition of this laundry service to the Procurement List is likely to cause people with disabilities to lose their jobs.

Because the contract price for the last full year of laundry service is lower than the previous year, the percentage of the current contractor's total sales which this laundry service represents is lower than the two commenters claimed. This lower percentage is at a level which the Committee normally considers not to constitute severe adverse impact on a contractor. As indicated above, the Committee believes that had the current contractor continued to provide service for this declining requirement, this percentage would have declined further. The Committee looks at the length of continuous service when assessing the dependency of a contractor on a contract for a service. The current contractor's five years of providing this service have not been continuous, as the contractor did not provide the service between April 15, 1992 and December 1, 1998. Accordingly, the Committee does not believe the contractor could have become seriously dependent on revenues from this laundry service. For this reason, and taking into account the impact considerations discussed in the last paragraph, the Committee has concluded that addition of this laundry service to the Procurement List is not likely to have a severe adverse impact on the current contractor.

The following material pertains to all of the items being added to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the commodity and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the commodities and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities and services to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the commodities and services.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodities and services being added to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following commodity and services are hereby added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the commodities and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities and service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodities and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following commodities and service have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

MARPOL as amended by the MARPOL Protocol of 1978, protects the ocean environment by prohibiting some discharges altogether, restricting other discharges to particular distances from land, and establishing “special areas” within which additional discharge limitations apply. One of the discharges specified for restriction under MARPOL Annex V is solid waste.

Ships that are decommissioning between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, and do not have Navy solid waste equipment installed, will, to the maximum extent practicable without impairing the operations or operational capabilities of these ships, be operated in a manner that is consistent with the special area requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V of MARPOL in accordance with the following standards:

Prior to entering a special area, surface ships will identify essential logistics requirements needed to facilitate the offload and disposal of shipboard garbage at either port reception facilities or supply ships, which have the capacity to receive and store other ship's garbage for transfer and disposal ashore.

Surface ships may not discharge unprocessed garbage in the special areas defined in Regulation 5 of ANNEX V unless such discharge is in compliance with the applicable exceptions listed in Regulation 6 of ANNEX V which states that the prohibition on the discharge of garbage in special areas “* * * shall not apply to:

(a) the disposal of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on board or saving life at sea, or

(b) the escape of garbage resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment provided all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after the occurrence of the damage for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the escape; * * *”

On the unusual occasions in which a discharge may be necessary in a special area in accordance with the exceptions noted above, surface ships shall use all available means to cause unprocessed garbage to sink as rapidly as possible. The commanding officer shall note the details of such a discharge (date of discharge, special area involved, and nature and amount of discharge) in the ship's deck log. Upon completion of operations in a special area in which a garbage discharge was necessary, ships shall report all discharges other than food waste, pulped garbage and shredded and bagged metal and glass to CNO (N45), regarding:

(a) Date of discharge.

(b) Special area involved.

(c) Nature and amount of discharge (estimated pounds of unshredded metal and glass; unpulped wood, paper and cardboard; ceramic; or other non-food material).

These standards apply to the following ships:

On October 5, 1998, the Department published a Notice of Intent (63 FR 53398) to prepare an environmental impact statement concerning the production of plutonium-238 in support of U.S. space missions. Following the public scoping process, which was extended until January 4, 1999, the Department began preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Production of Plutonium-238 for Use in Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems for Future Space Missions (Plutonium-238 Production EIS). Restarting FFTF was dismissed as a reasonable alternative for that proposed EIS because it would not be cost effective to restart the reactor for the sole purpose of producing plutonium-238.

On August 18, 1999, the Department announced that it would prepare the NI PEIS—a programmatic NEPA document that would evaluate the environmental impacts that could result from enhancement of the Department's nuclear infrastructure. Restart of FFTF was included as a reasonable alternative in the NI PEIS for several missions, including the production of plutonium-238. Preparation of the Plutonium-238 Production EIS was terminated as a separate NEPA review and its scope was incorporated in the NI PEIS.

The Department's obligations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 require it to operate and maintain nuclear facilities such as reactors, accelerators, and various nuclear support facilities. The shutdown of aging facilities coupled with projected increases in demand for nuclear services and products necessitated an assessment of the Department's nuclear infrastructure needs.

Over the past 50 years, the use of isotopes in medicine and industry has increased markedly. Currently, over 12 million nuclear medical procedures are performed each year in the United States. Expert medical panels have projected significant increases in the use of nuclear diagnostic, therapeutic, and research medicines during the early decades of the twenty-first century. As discussed in the NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, an Expert Panel convened by the Department in 1998 concluded that the growth in demand for diagnostic and therapeutic isotopes would likely exceed seven percent per year over the next 20 years. The Panel also concluded that the cost and availability of medical isotopes would constrain progress in various areas of medical research. The Expert Panel's findings were adopted by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), which further concluded that the current domestic nuclear infrastructure is not adequate to ensure a continued supply of medical isotopes in the face of projected increases in demand. Approximately one-half of the Department's current isotope production capability is being used. Projections of increased demands for medical isotopes indicate that the Department's production capability will be fully utilized within a decade or less in the absence of enhancements to the existing nuclear infrastructure.

The Department and its predecessor agencies have supplied plutonium-238 for U.S. space programs for more than three decades. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses plutonium-238 as a source of electric power and heat for deep space missions. Nuclear reactors and chemical processing facilities at the Department's Savannah River Site (SRS) historically produced plutonium-238 for the Nation's space programs. However, all nuclear reactors at SRS have been shut down. Chemical processing facilities in F-Canyon and H-Canyon at SRS are scheduled for shutdown following completion of their current mission to prepare Cold War legacy nuclear materials and some spent nuclear fuel for disposition. In 1992, the Department signed a five-year contract to purchase up to 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year from Russia—not to exceed 40 kilograms (88 pounds) total. In 1997, a five-year contract extension was negotiated. The extension will expire in 2002. Thus far, approximately 9 kilograms (20 pounds) of plutonium-238 have been purchased from Russia under this contract. Plutonium-238 is purchased from Russia on an as-needed basis because it is costly to remove the decay products that result from an extended period of storage. As discussed in detail in Section 1.2.2 of the NI PEIS, updated mission guidance from NASA indicates that the U.S. inventory of plutonium-238 reserved for U.S. space missions is likely to be depleted by 2005. The Department must decide how to continue to meet NASA's need for plutonium-238 beyond that point.

In November 1997, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology reported that restoring a viable nuclear energy option is important to the Nation's ability to meet its expanding energy requirements (See NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3). The Committee recommended that the Department reinvigorate its nuclear energy research and development activities to address potential barriers to the expanded use of nuclear power. In response to this recommendation, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative was started in fiscal year 1999, and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program was started in fiscal year 2000. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative sponsors research and development focused on the removal of barriers to the expanded use of nuclear power. Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization is a cost-shared program with private industry that sponsors research and development intended to ensure that current nuclear plants can continue to provide electric power up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period. In June 2000, the NERAC Subcommittee on Long-Term Planning for Nuclear Energy Research developed guidelines for research and development in the areas of materials research, nuclear fuel research, and advanced reactor development. One of the Department's objectives is to provide and maintain a nuclear infrastructure that supports civilian nuclear energy research and development.

In summary, the Department's activities regarding medical isotope supplies, support of U.S. space missions, and research and development in the area of civilian nuclear technology will require an appropriate nuclear infrastructure. In reaching its decision concerning a nuclear infrastructure appropriate for the next 35 years, the Department assigned equal priority to all of these responsibilities.

On September 15, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (64 FR 50064) to prepare the NI PEIS. The 45-day scoping period for the NI PEIS ended on October 31, 1999. Scoping meetings were held in locations central to potentially affected areas (Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Richland, Washington), as well as areas in which the alternatives would have little or no environmental impact, but in which there was public interest (Hood River, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C.).

The Department received approximately 7,000 scoping comments. As a result of comments received during the scoping period, a new alternative (Permanently Deactivate FFTF with No New Missions) was added to the alternatives evaluated in the NI PEIS, the Fluorinel Dissolution Process Facility (FDPF) in Idaho was added as a processing facility for the processing of plutonium-238, and a commercial light water reactor at a generic site was added as a candidate irradiation facility for the production of plutonium-238. Other comments included requests for inclusion of information about cleanup and environmental contamination at Hanford, nonproliferation issues including the proposed import of German SNR-300 fuel, transition of FFTF stewardship after it is deactivated, the restart of FFTF and associated budget constraints, and the Tri Party Agreement at Hanford. This information was included in the Draft NI PEIS and/or the separate NI Nonproliferation Impact Assessment report.

Availability of the Draft NI PEIS was announced in the Federal Register on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46443). The public comment period extended through September 18, 2000. Seven public hearings were held during late August and early September 2000 at the same locations as the scoping meetings. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.1(e)), agencies are encouraged to make ancillary decision documents available to the public before a decision is made. The associated cost report and nonproliferation report were made available to the public on August 24, 2000, and September 8, 2000, respectively. The Department mailed these documents to approximately 730 interested parties, and the reports were made available immediately upon release on the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology website (http://www.nuclear.gov) and in public reading rooms.

Over 6,000 comments were received during the comment period for the Draft NI PEIS. While a wide variety of comments was received, the dominant concerns focused on the: (1) Purpose and need for enhancements to the Department's nuclear infrastructure; (2) impact of certain alternatives on the cleanup efforts at candidate sites and compliance with the existing cleanup agreements; (3) management and disposition of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel resulting from implementation of the alternatives; (4) costs and cost benefits of the alternatives; (5) potential effects on nuclear weapons nonproliferation; (6) fairness and effectiveness of the public involvement and decision process; (7) impacts on human health and water quality; (8) safety of reactor operations; (9) use of plutonium-238 in space applications; and (10) restart or deactivation of the Fast Flux Text Facility (FFTF). Comments were considered by the Department and responses were included in Volume 3 of the Final NI PEIS. The NI PEIS was revised in response to comments wherever appropriate. The Notice of Availability for the Final NI PEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78484).

Three nuclear reactors were included in the environmental evaluation as candidate irradiation facilities: ATR at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); HFIR at ORNL; and FFTF at the Hanford Site. Environmental impacts were also estimated for a generic CLWR, one or two new accelerators at an unspecified Departmental site, and a new research reactor at an unspecified Departmental site.

ATR is a light-water-cooled and -moderated nuclear reactor with a design thermal power of 250 megawatts. Special features of ATR include high neutron flux levels and the ability to vary power to fit different experiment needs in different test positions. ATR operates with highly enriched uranium fuel (uranium fuel containing more than 20 percent uranium-235). The primary mission at ATR is to support naval reactor research and development. The Department proposes to use ATR for isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research missions on a noninterference basis. The Department estimates that ATR alone could produce up to 5 kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year and could be used in combination with any one of the candidate processing facilities for plutonium-238 production.

HFIR is a light-water-cooled and -moderated reactor operated at a thermal power level of 85 megawatts. It is used for both isotope production and neutron research. Originally designed to operate at a full power level of 100 megawatts-thermal, it currently operates at a maximum authorized power level of 85 megawatts-thermal to extend the useful life of the reactor. The reactor operates with highly enriched uranium fuel. The primary mission at HFIR is neutron research for the Department's Office of Science. Civilian nuclear energy research and additional isotope production will be undertaken on a noninterference basis. To complement plutonium-238 production at ATR, HFIR could produce up to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) per year.

FFTF is a 400-megawatts-thermal, sodium-cooled nuclear test reactor. It was operated from April 1982 to December 1993. FFTF was used primarily to evaluate reactor fuels and different fuel assembly materials during its 10 years of operation. It also supported test programs for industry, nuclear energy (domestic and international), medical isotope applications and research, space nuclear power, and fusion research programs. FFTF was placed in standby condition in 1993 because of a lack of economically viable missions. Reactor fuel has been removed. The Main Heat Transport System is being operated at approximately 200 °C (400 °F) to keep sodium coolant in the reactor liquefied and circulating. Restarting FFTF would require mechanical equipment upgrades and replacement of outdated control and computer systems. FFTF initially would have operated with mixed-oxide (uranium-plutonium) fuel, followed by operation with uranium fuel. Had FFTF been selected as an irradiation facility, production of medical isotopes and civilian nuclear technology research would have been the primary missions at FFTF.

A CLWR was evaluated as an irradiation facility for plutonium-238 production. No specific light water reactor was selected. Thus, typical characteristics of CLWRs were assumed for the environmental analysis. A typical pressurized water reactor core consists of 170 to 200 fuel assemblies arranged in the reactor vessel in an approximately cylindrical pattern. Most pressurized water reactors operating in the United States are licensed to operate at thermal power levels of 2,500 to 3,500 megawatts for net station electric outputs of 800 to 1,200 megawatts-electric. The primary mission of a CLWR is the production of electric power. Plutonium-238 production would have been conducted on a noninterference basis. Had a CLWR been selected for production of plutonium-238, site specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted prior to selection of a CLWR.

The Department considered construction of one or two accelerators at an unspecified DOE site as candidate irradiation facilities. Environmental impacts that could have resulted from construction and operation of the accelerator(s) used preconceptual designs for low- and high-energy accelerators. The low-energy accelerator was designed to support medical and industrial isotope production as well as civilian nuclear energy research. The high-energy accelerator was designed to support plutonium-238 production and civilian nuclear energy research. The preconceptual designs are described in the NI PEIS. Had either or both accelerator(s) been selected for implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted prior to site selection and production of isotopes and civilian nuclear energy research would have been the primary missions at those facilities.

The Department also considered construction of a new research reactor at an unspecified DOE site as a candidate irradiation facility. A preconceptual design was developed for a new research reactor that would: (1) Produce medical and industrial isotopes, (2) produce up to 5 kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year, and (3) support civilian nuclear energy research and development. The new research reactor would have been fueled by low-enriched uranium (uranium fuel containing less than 20 percent uranium-235). This preconceptual design included the basic elements of the research reactor facility sufficient for the environmental analysis. Had a new research reactor been selected for implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted prior to site selection. Production of isotopes and civilian nuclear energy research would have been the primary missions at the new research reactor.

Processing facilities at three Departmental sites were included in the environmental evaluation as candidate target fabrication and postirradiation processing facilities: REDC at ORNL; FDPF at INEEL; the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) at Hanford; and the Radiochemical Processing Laboratory (RPL)/Development Fabrication Test Laboratory (Building 306-E), also at Hanford. Environmental impacts were also estimated for a new generic support facility at an unspecified DOE site.

REDC at ORNL is a companion facility to HFIR. REDC's two buildings house shielded hot cells and analytical laboratories. These hot cells and laboratories are used in the fabrication of fuel rods and targets for irradiation and to process irradiated rods and targets for the separation and purification of transuranic elements, process development, and product purification and packaging. Several alternatives and options (including the Preferred Alternative) included the use of ORNL's REDC Building 7930 for storage of neptunium-237 and fabrication and postirradiation processing of neptunium-237 targets.

The REDC hot cell facilities to be used under the Preferred Alternative have not yet been used for any mission. Activities required for target fabrication will take place in shielded glove boxes. Mechanical operations involved in the final target fabrication present lesser hazards that may permit them to be carried out in open boxes. Cell E will contain processing equipment to purify the separated plutonium-238 product, prepare the plutonium oxide, and transfer the oxide into shipping containers. Cell E will also contain vertical storage wells for dry storage of neptunium and other actinides. Cell D activities will include receipt of irradiated targets, as well as target dissolution, chemical separation of neptunium and plutonium from fission products, and partitioning and purification of neptunium. Cell D also contains process equipment to remove transuranic elements from the aqueous waste streams and vitrifying waste.

