On January 29, 2001, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received an application for a permit from APHIS's Plant Protection Center in Phoenix, AZ, to release genetically engineered pink bollworms ( Pectinophora gossypiella ) in confined on-site experimentation and field performance tests. The pink bollworms are genetically engineered to express an enhanced green fluorescent protein derived from the jellyfish Aequora victoria , which could aid in the monitoring of sterilized pink bollworms released in APHIS's ongoing pink bollworm sterile insect technique program. Data from these experiments and tests will be used to determine whether the fluorescent marker affects the behavior or performance of the pink bollworm.

On June 21, 2001, APHIS published in the Federal Register (66 FR 33226, Docket No. 01-024-1) a notice of availability of an environmental assessment for the study described above. The environmental assessment considered potential environmental effects that could result from conducting the study. APHIS has considered and responded to all comments received on the environmental assessment, and based on the findings of the environmental assessment, has determined that implementation of the study would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. On January 11, 2002, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 1434-1435, Docket No. 01-024-2) announcing the availability of the final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to the issuance of a permit for the confined field study.

Prior to the next phase of research, the Phoenix Plant Protection Center may apply for a permit for the field release of genetically engineered pink bollworm containing the enhanced green fluorescent protein marker gene and a temperature-sensitive lethal gene. The objective of such a release would be to provide an opportunity for evaluating the use of genetically engineered pink bollworm in an autocidal biological control system for area-wide management of pink bollworm.

APHIS plans to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that examines potential environmental effects associated with the field release of genetically engineered pink bollworm containing the enhanced green fluorescent protein marker gene and a temperature-sensitive lethal gene, and other alternatives.

The EIS would analyze and compare the full range of available alternatives, including existing techniques and technologies (no action), as well as the unconfined release into the environment of genetically engineered pink bollworm as explained above. We invite the public to comment on what issues we should address in the EIS. Issues presently under consideration include:

• Potential genetic transformation affecting the environment;

• Persistence of the genetically modified pink bollworm versus wild-type pink bollworm;

• Physical and biological containment measures for the proposed study;

• Potential gene transfer to other insect species;

• Potential gene transfer to non-insect species;

• Potential impacts on humans, including specific population groups such as minorities, low income populations, and children;

• Potential effects of use of genetically engineered pink bollworm on chemical load in the environment; and

• Risk to non-target plants and animals, including threatened and endangered species.

Interested persons and organizations may also present comments on the scope of the EIS at public hearings to be held in Riverdale, MD, and Phoenix, AZ. The exact dates and times for the hearings and the specific locations of the hearings will be announced in a notice published in a future issue of the Federal Register .

This notice and any further notices or environmental analyses related to this subject are intended to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). If we prepare a draft EIS for public review, we will publish a notice announcing its availability in an upcoming issue of the Federal Register . The notice would request comments on the draft EIS.

This notice is issued in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Section 320 of the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub L. 106-291) created the Forest Counties Payments Committee to make recommendations to Congress on a long-term solution for making Federal payments to eligible States and counties in which Federal lands are situated. The Committee will consider the impact on eligible States and counties of revenues from the historic multiple use of Federal lands; evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits which accrue to counties containing Federal lands; evaluate the expenditures by counties on activities occurring on Federal lands which are Federal responsibilities; and monitor payments and implementation of Pub L. 106-393, “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.”

The Committee asks that respondents provide information in response to the following questions:

1. Do counties receive their fair share of federal revenue-sharing payments made to eligible States?

2. What difficulties exist in complying with, and managing all of the federal revenue-sharing payments programs? Are some more difficult than others?

3. What economic, social, and environmental costs do counties incur as a result of the presence of public lands within their boundaries?

4. What economic, social, and environmental benefits do counties realize as a result of public lands within their boundaries?

5. What are the economic and social effects from changes in revenues generated from public lands over the past 15 years, as a result of changes in management on public lands in your State or county?

6. What actions has your State or county taken to mitigate any impacts associated with declining economic conditions, or revenue-sharing payments?

7. What effects, both positive and negative, have taken place with education and highway programs that are attributable to the management of public lands within your State or county?

8. What relationship, if any, should exist between federal revenue-sharing programs, and management activities on public lands?

9. What alternatives exist to provide equitable revenue-sharing to States and counties and to promote “sustainable forestry?”

10. What has been your experience regarding implementation of Pub L. 106-393, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?

11. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land have contributed to changes in revenue derived from the multiple-use management of these lands?

12. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land are needed in order to restore the revenues derived from the multiple-use management of these lands?

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

On January 3, 2002, the Department published the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy, 67 FR 300 (January 3, 2002) (“Final Results”). The review covers nine manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000.

On January 4, 2002, we received a timely clerical error submission from Ferrara. In its submission, Ferrara stated that the Department incorrectly applied a billing adjustment ratio to all U.S. sales. Ferrara maintained that the Department should have applied the billing adjustment ratio only to U.S. sales of the subject merchandise that contained billing adjustments.

We agree with Ferrara. The Department did err in applying the billing adjustment ratio to all U.S. sales of subject merchandise. However, because the U.S. sales that contained billing adjustments were not used in the calculation of the margin, the Department will set the billing adjustment ratio equal to zero. This issue is discussed more fully in the January 28, 2002 Calculation Memorandum to the File from the Team through James Terpstra (“Calculation Memorandum”).

In light of these findings, we are amending the weighted-average margin for Ferrara from 2.03 percent to 1.25 percent ad valorem.

We are amending the final results of the administrative review on certain pasta from Italy covering the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act. As a result of this redetermination, the recalculated final weighted-average margin for Ferrara is as follows:

The cash deposit rate for Ferrara of 1.25 percent ad valorem is effective on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice, and will remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Accordingly, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service will assess, antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise from Ferrara during the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, in accordance with this amended final results.

This amended final results and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.221.

Copies of all written comments and transcripts of all oral comments will be available at the following location:

Sandia Corporation is a prime contractor to the Department of Energy (DOE). Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, manages and operates Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), with principal facilities in Albuquerque, NM; Livermore, CA; Tonopah, NV; and Kauai, HI. As one of the United States' multipurpose national laboratories, SNL develops solutions to a wide range of problems facing the country. SNL's mission includes advanced military technology, energy and environmental research, arms control/nonproliferation, and advanced manufacturing technology. Operations at SNL's California facility in Livermore comprise four broad areas:

Vital Role in Weapons: This program involves work in support of our nation's nuclear weapons program. These activities include weapon systems, weapon components/subsystems (gas transfer, use control, and instrumentation), reliability assessments, engineering sciences, advanced computing/networking, and supporting research.

Integrated Systems and Technologies: This program applies strong systems engineering practices and selected Sandia technologies to providing solutions for evolving national security needs, as well as to contributing to our nation's economic competitiveness. Work includes detection, nonproliferation, and demilitarization of weapons of mass destruction; development of secure, distributed information systems; applied research and development on combustion systems and other energy-intensive industrial processes; and advances in microsystems and micro-fabrication. Partnering with industry is an important and integral aspect of many of these activities.

Strong Research Base: This program performs world-class science in key competencies such as materials and engineering sciences, chemical sciences, information sciences, and an emerging competency in biological sciences. The work builds on both modeling and experimentation to provide linkages to global science and to ensure a seamless transition to many applications within the Laboratories Weapons, and Integrated Systems and Technologies roles.

Exemplary Operations: This program partners with the three business areas described above to ensure an infrastructure that provides a competitive advantage in implementing the site strategy. Most of the site's support and operations services are included in this business area. The site operates under the scope of Federal, State, and local regulatory authorities and has obtained all applicable operating permits.

SNL/CA has an annual budget of approximately $130 million and employs approximately 1,080 people. It occupies 410 acres in Alameda County California adjacent to the City of Livermore.

In addition to SNL/CA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a DOE/NNSA Laboratory, is located in close proximity to SNL/CA. The environmental impacts of operations at both the DOE/NNSA laboratories will be included in the discussion of cumulative impacts in the SWEA. DOE welcomes comments on this approach.

The SWEA will be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). The DOE has a policy (10 CFR 1021.330) to prepare site-wide documents for certain large, multiple-facility sites, such as SNL/CA. The purpose of a SWEA is to provide DOE and its stakeholders with an analysis of the environmental impacts caused by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable new operations and facilities and reasonable alternatives at a DOE site, to provide a basis for site-wide decision making, and to improve and coordinate agency plans, functions, programs, and resource utilization. The SWEA provides an overall NEPA baseline so that the environmental effects of proposed future changes in programs and activities can be compared with the baseline. A SWEA also enables DOE to “tier” its NEPA documents at a site to eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues in future project-specific NEPA studies, and to focus on the actual issues ready for decisions at each level of environmental review. The NEPA process allows for Federal, Native American, state and local government, and public participation in the environmental review process. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore [DOE/EIS-0157], August 1992, is the existing site-wide environmental document for SNL/CA.

The following is a list of recent NEPA documentation that affects the scope of this SWEA. The summaries below are intended to familiarize the reader with the purpose of these other NEPA reviews and how SNL/CA is considered in them.

The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0200) analyzes the DOE plan to formulate and implement a national integrated waste management program. The Final PEIS was published in May 1997. The Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment [DOE/EA-0792] was published in June, 1993. A Finding of No Significant Impact on the Consolidation of the Nonnuclear Component within the Nuclear Weapons Complex was signed on September 8, 1993. The Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS was published in 1996 [DOE/EIS-0236] and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by the Secretary of Energy on December 19, 1996. Inherent in the many decisions made in the ROD was to continue the operations of the three national weapons laboratories, SNL being one of the three. The ROD emphasized stockpile stewardship as an essential program to maintain the safety and reliability of the stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing, therefore requiring enhanced experimental capabilities in the future at the three national weapons laboratories.

The scoping process is an opportunity for the public to assist the DOE in determining the alternatives and issues for analysis in the SWEA. DOE welcomes specific comments or suggestions on the content of the proposed preliminary alternatives, or on other alternatives that could be considered. DOE is proposing to continue current operations at SNL/CA. Two preliminary alternatives were identified during internal scoping: the No Action alternative and the Expanded Operations alternative. DOE also considered a Reduced Operations alternative. However, current activities at SNL/CA are at the minimum level of operations needed to protect the technical capability and competency to support the site's assigned missions. Therefore, the Department plans to include the Reduced Operations alternative in the SWEA as an alternative considered but eliminated from further analysis.

No Action. NEPA regulations require analysis of the No Action alternative to provide a benchmark for comparison with environmental effects of the other alternatives. The No Action alternative would continue current facility operations throughout SNL/CA in support of assigned missions, and for this SWEA, it is also the proposed action. With respect to the Defense Programs mission, the future role of SNL was defined at the programmatic level by the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS) Record of Decision (ROD) (61 FR 68014) (December 26, 1996).

Expanded Operations. This alternative would reflect an increase in facility operations to the highest levels that can be supported by current facilities. This could require construction projects to address safety, security and environmental compliance as well as to support reconfiguration of facility equipment and operations to optimize use of current facilities' capabilities. This alternative will set the bounding conditions for assessing the environmental impacts.

The issues listed below have been identified for analysis in this SWEA as being applicable to the operation of SNL/CA. The list is tentative and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this SWEA. It is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor does it imply any predetermination of potential impacts. The SWEA will describe the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives, using available data where possible and obtaining additional data where necessary. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500.4 and 1502.21), other documents, as appropriate, may be incorporated into the impacts analyses by reference, in whole or in part. DOE specifically welcomes suggestions and comments for the addition or deletion of items on the following list of potential effects:

—Potential effects on the public and workers from exposures to radiological and hazardous materials during normal operations and from reasonably postulated accidents;

—Potential effects on air and groundwater quality from normal operations and potential accidents;

—Potential cumulative effects of past, present, and future operations at SNL/CA (this SWEA will include effects of current and reasonably foreseeable federal actions including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory);

—Effects on waste management practices and activities, including pollution prevention, waste minimization, and waste stream characterization; and

—Potential impacts of noise levels to the ambient environment and sensitive receptors.

DOE will review classified material while preparing this SWEA. Within the limits of classification, DOE will provide to the public as much information as possible. Any classified material required to explain the purpose and need for action, or the uses, materials, or impacts analyzed in this SWEA, will be segregated into a classified appendix or supplement.

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 Linear Energy Transfer (LET) radiation (electrons, x- and gamma-rays). The focus of research should be on doses of low linear energy transfer radiation that are at or near 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 projects utilizing the “systems biology” or “discovery science” approach, including the tools of comparative genomics and proteomics, are especially sought. Research projects that use experimental protocols or cell microenvironments that will lead to an understanding of radiobiological responses in intact human tissue are also strongly encouraged. This research program will be a success if the science it generates is useful to policy makers, standard setters, and the public. Successful applicants will be expected to effectively communicate research results whenever possible through education and outreach, so that current thinking and the public debate reflect sound science.

The NASA/OBPR Space Radiation Health Program is charged with providing input for the determination of health risks to humans visiting the space radiation environment. NASA is especially interested in human exposure to low fluences of high-energy particulate ionizing radiation (protons and heavy ions). Where possible, projects that address the interests of both DOE/OBER and NASA/OBPR are particularly encouraged. Applications whose principal focus is on low LET radiation are encouraged to include complementary research with high-energy particulate ionizing radiation that leverages progress, resources, and technology used for the low LET radiation research ( see Specifics for NASA below). Investigators with currently funded low dose projects may also apply for supplementary funding to address closely related research of interest to NASA.

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. In the present context, the research considered to be most useful will focus on biological responses that:

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

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

• Are potentially quantifiable,

• Could potentially be linked to the development of a biologically based model for radiation risk, and

• Could potentially lead to the development of biological predictors (biomarkers) of individual risk.

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, and delimiting the unique doses where these mechanisms shift is important.

Endogenous oxidative damage in relation to low dose radiation induced damage —A key goal of this research program will remain the elucidation of similarities and differences between endogenous oxidative damage and damage induced by low levels of ionizing radiation, as well as understanding the health risks from both. This information will underpin our interpretation of the biological effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. 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, there is a need for quantification of the levels of damage induced by normal oxidative processes and incremental increases due to low dose irradiation.

Living organisms are subject to a daily plethora of environmental insults. Carcinogenesis in an individual occurs as a function of all the forces and phenomena that go into the production of that individual's phenotype. These include (but are not limited to) individual genotype, as well as current and historical aspects of diet, physical exercise, and exposures to chemicals and radiation. To understand all factors responsible for individual responses to radiation, we are also soliciting research on key factors that influence the extent of metabolic, endogenously produced oxidative damage and, concomitantly, affect susceptibility to low doses of radiation.

Radio-Adaptive Response —The ability of a low dose of radiation to induce cellular changes that alter the level of subsequent radiation-induced or spontaneous damage. If low doses of radiation regularly and predictably induce a protective response in cells exposed 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 the process of the induction itself need to be quantified, and the responsible genes and proteins discovered. By “generality” is meant quantification as a function of cell tissue type and species type; by “extent” is meant quantification as a function of priming dose, dose rate, and time constant of action.

Bystander effects —Biological responses observed in cells that are not directly traversed by radiation but are neighbors of an irradiated cell. Bystanders in cell monolayers have been shown to respond with gene induction and/or production of clastogenic changes. It is important for the DOE/OBER Low Dose program to determine if bystander effects can be induced by exposure to low LET radiation delivered at low total doses. A detrimental 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. Conversely, bystander cells may in some cases exert a protective effect on the irradiated cell or cells, although very few studies of this type of effect have been tried. More importantly, entirely different types or levels of bystander effects may be occurring in three-dimensional tissues and intact organisms. Hence, there is considerable interest in extending studies to tissues, or at least toward more complex tissue-like models, and priority consideration will be given to these projects. Research is sought to characterize and determine mechanisms of low LET radiation induced bystander effect, and to quantify its induction and extent as a function of dose. New research projects studying bystander effects in isolated cells or cell monolayers will be considered only in exceptionally well-justified or novel approach cases.

Individual genetic susceptibility to low dose radiation —The Low Dose Radiation Research Program is interested in determining if genetic differences exist that result in sensitive individuals or sub-populations that are at increased risk for radiation-induced cancer. For example, research could focus on genes involved in the recognition, repair, and processing of damage induced by ionizing radiation, or on genes involved in maintaining the normal degree of irreversibility of cell differentiation for a particular tissue. Of critical interest would be the identification of these genes, determining frequencies of their polymorphisms in the population, and determining the biological significance of these polymorphisms with respect to cancer and radiation sensitivity. Ingenious, high throughput approaches, that evaluate many endpoints or individuals experimentally using pooling schemes, are of particular interest. We are also interested in mouse models that speed the discovery or characterization of putative human susceptibility genes. New studies focused only on a single or a few genes will not be funded unless substantial evidence is provided that those genes play a significant role in individual susceptibility to radiation. A long-term goal is to identify any genetic polymorphisms that significantly impact individual and population-level sensitivity to radiation, and characterize their mechanism of action.

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. 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 also: http://lowdose.org/99meeting/abstracts/response.html —project 3. Investigators are encouraged to use these or similar irradiators, as appropriate, in the design and conduct of their research. Funds are available to assist in the collaborative use of these or comparable tools.

Other resource considerations —Research in the areas discussed above will strongly complement ongoing initiatives at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). DOE/OBER staff is working with staff at the NIH to ensure that research in the Low Dose Radiation Research Program is not duplicative of research funded by NIH programs.

A collaborative effort of five major centers, termed the International SNP Map Working Group, along with over 50 other contributing laboratories, are creating the largest publicly available catalog of single base-pair differences between two copies of the same gene (single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs). The current catalog contains 1.4 million SNPs, each with their exact location mapped within the human genome. SNPs are the most common polymorphisms in the human genome, and some contribute to the traits that make us unique individuals. The catalog ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/index.html ) will be a boon for mapping complex traits such as cancer susceptibility and susceptibility to low dose radiation.

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.

The primary area of emphasis of the NASA/OBPR Space Radiation Health Program is the development of mechanistic insights into biological effects of space radiation that account for radiation risks. Applications are required to be hypothesis-driven and are expected to obtain their data in ground-based experimental radiobiology studies with protons and high-energy heavy ion beams in the energy range corresponding to space radiation. This is mainly a ground-based program using accelerator facilities to simulate space radiation. In addition to the research topics already described above this includes research on non-phenomenological predictors of late cell and tissue effects and the control and modification of radiation effect mechanisms

A short description of the current Space Radiation Health Strategic Program may be found at: http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/common/docs/1998_radiation_strat_plan.pdf. Activities of OBPR, including research opportunities, descriptions of previous tasks, and other relevant information can be found at: http://SpaceResearch.nasa.gov/ . A description of the ground-based facilities and experimental program at Brookhaven National Laboratory can be found at: http://www.bnl.gov/medical/NASA/NASA-home%20frame.htm. The proton therapy facilities at Loma Linda University Medical Center are described at: http://www.llu.edu/proton/patient/nasa1.html. Finally, a description of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory may be found at: http://www.lbl.gov/lifesciences/NSCORT.

Scientists working in rapidly developing areas of biological sciences not necessarily associated with the study of radiation are particularly encouraged to consider the contributions that their field of study can make to Radiation Health. Applications are required to provide evidence for expertise in radiation, either by reference to the Principal Investigator's work or by inclusion of active collaborators expert in radiation research. Hypotheses should be substantiated by presentation of preliminary data wherever feasible, or by adequate references to the published literature. Experimental applications should include a clear discussion of the relevant aspects of the required radiation dosimetry and an estimate of the statistical power of the expected results.

Research applications to which NASA will assign high priority:

a. Studies that increase the confidence in the accuracy of extrapolating the probability of radiation-induced genetic alterations or carcinogenesis from rodents to humans.

b. Determination of carcinogenic risks following irradiation by protons and HZE particles.

c. Determination if exposure to heavy ions at the level that would occur in deep space poses a risk to the integrity and function of the central nervous system.

d. Studies likely to result in the development of biological countermeasures in humans that could lead to prevention or intervention (including genetic or pharmacological agents) against effects of radiation damage in space.