FDPF is in the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), which is located northeast of the Central Facilities Area at INEEL and approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) southeast of ATR. FDPF was a candidate fabrication and postirradiation processing facility in several options under Alternatives 1 through 4. FDPF has no current mission. Historically, INTEC reprocessed spent nuclear fuel from U.S. Government reactors to recover reusable highly enriched uranium. After the Department announced in April 1992 that it would no longer reprocess spent fuel, reprocessing operations at INTEC ended.

Two buildings at INTEC were candidate storage and processing sites for plutonium-238 production: Building CPP-651, the Unirradiated Fuel Storage Facility, and Building CPP-666, FDPF. Under this alternative, chemical separation would occur in the FDPF cell using small centrifugal contactors installed for that purpose. Neptunium-237 would have been stored in FDPF or Building CPP-651, which is located within 100 meters (328 feet) of FDPF. There are 100 in-ground, concrete-shielded storage well positions in this vault. Each storage well contains a rack that can be modified to house containers for neptunium-237.

Hanford's FMEF was a candidate facility for storage of neptunium-237, fabrication of neptunium-237 targets, and processing of irradiated neptunium-237 targets for several options under Alternatives 1 through 4. FMEF could have supported medical and industrial production mission and civilian nuclear energy research and development mission activities at the Hanford Site under Alternative 1. FMEF is west of FFTF in the 400 Area of Hanford. It was built during the late 1970s and early 1980s as a major addition to the breeder reactor technology development program at Hanford. Although it has never been used, the facility was constructed to perform fuel fabrication and development and postirradiation examination of breeder reactor fuels.

FMEF is currently being maintained in mission-ready condition. In 1998, to reduce the cost of maintaining the facility, many systems were shut down and most hazardous materials were removed from the building. FMEF is uncontaminated because no nuclear materials have been introduced. Some critical systems remain in operation, e.g., the fire detection and protection systems. To avoid freezing of the fire protection water systems, limited heating and ventilation remains operational. Electric power and lighting remain available, and the freight elevator remains in service to support routine facility inspection and maintenance. The use of FMEF for neptunium-237 target material storage, target fabrication, and post-irradiation processing would have required construction of a new 76-meter (250-foot) stack.

Two Hanford 300 Area facilities were considered for support of medical and industrial isotope target fabrication and post-irradiation processing: RPL and Building 306-E. RPL/306-E were candidate facilities to support medical and industrial isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research and development activities. RPL would have been the primary site for fabricating the radioactive targets (i.e., targets containing radium-226 or recycled materials from previous irradiations).

Total space within RPL is 13,350 square meters (143,700 square feet), of which 4,140 square meters (44,500 square feet) are occupied by general chemistry laboratories. A recent space utilization survey of RPL indicated that 646 square meters (6,950 square feet), representing 15.6 percent of the laboratory area, are presently unoccupied. All of the occupied and nearly all of the unoccupied laboratories are functional and equipped with standard utilities. Of the 79 functional fume hoods and 23 shielded glove boxes, 50 fume hoods and 15 glove boxes are available for additional work.

Building 306-E was constructed in 1956 as part of the nuclear material production program at Hanford. It was used to develop the co-extrusion process for N-Reactor fuel. Major upgrades and renovations were completed in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support the civilian reactor development program. These activities would not have impacted current missions at the facilities.

A new generic support facility would have had the mission of preparing medical and industrial isotope targets for irradiation, processing exposed targets, and housing the materials research and development activities in association with Alternatives 3 and 4. Siting of the generic support facility for medical and industrial isotope production would have required that the facility be located in the same general vicinity (within 0.2 to 20 kilometers [0.07 to 12.4 miles]) as the new irradiation facility (accelerator or reactor). Collocation with the irradiation facility would have been needed to process irradiated target materials promptly after removal from the reactor/accelerator and to minimize transportation time. Although the facility could have been located within the irradiation facility security protection area, the lack of a defense mission and the lack of a fissile material presence in the generic support facility indicate that a high level of physical protection would not have been warranted.

The Department evaluated potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of alternatives and options that support isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research. A No Action Alternative and five programmatic alternatives were assessed. Table 1 summarizes the facilities associated with each alternative option.

Under the No Action Alternative (maintain status quo), FFTF would have been maintained in standby status for 35 years. Ongoing operations at existing facilities would have continued. The Department would not establish a domestic plutonium-238 production capability, but would have continued to purchase Russian plutonium-238 to meet the long-term needs of future U.S. space missions. For the purposes of the environmental analysis, it was assumed that the purchase of plutonium-238 from Russia would continue as needed to support U.S. space missions. The environmental analysis included transportation impacts that could result from the purchase of up to 175 kilograms (385.8 pounds) of plutonium-238 from Russia. Any purchase of plutonium-238 beyond that currently available in the United States through the existing contract would require additional NEPA review. The Department's medical and industrial isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research and development activities would have continued at the current operating levels. A consequence of a No Action decision would have been the need to determine the future of the neptunium-237 stored at SRS. Therefore, the impacts of possible future transportation and storage of neptunium-237 were evaluated as part of the No Action Alternative.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a final environmental impact statement, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials (IMNM EIS) (DOE/EIS-0220, October 20, 1995), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations, and DOE implementing procedures. The IMNM EIS assessed the potential environmental impacts of actions necessary to safely manage nuclear materials at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South Carolina, until decisions on their future use or ultimate disposition are made and implemented. The IMNM EIS grouped the nuclear materials at the SRS into three categories: Stable, Programmatic, and Candidates for Stabilization. Some of the “Programmatic” and all of the “Candidates for Stabilization” materials could have presented environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities in their then-current storage condition. For materials that could present environmental, safety, or health vulnerabilities, the IMNM EIS evaluated processing alternatives to meet the new plutonium storage standard to ensure safe intermediate to long-term storage. The capability to meet the new storage standard did not exist at the SRS at the time of the preparation of the IMNM EIS, nor at any other DOE site. Subsequently, DOE has been working to establish this capability at its non-pit 1 surplus plutonium sites. Facilities providing this capability at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS, Golden, Colorado), Hanford (Richland, Washington), and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore, California) are nearing completion and startup. Stabilizing and packaging plutonium to the storage standard are generally the last steps in completing the stabilization process. The IMNM EIS considered two options for providing this stabilization and packaging capability at the SRS: (1) The construction of a new facility, APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-F in F-Area.

On December 12, 1995, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Preferred Alternatives, 60 FR 65300 (December 19, 1995), on the interim management of several categories of nuclear materials at the SRS. As part of its decision, DOE decided to construct a new facility, the APSF, to enable plutonium oxides to be stabilized, and plutonium oxide and metal to be repackaged in accordance with DOE's plutonium storage standard, recently revised as Stabilization, Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials (DOE-STD-3013-2000). The APSF also was intended to provide space for consolidated storage of plutonium and special actinide materials at the SRS. Subsequently, DOE issued four supplemental RODs (61 FR 6633, 61 FR 48474, 62 FR 17790, and 62 FR 61099) to make additional decisions and/or modify existing decisions concerning the management of nuclear materials at the SRS. None of these subsequent decisions altered DOE's decision to construct the APSF.

In December 1996, DOE issued the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0229). The Storage and Disposition PEIS, among other things, assesses the potential environmental impacts of alternative approaches and locations for storing weapons-usable fissile materials (plutonium and highly enriched uranium). DOE decided in the Storage and Disposition ROD (January 14, 1997, 62 FR 3014) to expand the storage capacity (from a nominal 2,000 storage positions to 5,000 storage positions) of the prospective APSF to accommodate at the SRS the storage of surplus non-pit plutonium to be received from RFETS, pending disposition. DOE also indicated in the Storage and Disposition ROD that DOE would pursue a strategy for surplus plutonium disposition that allows for immobilization of surplus weapons plutonium in glass or ceramic forms and burning of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX)2 fuel in existing reactors. The immobilized plutonium and the spent MOX fuel would be disposed of in a geologic repository.

Subsequently, in order to support the early closure of RFETS, DOE issued an amended Storage and Disposition ROD (August 6, 1998, 63 FR 43386) to allow the RFETS surplus non-pit plutonium to be sent to the SRS before completion of the APSF. Based upon the amended Storage and Disposition ROD, DOE undertook the K-Area Materials Storage (KAMS) project to modify and prepare existing space within Building 105-K to store surplus plutonium in shipping containers as received from RFETS, pending disposition. The first shipment of surplus plutonium from RFETS for storage in KAMS is scheduled to arrive in early calendar year 2001.

In November 1999, DOE issued the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS) (DOE/EIS-0283), which analyzed alternatives for the siting, construction, and operation of three surplus plutonium disposition facilities. These three facilities would accomplish pit disassembly and conversion, plutonium conversion and immobilization, and MOX fuel fabrication. DOE issued the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD on January 4, 2000 (65 FR 1608), which selected the SRS for all three of the new surplus plutonium disposition facilities.

In light of APSF project cost growth concerns, SRS program and overall DOE resource limitations, and an opportunity to increase the integration of the surplus plutonium storage and surplus plutonium disposition missions, DOE suspended the APSF project in January 1999, and undertook a systematic review of SRS stabilization and storage options. This review is documented in Evaluation of Savannah River Plutonium Storage and Stabilization Options (July 2000). The evaluation considered several options for managing DOE's surplus plutonium, pending disposition, including: completion of the as-designed (5,000 storage position) APSF project, construction of a further-expanded (10,000 storage position) APSF, and cancellation of the APSF project with surplus plutonium managed through other means (e.g., processed to allow consolidation to metal and/or stabilization and storage in existing modified facilities).

The key recommendations of the evaluation are: (1) Cancel the APSF project and (2) initiate a project to install stabilization and packaging capability in Building 235-F at SRS. The evaluation also recommends that DOE continue with the decision to transfer RFETS stabilized plutonium (packaged in DOE-STD-3013 storage containers within shipping containers) for storage in KAMS in unopened shipping containers. The evaluation also recommends that DOE store SRS stabilized materials in DOE-STD-3013 containers inside shipping containers in existing vaults in Building 235-F, and KAMS as necessary, pending disposition.

The evaluation determined that there would be basically no difference between the APSF and Building 235-F options regarding the completion dates of the capital improvements or the stabilization and packaging activities, but the estimated costs are different, particularly for the near-term. Over the 10-year evaluation period (FY 2001-2010), cost differences (in FY 2001 dollars) range from approximately $5.5 million to $230 million. The least costly options involve varying degrees of modification to Building 235-F. The capital cost for the recommended Building 235-F option is estimated to be $100 million to $250 million, which is $30 million to $180 million less than the lowest cost APSF option. The “high” capital cost estimate of $250 million for the recommended Building 235-F option was used in the evaluation to compare costs between the stabilization and storage options.

The evaluation considered options which could best meet the Department's stabilization and storage needs, given various factors, such as funding levels, de-inventory strategies, and surplus plutonium disposition schedules. Surplus plutonium disposition schedules most notably affected overall costs. Delays of approximately seven years or more to DOE's surplus plutonium disposition program would favor the more consolidated plutonium storage options (the APSF options) because operating costs for a large single storage facility are less than for multiple smaller facilities. Even though this “payback” would eventually occur if there were substantial delays to the surplus plutonium disposition mission, DOE believes there are more worthy unfunded projects that would provide earlier investment returns in carrying out DOE missions.

The IMNM EIS analyzed several alternatives, including the No Action alternative, for the interim management of eleven (11) types of nuclear materials at the SRS. All of the alternatives except the Continued Storage (No Action) would support DOE's objective of removing nuclear materials from vulnerable conditions and from vulnerable facilities in preparation for decontamination and decommissioning. The IMNM RODs include decisions to undertake stabilization and processing actions for ten (10) SRS nuclear material types. (DOE decided to continue existing actions for the “Stable” nuclear material types/category.) Six of these nuclear materials types—(1) plutonium and uranium stored in vaults, (2) Mark-31 targets, (3) aluminum-clad Taiwan Research Reactor fuel and Experimental Breeder Reactor-II slugs, (4) plutonium-239 solutions, (5) plutonium-242 solutions, and (6) neptunium-237 solutions—require, or could require, a new capability to stabilize and package the material to DOE's storage standard to complete stabilization for safe interim management. The latter two materials, plutonium-242 and neptunium-237, were categorized as programmatic materials in the IMNM EIS but were analyzed for completeness of the potential impacts from stabilization and packaging for long-term storage. DOE has since stabilized the plutonium-242 to oxide, and transferred it to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for programmatic use without undergoing stabilization and packaging to the storage standard. The neptunium-237 has yet to be stabilized, and a determination on program need or requirements for packaging to the storage standard has yet to be made. The need for neptunium-237 is being addressed in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310, December 2000). A Record of Decision for that PEIS is expected to be issued in January 2001.

The IMNM EIS considered two options [see IMNM EIS, Chapter 2. Alternatives and Appendix C, pp. C-41 to C-45] for stabilizing, packaging, and storing plutonium to DOE's storage standard—(1) the construction of the new APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-F. The storage standard is designed to help ensure the safe storage of the materials for long periods (e.g., 50 years). Each option was designed to provide the capability to heat plutonium oxide materials to drive off residual and absorbed moisture; package stabilized material (oxides and metal) in at least two corrosion-resistant containers (a container within a container) without the use of plastics, hydrogenous compounds, or organic material; weld-seal the outer container in an inert atmosphere to ensure weld joint and container material integrity; and store the stabilized material and sealed containers.

In addition, the IMNM EIS considered modifications to the FB-Line in the F-Canyon building (Building 221-F) at the SRS to provide storage standard stabilization and packaging capabilities. Under decisions associated with the Final F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0219, December 1994) and ROD (February 22, 1995, 60 FR 9824), DOE added to the FB-Line a capability to package plutonium metal within a single, inert gas-filled, welded container, without the need for plastic and other organic materials. However, DOE concluded that adding the full stabilization and packaging mission to the FB-Line facility would delay completion of the FB-Line's nuclear materials stabilization activities and the planned shutdown of the FB-Line facility.

The IMNM EIS analyzed potential impacts of alternatives for managing all SRS nuclear materials. Summaries of the potential impacts from the alternatives are presented in the IMNM EIS, Table 2-2 through Table 2-12 (pp. 2-48 through 2-58). The IMNM EIS analysis includes potential impacts from heating and repackaging activities to package plutonium to DOE's storage standard.

DOE has reviewed the IMNM EIS and determined that there are no substantial changes in the proposed modification of Building 235-F nor are there any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental impacts that would result from modifying Building 235-F. The analysis of potential environmental impacts and the description of the Building 235-F option in the IMNM EIS have not changed since the Final EIS was issued.

The IMNM EIS indicated that there would be minimal environmental impacts from the implementation of any alternative (including the APSF or Building 235-F options) in the areas of geologic, ecological, cultural, aesthetic, and scenic resources, noise, and land use. Impacts in these areas would be limited because facility modifications or construction of new facilities would occur within existing buildings or industrialized portions of the SRS. The existing SRS workforce would support any construction projects and other activities required to implement any of the alternatives, and thus negligible socioeconomic impacts would be expected from implementing any of the alternatives.

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants and releases of hazardous liquid effluents for any of the alternatives would be within applicable standards and existing regulatory permits for the SRS facilities. Similarly, for either the APSF or Building 235-F option for plutonium stabilization and packaging, potential transuranic waste, mixed hazardous waste, and low-level solid waste generated would be handled by existing waste management facilities. All of the waste types and volumes are within the capability of the existing SRS waste management facilities for storage, treatment, or disposal.

While the IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the environment, public, or workers would be small for the packaging and storage alternatives, there would be minor differences between the APSF “new construction” and the Building 235-F modification. The modification to Building 235-F would involve work in an existing and radiologically contaminated facility, thereby potentially leading to a small increase over the APSF option in radiological waste generation and construction worker exposure. Through the use of site administrative control limits, however, no worker would be expected to receive a radiological dose beyond that allowed for radiological workers from normal operations, or from facility modification work. Likewise, the existing waste management facilities are capable of handling the additional radiological waste that would result from the Building 235-F modification.

The IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the environment, public, or workers would be small for either the APSF or Building 235-F options. While small increases in radiological waste and worker radiological exposure could be expected from the Building 235-F modification option over the APSF option, both options would involve relatively small impacts, and thus neither could be deemed environmentally preferable over the other.

DOE is amending its previous decision (60 FR 65300) on how to provide a SRS capability for the stabilization and packaging of plutonium to the storage standard (recently revised to DOE-STD-3013-2000). Instead of constructing a new Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF), DOE will modify existing space within Building 235-F in F-Area. DOE will continue to use existing vault space in Building 235-F for interim storage pending disposition, and existing vault space in FB-Line for interim storage during stabilization actions. [By way of information, DOE previously had decided (63 FR 43386) to store RFETS surplus non-pit plutonium in new vault space established in Building 105-K, instead of in the APSF, pending disposition.]

This decision will allow DOE to stabilize and repackage plutonium to the storage standard within the same time-frame as would have a new APSF (or possibly up to two years sooner). It also allows DOE to accomplish plutonium stabilization and repackaging at a lower cost by cost-effectively integrating surplus plutonium storage activities with surplus plutonium disposition activities. The reduced capital expenditure requirements are more consistent with current and projected near-term budget resources.

Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade have set the stage for a new era in scientific computing. Within the next five to ten years, computers running at 1 to 10 trillion floating point operations per second (Tops) will become available. Using such computers, it will be possible to dramatically extend explorations of fundamental processes as well as advance the ability to predict the behavior of a broad range of complex biological systems.

The primary mission of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research is to discover, develop, and deploy the computational and networking tools that enable researchers in the scientific disciplines to analyze, model, simulate and predict complex phenomena important to the Department of Energy. In carrying out this mission, ASCR:

• Maintains world leadership in areas of scientific computing research relevant to the missions of the Department of Energy;

• Integrates the results of advanced scientific computing research into the natural sciences and engineering;

• Provides world class supercomputer and networking facilities for scientists working on problems that are important to the missions of the Department.

The primary mission of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research is to advance environmental and biomedical knowledge connected to energy production, development, and use. In carrying out this mission, OBER:

• Contributes to the environmental remediation and restoration of contaminated environments at DOE sites through basic research in bioremediation, microbial genomics, and ecological science;

• Provides new knowledge that will widen DOE's options for clean and affordable energy through research in microbial genomics and bioinformatics;

• Advances our understanding of and finds solutions for the effects of energy production and use on the environment through research in global climate modeling and simulation, the role of clouds in climate change, carbon cycle and carbon sequestration, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological science;

• Helps protect the health of DOE workers and the public by advancing our understanding of the health effects of energy production and use through basic research in key areas of the life sciences including functional genomics and structural biology as well as low dose radiation research;

• Seeks to develop new applications of radiotracers in diagnosis and treatment and supports biomedical engineering research focused on fundamental studies in medical imaging, biological and chemical sensors, laser medicine, new biocompatible materials, informatics, and artificial organs.

The scope and complexity of the proposed projects will likely require close collaboration among researchers from the biological sciences, computational sciences, computer science, and applied mathematics disciplines. Accordingly, this solicitation calls for the creation of scientific simulation teams, or collaborations, as the organizational basis for a successful application. Partnerships among universities, national laboratories, and industry are encouraged but not required. A scientific simulation team is a multi-disciplinary, and perhaps multi-institutional, group of people who will:

• Create scientific simulation codes that take full advantage of terascale computers,

• Work closely with other research teams and centers to ensure that the best available mathematical algorithms and computer science methods are employed, and

• Manage the work of the team in a way that will foster good communication and decision making.

Biological systems and their regulatory and metabolic pathways are complex. The details of many biological processes are not well understood, and the resulting computations will require new algorithms, computational biology tools, and extraordinary computing resources. The successful development of the new tools will require the sustained efforts of multi-disciplinary teams, and applications of these tools will require Tops-scale and beyond supercomputers, as well as the considerable expertise required to use them. Although forms of these computational tools already exist, considerable research in mathematics and computer science remains to be done in order to develop reliable, robust, efficient, and widely applicable versions of these tools.

Data analysis, computational modeling and simulation will play critical roles in the future of biological research. Large sets of genomic data will be generated by the on-going DNA sequencing efforts at large genome centers around the world. These data will be analyzed and combined with different types of biological data, including information on structure, expression, and function to develop a more comprehensive understanding of biological systems. Homology-based protein structure correlations identified by pattern searches will be used to predict the structures of the proteins coded by the new genome sequences and will be invaluable for ascertaining protein function and for identifying more distant homologies than are possible by simple sequence comparisons. For selected biochemical processes, computational modeling will be used for a range of applications, from elucidating the mechanisms of enzymatic reactions to identifying the energetic principles underlying macromolecular interactions. Computer models of entire cells and microbial ecosystems will also use the understanding gained about biomolecular processes to predict likely behaviors of organisms under different conditions.

A goal for the research solicited here is to develop a predictive understanding of biological systems using a well characterized prokaryotic microbial cell, for example, E. coli, as a model system. Given the immense complexity of even the simplest microbes, fully predictive models that provide quantitatively accurate estimates of each chemical component of a cell will remain a challenge for subsequent generations of researchers. Hence, in the foreseeable future, the modeling of cellular processes will instead be performed at a level beyond that of the individual chemical reactions, perhaps at the level of functional building blocks that can be pieced together or linked into higher order models. At this level, cellular pathways are described either qualitatively as being present or absent, or quantitatively, in terms of the average concentrations and rates of activity derived from experimental data. Despite their lack of chemical detail, such models will provide a powerful tool for integrating and analyzing the very large new biological data sets and, under some conditions, predicting cellular behavior under changing conditions. Just as importantly, these high level models will provide a means of inducing and testing the general principles of cellular function.

Three levels of modeling are included in this solicitation: (1) Molecular simulations of protein function and macromolecular interactions, (2) semi-quantitative simulations of metabolic networks in whole cells, and (3) quantitative kinetic models of biochemical pathways. The latter simulations are much more demanding in terms of the empirical data and computer power required and therefore, will initially be limited to relatively small, well characterized pathways. Since both of these levels of modeling depend on having the (nearly) complete parts lists provided by the fully annotated genome sequences, combined with gene function, expression information and phenotypic data about an organism, the focus of this solicitation will be on E. coli or another well-characterized and studied prokaryotic microbe.

(1) Molecular simulations of protein function and macromolecular interactions. The ultimate biological models would be molecular-level simulations of each biochemical process. There are many challenges to molecular-level simulations of biological processes, including the large size of biomolecules and the wide range of time scales of many biological processes, as well as the subtle energetics and complex milieu of biochemical reactions. Moreover, many biochemical reactions occur far from equilibrium and are regulated by both transport of the reactants and subsequent processing of the products. Finally, there remains a wide gulf between the detailed chemical data needed for initiating and validating biomolecular simulations and the data available on many biological processes and environments. Despite these challenges, there are a vast number of biochemical processes for which chemical simulations will have a major impact on our understanding. These problems include the elucidation of the energetic factors underlying protein-protein or protein-DNA interactions and the dissection of the catalytic function of certain enzymes. The promise of such modeling studies is rapidly growing as a result of the development of linear-scaling computational chemical methods and molecular modeling software for massively parallel computers. Additionally, molecular modeling will be used to determine the principles that underlie protein-protein interactions, and ultimately to predict likely protein binding sites.

(2) Semi-quantitative simulations of metabolic networks. This modeling approach follows the engineering tradition of making maximal use of limited information by combining highly simplified models with successive constraints to identify an “envelope” of expected behaviors of the system under different conditions. A fundamental tenet of such modeling is that the very complex molecular details of biology combine to form robust and relatively simple rules for behavioral responses. Such models are iteratively refined as more functional data and constraints become available from experiments that are themselves guided by the model's predictions.

Since such modeling depends only on the nature of the reactants and products (i.e., the stoichiometry) of the metabolic transformations, rather than the rates of these reactions (kinetics), most of the necessary data for building the model can be derived directly from annotated genomes, in some cases using artificial intelligence based pathway synthesis algorithms. These data are typically encoded in a “stoichiometry matrix” relating specific reaction products to metabolic reactions. Numerical analysis of this matrix can identify the entire repertoire of theoretically possible metabolic capabilities of a given genotype, for example, what nutrients are essential and what metabolic pathways are non-redundant. Such information, although qualitative, has enormous potential value. It will allow the inference of phenotypic properties directly from the functionally annotated genotype, help in the optimization of product yield in bio-reactors, and provide a predictive basis for engineering organisms with novel capabilities. Additionally, such analysis can be used to improve and validate tentative functional annotations. Even in the absence of stoichiometric data, mathematical analysis of metabolic networks can shed light on overall biological function. A number of successful models have already been developed for E. coli using both stoichiometric data, based on a network analysis, and constraint-based approaches.

Unlike the kinetic pathway described below, computing speed is not typically a limiting factor in molecular pathway analysis. Instead, the primary bottleneck to progress is the availability of functionally annotated genomes and the human talent trained in both the biological sciences and the art of developing and applying such mathematical models. The choice of a well-characterized prokaryotic organism as a model biological system for this solicitation minimizes the challenges associated with the first bottleneck.

(3) Quantitative kinetic models of biochemical pathways. Although the metabolic network modeling described above can provide useful qualitative information on possible behavioral characteristics of organisms, a fully predictive understanding of biological processes will require quantitative information about the dynamics of each sub-process. In other words, network analysis can suggest what metabolic transformations may be possible, but full kinetic details are required to determine which pathways are most important under the given conditions. Such models will require detailed empirical data, including in vivo reaction rates and substrate concentrations for each step in the biological system to be simulated. Additionally, these simulations are highly computationally demanding; for example, the simulation of a regulatory circuit involving only several dozen parameters required the use of a parallel supercomputer. These experimental and computational requirements will prohibit such quantitative simulations of whole cells in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, for selected critical cell subsystems, such simulations offer the promise of quantitative predictions of cellular response and will constitute a rigorous validation of the completeness of our understanding the processes under investigation.

Kinetic models have been applied to a handful of specific cellular pathways that demonstrate both the benefits and technical challenges of such simulations. One of the most complex examples to date has been a full kinetic analysis of the lytic versus lysogenic pathways in phage λ infected E. coli cells. The heart of the decision circuitry for this pathway contains only four promoter sites modulated by five gene transcripts, yet the kinetic model required nearly forty empirical rate constants and a number of other parameters. Additionally, to be computationally tractable, this model involved a number of simplifying assumptions, including approximating the cell as a well-stirred homogeneous mixture. Despite these assumptions and the large number of empirical parameters this model yielded reasonably accurate results for the lytic/lysogenic fractions at different levels of viral infection.

An important outcome of this previous work is to highlight the significant differences between the modeling methodologies necessary for biochemical pathways and those used for macroscopic chemical processes (e.g., in optimizing industrial chemical processes.) In the latter the chemical concentrations can be assumed to be continuous and therefore the kinetics can be simulated using ordinary differential equations. In contrast, the very small numbers of individual signaling molecules in biological regulatory pathways require the use of discrete stochastic simulations. Indeed, a number of seemingly non-deterministic features in gene expression have been ascribed to the inherently stochastic fluctuations in the concentrations of very small numbers of regulatory signals.

Overall, both the kinetic models and the metabolic network analysis will provide a means of combining and evaluating the consistency of large sets of biological data. Each requires detailed functional annotation of whole genomes and well as phenotypic data under a wide variety of conditions.

In a parallel solicitation, the Microbial Cell Project (see Program Notice 01-20) supports key DOE missions by building on the successful DOE Microbial Genome Program that has furnished microbial DNA sequence information on microbes relevant to environmental remediation, global carbon sequestration (e.g., CO2 fixation), complex polymer degradation (e.g., cellulose and lignins), and energy production (fuels, chemicals, and chemical feedstocks). These microbial genome sequences provide a finite set of “working parts” for a cell and the challenge now is to understand how these parts are assembled into functional pathways and networks to accomplish activities of interest to the DOE. The traditional reductionist experimental approach has defined specific steps or stages within many physiological processes; however, the availability of whole genomes affords the opportunity to integrate these individual pathways into a larger physiological or whole organism framework. The Microbial Cell Project seeks to integrate available information about individual processes and regulatory complexes to understand the intracellular environment, in which these pathways and networks exist and function. The DOE Microbial Cell Project is part of a coordinated Federal effort called the Microbe Project involving elements from several other Federal agencies. The long-term goal is that research funded in this program and in the Microbial Cell Project will converge so that simulations and models can be developed in organisms and for biochemical pathways important for the DOE mission.

This notice takes advantage of decades of research on E. coli (or a similarly well characterized prokaryotic microbe) providing much of the biological information needed to begin developing more comprehensive models of biological systems. It is anticipated that the applied mathematicians and computer scientists will need to partner with biologists in the initial phases of algorithm development, as well as in the design of biological tests to validate models that are developed, including predictions made using these models. Links to some of the vast amount of information available on E. coli can be found at http://genprotec.mbl.edu/start and http://web.bham.ac.uk/bcm4ght6/res.html.

The mathematical and computer science challenges in this effort span a broad range of the current research topics in both fields. A few examples of possible areas include: advanced techniques for data fusion; algorithms for solution of low dimensional dynamical systems in the presence of uncertainty; applications of computational geometry and topology to pattern recognition and analysis; advanced concepts in discrete state machines; and control theory. It must, however, be emphasized that the preceding list is only a list of possible examples and does not reflect any prioritization of areas.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as: universities, industry, non-profit organizations, Federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to include cost sharing wherever feasible. Further information on preparation of collaborative proposals is available in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html.

Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a brief preapplication that consists of two to three pages of narrative describing the research objectives, the technical approach(es), and the proposed team members and their expertise. The intent in requesting a preapplication is to save the time and effort of applicants in preparing and submitting a formal project application that may be inappropriate for the program. Preapplications will be reviewed relative to the scope and research needs outlined in the summary paragraph and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The preapplication should identify, on the cover sheet, the title of the project, the institution, principal investigator name, telephone, fax, and e-mail address. No budget information or biographical data need be included, nor is an institutional endorsement necessary. A response to each timely preapplication will be communicated to the Principal Investigator by March 9, 2001.