Research that can lead to future space flight investigations will be welcome, and should take into account the impact of gender, age, nutrition, stress, genetic predisposition, or sensitivity to other factors of importance in managing space radiation risks.

NASA envisions that the selected applications will be structured and operated in a manner that supports the country's educational initiatives and goals (including historically black colleges and universities and other minority universities), and in particular the need to promote scientific and technical education at all levels. NASA envisions that the selected applications will support the goals for public awareness and outreach to the general public. The selected investigators are invited to participate in NASA-funded educational programs.

The applications represent an opportunity to enhance and broaden the public's understanding and appreciation of radiation effects, as specified in the DOE Low Dose Program emphasis on communication of research results and the OBPR Policy for Education and Public Outreach. Therefore, all investigators are strongly encouraged to promote general scientific literacy and public understanding of radiation induced health risk research through formal and/or informal education opportunities. If appropriate, applications should include a clear and concise description of the education and outreach activities proposed. Examples include such items as involvement of students in the research activities, technology transfer plans, public information programs that will inform the general public of the benefits being gained from the research, and/or plans for incorporation of scientific results obtained into educational curricula consistent with educational standards.

Where appropriate, the supported institution will be required to produce, in collaboration with NASA, a plan for communicating to the public the value and importance of their work.

The particles of interest to the Space Radiation Health Program are protons with energies between 20 and 1000 MeV, and nuclei of He, C, N, O, Ne, Si, Ar, Ca, Mn, and Fe, with energies between 50 and 3000 MeV/nucleon. Fluencies of interest are of the order of 1-2 particles per cell; studies with higher fluencies will need to be justified by compelling arguments, including an explanation of how the results can be applied in the low fluency regime. NASA has developed facilities for use of protons at Loma Linda University Medical School and high-energy heavy ion beams at the Brookhaven National Laboratory Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS). A dedicated irradiation facility, using the Booster Synchrotron at Brookhaven, is under construction and is expected to be operational in 2003. Applications should not budget for the use of beams at these facilities, which is paid by NASA. NASA will cooperate with DOE to expand the range of technical resources available for experimentation and analysis of experimental results at Brookhaven.

It is anticipated that up to $2.5 million will be available from DOE/OBER for new grant awards during Fiscal Year 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. Applications whose principal focus is on low LET radiation can include complementary research on high-energy particulate ionizing radiation that leverages progress, resources and technology used for the low LET radiation research. Up to $0.5M will be available from NASA in the first year, with higher amounts projected for successive years, also contingent upon the availability of funds. Funds will be available from DOE to assist in the collaborative use of certain microbeam irradiators. NASA provides beam time at the Brookhaven AGS and the Loma Linda proton accelerator; investigators will not be required to pay for the beam time. It is expected that most awards will be from 1 to 3 years and will range from $200,000 to $500,000 per year (total costs).

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.

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. Applications found to be scientifically meritorious and programmatically relevant will be selected in consultation with DOE and NASA selecting officials depending upon availability of funds in each agency's budget. In the course of the selection process, projects will be identified as addressing DOE requirements, NASA requirements, or both. The selected projects will be required to acknowledge support by one or both agencies, as appropriate, in all public communications of the research results.

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: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/guide.html. In particular, please note the instructions on Collaboration available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.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.

Adherence to type size and line spacing requirements is necessary for several reasons. No applicants should have the advantage of providing more text in their applications by using small type. 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 8 1/2 ″ x 11″ (or metric A4, i.e., 210 mm x 297 mm). Applications must be written in English, with all budgets in U.S. dollars.

Applicants are expected to use the following ordered format, in addition to following instructions in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program.

• Project Abstract Page— Single page only, should contain:

• Title

• PI name

• Abstract text should concisely describe the overall project goal in one sentence, and limit background/significance of project to one sentence. Short descriptions of each individual aim should focus on what will actually be done

• Relevance Statement— Single page only, should identify DOE or NASA requirements that each specific aim is intended to address

• 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 (again, see information at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html )

• Project Description— (The Project Description must be 20 pages or less, exclusive of attachments. Applications with Project Descriptions longer than 20 pages will be returned to applicants and will not be reviewed for scientific merit. ) The Project Description should contain the following five parts:

• Goals

• Background (concisely-stated, relevant)

• Experimental Approach

• Preliminary Studies (and Progress, if applicable)

• Statistical Design and Methodologies

• Literature Cited

• Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable)

• Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages per senior investigator, consistent with NIH guidelines)

• Facilities and Resources description

• Current and Pending Support for each senior investigator

• Letters of Intent from collaborators (if applicable)

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 requirements for reporting, protection of human and animal subjects and related special matters can be found on the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/Welfare.html.

This solicitation will support the establishment of large, well integrated, multidisciplinary (e.g., biology, computer science, mathematics, computational science, engineering, informatics, biophysics, biochemistry) research teams. Applicants are invited to include, where appropriate, partners from multiple institutions, including DOE National Laboratories, universities, private research institutions, and companies. Successful applications will include a detailed management plan describing the responsibility of and relationship between all participating institutions and investigators, a strategy for maximizing communication and exchange of information between investigators, a data and information management plan, and project milestones.

Research partners at individual universities, private research institutions and companies, and DOE National Laboratories will be funded directly by DOE but will be reviewed as part of the overall research application submitted by the lead research institution. To facilitate funding of individual non-laboratory research partners beginning in FY 2002, each application should include a complete set of forms for each non-laboratory research institution as described in the instructions contained in the Grant Application Guide, the Guide and Forms are available on the Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. This includes:

• Signed Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10-91))

• Budgets for each year, (using DOE F 4620.1)

• Budget Explanation

• Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages per senior investigator)

• Description of Facilities and Resources

• Current and Pending Support for each senior investigator

• Other institutional forms as described

The Genomes to Life research program will cut across components of each of the goals described in the Genomes to Life program plan, available on the Web at: http://www.doegenomestolife.org/. Applicants should refer to the program plan for additional information on the overall organization of the Genomes to Life program. Individual applications should address one or more of the individual research elements described below.

The initial focus of Genomes to Life should be on microbes (including fungi) directly relevant to DOE mission needs in energy (cleaner energy, biomass conversion, carbon sequestration), bioweapons defense (biothreat agents or their close relatives), or the environment (cleanup of metals and radionuclides at DOE sites). Research in Goals 1 and 2 should take advantage of and focus on microbes whose complete DNA sequence is already known. Research in Goal 3 should focus on microbes or microbial communities of interest to, directly relevant to, or that would contribute substantially to an ability to address DOE mission needs. Selected, well-justified research using yeast may also be appropriate as a means of quickly generating data that addresses the needs of this solicitation and of the Genomes to Life Program. However, the use of yeast as a long-term research focus is not encouraged.

Any data and results that are generated through the investigations into goals 1 through 4 that are appropriate to share with the broader community should be provided in timely, open, and machine-readable format where possible. Microbial DNA sequence data will be publicly released according to the “Data Release Requirements: Microbial Genome Sequencing Projects” ( http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/ober/EPR/data.html ). Plans should be included that describe the procedures and policies the teams will institute to make the data and results available and interoperable with other significant sources of relevant data. Any code development should be open source. Teams should be amenable to the adoption of open data standards and interoperability requirements, as they evolve and are specified by the Genomes to Life program.

Current structural genomics or proteomics efforts generally focus on individual proteins, either one at a time or at a genomic scale, or as pairs of interacting proteins. An initial focus of the Genomes to Life program will be to develop and implement research strategies and technologies that will enable the systematic identification, characterization, and, eventually, understanding of all the multi protein molecular machines in an organism. A research plan should be described that will lead, within five years, to the development of the capability to measure and characterize thousands of molecular machines per year. The initial focus of this research should be on microbial processes with application to DOE needs (see section on Microbes of Interest to DOE). The research plan should describe how the proposed research and technology and computational tool development will, within the next four to six years, enable at least 80% of the molecular machines in a single microbe to be identified and characterized within a single year.

An overarching goal of the Genomes to Life program is to develop computational tools, based on experimental data, that enable us to predict the functions and behaviors of complex biological systems beginning with genome sequence data. In the context of Goal 1, computational tools are needed to predict the inventory of molecular machines, and the functions of those machines, likely to be found in a microbe whose DNA sequence is known. This could include development of computational modeling tools, including high performance implementations of techniques analogous to Rosetta-type algorithms and threading programs to characterize the molecular machinery on the scale of complete microbial organisms. Significant effort should be devoted to the development of high-precision computational models able to identify the principal components and functions of characterized molecular machines. These computational approaches will also provide an important future interface with the projected increases in the rate of protein structure determination to understand the molecular details of protein interactions in molecular machines.

Milestones of progress and success should be included as part of the research plan. Pilot studies that test and compare several different research and technology strategies are encouraged along with a decision plan to choose and expand the most promising strategies.

Understanding the role that these molecular machines play within an organism will require information on both the interactions of molecular machines and on the physical and temporal location and behavior of molecular machines within cells. Research plans should be described that will lead to high-throughput strategies, technologies, and computational tools for achieving these goals. Investigators conducting research on these goals should describe how they will work in close collaboration with or maintain a detailed awareness of the progress of investigators who are developing high-throughput strategies for identifying molecular machines. Pilot studies that test and compare several different research and technology strategies are encouraged along with a decision plan to choose and expand the most promising strategies.

Experimental research is not being requested to determine the three-dimensional, high-resolution structure of individual proteins or multi protein molecular machines. As the number of high resolution protein structures in the Protein Data Bank increases dramatically over the next five years, that information will serve as an important starting point for characterizing the molecular details of protein-protein interactions within and between individual molecular machines.

Understanding the structure and function of an organism's molecular machines is a limited, though substantial, first step towards a predictive understanding of the organism's complex functions. This will only come by understanding the complex gene regulatory networks that govern the coordinated formation and behavior of molecular machines and their individual protein subunits. A goal of Genomes to Life is to develop large-scale research strategies, technologies, and computational tools needed to identify all the components of gene regulatory networks with an initial focus on cis-acting regulatory sequences. Although the principal focus should be on microbial processes with application to DOE needs (see section on Microbes of Interest to DOE), these studies will likely benefit from comparative genomics approaches that may cross species.