It is anticipated that up to $2 million will be available for all awards in Fiscal Year 2001. Multiple year funding is expected, also contingent on availability of funds and progress of the research; pending the availability of future funding, it is anticipated that this initiative will reflect a long term commitment to understanding the workings of a microbial cell. Awards are expected to range from $250,000 to $600,000 per year with terms of one to three years. The DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of an application. DOE reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this Notice. Applications received by the Office of Science under its normal competitive application mechanisms may also be deemed appropriate for consideration under this announcement and may be funded under this program.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria which are listed in descending order of importance codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;

3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

In addition to the above evaluation criteria, applications will also be evaluated on the following:

5. The robustness of the organizational framework if a consortium is proposed;

The evaluation under item 2, Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach, will also consider the following elements:

(a) clarity of the plan in detailing areas of work to be addressed by biologists, computational scientists, applied mathematicians, computer scientists and computer programmers;

(b) quality of the plan for effective collaboration among participants;

(c) viability of the plan for verifying and validating the models developed, including verification using experiment results; and

(d) quality and clarity of the proposed work schedule and project deliverables.

The evaluation will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers will often be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

The Project Description must be 25 pages or less, exclusive of attachments. It must contain an abstract or project summary on a separate page with the name of the applicant, mailing address, phone, FAX and E-mail listed. The application must include letters of intent from collaborators (briefly describing the intended contribution of each to the research), and short curriculum vitaes, consistent with NIH guidelines, for the applicant and any co-PIs.

To provide a consistent format for the submission, review and solicitation of grant applications submitted under this notice, the preparation and submission of grant applications must follow the guidelines given in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program, 10 CFR Part 605. Access to SC's Financial Assistance Application Guide is possible via the World Wide Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html.

DOE policy requires that potential applicants adhere to 10 CFR part 745 “Protection of Human Subjects” (if applicable), or such later revision of those guidelines as may be published in the Federal Register.

The Office of Science, as part of its grant regulations (10 CFR 605.11(b)) requires that a grantee funded by SC and performing research involving recombinant DNA molecules and/or organisms and viruses containing recombinant DNA molecules shall comply with the NIH “Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,” which is available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/biosafe/nih/rdna-apr98.pdf, (59 FR 34496, July 5, 1994), or such later revision of those guidelines as may be published in the Federal Register.

Other useful web sites include:

MCP Home Page—http://microbialcellproject.org

Microbial Genome Program Home Page—http://www.er.doe.gov/production/ober/microbial.html

DOE Joint Genome Institute Microbial Web Page—http://www.jgi.doe.gov/JGI_microbial/html/

GenBank Home Page— http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Human Genome Home Page— http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis

The DOE/OBER Low Dose Radiation Research Program is faced with the challenge of conducting research that can be used to inform the development of future national radiation risk policy for the public and the workplace. For the present solicitation, DOE/OBER is chiefly concerned with very low doses of low LET radiation (x and gamma rays). There are three biological responses of specific interest for this solicitation that are most likely to meet the criteria outlined below. These include bystander effects, induction of genomic instability, and adaptive responses. Applications proposing the use of additional biological responses will be considered only if the biological responses proposed for investigation can be reasonably demonstrated to meet the criteria outlined below. All applications focused on the characterization of specific biological responses, e.g., bystander effects, etc., should identify how the response of interest meets these criteria. There is also considerable interest in determining whether these biological responses can be extended from studies in isolated cells to tissues or to more complex tissue-like systems. These responses are discussed here:

Bystander effects—The biological response observed in cells that are not directly traversed by radiation but are neighbors of an irradiated cell. Bystanders have been shown to respond with gene induction and/or production of potential genetic and carcinogenic changes. It is important for the DOE/OBER Low Dose program to determine if these so-called bystander effects can be induced by exposure to low LET (linear energy transfer) radiation delivered at low total doses or dose-rates. If such an effect is demonstrated and quantifiable, it could, potentially, increase estimates of risk from low dose radiation. This bystander effect, in essence, “amplifies” the biological effects (and the effective radiation dose) of a low dose exposure by effectively increasing the number of cells that experience adverse effects to a number greater than the number of cells directly exposed to radiation. Research is sought to:

• Characterize the nature of bystander effects at low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the relationship between radiation dose and the bystander effects at low doses of low LET radiation.

• Quantify the induction and extent of the bystander effect at low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the mechanism of the low LET radiation-induced bystander effect.

Genomic Instability—The loss of genetic stability, a key event in the development of cancer, induced by radiation and expressed as genetic damage many cell divisions after the insult is administered. Current evidence suggests that DNA repair and processing of radiation damage can lead to instability in the progeny of irradiated cells and that susceptibility to instability is under genetic control. However, there is virtually no information on the underlying mechanisms and how the processing of damage leads to instability in the progeny of irradiated cells several generations later. Further, while there has been considerable speculation about the role of such instability in radiation-induced cancer, its role in this process remains to be determined. Research is sought to:

• Characterize the induction of genomic instability by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the relationship between radiation dose and the induction of genomic instability by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Quantify the induction and extent of genomic instability induced by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the mechanism for the induction of genomic instability by low LET radiation.

Adaptive Response—The ability of a low dose of radiation to induce cellular changes that perturb the level of subsequent radiation-induced or spontaneous damage. If low doses of radiation regularly and predictably induce a protective response in cells to subsequent low doses of radiation, or to spontaneous damage, this could have a substantial impact on estimates of adverse health risk from low dose radiation. The generality and the extent of this apparent adaptive response in cells irradiated with small doses of ionizing radiation needs to be quantified. Studies of the adaptive response typically focus on cellular responses to high “test” doses of radiation following low “priming” doses. However, this solicitation is mainly interested in studying the lower limits for test doses and endpoints that show adaptive response phenomenon. Research is sought to:

• Characterize the adaptive response induced by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the relationship between radiation dose and the adaptive response induced by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Quantify the induction and extent of the adaptive response induced by low doses of low LET radiation.

• Determine the mechanism for the induction of adaptive responses by low LET radiation.

In addition to the three specific biological responses just described, the Program has great interest in understanding endogenous versus low dose radiation induced damage, and the mechanisms underlying individual genetic susceptibility to radiation damage.

Endogenous versus low dose radiation induced damage. A key element of this research program will continue to be the development of an understanding of the similarities and differences between endogenous oxidative damage and damage induced by low levels of ionizing radiation, as well as an understanding of the health risks from both. This information will underpin our interpretation of the biological effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. Although always needed, this information was not previously attainable because critical resources and technologies were not available. Today, technologies and resources such as those developed as part of the human genome program, e.g., coupled capillary electrophoresis and mass spectrometry systems and DNA sequence information, have the potential to detect and characterize small differences in damage induced by normal oxidative processes and low doses of radiation. A significant investment in technology development will be required to expand current capabilities for identifying and quantifying small amounts of oxidative or radiation induced damage. Radically new technologies are likely not needed but current technologies will need to be modified. Methodologies having high sensitivity as well as high signal-to-noise ratio will be critical in this effort.

A significant research effort will be required to characterize and quantify normal oxidative damage in cells and the incremental increases induced by low doses of ionizing radiation. Preference will be given to the formation of partnerships between laboratories involved in characterization and quantification of radiation and oxidative damage and groups with expertise in or developing new technology to facilitate progress in both areas simultaneously. Although qualitative descriptions of differences and/or similarities between the types of damage induced under both conditions will be useful in the design and interpretation of experiments in other parts of the program, levels of damage induced by normal oxidative processes and incremental increases due to low dose radiation should be quantified.

Genetic factors that affect individual susceptibility to low dose radiation. The Low Dose Radiation Research Program is interested in determining if genetic differences exist making some individuals more sensitive to radiation-induced damage since these differences could result in sensitive individuals or sub-populations that are at increased risk for radiation-induced cancer. Research should focus on:

• Identification of genes involved in the recognition, repair, and processing of damage induced by ionizing radiation.

• Determining the frequencies of polymorphisms in these genes in the population.

• Determining the biological significance of these polymorphisms with respect to cancer and radiation sensitivity.

Research in these areas will strongly complement ongoing initiatives at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). DOE/OBER staff will work with staff at the NIH to ensure that research in the Low Dose Radiation Research Program is complementary to and not duplicative of research funded by NIH programs.

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) is funding research to identify common variants in the coding regions of the majority of human genes identified during the next five years with the goal of developing a catalog of all common variants. The NHGRI is also working to create a map of at least 100,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), the most common polymorphisms in the human genome representing single base-pair differences between two copies of the same gene. These SNPs will be a boon for mapping complex traits such as cancer, cancer susceptibility, and susceptibility to low dose radiation.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) is funding research as part of its Environmental Genome Project to understand the impact and interaction of environmental exposures on human disease. The NIEHS project includes efforts to understand genetic susceptibility to environmental agents that will allow more precise identification of the environmental agents that cause disease and the true risks of exposures. The principal focus of NIEHS research will be on chemicals, so the focus on radiation in the Low Dose Radiation Research Program is highly complementary. Initially, the Environmental Genome Project will focus on categories of genes including: xenobiotic metabolism and detoxification genes, hormone metabolic genes, receptor genes, DNA repair genes, cell cycle genes, cell death control genes, genes mediating immune and inflammatory responses, genes mediating nutritional factors, genes involved in oxidative processes and genes for signal transduction systems.

Identification of potential susceptibility genes and polymorphisms in those genes is only the first (and perhaps the easiest) step in the program to characterize and understand genetic susceptibility. Determining the biological significance of these genetic polymorphisms with respect to cancer and radiation sensitivity is the ultimate goal and the more difficult task. The international human genome project, structural biology research, and the NHGRI and NIEHS efforts described above play important roles determining which polymorphisms are most likely to influence gene function. Population genetics and computational biology approaches will be required to estimate the potential impact on estimates of population and individual risk. Genetic epidemiology approaches will also be needed to relate specific polymorphisms and combinations of polymorphisms with cancer risk. Inbred mouse strains and other model organisms with well-characterized differences in susceptibility to radiation-induced cancer are also important tools for identifying significant polymorphisms. Direct assessment of the biological significance of candidate “susceptibility genes” can also be undertaken using animal models such as knockout and knock-in mice, mice with specific genes removed or added.

Background information on the Low Dose Radiation Research Program can be found in the research program plan at http://www.lowdose.org/index.html. A list of currently funded projects can be found at http://lowdose.org/research.html.

Not all research on the biological effects of low doses of radiation will be equally useful for the development of radiation risk policy, though the path from basic radiation biology research to radiation risk policy is admittedly not clear at this time. It is our belief that the most useful research will focus on biological responses that:

• Are known to be induced at low doses of radiation,

• Have the potential to increase or decrease the biological effects of radiation if they occur at low doses of radiation,

• Have the potential to directly impact (i.e., increase or decrease) the subsequent development of cancer or other harmful health impacts,

• Are potentially quantifiable, and

• Could potentially be linked to the development of a biologically based model for radiation risk (see DOE Office of Science Program Notice 01-17).

Alternatively, a biological response of interest could meet all of the above criteria only at high doses but may actually be absent (as opposed to simply undetectable) at low doses of radiation. Since the mechanisms of action may be different after high versus low doses of radiation, such studies would help define these mechanisms. Defining the unique doses where these mechanisms shift is important.

The focus of research in the Low Dose Radiation Research Program should be on doses of low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation that are at or below current workplace exposure limits. In general, research in this program should focus on total radiation doses that are less than or equal to 10 rads. Some experiments will likely involve selected exposures to higher doses of radiation for comparisons with previous experiments or for determining the validity of extrapolation methods previously used to estimate the effects of low doses of radiation from observations made at high doses. Research that principally focuses on radiation doses greater than 10 rads, high LET radiation or non-ionizing radiation will not be considered without substantial justification.

The program is currently funding a number of projects to develop micro-irradiation devices capable of delivering low doses of low LET radiation to individual cells or to specific parts of individual cells. For links to currently funded “microbeam” projects see http://lowdose.org/99meeting/abstracts/tool.html—projects 26, 28, 29 and http://lowdose.org/99meeting/abstracts/response.html—project 3. Investigators are strongly encouraged to use these or similar tools, as appropriate, in the design and conduct of their research. Funds are available to assist in the collaborative use of these or comparable tools or, in some cases, to provide low-cost micro-irradiation devices to individual investigators.

It is anticipated that up to $4.0 million will be available from DOE/OBER for new grant awards during FY 2001 and FY 2002, contingent upon the availability of funds. Multiple year funding of grant awards is expected, and is also contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds, progress of the research, and continuing program need. It is expected that most awards will be from 1 to 5 years and will range from $200,000 to $400,000 per year (total costs). Applications requesting more than 3 years of funding will need to clearly justify the benefits of the additional years of research to the goals of the low dose radiation research program. Please note that funds are available from DOE to assist in the collaborative use of certain microbeam irradiators.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to incorporate cost sharing and/or consortia wherever feasible.

A preapplication should be submitted. The Preapplication should contain a title, list of investigators, address, telephone, fax and E-mail address of the Principal Investigator, and no more than a one page summary of the proposed research, including project objectives and methods of accomplishment. Responses to the preapplications, encouraging or discouraging formal applications, will generally be communicated within 7 days of receipt. Notification of a successful preapplication is not an indication that an award will be made in response to the formal application.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project.

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach.

3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources.

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

The evaluation will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the Department's programmatic needs. External peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

Information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection process, and other policies and procedures may be found in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR Part 605. Electronic access to the Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made.

The Project Description must be 25 pages or less, exclusive of attachments. Applications with Project Descriptions longer than 25 pages will be returned to applicants and will not be scientifically reviewed. The application must contain an abstract or project summary, letters of intent from collaborators, and short curriculum vitas consistent with NIH guidelines.

Adherence to type size and line spacing requirements is necessary for several reasons. No applicants should have the advantage, or by using small type, of providing more text in their applications. Small type may also make it difficult for reviewers to read the application. Applications must have 1-inch margins at the top, bottom, and on each side. Type sizes must be 10 point or larger. Line spacing is at the discretion of the applicant but there must be no more than 6 lines per vertical inch of text. Pages should be standard 81/2″ x 11″ (or metric A4, i.e., 210 mm x 297 mm).

Applicants are expected to use the following ordered format to prepare Applications in addition to following instructions in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program. Applications must be written in English, with all budgets in U.S. dollars.

• Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10-91)).

• Project Abstract (no more than one page).

• Budgets for each year and a summary budget page for the entire project period (using DOE F 4620.1).

• Budget Explanation.

• Budgets and Budget explanation for each collaborative subproject, if any.

• Project Description (The Project Description must be 25 pages or less, exclusive of attachments. Applications with Project Descriptions longer than 25 pages will be returned to applicants and will not be scientifically reviewed.)

• Goals.

• Background.

• Research Plan.

• Preliminary Studies and progress (if applicable).

• Research Design and Methodologies.

• Literature Cited.

• Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable).

• Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages per senior investigator).

• Description of Facilities and Resources.

• Current and Pending Support for each senior investigator.

The Office of Science, as part of its grant regulations, requires at 10 CFR 605.11(b) that a recipient receiving a grant to perform research involving recombinant DNA molecules and/or organisms and viruses containing recombinant DNA molecules shall comply with the National Institutes of Health “Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules”, which is available via the world wide web at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/biosafe/nih/rdna-apr98.pdf, (59 FR 34496, July 5, 1994), or such later revision of those guidelines as may be published in the Federal Register.

DOE issued its Public Participation Policy (DOE P 1210.1) on July 29, 1994. The Policy was in the form of an internal directive that provided policy guidance for DOE officials. Under DOE's Directives System, all documents must be reviewed periodically for currency and appropriateness.

A Task Force of DOE headquarters program and field site managers actively involved in public participation activities was convened to review the policy. The Task Force proposed revisions to clarify and update the policy to reflect current practices and the lessons of six years' experience with public participation.

At about the same time, the Openness Advisory Panel of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board undertook a review of DOE's relationships with the communities surrounding its laboratories and facilities to assess how DOE is perceived as a neighbor, what it is doing well, and what it could do better. The Panel's initial review focused on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, both in California, and on the Fernald Plant, in Ohio. On November 17, 2000 the Openness Advisory Panel issued its report, titled Relations between DOE Facilities and their Host Communities: A Pilot Review, which presented Findings and Recommendations on improving community relations. As keys to success, the Openness Advisory Panel identified full, open, timely, two-way communication, the building of positive personal relationships, and accountability on the part of DOE managers. The importance of these elements has been reaffirmed and strengthened in the proposed revisions.

Under the proposed revised Public Participation and Community Relations Policy, public participation would be defined as open, ongoing two-way communication, both formal and informal, between DOE and its stakeholders concerning DOE's missions and activities. The Policy would recognize that effective public participation is at the core of good community relations, which are essential for DOE facilities to achieve their missions. Under this Policy, DOE would actively seek, consider, and incorporate or otherwise respond in a timely manner to the views of its stakeholders and affected communities in making its decisions. This Policy would function as a framework within which all DOE programs, including programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, would operate.

The proposed Public Participation and Community Relations Policy is being released for public comment prior to DOE's decision to approve any of the recommended changes.

On February 15, 2000, EPA Region 4 sent a letter to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the October 28, 1999, Atlanta ozone attainment SIP for 2003 were adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on February 28, 2000, [65 FR 10490] announcing that we had made an adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emissions budgets in Atlanta's attainment SIP. This finding was also announced on EPA's conformity website, http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

EPA described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999, memo titled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision”). This guidance was used in making the adequacy determination on the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the attainment demonstration for Atlanta. The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purpose are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). An adequacy review is separate from EPA's SIP completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate action to approve or disapprove the SIP. The SIP could later be disapproved for reasons unrelated to transportation conformity even though the budgets had been deemed adequate.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on behalf of many petitioners, filed a lawsuit on April 28, 2000, with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA's adequacy finding. On July 11, 2000, the petitioners moved, on an expedited basis, to stay EPA's adequacy determination pending that Court's ruling on the merits of their April 28, 2000 Petition. On July 18, 2000, the 11th Circuit Court granted the motion for stay.

Once the 11th Circuit stayed the attainment SIP adequacy determination on July 18, 2000, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) had to base any conformity determination on the prior approved motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the VOC 15 percent and NOX 9 percent rate of progress SIPs approved by EPA on April 26, 1999, and March 18, 1999, respectively (64 FR 20186 and 64 FR 13348). Today's action does not affect USDOT's July 25, 2000, conformity determination since it was based on these approved budgets and not the submitted attainment budgets, which had been stayed prior to the conformity determination.

EPA believes that a consequence of the D.C. Circuit's order delaying the implementation date of the NOX SIP Call rule is that the budget submitted by Georgia can no longer be considered adequate for purposes of transportation conformity. This belief is based on the fact that the attainment demonstration relied on the expected reductions from the NOX SIP call in 2003, whereas those reductions can not now be assumed prior to 2004.

Furthermore, on December 21, 2000, Georgia sent a letter withdrawing the motor vehicle emission budgets contained in the October 28, 1999, SIP submittal and asked that EPA not undertake any further consideration of these budgets until the State concludes the work necessary to submit a revised budget. The revised budget is expected to be based on the results of the recent study of vehicle speeds data, updated vehicle registration data, and modeling information relevant to the estimation of current and future motor vehicle emissions developed since submission of the previous budget. Based on these changes of fact and law, the parties filed a joint motion to the 11th Circuit to hold further proceedings on review of the adequacy determination in abeyance and for permission for EPA to withdraw the finding of adequacy. All parties in those proceedings have agreed that because it is not appropriate for the transportation agencies to rely upon the currently submitted budget for the purpose of making transportation conformity determinations, the stay entered by the Court on July 19, 2000, should remain in effect pending EPA's completion of the withdrawal action. On January 12, 2001, the court granted EPA the motion to withdraw the adequacy determination.

Consequently, EPA has decided to withdraw the February 15 adequacy determination. Even though adequacy determinations are not considered rulemaking subject to procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, EPA's policy is to provide a notice and comment period on adequacy determinations. However, we are not providing opportunity for comment on this withdrawal notice for two reasons. EPA is taking this action without prior notice and comment because adequacy determinations are not considered rulemaking subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, EPA does not believe further notice through EPA's conformity website is necessary in advance, since as a result of the stay issued by the court, the conformity determination made by USDOT on July 25, 2000, did not rely on the motor vehicle emission budgets submitted in the attainment SIP. Therefore, although EPA had found these budgets to be adequate, they were never used for transportation conformity purposes. Further, because of the delay in the NOX SIP Call implementation date, it is clear that the budgets can no longer be considered adequate, and Georgia has requested that EPA withdraw the adequacy determination. Consequently, further public comment would be unnecessary and not in the public interest. In this action, EPA is also withdrawing all statements and comments previously made in relation to its earlier determination of the adequacy of the budgets for transportation conformity purposes. The substance of the budgets and any revisions to them will be further reviewed by EPA as part of its final decision to approve or disapprove the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the Atlanta nonattainment area. This SIP was initially submitted to EPA on October 28, 1999, and was supplemented on January 31, 2000, and July 31, 2000. EPA will consider all of these submissions as well as all comments timely submitted as we decide whether to approve or disapprove the SIP.

EPA will announce the withdrawal of the adequacy determination on its conformity website at http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq.

On May 3, 2000, the President directed the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to “conduct a six month interagency assessment of Federal environmental regulations pertaining to agricultural biotechnology and, if appropriate, make recommendations to improve them”. The assessment was undertaken as part of a larger set of policy measures intended to build consumer confidence and ensure that U.S. regulations keep pace with the latest scientific and product developments.

The President directed this assessment to further long-standing goals of public access to information and maintenance of strong, science-based regulation. The assessment was intended to focus on environmental regulations through the use of a set of case studies to describe in detail how specific products are being regulated or how they may potentially be regulated. The focus on environmental regulations was based on the premise that this aspect of biotechnology regulation is not well understood by the public and is the subject of considerable interest. The analysis was not intended to be comprehensive in scope, but rather to be based on a set of case studies that could illuminate current agency practices, identify strengths and potential areas for improvement.

In the intervening months, the assessment produced a set of working documents that provide rich detail and information on specific case studies for the public and for policymakers. However, due to time limitations, the interagency working group that was assembled to conduct the assessment was not able to conduct the analysis necessary to develop conclusions or recommendations. The selection of these particular case studies in no way indicates specific concerns with previous regulatory findings. In fact, no significant negative environmental impacts have been associated with the use of any previously approved biotechnology product.

In order to further the assessment process, CEQ and OSTP believe it would be beneficial to have public input on federal regulation of environmental aspects of biotechnology informed by the case studies. Specifically, based on the initial review of the case studies, public comment is requested in the following broad areas of overall federal regulation of environmental aspects of biotechnology: (a) Comprehensiveness and rigor of environmental assessment; (b) comprehensiveness and strength of statutory authority; (c) transparency of the environmental assessment and the decisionmaking process; (d) public involvement; (e) interagency coordination; (f) confidential business information.

Public comments are requested by May 1.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0850.

Title: Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services.

Form No.: FCC 605.

Type of Review: Revision to an Existing Collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government

Number of Respondents: 170,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .44 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 74,800 hours.

Total Respondent Cost: $2,465,000.

Needs and Uses: FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System.

The form is being revised to collect Date of Birth for Commercial Operator and Amateur Radio Service applicants.

The data collected on this form includes the applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number, and Date of Birth for Amateur and Commercial Operator licensing, however, this information will be redacted from public view.

There is no change to the estimated average burden or number of respondents. However, this collection reflects a program change increase of $204,000 resulting from a change in the fee amount required with the application since last submission.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0034.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station.

Form Number: FCC 340.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 1,970.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.2 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 4,370 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $8,538,145.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 340 is used to apply for authority to construct a new noncommercial educational (NCE) FM, TV, DTV broadcast station, or to make changes in the existing facilities of such a station. Form 340 is used for channels that are reserved exclusively for NCE use. 47 CFR 73.3580 requires third party notification—public notice in a newspaper of general circulation—when applications are filed for new facilities or major changes in existing facilities. In addition, all mutually exclusive NCE proposals for the reserved band currently on file with the FCC must supplement their applications with portions of the revised Form 340 to make a selection under the new point system. The FCC will issue a public notice announcing the procedures to be used in this process. These data help the FCC to determine whether an applicant meets basic statutory requirements to become or remain an FCC licensee and to ensure that the public interest will be served by grant of the application. When there are mutually exclusive, qualified applicants, this information will help to determine which proposal would best serve the public interest.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0955.

Title: 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service Reports.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 9.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 27 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $14,000.

Needs and Uses: The 2 GHz mobile satellite service rules, 47 CFR part 25, require disclosure in the form of a narrative statement, through amendments to applications or letters of intent, or orbital debris mitigation design and operational strategies and a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of spacecraft. This requirement will permit the Commission and the public to comment on each system's design. 2 GHz mobile satellite systems receiving expansion spectrum as part of the rural and unserved areas spectrum incentive must provide a report on the actual number of subscriber minutes originating or terminating in unserved areas as a percentage of the actual U.S. system use. This rule will permit the Commission to verify that service is being provided in rural and unserved areas. In addition, system proponents will have to complete critical design review (CDR) within two years of authorization. CDR is a new milestone for satellite services and will permit the Commission to more closely monitor system construction. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether satellite licensees are operating in conformance with the Commission's rules.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Availability of INTELSAT Space Segment Capacity to Users and Providers Seeking to Access INTELSAT Directly.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time-only filing requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $3,000.

Needs and Uses: On September 19, 2000, the FCC released a Report and Order (R&O), IB Docket No. 00-91, FCC 00-340, pursuant to the recently enacted Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act). Section 641(b) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as amended by the ORBIT Act, requires the FCC to determine whether “sufficient opportunity” exists for users and service providers “to access INTELSAT space segment capacity directly from INTELSAT to meet their service and capacity requirements.” The R&O concluded that users and service providers currently do not have sufficient opportunity for direct access to INTELSAT. The R&O also concluded that FCC should adopt a “commercial solution.” This requires the parties—Comsat (which controls the most U.S. accessible capacity) and other direct access users, to attempt to negotiate mutually agreeable arrangements and to file reports with the Commission on or before March 13, 2001 on the progress of their negotiations.

This is a summary of a public notice released January 5, 2001. The complete text of the public notice, including the attachments, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. On July 3, 2000, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announced the procedures for implementing package bidding for Auction No. 31. After further testing and analysis, the Bureau issued Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice, 65 FR 66752 (November 7, 2000) proposing changes to and seeking comment on the following matters: (i) The calculation for determining minimum acceptable bids; and (ii) the provisions concerning last and best bids. In response to the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice, three comments were filed and no reply comments were filed.

2. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Procedures Public Notice, 65 FR 43361 (July 13, 2000) the Bureau adopted a three-part formula for determining minimum acceptable bids. Specifically, the minimum acceptable bid for any license or package would be the greater of: (i) the minimum opening bid; (ii) the bidder's own previous high bid on that package plus x%, where the Bureau would specify the value of x in each round; and (iii) the number of bidding units for the license or package multiplied by the lowest $/bidding unit on any provisionally winning package in the last 5 rounds.

3. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice, we proposed to replace part (iii) of the minimum acceptable bid formula with the sum of a bidder's previous high bid on a license/package and a share of the increase in revenue needed to tie the provisional winners. We defined the shortfall associated with a license/package as the difference between the revenue of the provisionally winning bid set and the maximum total revenue associated with the set of bids that includes that particular license/package. The deficit was defined as an allocation of the shortfall to the particular license/package in proportion to its share of bidding units relative to those associated with bids that were not part of the provisionally winning set but are part of the set that maximizes revenue when including the particular license/package. (When there is more than one set of bids that yields the same shortfall for a given bid, we proposed to choose the shortfall set that includes the most provisionally winning bidding units.) We proposed to set part (iii) of the minimum acceptable bid formula initially to be a bidder's previous high bid on a license/package plus 100 percent of the deficit, but retain the discretion to adjust the percentage of the deficit during the course of the auction to provide control over the auction's pace.

4. Pekec and Rothkopf agree that using the shortfall calculation in the determination of the minimum acceptable bid price is a clear improvement to the originally proposed calculation. However, they believe that the allocation of this calculated shortfall should be proportional to bid amounts rather than bidding units.

5. The Bureau acknowledges that if all bidders bid in a straightforward fashion, it is likely that current prices would be the best estimate of the relative values of the licenses/packages. Under these circumstances, the proposal made by Pekec and Rothkopf might be a better approach to allocating the shortfall than that set forth by the Bureau. However, the Bureau is concerned with two potential consequences of implementing a procedure that allocates shortfall based on bid amounts. Such an allocation of the shortfall would (i) provide an incentive for bidders to game the auction by bidding up the price on a license/package that would partner with their own license/package in order to shift the burden of the shortfall to another bidder; and (ii) afford to bidders that have not bid on a license/package for some time the ability to “park” (i.e., make bids that receive eligibility activity credit but have little prospect of winning) on that license/package since potentially small allocations of shortfall will be added to a bid amount that is well below the amount needed to become a provisional winner. Consequently, the Bureau believes that using bidding units to allocate the shortfall provides an efficient mechanism for determining the minimum bid increment added to a bidder's previous high bid. In addition, if the minimum acceptable bid price is too high, bidders will have the opportunity to bid a price less than that amount if they choose to exit the auction via last and best bids.

6. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice, we proposed an exception to the modified minimum acceptable bid formula for new packages. We proposed that part (iii) of the formula for the initial minimum acceptable bid for any package other than a global package created during the auction will continue to be calculated by multiplying the number of bidding units in the package by the lowest $/bidding unit of any provisionally winning bid in the last five rounds.

7. Pekec and Rothkopf argue that we should calculate the minimum acceptable bid for new packages the same way as for all other bids and calculate the minimum acceptable bid prices for all possible packages and licenses regardless of whether the bidder has bid on a license/package. We note that this would require the determination of minimum acceptable bid values equal to the total number of possible combinations of the twelve licenses times the number of bidders, with most of the calculations never being used. Alternatively, we could provide for immediate minimum acceptable bid calculations for any new package, but that could allow individuals to flood the FCC bidding system with requests and possibly disrupt the auction.

8. Balancing operational considerations with the desire to set the minimum acceptable bid at a level that provides a realistic chance of a bid becoming a provisional winner, the Bureau adopts the procedure proposed in the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice. For a new package created after the close of the prior round, part (iii) of the initial minimum acceptable bid will be calculated by multiplying the number of bidding units in the package by the lowest $/bidding unit of any provisionally winning bid in the last five rounds. This exception will not apply to a global package whose minimum acceptable bid will always be (a percentage of) the maximum revenue from the previous round.

9. After each round, the Bureau will, for every bidder, calculate part (iii) of the minimum acceptable bid price based on shortfall allocation for every license and for every constructed package. When there is no previous high bid because the bidder has not bid on a license or an already created package, we will use the minimum opening bid as the previous high bid to calculate part (iii) of the minimum acceptable bid rule; and part (ii) of the rule does not apply.

10. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Procedures Public Notice the Bureau adopted a “last and best” bid procedure. Specifically, bidders that wish to drop out of the auction would have the opportunity before they drop out to make a “last and best” bid on any packages for which they remain eligible. Such bids could be of any amount (in thousand dollar increments) between their previous high bid and the minimum acceptable bid. A bidder that submits a last and best bid(s) would not be permitted to make any further bids in the auction.

11. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice, we proposed modifying the last and best bid procedure to allow a bidder to submit two sets of mutually exclusive last and best bids. We proposed that in determining the provisionally winning bid(s), the round solver would consider these two sets of mutually exclusive bids as well as any of the bidder's bids that remain in the provisionally winning set.

12. In their comments, Pekec and Rothkopf state that the Bureau's proposed modifications, particularly in the case of last and best bid provisions, are of limited importance and are not sufficient to affect the overall quality of the auction.

13. Verizon supports the Bureau's general plan to allow bidders the opportunity to make a last and best bid on any package for which they remain eligible before they drop out of the auction. However, Verizon disagrees with the Bureau's decision to prohibit from further bidding a bidder that chooses to make a last and best bid. Verizon claims that the Bureau's proposal is inconsistent with the public interest because it could prematurely reduce the number of participants in the auction, ultimately resulting in an inefficient assignment of licenses. Verizon urges the Bureau to apply the last and best bid option to licenses and packages, rather than bidders. Verizon further requests that the Bureau clarify or confirm that the second opportunity to place a last and best bid means that a bidder whose last and best bid was bested by another bidder has an opportunity to place an additional last and best bid on another license or package. Verizon also asks that the Bureau provide bidders an example that applies this two-round process to a hypothetical set of last and best bids.

14. The Bureau clarifies the procedure for placing last and best bids as follows. A bidder may make up to two sets of last and best bids. The two sets of last and best bids must be submitted in a single round, but will be treated as mutually exclusive, as are bids placed in two separate rounds. Once last and best bids are placed, the bidder will not be permitted to place new bids or renew previous bids in any subsequent round. If a bidder chooses to submit two sets of last and best bids, then, for the remainder of the auction, the “solver” (computer software) will consider those two sets of bids. If a bidder chooses to submit only one set of last and best bids, then, for the remainder of the auction, the solver will consider this set of bids and the set of bids from the last round in which the bidder placed bids. The only other bids that would be considered in a round for a bidder that places last and best bids are provisionally winning bids from the previous round.

15. Each set of last and best bids may consist of bids on any or all of the licenses and any or all of the packages created by the bidder, consistent with the activity rules and the twelve package limitation. The last and best bid amount for any license or package is any amount, in thousand dollar increments, greater than or equal to the bidder's previous high bid on the license or package and less than or equal to the ninth increment above the minimum acceptable bid for that license or package. Note that placing a last and best bid equal to the bidder's previous high bid will be considered as a renewed bid when applying activity rules. Also, if the bidder has never placed a bid on a package or license, the lower bound on the last and best bid amount is equal to the minimum opening bid for that package or license.

16. The Bureau believes that the procedure for placing last and best bids provides a bidder that is dropping out of the auction with sufficient flexibility to pursue its current business strategies, while maintaining bidding rules consistent with the overall auction structure. Moreover, providing bidders with opportunities in each round to place bids below the minimum acceptable bid amount may significantly slow the pace of the auction. Having a bidder-specific procedure, rather than a bid-specific procedure, is also more straightforward to implement. The Bureau believes that bidders are unlikely to exit the auction prematurely, as Verizon argues, because they may renew their bids and utilize activity rule waivers to prevent eligibility reduction.

17. In the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Procedures Public Notice, we stated that individual licenses on which no bids are available to be considered when solving for the provisionally winning set will be treated as having a bid by the FCC at the minimum opening bid. We now wish to clarify treatment of FCC bids where there are other bids available to be considered for the provisionally winning set. Implementing the minimum opening bid requirement by treating the FCC as having a bid on each license at the minimum opening bid could result in the FCC retaining a license even though a bidder had an equivalent minimum opening bid on that license. To ensure that a bid on a license or package at the minimum opening bid always beats the FCC bid, the Bureau will treat all licenses as having FCC bids at some small amount less than the minimum opening bid.

18. Comments filed by Paul Milgrom and Charles Plott addressed some matters that are beyond the scope of the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Further Comment Public Notice and upon which other parties have not had an opportunity to comment. That document sought comment specifically on the calculation for determining minimum acceptable bids and the last and best bid procedures. While we appreciate the input provided by commenters, we cannot at this time make any further changes to our package bidding procedures. The auction is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2001, and short-form applications are due on February 2, 2001. We are confident that the package bidding procedures we have established for Auction No. 31 will work effectively. We will revisit our package bidding procedure whenever we consider the use of package bidding for another auction.

19. The Commission set forth the following dates which will govern the conduct of Auction No. 31:

20. As stated, package bidding is a new concept in our auctions program. To further facilitate understanding and participation, the Bureau has scheduled an industry test that will help potential bidders and other interested parties to become familiar with the system. The industry test will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 24, 25 & 26, 2001. The test software, like the auction software, will run over the Internet. To use this software, your computer must have the minimum hardware and software listed in the attachment titled Electronic Filing and Review of the FCC Form 175.

21. To participate in the test, send an e-mail to 31bidder@fcc.gov by 4 p.m. ET on January 17, 2001. Please include your company name and the name and e-mail address of the person we should contact with any questions. If you want our response sent to a different address than where you sent from, please include that return e-mail address as well. The Bureau will e-mail to that address the URL of our test system, along with a bidder ID and password that you will need to access the system.

22. Potential bidders are reminded that there are a number of incumbent broadcast television licensees already licensed and operating in the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands (television Channels 60-62 and 65-67) that will be subject to the upcoming auction. Listed in Attachment J to the Auction No. 31 Procedures Public Notice, 65 FR 21196 (April 20, 2000) are facilities of incumbent television permittees and licensees on television Channels 60-62 and 65-67 as well as on adjacent television Channels 59, 63, 64, and 68. However, prospective bidders should not rely solely on this list, but should carefully review the Commission's databases and records before formulating bidding strategies.

23. In addition, there are several pending applications and rule making petitions for new analog and digital television authorizations on channel 59 which, if granted, would become additional incumbents on that channel. Information on pending applications can be found in the Mass Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System on the Commission's website. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information that has been incorporated into the databases. Potential bidders are strongly encouraged to physically inspect any sites located in or near the geographic area for which they plan to bid.

24. As more fully discussed in the Auction No. 31 Procedures Public Notice, we remind potential bidders that certain applications (including those for modification), petitions for rulemaking, waiver requests, requests for special temporary authority (“STA”), petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, and applications for review may be pending before the Commission that relate to the facilities listed in Attachment J to the Auction No. 31 Procedures Public Notice. We again note that resolution of these pending matters could have an impact on the availability of spectrum for licensees in the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands. While the Commission will continue to act on pending matters, some of these matters may not be resolved by the time of Auction No. 31. Potential bidders are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research prior to Auction No. 31 in order to determine the existence of pending proceedings that might affect their decisions regarding participation in the auction. Participants in Auction No. 31 are strongly encouraged to continue such research during the auction.

25. Since the release of the Auction No. 31 Package Bidding Procedures Public Notice, there have been changes in the Competitive Bidding Rules that will apply to Auction No. 31. The Bureau has set forth significant amendments to the Competitive Bidding Rules, but it is the responsibility of each applicant to carefully review and comply with all applicable rules.

26. All applicants must comply with the uniform part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, in completing Form 175, applicants will be required to file an Exhibit A providing a full and complete statement of the ownership of the bidding entity. The ownership disclosure standards for the short-form are set forth in § 1.2112 of the Commission's rules.

27. Each applicant must certify on its FCC Form 175 application that it is not in default on any Commission licenses and that it is not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. In addition, each applicant must attach to its FCC Form 175 application a statement made under penalty of perjury indicating whether or not the applicant (or any of the applicant's controlling interests or their affiliates, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules, as recently amended in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order) has ever been in default on any Commission licenses or has ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any federal agency. Applicants must include this statement as Exhibit D of the FCC Form 175. Prospective bidders are reminded that the statement must be made under penalty of perjury and that submission of a false certification to the Commission is a serious matter that may result in severe penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license revocations, exclusion from participation in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.

28. “Former defaulters”—i.e., applicants, including their attributable interest holders, that in the past have defaulted on any Commission licenses or been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, but that have since remedied all such defaults and cured all of their outstanding non-tax delinquencies—are eligible to bid in Auction No. 31, provided that they are otherwise qualified. However, as discussed, former defaulters are required to pay upfront payments that are fifty percent more than the normal upfront payment amounts.

29. In the Part 1 Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 62 13540 (March 21, 1997) the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned. The Bureau set forth the amount of the upfront payment associated with each of the 12 licenses available in this auction. Those amounts remain unchanged.

30. The upfront payment amount for “former defaulters,” i.e., applicants that have ever been in default on any Commission license or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, will be fifty percent more than the normal amount required to be paid. Former defaulters should calculate their upfront payment for all licenses by multiplying the number of bidding units they wish to purchase by 1.5. In calculating the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit.

31. A winning bidder that intends to use its license(s) to deploy facilities and provide services to federally-recognized tribal lands that are unserved by any telecommunications carrier or that have a telephone service penetration rate equal to or below 70 percent is eligible to receive a tribal land bidding credit as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2107 and 1.2110(e). A tribal land bidding credit is in addition to, and separate from, any other bidding credit for which a winning bidder may qualify.

32. Unlike other bidding credits that are requested prior to the auction, a winning bidder applies for the tribal land bidding credit after winning the auction when it files its long-form application (FCC Form 601). In order for a winning bidder to be awarded a tribal land bidding credit, it must provide specific certifications regarding the servicing of tribal lands and is subject to specific performance criteria as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2110(e).

33. For additional information on the tribal land bidding credit, including how to determine the amount of credit available, see Public Notice, DA 00-2219, released September 28, 2000, entitled Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Availability of Bidding Credits for Providing Wireless Services to Qualifying Tribal Lands, 15 FCC Rcd. 18351 (2000).

34. On June 8, 2000, the Commission awarded Qualcomm, Inc. a transferable Auction Discount Voucher in the amount of $125,273,878.00. This, Auction Discount Voucher may be used by Qualcomm or its transferee, in whole or in part, to adjust a winning bid in any spectrum auction prior to June 8, 2003, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the Commission's Order.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the WRC-03 Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03). In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the second meeting of the WRC-03 Advisory Committee. The WRC-03 Advisory Committee has an open membership. All interested parties are invited to participate in the Advisory Committee and to attend its meetings. The proposed agenda for the second meeting is as follows:

1. Opening Remarks.

2. Approval of Agenda.

3. IWG Reports.

4. Consideration of Consensus Views or Proposals.

5. Future Meetings.

6. Other Business.

The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to bring together leaders of the telecommunications industry and telecommunications experts from academic, consumer and other organizations to explore and recommend measures that would enhance network reliability.

The Council will receive reports on and discuss the progress of its three focus groups: Y2K, Network Reliability, and Interoperability. The Council may also discuss such other matters as come before it at the meeting. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Kent Nilsson, the Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, by email (KNILSSON@FCC.GOV) or U.S. mail (7-B452, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554). Real Audio and streaming video Access to the meeting will be available at http://www.fcc.gov/.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's 2000 Report in CS Docket No. 00-132, FCC 01-1, adopted January 2, 2001, and released January 8, 2001. The complete text of the 2000 Report is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service (“ITS, Inc.”), (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. In addition, the complete text of the 2000 Report is available on the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/csrptpg.html.

1. The Commission's 2000 Report to Congress provides information about the cable television industry and other multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”), including direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) service, home satellite dishes (“HSDs”), wireless cable systems using frequencies in the multichannel multipoint distribution service (“MMDS”) and instructional television fixed service (“ITFS”), private cable or satellite master antenna television (“SMATV”) systems, as well as broadcast television service. The Commission also considers several other existing and potential distribution technologies for video programming, including the Internet, home video sales and rentals, local exchange telephone carriers (“LECs”), and electric and gas utilities.

2. The Commission also examines the market structure and competition. We evaluate horizontal concentration in the multichannel video marketplace and vertical integration between cable television systems and programming services. In addition, the 2000 Report addresses competitors serving multiple dwelling unit buildings (“MDUs”), programming issues, technical advances, and examines a limited number of cases where consumers have a choice between an incumbent cable operator and another MVPD in a specific market. The 2000 Report is based on publicly available data, filings in various Commission rulemaking proceedings, and information submitted by commenters in response to a Notice of Inquiry (65 FR 49804) in this docket.

3. In the 2000 Report, the Commission finds that competitive alternatives and consumer choices continue to develop. Cable television still is the dominant technology for the delivery of video programming to consumers in the MVPD marketplace, although its market share continues to decline. As of June 2000, 80 percent of all MVPD subscribers received their video programming from a local franchised cable operator, compared to 82 percent a year earlier. There has been an increase in the total number of subscribers to non-cable MVPDs over the last year, which is primarily attributable to the growth of DBS service. However, generally, there have been declines in the number of subscribers and market shares of MVPDs using other distribution technologies. Significant competition from local telephone companies has not generally developed even though the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”) removed some barriers to LEC entry into the video marketplace.

4. Key Findings:

• Industry Growth: A total of 84.4 million households subscribed to multichannel video programming services as of June 2000, up 4.4 percent over the 80.9 million households subscribing to MVPDs in June 1999. This subscriber growth accompanied a 2.4 percentage point increase in multichannel video programming distributors' penetration of television households to 83.8 percent as of June 2000. The number of cable subscribers continued to grow, reaching 67.7 million as of June 2000, up about 1.5 percent over the 66.7 million cable subscribers in June 1999. The total number of non-cable MVPD households grew from 14.2 million as of June 1999 to 16.7 million homes as of June 2000, an increase of almost 18 percent. The growth of non-cable MVPD subscribers continues to be primarily attributable to the growth of DBS. Between June 1999 and June 2000, the number of DBS subscribers grew from 10.1 million households to almost 13 million households, which is nearly three times the cable subscriber growth rate. DBS subscribers now represent 15.4 percent of all MVPD subscribers, up from 12.5 percent a year earlier.

• Convergence of Cable and Other Services: The 1996 Act removed barriers to LEC entry into the video marketplace in order to facilitate competition between incumbent cable operators and telephone companies. It was expected that local exchange telephone carriers would begin to compete in video delivery markets, and cable operators would begin to provide local telephone exchange service. The Commission previously reported that there had been an increase in the amount of video programming provided to consumers by telephone companies, although the expected technological convergence that would permit use of telephone facilities for video service had not yet occurred. This year, we find that the rate of entry by LECs appears to be slowing even by the most aggressive telephone companies, and several LECs have reduced or eliminated their MVPD efforts. Alternatively, only a limited number of cable operators have begun to offer telephone service and their strategies for deployment remain varied, with some companies deploying traditional circuit-switched telephone service and others either offering cable-delivered telephony on a limited basis, waiting until Internet Protocol (“IP”) technology becomes available, or continuing to test such service. The most significant convergence of service offerings continues to be the pairing of Internet service with other services. There is evidence that a wide variety of companies throughout the communications industries are attempting to become providers of multiple services, including data access.