Again, an overarching goal of the Genomes to Life program is to develop computational tools, based on experimental data, that enable us to predict the functions and behaviors of complex biological systems beginning with genome sequence data. In the context of Goal 2, computational tools are needed to predict regulatory networks for the molecular machines and their component proteins identified in Goal 1. A major goal is to be able to predict and reconstruct regulatory networks for molecular machines, metabolic pathways, or entire organisms beginning with knowledge of the organism's DNA sequence. Determination and verification of regulatory interactions will be enabled by the development of the integrated computational approaches assembling many types of experimental information together with relevant computational algorithms.

These studies should be closely integrated with genome-scale proteomics efforts or efforts to identify all of an organisms's molecular machines and their dynamic behavior within cells. Pilot studies that test and compare several different research and technology strategies are encouraged along with a decision plan to choose and expand the most promising strategies.

Understanding the structure and functional capabilities and diversity of complex microbial communities is key to using the diverse functions and capabilities of microbes to address DOE mission needs. However, the majority of microbes of importance and interest to DOE have not been isolated, purified, and cultured. An initial goal of Genomes to Life is to use high throughput DNA sequencing and computational approaches to determine the genetic and functional diversity of individual uncultured microorganisms and of microbial communities. It is anticipated that the majority of high throughput DNA sequencing required for this Goal will be conducted at the DOE Joint Genome Institute. An estimate of the amount of DNA sequencing that will be required should be included as part of the application. Funds for high throughput DNA sequencing should not be included as part of the budget request for individual applications as funds will be provided directly to the Joint Genome Institute for Genomes to Life sequencing needs.

The organisms and microbes chosen for sequencing should be chosen to help make an initial determination of:

• The extent and patterns of phylogenetic and genetic diversity in microbial communities from different environments.

• Whether microbial communities conserve metabolic function in spite of extensive individual phylogenetic diversity and whether a microbial community's metabolic functions correlate with the physical properties of its environmental niche.

• Improvements in the ability to infer the metabolic, physiologic, and behavioral characteristics of a microbe or microbial community from its DNA sequence (including improvements in the ability to infer gene function from DNA sequence).

Just as development of computational tools to predict the inventory, functions, and regulation of molecular machines from genome sequence data is a key part of Goals 1 and 2, development of computational tools to predict the metabolic, physiologic, and behavioral characteristics of microbial communities from community DNA sequence data is a key part of Goal 3. It is expected that some of the computational tools developed will be executed on existing computer resources with little need for additional computational power. However, special consideration will be given to the development of computational tools that can be ported across high-performance computing environments, including computing capabilities that are not yet available but are expected soon.

A scientific and experimentally based strategy for selecting the microbes and microbial communities proposed for analysis should be provided. Estimates of the number and diversity of uncultured microbes and microbial communities chosen for sequencing during the first three years of the project should be made. A strategy for estimating the degree of sequence coverage for DNA isolated from microbial communities should be provided.

Computational capabilities, including data management, modeling of complex biological systems, and prediction of biological responses, underpin all of Genomes to Life. In particular, the needs include:

• Computational research on analysis and modeling of the structure and function of molecular machines, as integrated with the research to be conducted under Goal 1 above, with an emphasis on the interactions among the proteins and other molecules that make up these machines. This could also include investigations into prediction of functions of the molecular machines through the use of consensus groupings or proxies, such as analogs to “Rosetta” or threading-type methods used for predicting the structure of single proteins.

• Computational research on models and simulations of metabolic pathways, regulatory networks, and whole-cell functions, as integrated with the research to be conducted under Goal 2 above. This may include computational tools to integrate data from a wide variety of high-throughput experimental data, such as mass spectrometry, protein arrays, cross linking, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance data with other biological data, such as genome annotation and experimental genetic data, such as results from knockout experiments.

• Computational research in support of sequencing environmental samples to be conducted under Goal 3 above. Computational tools will be needed to analyze the output of the simultaneous sequencing of multiple organisms. This will include a need to infer properties of the environmental sample, such as the presence or absence of both certain classes of organisms and certain functional capabilities, such as particular metabolic pathways.

• Computational research in support of biological databases and database tool development. Any applications for subprojects to augment or develop databases will be judged primarily on the degree that they contribute to the successful completion of the team's research conducted as part of Goals 1, 2, and 3 above. The subprojects will also be judged on the predicted utility of the database and tools to the broader community and to the degree that the tools contribute to the broader goal of database interoperability.

• It is expected that some of the computational tools developed in Goal 4 will be executed on existing computer resources with little need for additional computational power. Other tools may require particularly compute-intensive resources. Special consideration will be given to the development of computational tools that can be ported across high-performance computing environments, including computing capabilities that are not yet available but are expected soon. Appropriate attention should be paid to attributes such as modularity, interoperability, and scalability.

Up to $15 million is available in FY 2002, contingent upon availability of appropriated funds. It is anticipated that individual research grants will be funded at a level of $1-4 million per year. Applications should also describe a scientifically justified scale-up plan to maximize technology development and research productivity.

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.

In addition, applications will be evaluated for the robustness of their organizational framework and coordination plan.

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.

These large, multi investigator applications will be reviewed as individual research projects consisting of several individual subprojects. The research description (see description of Narrative below) for individual subprojects should be no more than 20 pages each, exclusive of attachments. The combined research descriptions for all individual subprojects for each application should be no more than 100 pages, exclusive of attachments. In addition, each application should contain a project overview, not to exceed 20 pages, that contains an overall project summary, research integration plan, management plan, data and information management plan, and a communication plan. Each research team should identify a single scientific coordinator or point of contact for its application.

Each subproject description 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. Each subproject or project must include letters of intent from outside collaborators briefly describing the intended contribution of each to the research and short curriculum vitaes, consistent with National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, for all principal investigators and any co-PIs.

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.science.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 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 8 1/2 ″ 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 (includes goals, background, research plan, preliminary studies and progress, and research design and methodologies)

• 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 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 .

Purpose of the Board : The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at the end of the meeting. The notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to the late resolution of programmatic issues.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Resource Center at 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, TN between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

Purpose of the Meeting: The main purpose of this meeting is to brief the members of the committee on the preparations for and planning of the Fusion Energy Sciences Summer Workshop. The technical information developed at the workshop will be used by the Committee as input in completing its next charge from the Department of Energy (DOE).

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Albert L. Opdenaker at 301-903-8584 (fax) or albert.opdenaker@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: We will make the minutes of this meeting available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; IE-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

BPA's need in proposing to fund this project is to mitigate for the loss of anadromous fish and fish habitat due to the operation of the Federal Columbia River hydrosystem and to meet its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. The project is proposed to include the rehabilitation of stream channel geometry, revegetation of the streambanks, and provision of increased flows in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek between OID's diversion dam and the Okanogan River. The Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) has recommended this project to BPA for funding as one of the measures under the Council's program.

This action may involve floodplain and wetlands located in Okanogan County, Washington. In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements, BPA will prepare a floodplain and wetlands assessment and will perform this proposed action in a manner so as to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within the affected floodplain and wetlands. The assessment and a floodplain statement of findings will be included in the EIS being prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

BPA proposes to fund the rehabilitation of the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to achieve long-term channel stability, erosion control, and dependable water supply, thus allowing the passage of spring chinook and summer steelhead to the high-quality habitat existing upstream between Conconully Dam and the OID Diversion Dam on Salmon Creek. Proponents and participants in this action include BPA, CCT, OID, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Okanogan Conservation District, and the Washington Department of Ecology. BOR, CCT, and OID have been identified as cooperating agencies for this EIS process. The project proponents further propose to develop a long-term stream management plan to address daily reservoir operations, water management to meet the needs of the various life cycles of anadromous fish, adaptive management for the channel rehabilitation, and the repopulation of the stream with salmon and steelhead.

Anadromous fish species known to have historically occurred in Salmon Creek include spring chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) and summer steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Before the construction of Conconully Dam in 1910 and the OID diversion dam in 1916, these anadromous fish probably utilized a substantial portion of the watershed, which includes approximately 66 miles of perennial streams. Both of these species are listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. Spring chinook are thought to be extirpated from Salmon Creek, although steelhead are occasionally observed in the creek during high-water years.

Today, conditions in the lower reaches of Salmon Creek (downstream of the OID diversion dam) are inadequate for fish passage. For more than 80 years, the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek have been dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that result in uncontrolled spill at the reservoirs and diversion dam. The lack of streamflow below the diversion dam has significantly impaired fish access into the potentially productive upper reaches of Salmon Creek from the Okanogan River. Historical land uses on uplands have altered vegetation and increased sediment production. These changes, together with alterations of streambanks and riparian vegetation, have adversely affected the channel geometry, streambank stability, and riparian and aquatic habitat values of lower Salmon Creek. Despite these problems, the Council has identified Salmon Creek as having the best potential for improved fish habitat of all Okanogan River tributaries. Increased instream flows and rehabilitation of the stream channel in the lower reaches of Salmon Creek would allow the passage of spring chinook and summer steelhead to the suitable habitat upstream of the OID diversion dam and would substantially increase the available spawning and rearing habitat for these species in the United States' portion of the Okanogan River Basin.

The project proponents have assessed the feasibility of rehabilitating lower Salmon Creek, have preliminarily identified potential water supply sources for the stream channel and irrigation needs, have conducted field surveys along the affected stream reaches, and have developed a draft conceptual plan for rehabilitating lower Salmon Creek. The proponents have engaged in public outreach and consultation including the landowners within the affected stream reaches, the residents of the project area, and a variety of stakeholders in the stream rehabilitation process.