• Promotion of Entry and Competition: Noncable MVPDs continue to report that regulatory and other barriers to entry limit their ability to compete with incumbent cable operators and to thereby provide consumers with additional choices. Non-cable MVPDs also continue to experience some difficulties in obtaining programming from both vertically integrated cable programmers and unaffiliated programmers who continue to make exclusive agreements with cable operators. In multiple dwelling units (“MDUs”), potential entry may be discouraged or limited because an incumbent video programming distributor has a long-term and/or exclusive contract. Other issues also remain with respect to how, and under what circumstances, existing inside wiring in MDUs may be made available to alternative video service providers. Consumers historically reported that their inability to receive local signals from DBS operators negatively affected their decision as to whether to subscribe to DBS. This year's significant increase in DBS subscribership has been attributed, at least in part, to the authority granted to DBS providers to distribute local broadcast television stations in their local markets by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (“SHVIA”) enacted on November 29, 1999. Under SHVIA, DBS operators can offer a programming package more comparable to and competitive with the services offered by cable operators.

• Horizontal Concentration: Consolidations within the cable industry continue as cable operators acquire and trade systems. The ten largest operators now serve close to 90 percent of all U.S. cable subscribers. In terms of one traditional economic measure, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index or HHI, national concentration among the top MVPDs has increased since last year, although it remains below the levels reported in earlier years. DBS operators DirecTV and EchoStar rank among the ten largest MVPDs in terms of nationwide subscribership along with eight cable multiple system operators (“MSOs”). As a result of acquisitions and trades, cable MSOs have continued to increase the extent to which their systems form regional clusters. Currently, 44 million of the nation's cable subscribers are served by systems that are included in regional clusters. By clustering their systems, cable operators may be able to achieve efficiencies that facilitate the provision of cable and other services, such as telephony.

• Vertical Integration: The number of satellite-delivered programming networks has decreased by two from 283 in 1999 to 281 in 2000. Vertical integration of national programming services between cable operators and programmers, measured in terms of the total number of services in operation, declined from last year's total of 37 percent to 35 percent this year, continuing a five year trend. In 2000, one or more of the top five cable MSOs held an ownership interest in each of 99 vertically integrated national programming services. The 2000 Report also identifies 75 regional networks, 27 of which are sports channels, many owned at least in part by MSOs, and 30 regional and local news networks that compete with local broadcast stations and national cable networks (e.g., CNN).

• Technological Advances: Cable operators and other MVPDs continue to develop and deploy advanced technologies, especially digital compression techniques, to increase the capacities and to enhance the capabilities of their transmission platforms. These technologies allow MVPDs to deliver additional video options and other services (e.g., data access, telephony, and interactive services) to their subscribers. To access these wide ranging services, consumers use “navigation devices.” The Commission adopted rules that required MVPDs to unbundle security from other functions of digital set-top boxes by July 1, 2000. The cable industry reports that cable operators have met this deadline to have digital separate security modules available for consumers. Interface requirements and a certification process for the high-speed cable modems needed to access data services have also been developed. Cable modems are now for sale in selected markets. The Commission expects these developments to increase competition in the market for equipment used by subscribers. In addition, in the last year, interactive television (“ITV”) services are beginning to be offered through cable, satellite, and terrestrial technologies. ITV provides or has the potential to provide a wide range of services, including video on demand (“VOD”), e-mail, TV-based commerce, Internet access, and program-related content, using digital set-top boxes and other devices that interface with television receivers (e.g., WebTV).

5. This 2000 Report is issued pursuant to authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).

6. The Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs shall send copies of the 2000 Report to the appropriate committees and subcommittees of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate.

7. The proceeding in CS Docket No. 00-132 IS TERMINATED.

This is a summary of the Notice of Inquiry in CS Docket No. 01-7, FCC 01-15, adopted January 12, 2001, and released January 18, 2001 (“Notice”). The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 554 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B400, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the document is available via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/csb.

1. In this Notice, the Commission considers whether rules are needed to address any impediments to the development of ITV services and markets.

2. The Notice seeks comment on what services constitute ITV services, what entities constitute ITV providers, how ITV services will be delivered, what business models will govern the delivery of ITV services to consumers, and the general status of an ITV services market. The Notice seeks comment on whether, if it were determined that operators of cable systems (or another delivery platform) had the incentive and ability to behave anti-competitively vis-a-vis ITV service providers, the Commission should consider prohibiting those operators from discriminating between affiliated and unaffiliated ITV service providers.

3. The Notice also seeks comment on the legal classifications of ITV services, what public policy and statutory objectives ITV rules would promote, and the Commission's authority to protect this market. The Notice asks questions about enforcement of any new rules, proposing alternatively a voluntary arbitration, subject to judicial review, or a Commission complaint procedure.

4. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments in response to this Notice on or before March 19, 2001 and reply comments on or before April 20, 2001. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form<your e-mail address.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

5. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Cable Services Bureau contact for this proceeding is Royce Dickens.

6. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. Parties should submit diskettes to Royce Dickens, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 3A729, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and Microsoft Word, or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the party's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case CS Docket No. 01-7), type of pleading (comments or reply comments), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, referable in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B400, Washington, DC, 20554.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 12, 2001, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 USC 5121, et seq., as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552 (2000), as follows:

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Carlos N. Mitchell of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Louisiana to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All parishes within the State of Louisiana are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective January 15, 2001.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 4 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning proposed collections of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, NIDCD is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

The NIDCD Minority and Disability Supplement Program was designed to encourage individuals underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research in human communication to participate in that research. The individuals participate on currently funded NIDCD grants and receive mentoring from NIDCD Principal Investigators.

Anecdotal feedback indicates that program participants and mentors find the program provides interesting opportunities and encourages individuals to pursue careers in a variety of health fields. However, there is little systematic evidence evaluating the level of the Program's success or failure in accomplishing these goals. The proposed survey will attempt to assess how individuals' participation in the Supplement Program has influenced career and educational choices. This information will provide support for NIDCD's continued participation in the Program.

One survey has been proposed to collect information on the current status of individuals previously supported by an NIDCD Supplement. This survey will obtain the current contact information of the participants and assess the individuals' educational and career achievements, their goals for future education, and current specific field(s) of study/employment.

The survey will be administered via a telephone interview that should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Respondents who cannot schedule 30 minutes of time or who find telephone conversations difficult will be given the opportunity to respond by alternate means such as mail, fax, and e-mail. All participants from the inception of the program will be included in this survey process. It is anticipated that the total number of participants will not exceed 200.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

On April 6, 2000, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final determination that the United States will accept 90.94 acres of land, more or less, in trust for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of Indians of South Dakota. It was determined that the acceptance of the 90.94 acres in trust, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 465, would be in the best interest of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of Indians of South Dakota. On December 14, 2000, the Bureau issued an EA and FONSI for the trust acquisition of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the construction of the Native American Scenic Byway. Based on the additional environmental information contained in the EA, the Department ratifies its April 6, 2000, decision to take 90.94 acres of land in trust for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of Indians of South Dakota.

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transaction in Indian country. The Big Sandy Rancheria Liquor Ordinance, Resolution No. 00-14, was duly adopted by the Big Sandy Rancheria Tribal Council on August 30, 2000. The Big Sandy Rancheria, in furtherance of its economic and social goals, has taken positive steps to regulate retail sales of alcohol and use revenues to combat alcohol abuse and its debilitating effects among individuals and family members within the Big Sandy Rancheria.

This notice is being published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.

I certify that by Resolution No. 00-14, the Big Sandy Rancheria Liquor Ordinance was duly adopted by the Big Sandy Tribal Council on August 30, 2000.

The Big Sandy Rancheria Liquor Ordinance, Resolution No. 00-14, reads as follows:

Section 101. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the Liquor Ordinance of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California.

Section 102. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. 1161) and the Constitution of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (Big Sandy Rancheria or Rancheria).

Section 103. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate and control the possession and sale of liquor on lands under the control of the Big Sandy Rancheria. The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sale on the Rancheria will increase the ability of the tribal government to control Rancheria liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal government services.

Section 201. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

Alcohol means that substance known as ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or spirit of wine which is commonly produced by the fermentation or distillation of grain, starch, molasses, or sugar, or other substances including all dilutions of this substance.

Alcoholic Beverage is synonymous with the term “liquor” as defined in this Chapter.

Bar means any establishment with special space and accommodations for sale by the glass, can or bottle and for consumption on the premises of liquor, as herein defined.

Beer means any beverage obtained by the alcoholic fermentation of an infusion or decoction of pure hops, or pure extract of hops and pure barley malt or other wholesome grain of cereal in pure water containing not more than 4 percent of alcohol by volume. For the purposes of this title, any such beverage, including ale, stout, and porter, containing more than 4 percent of alcohol by weight shall be referred to as “strong beer.”

General Membership means the general membership of the Big Sandy Rancheria, which is composed of the membership of the Tribe as a whole.

Liquor includes the four varieties of liquor herein defined (alcohol, spirits, wine and beer), and all fermented spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor or combination thereof, and mixed liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and every liquor or solid or semisolid or other substance, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and all drinks or drinkable liquids and all preparations or mixtures capable of human consumption and any liquid, semisolid, solid, or other substances, which contain more than 1 percent of alcohol by weight shall be conclusively deemed to be intoxicating.

Liquor Store means any store at which liquor is sold and, for the purposes of this ordinance, includes stores only a portion of which are devoted to sale of liquor or beer.

Malt Liquor means beer, strong beer, ale stout, and porter.

Package means any container or receptacle used for holding liquor.

Public Place includes state or county or tribal or federal highways or roads; buildings and grounds used for school purposes; public dance halls and grounds adjacent thereto; soft drink establishment, public buildings, public meeting halls, lobbies, halls and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theater, gaming facilities, entertainment centers, store garages, and filling stations which are open to and/or are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access; public conveyances of all kinds of character; and all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally used by the public. For the purposes of this ordinance, “public place” shall also include any establishment other than a single family home which is designed for or may be used by more than just the owner of the establishment.

Rancheria means land held in trust by the United States Government for the benefit of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (See also Tribal Land).

Sale and Sell include exchange, barter, and traffic; and also include the selling or supplying or distributing by any means whatsoever, of liquor, or of any liquid known or described as beer or by any name whatsoever commonly used to describe malt or brewed liquor or wine by any person to any person.

Spirits mean any beverage, which contains alcohol obtained by distillation, including wines exceeding 17 percent of alcohol by weight.

Tribal Council means the Tribal Council of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California.

Tribal Land means any land within the exterior boundaries of the Rancheria which is held in trust by the United States for the Tribe as a whole, including such land leased to other parties and lands held in trust under lease to Big Sandy Rancheria.

Tribe means the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California.

Trust Account means the account designated by the Tribal Council for deposit of proceeds from the tax from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Trust Agent means the Tribal Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson.

Wine means any alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of fruits (grapes, berries, apples, etc.) or other agricultural product containing sugar, to which any saccharine substances may have been added before, during or after fermentation, and containing not more than 17 percent of alcohol by weight, including sweet wines fortified with wine spirits such as port, sherry, muscatel, and angelica, not exceeding 17 percent of alcohol by weight.

Section 301. Powers. The Tribal Council, in furtherance of this ordinance, shall have the following powers and duties:

(a) To publish and enforce the rules and regulations governing the sale, manufacture, and distribution of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria;

(b) To employ managers, accountants, security personnel, inspectors, and such other persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Tribal Council to perform its functions;

(c) To issue licenses permitting the sale or manufacture or distribution of liquor on the Rancheria;

(d) To hold hearings on violations of this ordinance or for the issuance or revocation of licenses hereunder;

(e) To bring suit in the appropriate court to enforce this ordinance as necessary;

(f) To determine and seek damages for violation of this ordinance;

(g) To make such reports as may be required by the Council;

(h) To collect taxes and fees levied or set by the Tribal Council and to keep accurate records, books, and accounts.

Section 302. Limitation on Powers. In the exercise of its powers and duties under this ordinance, the Tribal Council and its individual members shall not accept any gratuity, compensation or other thing of value from any liquor wholesaler, retailer, or distributor or from any licensee.

Section 303. Inspection Rights. The premises on which liquor is sold or distributed shall be open for inspection by the Tribal Council or its designee at all reasonable times for the purposes of ascertaining whether the rules and regulations of this ordinance are being complied with.

Section 401. Licenses Required. No sales of alcoholic beverages shall be made within the exterior boundaries of the Rancheria, except at a tribally licensed or tribally owned business operated on tribal land within the exterior boundaries of the Rancheria.

Section 402. Sales Only on Tribal Land. All liquor sales within the exterior boundaries of the Rancheria shall be on tribal land, including leases thereon.

Section 403. Sales for Cash. All liquor sales within the Rancheria boundaries shall be on a cash only basis and no credit shall be extended to any person, organization, or entity, except that this provision does not prevent the use of major credit cards such as Visa, American Express, etc.

Section 404. Sale for Personal Consumption. All sales shall be for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser. Resale of any alcoholic beverage purchased within the exterior boundaries of the Rancheria is prohibited. Any person who is not licensed pursuant to this ordinance who purchases an alcoholic beverage within the boundaries of the Rancheria and sells it, whether in the original container or not, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance and shall be subjected to paying damages to the Tribe as set forth herein.

Section 501. Application for Tribal Liquor License Requirements. No tribal license shall be issued under this ordinance except upon a sworn application filed with the Tribal Council containing a full and complete showing of the following:

(a) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is or will be duly licensed by the State of California.

(b) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is of good character and reputation among the people of the Rancheria and that the applicant is financially responsible.

(c) The description of the premises in which the intoxicating beverages are to be sold, proof that the applicant is the owner of such premises, or lessee of such premises, for at least the term of the license.

(d) Agreement by the applicant to accept and abide by all conditions of the tribal license.

(e) Payment of $250 fee as prescribed by the Tribal Council.

(f) Satisfactory proof that neither the applicant nor the applicant's spouse has ever been convicted of a felony.

(g) Satisfactory proof that notice of the application has been posted in a prominent, noticeable place on the premises where intoxicating beverages are to be sold for at least 30 days prior to consideration by the Tribal Council and has been published at least twice in such local newspaper serving the community that may be affected by the license the Tribal Chairperson or Secretary may authorize. The notice shall state the date, time and place when the application shall be considered by the Tribal Council pursuant to Section 502 of this ordinance.

Section 502. Hearing on Application for Tribal Liquor License. All applications for a tribal liquor license shall be considered by the Tribal Council in open session at which the applicant, his attorney, and any person protesting the application shall have the right to be present, and to offer sworn oral or documentary evidence relevant to the application. After the hearing, the Tribal Council shall determine whether to grant or deny the application based on:

(1) Whether the requirements of Section 501 have been met; and

(2) Whether the Tribal Council, in its discretion, determines that granting the license is in the best interests of the Tribe.

In the event that the applicant is a member of the Tribal Council, or a member of the immediate family of a Tribal Council member, such members shall not vote on the application or participate in the hearings as a Tribal Council member.

Section 503. Temporary Permits. The Tribal Council or their designee may grant a temporary permit for the sale of intoxicating beverages for a period not to exceed 3 days to any person applying for the same in connection with a tribal or community activity; Provided, That the conditions prescribed in Section 504 of this ordinance shall be observed by the permittee. Each permit issued shall specify the types of intoxicating beverages to be sold. Further, a fee of $25 will be assessed on temporary permits.

Section 504. Conditions of the Tribal License. Any tribal license issued under this title shall be subject to such reasonable conditions as the Tribal Council shall fix, including, but not limited to the following:

(a) The license shall be for a term not to exceed 1 year.

(b) The licensee shall at all times maintain an orderly, clean and neat establishment, both inside and outside the licensed premises.