The rehabilitation of Salmon Creek involves engineering/construction activities in the lower 4.3 miles of the stream channel, establishment of adequate water supply (to be achieved through a combination of measures) to maintain sufficient instream flow in the stream channel in future years while preserving irrigation water supply, and activities both now and in the future to facilitate the redevelopment of viable populations of spring chinook and summer steelhead. Salmon Creek rehabilitation will be accomplished through a combination of (1) stream channel reconstruction, (2) streambank revegetation, and (3) increased instream flows. Alternatives from each of these three areas will be combined in a preferred Salmon Creek rehabilitation program. The No Action alternative will also be considered. Alternatives currently under consideration in each of these areas include:

Under this alternative, no changes to the existing environment would occur, and migration of spring chinook and summer steelhead into the upper reaches of Salmon Creek would not be facilitated.

Previous studies have determined that, in order to continue full water supply delivery to OID and provide adequate water supply to meet the various life cycle requirements of anadromous fish in Salmon Creek, 7,122 to 9,737 acre-feet of water would be required in addition to the existing supply. The following alternatives, identified in earlier studies, will be considered in the EIS. A combination of these alternatives, in conjunction with existing water conservation efforts, would satisfy irrigation and fish requirements:

• Replace Salmon Lake feeder canal. Under this alternative, the existing feeder canal diverting water from North Fork Salmon Creek to Salmon Lake (the upper reservoir) would be repaired and resized to allow OID to capture additional water for storage in Salmon Lake.

• Construct new pump station. Under this alternative, a new pump station on the Okanogan River would be built along with a new water supply pipeline from the pump station to OID Diversion 2. Under this alternative, the Okanogan River would replace the Conconully reservoirs as the major source of irrigation water supply. The reservoirs would provide year-round instream flows for Salmon Creek and partial water supply to OID.

• Upgrade existing pump station. Under this alternative, the existing pump station on the Okanogan River would be upgraded and the pipeline resized to allow transfer of water to OID Diversion 4. The Conconully reservoirs would supply partial water supply to the irrigation district and year round instream flows in Salmon Creek.

• Raise Salmon Lake Dam. Under this alternative, Salmon Lake Dam would be raised 2 feet, and OID would dedicate a third foot of Salmon Lake storage for instream flows for Salmon Creek.

• Water rights acquisition. Under this alternative, stored water in Conconully would be taken out of permanent supply to the irrigation district, and would be dedicated to instream flows for fish. Partial water rights acquisition may also be considered. Water rights acquisition might reduce the need for pumping water out of the Okanogan River.

• Long-term water lease. Under this alternative, existing water rights would be leased and might provide instream flows for one or more phases of anadromous fish life-cycle requirements.

These alternatives provide for reconstruction of stable stream channel geometry in lower Salmon Creek and will be developed during ongoing engineering studies.

These alternatives provide for erosion control and streambank stabilization in lower Salmon Creek by the recovery or reestablishment of riparian vegetation. They will be developed during ongong engineering studies.

At the informal meetings, a brief opening presentation will be made to introduce the proposal, followed by an open house where people can circulate among information stations to discuss specific issues and have questions answered by members of the project team. Nancy Weintraub of BPA will be available to discuss BPA's purpose and need for the proposed action and the overall EIS process. Hilary Lyman of CCT will discuss the project history, the participants in project planning to date, and the overall project goals. Tom Sullivan of OID will describe the role of OID in project development and the alternatives currently under review for water availability within lower Salmon Creek. Woody Trihey of ENTRIX Environmental Consultants will present the conceptual plan for stream rehabilitation in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek. Written information will also be available, and BPA and project staff will answer questions and accept oral and written comments.

BPA has established a 30-day scoping period during which affected landowners, concerned citizens, special interest groups, local governments, and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the proposed EIS. Scoping will help BPA ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal is addressed in the EIS, and also will identify significant or potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project. When completed, the Draft EIS will be circulated for review and comment, and BPA will hold public comment meetings on the Draft EIS. BPA will consider and respond in the Final EIS to comments received on the Draft EIS.

Environmental issues identified to date include: socioeconomic impacts, fish and wildlife impacts and benefits, water use, water quality, flood control/safety, land use, recreational use, and cultural resources.

Maps and further information about the project are available from BPA at the address above.

The projects must meet the relevant requirements of the program providing the funding, as well as of SEP, as specified in the 2002 Special Projects Announcement. Among the goals of the special projects activities are to assist States to: accelerate deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies; facilitate the acceptance of emerging and underutilized energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies; and increase the responsiveness of Federally funded technology development efforts to private sector needs.

Fiscal year 2002 is the seventh year special project activities have been funded in conjunction with the State Energy Program (10 CFR part 420). Most of these State-oriented special projects are related to or based on similar efforts that have been funded separately by the various DOE sector programs that are now providing funding for these optional SEP activities.

With this publication, DOE is announcing the availability of an estimated $18.5 million in financial assistance funds for fiscal year 2002. The awards will be made through a competitive process. The sector programs that are participating in the SEP Special Projects for fiscal year 2002, with the estimated amount of funding available for each, are as follows:

• Clean Cities/Alternative Fuels: Accelerating the introduction and increasing the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles through the development of infrastructure, niche markets, and clean corridors, and by promoting the use of advanced transportation technologies ($4,500,000)

• Industrial Technologies: Implementing Industries of the Future at the State level by building partnerships among State government agencies, industry, universities and research institutions: to develop new technologies tied to Industries of the Future road maps and visions; and to utilize best practices which can improve energy efficiency, environmental performance and productivity ($3,000,000).

• Codes and Standards: Supporting States' actions to update, implement, and enforce residential and commercial building energy codes ($1,800,000).

• Rebuild America: Helping community and regional partnerships achieve their objectives through energy efficiency and energy technology solutions in buildings for K-12 schools, colleges/universities, state/local governments, commercial and multifamily housing ($2,500,000).

• Building America: Applying systems engineering approaches to the development of advanced residential buildings, including production techniques, products, and technologies that result in higher quality, energy-efficient housing. ($300,000)

• Federal Energy Management Program: Working to reduce the cost and environmental impact of government by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at Federal sites. ($500,000)

• Uninterrupted Power Source (UPS): Collaborating with the States and Territories in the siting and development of hydrogen fuel cells of 1 to 5 kilowatts in size to better understand the performance, maintenance, operation, and economic viability of these systems as uninterruptable power source systems. ($200,000)

• Power Park: Determining if the Power Park concept of hydrogen production from natural gas or municipal solid waste reforming (continental U.S.) or renewable resources for islands, villages, and remote areas is economically viable as a clean technology that can co-produce hydrogen fuel for stationary hydrogen fuel cells and reciprocating engines for hydrogen fuel cell cars. ($450,000)

• Hydrogen Compressors, Storage, and Dispensers: Testing the ability of a hydrogen generation system to fuel buses and/or light and heavy duty vehicle storage tanks. ($350,000)

• Solar Powered Security: Developing photovoltaic-powered application hardware for protecting our power delivery systems ( e.g. pipelines, and national grid). ($200,000)

• Solar Schools Demonstration and Educational Outreach: Incorporating new solar energy generation into the schools energy mix and incorporating learning about solar and renewables into the State educational curriculum for schools. ($300,000)

• Zero Energy Homes: Designing, building and/or showcasing one or more currently marketable Zero Energy Homes in conjunction with local partners such as homebuilders, universities, and utilities. ($200,000)

• Million Solar Roofs Initiative—Small Grant Program for State Partnerships: Assisting the Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR) State Partnerships in developing and implementing programs to further the use of solar energy on buildings. ($500,000)

• State Wind Energy Support: Proposals from States are sought for (1) wind resource assessment efforts to enable producing more accurate and detailed state wind maps, (2) wind resource data collection using existing tall towers (100 meters or taller preferred), and (3) activities to overcome barriers to use of small wind systems. ($770,000)

• Distributed Energy Resources Electrical Interconnection: Developing education and/or training materials (video tapes with hard copy manuals), on the process of interconnecting new Distributed Generation systems with the electrical grid (distribution and transmission levels), and permitting such installations. ($55,000)

• Distributed Energy Resources Technologies: Undertaking distributed generation projects that will support Regional and/or State restructuring activities as well as accelerating the installation of new distributed generation facilities. ($1,240,000)

• Superconductivity Program Information Dissemination and Outreach Activities to State Agencies: Encouraging activities to broaden the national effort and deliver the accomplishments of the Superconductivity Program to the State and local level. ($435,000)

• State Geothermal Energy Support: Proposals from States are sought for (1) projects that involve case studies of the benefits and costs of deployment of geothermal direct use or electric generation projects in the Western U.S.; (2) projects that involve providing public access to information about geothermal energy resources, technologies, and economics, and (3) projects that involve the creation of expert teams to conduct “trade missions” designed to inform community leaders of the potential for geothermal development in their area of the state. ($475,000)

• Energy Storage for Transmission Congestion Relief, Price Response, and System Security: Evaluating the feasibility and potential economic advantages of deferring power transmission system upgrades and relieving transmission congestion using modern electricity storage technologies. ($125,000)

• Biofuels for Power Generation: Assessing the feasibility of site-specific power projects using biofuels and/or implementing actual site-specific biopower projects. ($600,000)

Eligible applicants for purposes of funding under this program are limited to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States, specifically, the State energy or other agency responsible for administering the State Energy Program pursuant to 10 CFR part 420. For convenience, the term State in this notice refers to all eligible State applicants. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number assigned to the State Energy Program Special Projects is 81.119. Requirements for cost sharing contributions are addressed in the December 20, 2001 program announcement for each special project activity, as appropriate. ( See http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/state_energy/pdfs/special_projects_02.pdf ). Cost sharing contributions beyond any required percentage are desirable. Any application must be signed by an authorized State official, in accordance with the program announcement.

A first tier review for completeness will occur at the appropriate DOE Regional Office. Applications found to be complete will undergo a merit review process by panels comprised of members representing the participating end-use sector programs in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The end-use sector offices select projects for funding. The Office of Building Technology Assistance then recommends project allocations to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for final determination. DOE reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this notice.

Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives and programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

• STEAB Committee updates

• STEAB Annual Report Kickoff

• EERE State Success Stories

• Homeland and Energy Security Discussion

• Open Discussion with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, USDOE

• Update on Current Energy Legislation

• STEAB Budget Committee Meeting

• Public Comment Period

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact William J. Raup at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral presentations must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include the statements in the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Western published Final Post-2004 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures (Procedures) in the Federal Register (64 FR 48825, September 8, 1999) to implement Subpart C-Power Marketing Initiative of the Program's Final Rule (10 CFR part 905), published in the Federal Register (60 FR 54151, October 20, 1995). The Program, developed in part to implement section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, became effective on November 20, 1995. The goal of the Program is to require planning and efficient electric energy use by Western's long-term firm power customers and to extend Western's firm power resource commitments. One aspect of the Program is to establish project-specific power resource pools and allocate power from these pools to new preference customers.

Proposed allocations were published in the Federal Register (66 FR 31910, June 13, 2001). Public information/comment forums concerning the proposed allocations were held August 10, 15, 16, 21, and October 4, 2001. The public comment period closed October 11, 2001.

The Procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1989 Marketing Plan (51 FR 4844, February 7, 1986), establish the framework for allocating power from the SLCA/IP Post-2004 Power Pool.

Comment: Headgate Rock Dam generation should not be considered as an offset to Federal power when calculating the allocation for the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT).

Response: Western has researched the authorizing legislation for Headgate Rock Dam and electric generation facilities and agrees with this comment. The dam was built as an Indian project by the Department of the Interior for the benefit of the CRIT under the Snyder Act (25 U.S.C. 13) and will not be considered a Federal power resource.

Comment: The marketing area of the SLCA/IP was limited to Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and parts of Nevada. Some tribes have portions of their reservations in California. These should have been considered in making allocations.

Response: Originally, the marketing area for the Colorado River Storage Project included all of the drainage area of the Colorado River. The Post-1989 Marketing Plan reduced the marketing area to Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and portions of Nevada. The current action is an extension of that marketing plan. Therefore, Western is not able to consider expanding the marketing area at this time. Any expansion of the marketing area to include portions of reservations in California is outside the scope of this effort. The portions of reservations in California are within the Parker-Davis Project marketing area. Power resource pools from these projects will be allocated effective upon expiration of existing contracts on September 30, 2008. Tribes with reservation lands and eligible loads in California may be able to participate in that process.

Comment: Allocations were not proposed for the Indian Pueblos of San Ildefonso, Santo Domingo, and Taos because their applications were not complete. They should be allowed to complete the application process and receive allocations.

Response: Western's mandate is to ensure the most widespread use of the Federal resources. Consistent with this, Western's goal was to achieve 100 percent participation by the eligible Indian tribes within the SLCA/IP marketing area. These three Pueblos along with the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians had not completed the application process and were not included in the proposed allocations. The Pueblos have now completed the application process. Allocations for these tribes are included in this notice. The Moapa Band of Paiutes has not indicated any further interest in Federal power and will not receive an allocation.

Comment: Western should closely review data submitted by tribes. The proposed allocations were based on Indian-owned loads on the reservations. Some ineligible loads may have been used in determining allocations.

Response: Western has conducted a reasonable review and verification of the Applicant Profile Data submitted by the tribes. Western believes that the tribes submitted their data in good faith and complied with the criteria. Tribes were asked to divide their commercial loads into Indian and non-Indian owned.

The allocation proposed for the Yavapai Prescott Tribe was based on a large amount of non-Indian owned commercial load on the Yavapai Prescott reservation. This was correctly identified by the Yavapai Prescott Tribe but incorrectly included by Western in determining the proposed allocation. The Tribe's allocation has been revised to base it only on allowed loads and to make it consistent with other tribes' allocations.

Comment: Because Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State) and Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (Plains) merged (in addition to the 7 percent withdrawal for the Post-2004 Power Pool), an additional 7,000 kilowatts (kW) and associated energy will be withdrawn from Tri-State. Some tribes commented that these 7,000 kW and the energy should be placed in the SLCA/IP Power Pool and allocated to the tribes.

Response: As stated in the June 13, 2001, Federal Register notice, Western's intent in withdrawing additional resources from Tri-State was to provide an allocation for Navopache Electric Cooperative (Navopache). Navopache was a member of Plains and received the benefit of Federal power through this membership. However, in the merger, Navopache chose not to become a member of Tri-State, thus losing access to Federal power. Western's intent in withdrawing an additional 7,000 kW from Tri-State was to provide an allocation to Navopache. This will enable Navopache to again receive Federal power after the merger of Tri-State and Plains eliminated its Federal power benefit. Navopache will be allocated 7,000 kW in both of the Summer and Winter seasons. It will receive 15,350,991 kilowatthours (kWh) of energy in the Summer season and 14,660,861 kWh in the Winter season.

Comment: Western should not consider the benefits of Federal power from current tribal service providers when making allocations to the tribes. In the event of the formation of a tribal utility, that power would be inaccessible to the tribes.

Response: The intent of the Program is to provide the benefits of Federal hydropower directly to individual tribes. Allocations listed in this notice will be made directly to the tribes. Any indirect Western hydroelectric benefits recognized in the calculation method were used by Western to determine a fair share for tribes at the time of allocation with no intent to create any commitment to transfer those benefits to the tribes. Any indirect Western hydroelectric benefits received by the tribes are due to contractual commitments between Western and the existing customers.

The White Mountain Apache Tribe (White Mountain) argued that since Navopache does not currently receive Federal power, indirect Federal benefits should not be considered in proposing a power allocation for White Mountain. However, Navopache will receive an allocation of SLCA/IP power at the same time that White Mountain is eligible to receive service under this proposal. Since White Mountain and its members receive electric service from Navopache, they will at that time receive indirect Federal benefits through Navopache. They were also receiving the indirect benefit of Federal power during the base year established by Western for determination of the allocations. Consistent with the methodology used for all tribes, these indirect benefits have been accounted for in the proposed allocation for White Mountain.

Comment: Several tribes commented that energy not contracted for tribes should be used to increase other tribes' allocations to reach the target of 65 percent of eligible load. On the other hand, current customers commented that energy not contractually committed to tribes should be returned to the current customers.

Response: Western's intent is to enter into contracts with all tribes and/or nations receiving an allocation prior to October 1, 2004. In the event that a contract with a tribe for its allocation is not consummated prior to this date, such tribe's allocation will be held until a contract is completed or arrangement to take delivery of the power or the benefits of the power are made. Western stated in the criteria that energy not contracted for by new customers would be returned to current customers. It is now evident that the quantity of energy not contractually committed will be so small that reallocating it would not be administratively effective. The energy will not be reallocated to other tribes or existing customers but will be made available for the use of all customers through standard terms of the firm electric service contracts.

Comment: Western's current customers commented that the firm electric service contracts with the tribes should be the same as the contracts with current customers. However, some Indian representatives commented that certain changes should be made to the General Power Contract Provisions that take into account tribal sovereignty. Underlying reserve contracts should be offered to tribes to reserve the power allocation for each tribe and would allow changes to the method of implementation. Western's Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) requirements should be useful but not burdensome to the tribes.

Response: Entering into contractual arrangements with the tribes is the next step of the resource pool allocation process. However, contractual arrangements will not begin until final allocations are completed. Contractual provisions will be consistent with Section IV of the Procedures.

Comment: Several comments were submitted concerning delivery points for Federal power.

Response: Delivery issues will be addressed after the allocation is final. Contracts for transmission service will be developed between the tribes and transmission providers. The tribes are ultimately responsible for transmission and delivery arrangements beyond the SLCA/IP Federal delivery points. However, Western will assist tribes in securing the necessary transmission or other arrangements that are necessary to ensure that they will receive the benefits of SLCA/IP power.

Comment: If changes to the proposed allocations are made, Western should publish revised proposed allocations and provide time for public review and comment.

Response: Western has made changes to the proposed allocations. However, all of the changes are the result of better information about applicants' loads and not the result of changes in criteria or policy. Western has consistently applied the criteria to all applicants in making the allocations. Allowing further public review and comment would delay further the implementation of the program and delay the offer of contracts to the tribes.

Western will allocate to the tribes 7 percent of the SLCA/IP long-term firm hydroelectric resource available as of October 1, 2004, as firm power. Current hydrologic studies indicate that 203,251,178 kWh of energy and 93,679 kW of capacity will be available for the Summer season. In the Winter season, 217,281,509 kWh of energy and 93,680 kW of capacity will be available. Firm power means firm capacity and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and conditions specified in Western's long-term firm power electric service contracts.

Based on the applications submitted by the Northern Arapaho and the Eastern Shoshone tribes, Western could not differentiate between each tribe's load. The data from each tribe were used to arrive at a final allocation for the Wind River Reservation (Reservation) instead of each tribe. The final SLCA/IP allocation for the Reservation considers, in addition to the hydroelectric benefit from Western through the reservation's serving utility, the proposed allocation from Western's Loveland Area Projects resource pool.

The following final power allocations are made in accordance with the Procedures. All of the allocations are subject to the execution of a contract in accordance with the Procedures.

The final allocations for Indian tribes and organizations are shown in this table.

The tribes' SLCA/IP allocations, combined with existing and future Western hydropower benefits, total approximately 55.7 percent of eligible load in the Summer season and 58.8 percent in the Winter season based on the adjusted seasonal energy data submitted by each tribe. The allocation process considered the current Western hydroelectric benefits received through serving utilities and future Western hydroelectric benefits that will be received by serving utilities as a result of this allocation process. The final allocations of power shown in the table are based on the SLCA/IP marketable resource currently available. If the SLCA/IP marketable resource is adjusted in the future, all allocations will be adjusted accordingly.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-621, requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

Western has completed an environmental impact statement on the Program, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 53181, October 12, 1995). Western's NEPA review assured all environmental effects related to these procedures have been analyzed.

DOE has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

This proposal can also be found on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web Page: “ www.epa.gov/otaq/ Click on “What's New” or www.epa.gov/OTAQ/rfp.htm ”.