(c) The State of California shall have jurisdiction over offenses and civil causes of action committed on the licensed premises to the same extent that it has jurisdiction over offenses and civil causes of action committed elsewhere within California, and the California criminal laws, and civil laws of general applicability to private persons or private property, shall have the same force and effect on the licensed premises as they have elsewhere in California.

(d) The licensed premises shall be subject to patrol by the tribal enforcement department, and such other law enforcement officials as may be authorized under federal, California, or tribal law.

(e) The licensed premises shall be open to inspection by duly authorized tribal officials at all times during the regular business hours.

(f) Subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, no intoxicating beverages shall be sold, served, disposed of, delivered or consumed on the licensed premises except in conformity with the hours and days prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and in accordance with the hours fixed by the Council, provided that the licensed premises shall not operate or open earlier or operate or close later than is permitted by the laws of the State of California.

(g) No liquor shall be sold within 200 feet of a polling place on tribal election days, or when a referendum is held of the people of the Tribe, and including special days of observation as designated by the Tribal Council.

(h) All acts and transactions under authority of the tribal liquor license shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California, and shall be in accordance with this ordinance and any tribal license issued pursuant to this ordinance.

(i) No person under the age permitted under the laws of the State of California shall be sold, served, delivered, given, or allowed to consume alcoholic beverages in the licensed establishment and/or area.

(j) There shall be no discrimination in the operations under the tribal license by reason of race, color, or creed.

Section 505. License Not a Property Right. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, a tribal liquor license is a mere permit for a fixed duration of time. A tribal liquor license shall not be deemed a property right or vested right of any kind, nor shall the granting of a tribal liquor license give rise to a presumption of legal entitlement to the granting of such license for a subsequent time period.

Section 506. Assignment or Transfer. No tribal license issued under this ordinance shall be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the Tribal Council expressed by formal resolution.

Section 601. Sales or Possession With Intent to Sell Without a Permit. Any person who shall sell or offer for sale or distribute or transport in any manner, any liquor in violation of this ordinance, or who shall operate or shall have liquor in his possession with intent to sell or distribute without a permit, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

Section 602. Purchases From Other Than Licensed Facilities. Any person within the boundaries of the Rancheria who buys liquor from any person other than at a properly licensed facility shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

Section 603. Sales to Persons Under the Influence of Liquor. Any person who sells liquor to a person apparently under the influence of liquor shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

Section 604. Consuming Liquor in Public Conveyance. Any person engaged wholly or in part in the business of carrying passengers for hire, and every agent, servant or employee or such person who shall knowingly permit any person to drink any liquor in any public conveyance shall be guilty of an offense. Any person who shall drink any liquor in a public conveyance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

Section 605. Consumption or Possession of Liquor by Persons Under 21 Years of Age. No person under the age of 21 years shall consume, acquire or have in his possession any alcoholic beverage. No person shall permit any other person under the age of 21 to consume liquor on his premises or any premises under his control except in those situations set out in this section. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a separate violation of this ordinance for each and every drink so consumed.

Section 606. Sales of Liquor to Persons Under 21 Years of Age. Any person who shall sell or provide liquor to any person under the age of 21 years shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance for each sale or drink provided.

Section 607. Transfer of Identification to Minor. Any person who transfers in any manner an identification of age to a minor for the purpose of permitting such minor to obtain liquor shall be guilty of an offense; Provided, That corroborative testimony of a witness other than the minor shall be a requirement of finding a violation of this ordinance.

Section 608. Use of False or Altered Identification. Any person who attempts to purchase an alcoholic beverage through the use of false or altered identification, which falsely purports to show the individual to be over the age of 21 years, shall be guilty of violating this ordinance.

Section 609. Violations of This Ordinance. Any person guilty of a violation of this ordinance shall be liable to pay the Tribe a penalty not to exceed $500 per violation as civil damages to defray the Tribe's cost of enforcement of this ordinance. In addition to any penalties so imposed, any license issued hereunder may be suspended or canceled by the Tribal Council after 10 days notice to the licensee. The decision of the Tribal Council shall be final.

Section 610. Acceptable Identification. Where there may be a question of a person's right to purchase liquor by reason of his age, such person shall be required to present any one of the following issued cards of identification which shows his correct age and bears his signature and photograph:

(a) Driver's license of any state or identification card issued by any State Department of Motor vehicles;

(b) United States Active Duty Military; or

(c) Passport.

Section 611. Possession of Liquor Contrary to This Ordinance. Alcoholic beverages which are possessed contrary to the terms of this ordinance are declared to be contraband. Any tribal agent, employee, or officer who is authorized by the Tribal Council to enforce this section shall have the authority to, and shall seize, all contraband.

Section 612. Disposition of Seized Contraband. Any officer seizing contraband shall preserve the contraband in accordance with the appropriate California law code. Upon being found in violation of the ordinance by the Tribal Council, the party shall forfeit all right, title and interest in the items seized which shall become the property of the Tribe.

Section 701. Sales Tax. There is hereby levied and shall be collected a tax on each sale of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria in the amount of 1 percent of the amount actually collected, including payments by major credit cards. The tax imposed by this section shall apply to all retail sales of liquor on the Rancheria and shall preempt any tax imposed on such liquor sales by the State of California.

Section 702. Payment of Taxes to Tribe. All taxes from the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria shall be paid over to the trust agent of the Tribe.

Section 703. Taxes Due. All taxes for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria are due within 30 days at the end of the calendar quarter for which the taxes are due.

Section 704. Reports. Along with payment of the taxes imposed herein, the taxpayer shall submit an accounting for the quarter of all income from the sale or distribution of said beverages as well as for the taxes collected.

Section 705. Audit. As a condition of obtaining a license, the licensee must agree to the review or audit of its books and records relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria. Said review or audit may be done annually by the Tribe through its agents or employees whenever, in the opinion of the Tribal Council, such a review or audit is necessary to verify the accuracy of reports.

Section 801. Disposition of Proceeds. The gross proceeds collected by the Tribal Council from all licensing provided from the taxation of the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria shall be distributed as follows:

(a) For the payment of all necessary personnel, administrative costs, and legal fees for the operation and its activities.

(b) The remainder shall be turned over to the Trust Account of the Tribe.

Section 901. Severability. If any provision or application of this ordinance is determined by review to be invalid, such adjudication shall not be held to render ineffectual the remaining portions of this title or to render such provisions inapplicable to other persons or circumstances.

Section 902. Prior Enactments. All prior enactments of the Tribal Council, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, are hereby rescinded.

Section 903. Conformance with California Laws. All acts and transactions under this ordinance shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California as that term is used in 18 U.S.C. 1161.

Section 904. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on such date as the Secretary of the Interior certifies this ordinance and publishes the same in the Federal Register.

This ordinance may only be amended by majority vote of the Tribal Council.

Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to, nor does in any way limit, alter, restrict, or waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity from unconsented suit or action.

The MMS is responsible for oil and gas or sulphur operations in the OCS to ensure operational safety and protection of the environment. In addition to our regulations, under the authority of 30 CFR 250.103, we issue NTLs to provide guidance and to further clarify, interpret, or describe regulatory requirements on a national or regional basis.

In the past, we have also issued LTLs for this purpose or to communicate information to OCS lessees and operators. Recently we have rescinded or revised most of the LTLs and reissued them as NTLs. There are still a few active LTLs in the GOM OCS Region that have not yet been superseded by NTLs or rescinded. Although not listed in this Notice, please note that they will remain in effect until they are superseded or rescinded. To obtain a list or copies of the active LTLs, please contact the GOM OCS Region.

For your convenience, the following table lists the current active NTLs issued by the National Office and the OCS Regions. Therefore, if an NTL issued before January 15, 2001, is not listed, it is canceled and no longer in effect.

Effective with the publication of this Notice, we are rescinding the following National NTL, two NTLs issued by the GOM OCS Region, and one LTL issued by the Pacific OCS Region:

• NTL 98-2N, Guidance Regarding API Specification 14A, “Specification for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment,” Ninth Edition (7/1/94) and Supplement 1. This NTL is superseded by the final rule published December 8, 2000 (65 FR 76933).

• NTL 86-05, New Form for Designated Operators. This NTL has served its purpose and is no longer needed. The form MMS-1123 used to designate operators is available on the MMS website at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/mmsforms/frmindx.html.

• NTL 98-15, Time Allowed Between Lease Holding Operations (30 CFR 250.13 [Redesignated 30 CFR 250.113]). This NTL is superseded by the final rule revising the 30 CFR 250, Subpart A regulations, at 250.180.

• LTL dated August 28, 1992, subject: NAD 27 & NAD 83.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Advisory Commission, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. Minutes of the meeting will be available for inspection four weeks after the meeting at the permanent headquarters of the Gettysburg National Military Park located at 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.

Background.—On October 5, 2000, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (65 FR 63889, October 25, 2000). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on April 18, 2001, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 8, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before April 30, 2001. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 3, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is April 27, 2001. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 17, 2001; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before May 17, 2001. On June 6, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before June 8, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that imports of stainless steel angle from Japan, Korea, and Spain are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on August 18, 2000 by Slater Steels Corporation, Specialty Alloys Division, Fort Wayne, IN, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Pittsburgh, PA.

Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on March 14, 2001, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 27, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before March 19, 2001. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 22, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is March 21, 2001. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is April 3, 2001; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations on or before April 3, 2001. On April 26, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before April 30, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: February 1, 2001.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Library and Archival Preservation and Access/Reference Materials, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access at the January 5, 2001 deadline.

Title: Money Services Business Program Response.

OMB Number: New Collection.

Abstract: Telephone Survey to be conducted with business owners and managers in the Money Services Business industry. Survey asks respondents to report methods used to educate employees about regulations and provide general organizational information.

Current Actions: New.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Business.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: Fifteen Minutes.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on—(a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information of respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Taxable REIT Subsidiary Election.

OMB Number: 1545-1721

Form Number: 8875.

Abstract: A corporation and a REIT use Form 8875 to jointly elect to have the corporation treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary as provided in section 856(l).

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 7hr., 40 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,660.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding.

OMB Number: 1545-0004.

Form Number: SS-8.

Abstract: Form SS-8 is used by employers and workers to furnish information to IRS in order to obtain a determination as to whether a worker is an employee for purposes of Federal employment taxes and income tax withholding. IRS uses the information on Form SS-8 to make the determination.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the Form SS-8 at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, not-for-profit institutions, Federal government, farms, and state, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,900.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 23 hrs., 59 mins.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 165,462.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement), W-2c (Corrected Wage and Tax Statement), W-2AS (American Samoa Wage and Tax Statement), W-2GU (Guam Wage and Tax Statement), W-2VI (U.S. Virgin Islands Wage and Tax Statement), W-3 (Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements), W-3c (Transmittal of Corrected Wage and Tax Statements), W-3PR (Informe de Comprobantes de Retencion), W-3cPR (Transmision de Comprobantes de Retencion Corregidos), and W-3SS (Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements).

OMB Number: 1545-0008.

Form Number: Forms W-2, W-2c, W-2AS, W-2GU, W-2VI, W-3, W-3c, W-3cPR, W-3PR, and W-3SS.

Abstract: Employers report income and withholding information on Form W-2. Forms W-2AS, W-2GU and W-2VI are variations of Form W-2 for use in U.S. possessions. The Form W-3 series is used to transmit W-2 series forms to the Social Security Administration. Forms W-2c, W-3c and W-3cPR are used to correct previously filed Forms W-2, W-3, and W-3PR. Individuals use Form W-2 to prepare their income tax returns.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to these forms at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households, not-for-profit institutions, farms, and Federal, state, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Responses: 253,007,121.

Estimated Time Per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 126,579,897.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Tuition Payments Statement.

OMB Number: 1545-1574.

Form Number: Form 1098-T.

Abstract: Section 6050S of the Internal Revenue Code requires eligible education institutions to report certain information regarding tuition payments to the IRS and to students. Form 1098-T is used for this purpose.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Responses: 21,078,651.

Estimated Time Per Response: 9 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,372,585.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Student Loan Interest Statement.

OMB Number: 1545-1576.

Form Number: Form 1098-E.

Abstract: Section 6050S(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code requires persons (financial institutions, governmental units, etc.) to report $600 or more of interest paid on student loans to the IRS and the students. Form 1098-E is used for this purpose.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organzations, not-for-profit institutions, and State, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Responses: 8,761,303.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 525,679.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a).

OMB Number: 1545-0057.

Form Number: 1024.

Abstract: Organizations seeking exemption from Federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a) as an organization described in most paragraphs of section 501(c) must use Form 1024 to apply for exemption. The information collected is used to determine whether the organization qualifies for tax-exempt status.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,718.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 61 hr., 47 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 291,529.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Corporation Application for Tentative Refund.

OMB Number: 1545-0582.

Form Number: Form 1139.

Abstract: Form 1139 is filed by corporation that expect to have a net operating loss, net capital loss, or unused general business credits carried back to a prior tax year. IRS uses Form 1139 to determine if the amount of the loss or unused credits is proper.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 40 hr., 23 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 121,170.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Proceeds of Bonds Used for Reimbursement.

OMB Number: 1545-1226.

Regulation Project Number: FI-59-89.

Abstract: This regulation clarifies when the allocation of bond proceeds to reimburse expenditures previously made by an issuer of the bond is treated as an expenditure of the bond proceeds. The issuer must express a reasonable official intent, on or prior to the date of payment, to reimburse the expenditure in order to assure that the reimbursement is not a device to evade requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code with respect to tax exempt bonds.

Current Actions: There is no change to this existing regulation.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State, local or tribal governments, and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 2 hours, 24 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: HIPAA Mental Health Parity Act.

OMB Number: 1545-1577.

Regulation Project Number: Reg-109704-97.

Abstract: The regulations provide guidance for group health plans with mental health benefits about requirements relating to parity in the dollar limits imposed on mental health benefits and medical/surgical benefits.

Current Actions: There is no changes being made to these existing regulations.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, state, local or tribal governments, and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,053.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 28 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,280.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Election Not to Apply Look-Back Method in De Minimis Cases.

OMB Number: 1545-1572.

Regulation Project Number: Reg-120200-97.

Abstract: Under Internal Revenue Code section 460(b)(6), a taxpayer may elect not to apply the look-back method to long-term contracts in de minimis cases. The taxpayer is required under the regulation to notify the IRS of its election.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to this existing regulation.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 12 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Nondiscrimination Testing.

OMB Number: 1545-1579.

Notice Number: Notice 98-1.

Abstract: Notice 98-1 provides guidance for discrimination testing under section 401(k) and (m) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended by section 1433(c) and (d) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. The guidance is directed to employers maintaining retirement plans subject to these Code sections.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the notice at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 147,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 20 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 49,000.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

The mission of the panels is: to provide citizen input into enhancing IRS customer service by identifying problems and making recommendations for improvement with IRS systems and procedures; elevate the identified problems to the appropriate IRS official and monitor the progress to effect change; and refer individual taxpayers to the appropriate IRS office for assistance in resolving their problems. The panels will consist of 9-14 volunteer members who serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Treasury and will function solely as advisory bodies.

The panels are seeking applicants who have an interest in good government, a personal commitment to volunteer approximately 300 hours a year and a desire to help improve IRS customer Service. Potential candidates must be U.S. Citizens, compliant with Federal, State and Local Taxes, and pass a FBI name check. Experience in the following areas is helpful: formulating and presenting proposals; knowledge of taxpayer concerns; experience representing the interests of your community, state or region; working with people from diverse backgrounds; and helping people resolve disputes.