Over the past five years, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has entered into agreements and established partnerships with a number of organizations to (1) provide national support for community-based mobile source public education efforts supporting implementation of the Clean Air Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, (2) encourage responsible choices for organizational and individual actions through public education. Current OTAQ/Section 105-Funded Outreach Projects are listed on the OTAQ web site “ www.epa.gov/otaq/whatsnew ” and emphasize transportation choices to reduce vehicle miles traveled; education of vehicle owners and drivers of the future; alternative fuels; car care and the role of the automotive technician; outreach to ethnic populations; environmental justice; and, related projects such as ozone mapping and small engines. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality receives set-aside funds from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account to provide support to community-based mobile source-related outreach projects. This Notice solicits proposals for public education and outreach projects which directly support state and local air management organizations in their efforts to improve air quality from mobile sources. Proposals will be accepted from state, local, tribal and multi-state air management agencies which are identified as such under section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act. Interested persons can also obtain copies of this solicitation at no charge by accessing the OTAQ Web site at “ www.epa.gov/otaq/ ” Click on “What's New” or “ www.epa.gov/OTAQ/rfp.htm ”.

In order to efficiently manage the selection process, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that an informal “Intent to Apply” be submitted by Friday, February 22, 2002. (Please provide project title or subject and email address for project contact). An “Intent to Apply” simply states in the form of e-mail, phone, or fax that your organization intends to submit a proposal to be received by the deadline. Submitting an “Intent to Apply” does not commit an organization to submit a final proposal. Those not submitting an Intent to Apply may still apply by the deadline. The deadline for final proposals (original and six copies) is midnight on Monday, April 15, 2002. The Office of Transportation and Air Quality expects to complete the Evaluation/Selection process in May, 2002.

According to funding policies associated with the State and Tribal Assistance Grants regulations (STAG funds), proposals can be accepted only from air pollution control agencies as defined under section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act, (for projects to be undertaken which will have replicability to other communities nationally), as well as multi-state organizations supporting section 302(b) agencies. OTAQ has no discretion over this requirement.

Interested air management, non-governmental or related organizations which are not air pollution control agencies as defined under section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act are encouraged to create partnerships with eligible organizations. In that situation, the eligible organization would be required to submit the final proposal and serve as the funding recipient if selected.

A minimum of $550K.

The competition process will be managed by OTAQ and selected cooperative agreements will be awarded by EPA's Regional offices and funded through Section 105 authority (state and local air pollution control agencies), except in the case of multi-state organizations as defined by law , which must be funded under Section 103. OTAQ has no discretion over this requirement.

Approximately eight agreements will be awarded, none to exceed $100,000 for the entire project.

Possibly. Clean Air Act section 105 mandates that eligible agencies provide matching funds of at least 40%. Therefore, an air pollution control agency which submits a proposal must include a statement in their proposal indicating that the match could and would be met if their proposal is selected. Organizations unable to meet a required match must be considered ineligible. (By statute, this requirement does not apply to multi state organizations.) Organizations which are unclear as to their matching status are recommended to contact their EPA Regional Grant Coordinator (see Section XII below).

Yes—subgrants and other procurement services are allowed. Because the method used to fund subgrants is not a federal matter, procedures governing your organization's procurement practices must be followed. Please indicate any intent to enter into such agreements in the proposal.

This program is designed to provide seed money to initiate new projects or advance existing projects that are new in some way (e.g. new audiences, new locations, new approaches) rather than grow ongoing projects.

M. The Evaluation Team is chosen to represent a full range of mobile source and EPA program expertise. In addition, each EPA Regional office is given the opportunity to review those proposals generated by eligible organizations within that Region. The Evaluation Team will base its evaluation solely on the criteria referenced in this Notice. Completed evaluations will be forwarded for further consideration to a Selection Committee representing OTAQ senior managers and Regional representatives who are responsible for final selection. To ensure equity and objectivity throughout the process, the OTAQ Program Contact (listed below) and staff who facilitate the process and participate in pre-application assistance, do not serve as members of either the Evaluation Team or the Selection Committee.

Proposals should be approximately 5-7 pages in length ( please do not include binders or spiral binding ) and must include the following. [It is recommended that the proposal conform to the outline below to ensure that all components are addressed.] A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy to be submitted .

(1) Project contact(s) ( must provide name, organization, phone, fax, and e-mail ) An email address is essential in order to ensure OTAQ's ability to quickly reach all applicants with important information.

(2) Clear statement of amount being requested. (No project will be funded in an amount to exceed $100,000 for the entire project .)

(3) Brief statement that the candidate organization is defined as an air pollution control agency under section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act.

(4) Statement that any required match will be met.

(5) Statement of project background/objectives highlighting relationship to improving air quality from mobile sources.

(6) Detailed project summary—description of specific actions to be undertaken.

(7) Projected time frame for project from initiation through completion.

(8) Associated deliverables to be developed and funded through the agreement.

(9) Explanation of project benefits.

(10) Detailed explanation of how project outcomes will be designed and funded for replication in other communities.

(11) Description of collaborative activities and partnerships with other stakeholders.

(12) Detailed budget estimate (clearly explain how funds will be used, including estimated cost for each task.) (Note: Budget estimates should include funding for participation in the annual 3-day “Communities in Motion” Outreach and Partnerships Workshop typically held in Washington, DC in late October.)

Yes. If a proposal with a 2-year project period is submitted, OTAQ requires that the budget and cost estimate be designed to indicate what will be accomplished in each of the first and second years.The total for the project is not to exceed $100,000.

An organization may submit more than one proposal only if the proposals are for different projects.

Yes. The proposals received by OTAQ in previous competitions were generally of very high quality. Clearly, all proposals of merit could not be selected due to limited resources available.

Yes. Applicants awarded funding in previous competitions may submit new proposals to fund a different project. This program is intended to provide seed money to initiate new projects or advance existing projects that are new in some way (e.g. new audiences, new locations, new approaches).

No. The statute states that State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) for environmental programs remain available until expended (“no-year money”).

Proposals will be determined to be ineligible if: (1) The candidate organization is not currently defined as an air pollution control agency under section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act; (2) a required match could not be met; (3) the proposal is incomplete (proposals must address each and every component outlined in Section VII (N); or (4) the proposal is postmarked after the deadline.

U. Since this program is designed to fund new projects (rather than simply duplicating or growing existing programs), potential candidate organizations are recommended to visit the OTAQ web site to identify representative projects already being funded. The item, entitled “Current OTAQ/Section 105 Funded Outreach Projects,” can be found at “ www.epa.gov/otaq/ ” Click on “What's New”—Added November 2001 to find a brief sketch of projects funded to date through the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, either with Section 105 funding (indicated by year of funding) or projects that are intended to be national in scope, supported by OTAQ program funding (indicated by an asterisk “*”). ( Note: Some web sites listed by funded organizations provide helpful information on a variety of air quality efforts being undertaken by the funded organization.)

Yes.

Informal “Intents to Apply” may take the form of email, fax or phone call to the EPA Program Contact listed below. Include organization, contact, phone, email and project title/subject.

Please submit informal “Intents to Apply” by Friday, February 22, 2002.

To be considered eligible, Completed Proposals must be date stamped (postmarked or dated by overnight express) on or before midnight, Monday, April 15, 2002 (original + 6, including cover letters on copies—no binders, spiral binding or supplemental materials please!)

Please pay special attention to the distinction in addresses for regular mail and in-person delivery.

Via regular mail to: Susan Bullard, Director of Outreach, US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6406J, Washington, DC 20460.

Express mail which is to be delivered in-person (FedEx, UPS, Airborne, etc) must leave the sender and be dated by no later than midnight on Monday, April 15, 2002 at the following address: Susan Bullard, Director of Outreach, US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 501 Third Street NW Room 5304D, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 564-9856, (202) 564-8991 (backup number for expressed proposals only).

Date stamped (postmarked or express mail dated) no later than midnight on Monday, April 15, 2002.

Susan Bullard, Director of Outreach, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mail Code 6406J), Washington, DC 20460, (Phone) 202/564-9856, (Fax) 202/565-2085, “ bullard.susan@epa.gov ”.

EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting proposals from State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA for unique and innovative projects that address the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) program with special emphasis on wet weather activities, i.e., storm water, sanitary sewer overflows, and concentrated animal feeding operations as well as projects that enhance the ability of the regulated community to deal with non-traditional pollution problems in priority watersheds. Innovative studies leading to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) is another priority on which these funds could be focused.

An organization whose proposal is selected for Federal assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR 30.12 & 31.10).

EPA Region 6 has identified several project areas for priority consideration to the extent they are for research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution:

Innovative studies leading to TMDL development on a watershed basis for multiple pollutants including but not limited to nutrients, sediments, turbidity, metals, toxics, pesticides, bacteria, and unknown toxicity impacted by point sources as well as non-point sources. The innovative studies should be based on credible research on the physical, chemical, and biological processes governing the stochastic properties of pollutants in the environment. The innovative studies should lead to the development of scientific methods and/or statistical tools to identify the water quality problems and the extent of contamination but should not include TMDL modeling calculations.

Innovative projects or studies that will lead to the development and refinement of water quality standards and associated water quality monitoring and assessment methods or procedures that result in improved decisions about the status of waterbodies relative to the goals of the CWA. The projects may include, but are not limited to, refinement of waterbody classification systems and associated designated uses, refinement or development of narrative or numeric criteria, development of sampling schemes for improved integration of risk assessment in use attainment decisions, improved methods to identify emerging environmental problems, development of methods to assess attainment of numeric criteria using indicators that integrate conditions over time, and GIS based land use analyses for targeting monitoring and assessment resources.

Funding is authorized under the provisions of the CWA Sec.104(b)(3), 33U.S.C.1254(b)(3).

The regulations governing the award and administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements are 40 CFR part 30 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR part 31 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies).

Total funding available for award by Region 6 is dependent on EPA's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2002; however, it is estimated that $1 million will be available for funding approved projects. A minimum match of five percent will be required for all approved projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each proposal submitted.

Proposals should be no more than three pages in Wordperfect or Word with a minimum font size of 10 pitch. Failure to follow the format or to include all requested information could result in proposal not being considered for funding. Full application packages should not be submitted at this time. The following format should be used for all proposals:

Name of Project:

Point of Contact: (Individual and Agency/Organization Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail Address)

Is This a Continuation of a Previously Funded Project (if so, please provide the status of the current grant or cooperative agreement):

Proposed Federal Amount:

Proposed Non-Federal Match (minimum of 5%):

The match is based on the total project cost not the Federal amount. To determine a proposed minimum match of 5%, use the following example:

Federal amount = $25,000

Total Project Cost = T

The Federal amount is 95 % of T, therefore:

$25,000 = T x 0.95

$25,000 / 0.95 = T

$26,316 = T (round the decimal)

If the total project cost is $26,316, then:

$26,316 x 0.05 = $1,316 non-Federal match

Proposed Total Award Amount:

Description of General Budget Proposed To Support Project:

Project Description: (Should not exceed two pages of single-spaced text)

Expected Accomplishments or Product, with Dates, and Interim Milestones: This section should also include a discussion of a communication plan for distributing the project results to interested parties.

Describe How the Project Meets the Evaluation Criteria Specified Below:

EPA Proposal Evaluation Criteria

EPA will consider proposals based on the following criteria:

• The relationship of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice.

• How well the project furthers the goals of the CWA to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution.

• Innovation of project proposal.

• Cost effectiveness of the proposal.

• Applicant's past performance, if applicable.

• Compliance with directions for submittal contained in this notice.

For the purpose of this notice, eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section 104(b)(3) of the CWA are State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA. This solicitation is limited to applicants within EPA Region 6 which includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Proposals received for projects outside of Region 6 will not be considered.

If mailed, please send three copies of the proposal.

This is the estimated schedule of activities for review of proposals and notification of selections:

March 21, 2002—Proposals due to EPA.

May 20, 2002—Initial approvals identified and sponsors of projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal application package.

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Hearing Designation Order , DA 01-359, adopted on December 11, 2001 and released on December 19, 2001. The full text 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. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov . Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.

1. By this Order, we commence a hearing proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law Judge to determine, ultimately, whether the application of Kevin David Mitnick for renewal of Amateur Radio Station and General Class Operator License N6NHG should be granted. As discussed below, Mr. Mitnick is a convicted felon whose illegal activities have included the interception of electronic communications, computer fraud, wire fraud, and causing damage to computers. Based on the information before us, we believe that Mr. Mitnick's criminal behavior raises a substantial and material question of fact as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination that grant of Mr. Mitnick's application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

2. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 309(e), the captioned application is designated for hearing in a proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues:

3. (a) To determine the effect of the criminal convictions of Kevin David Mitnick on his qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.

4. (b) In light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, to determine whether Kevin David Mitnick is qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee.

5. (c) In light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, to determine whether the captioned application filed by Kevin David Mitnick should be granted.

6. Pursuant to section 4(i) and section 1.221(c) of the Commission's Rules, in order to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard, Mr. Mitnick, in person or by his attorney, shall file with the Commission, within twenty days of the mailing of this Hearing Designation Order to him, a written appearance stating that he will appear on the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the issues specified herein.

7. Pursuant to section 1.221(c) of the Commission's Rules, if Mr. Mitnick fails to file a written appearance within the twenty-day period, or has not filed prior to the expiration of the twenty-day period a petition to dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the twenty-day period, the Presiding Administration Law Judge shall dismiss the captioned application with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

8. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden or proof with respect to all of the issues specified above shall be on Mr. Mitnick.

9. This Hearing Designation Order contains the statements required by scetion 1.221(a)(1), 1.221(a)(2), 1.221(a)(3), and 1.221(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules.

10. The Commission's Reference Operations Division of the Consumer Information Bureau shall send a copy of this Order, via Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested, to Kevin David Mitnick at the address specified by him in his captioned application: 7113 W. Gowan Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89129.

11. The Secretary of the Commission shall cause to have this Hearing Designation Order or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register .

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Hearing Designation Order, DA 01-392, adopted on December 31, 2001 and released on January 9, 2002. The full text 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. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.

1. By this Order, we commence a hearing proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the applications of Herbert L. Schoenbohm for a new Amateur Radio Service Station License and new General Class Amateur Radio Service Operator License should be granted. Mr. Schoenbohm's former Amateur Radio Service Station License, call sign KV4FZ, and Amateur Radio Service Operator License were not renewed after it was determined, after an August 8, 1995, hearing before an administrative law judge, that Mr. Schoenbohm's previous criminal behavior, misrepresentation and lack of candor warranted denial of his renewal application. Mr. Schoenbohm is a convicted felon and was found to have misrepresented facts and lacked candor in his testimony in that hearing.

2. The facts leading to Mr. Schoenbohm's disqualification are res judicata; they have been thoroughly explored and the determination was made that, at the time of hearing, Mr. Schoenbohm was not qualified to be a Commission licensee. We may not revisit that determination here. However, in evaluating Mr. Schoenbohm's instant application, we must determine if, since the time of his disqualifying behavior in 1982-89 and 1995, Mr. Schoenbohm has been sufficiently rehabilitated that the Commission could be confident that he could be relied upon to observe our rules and policies and deal with the Commission in an honest and forthright manner. There are no facts now before us that would support a finding of rehabilitation. Hence, because we are unable to make a determination that grant of Mr. Schoenbohm's applications would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we hereby designate the applications for hearing, as required by section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

3. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i); 309(e), the above captioned applications are designated for hearing in a proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues:

a. To determine whether Herbert Schoenbohm possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a Commission licensee.

b. To determine in light of the evidence adduced under issue (a), whether the captioned applications should be granted.

4. Pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.221(c) of our rules, in order to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard, Mr. Schoenbohm, in person or by his attorney, shall file with the Commission, within twenty days of the mailing of this Hearing Designation Order to him, a written appearance stating that he will appear on the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the issue specified herein.

5. Pursuant to section 1.221(c) of our rules, if Mr. Schoenbohm fails to file a written appearance within the twenty-day period, or has not filed prior to the expiration of the twenty-day period a petition to dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the twenty-day period, the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall dismiss the captioned applications with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

6. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to all of the issues specified above shall be on Mr. Schoenbohm.

7. The Commission's Reference Operations Division of the Consumer Information Bureau shall send a copy of this Order, via Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested, to Herbert L. Schoenbohm, at the address shown in his captioned applications: Post Office Box 4419, Kingshill, Virgin Islands, 00851.

8. The Secretary of the Commission shall cause to have this Hearing Designation Order or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register .

This is a summary of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice released January 24, 2002. The complete text of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice, including attachments, is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

1. By the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice, the Bureau announces the auction of licenses for Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services in the 698-746 MHz (“Lower 700 MHz”) band scheduled to commence on June 19, 2002 (“Auction No. 44”). The Lower 700 MHz band consists of 758 licenses. Two 12-megahertz blocks consisting of a pair of 6 megahertz segments and two 6-megahertz blocks of contiguous, unpaired spectrum will be offered in each of six regions known as the 700 MHz band economic area groupings (700 MHz band EAGs). Additionally, one 12-megahertz block consisting of a pair of 6 megahertz segments will be offered in each of 734 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) and Rural Service Areas (“RSAs”). The Commission adopted the MSA and RSA definitions originally adopted for the cellular radiotelephone service, with the following modifications: (i) The service areas of cellular markets that border the U.S. coastline of the Gulf of Mexico extend 12 nautical miles from the U.S. Gulf coastline; and (ii) the service area of cellular market 306 that comprises the water area of the Gulf of Mexico extends from 12 nautical miles off the U.S. Gulf coast outward into the Gulf. See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, FCC 01-364, paragraph 90, note 258 (rel. January 18, 2002). A complete list of licenses available for Auction No. 44 and their descriptions is included as Attachment A of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice.

2. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Commission to “ensure that, in the scheduling of any competitive bidding under this subsection, an adequate period is allowed * * * before issuance of bidding rules, to permit notice and comment on proposed auction procedures * * *. .” Consistent with the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act and to ensure that potential bidders have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the specific rules that will govern the day-to-day conduct of an auction, the Commission directed the Bureau, under its existing delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the following issues relating to Auction No. 44.

3. The Bureau offers two options for grouping the 758 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. The Bureau seeks comment on the following:

i. Group all 758 licenses together in Auction No. 44, which the Bureau proposes to structure as a simultaneous multiple round (SMR) auction as described further.

ii. Include only the 734 MSA/RSA Lower 700 MHz band licenses in Auction No. 44 and group the 24 licenses based on 700 MHz EAGs with the 12 licenses in the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz bands (“Upper 700 MHz” bands) currently scheduled to be auctioned in Auction No. 31. Should we group according to this option, the 36 700 MHz EAG licenses from the Upper and Lower bands would be auctioned according to the procedures established for Auction No. 31, including any modifications to the procedures that the Bureau may establish before the auction begins.

4. The Bureau proposes to award all licenses included in Auction No. 44 in a single, simultaneous multiple-round auction. As described further, this methodology offers every license for bid at the same time with successive bidding rounds in which bidders may place bids. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

5. The Bureau has been delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the population in each geographic license area, and the value of similar spectrum. As described further, the upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on licenses. Upfront payments related to the specific spectrum subject to auction protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of the auction. With these guidelines in mind for Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes to calculate upfront payments on a license-by-license basis using the following formula:

6. Accordingly, the Bureau lists all licenses, including the related license area population and proposed upfront payment for each, in Attachment A of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

7. The Bureau further proposes that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. This limit is a bidder's “maximum initial eligibility.” Each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice, on a bidding unit per dollar basis. This number does not change as prices rise during the auction. A bidder's upfront payment is not attributed to specific licenses. Rather, a bidder may place bids on any combination of licenses as long as the total number of bidding units associated with those licenses does not exceed its maximum initial eligibility. Eligibility cannot be increased during the auction. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units it may wish to bid on (or hold high bids on) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

8. With respect to the 700 MHz EAG licenses, the Bureau notes that the populations for the various regions are very similar. That being the case, the Bureau seeks comment on whether, instead of applying the formula, the upfront payments should be the same for licenses of the same bandwidth. That is, each of the A block and B block licenses would have the same upfront payment amount and associated number of bidding units, and each of the D block and E block licenses would have the same upfront payment amount and associated number of bidding units.

9. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively on a percentage of their maximum bidding eligibility during each round of the auction rather than waiting until the end to participate. A bidder that does not satisfy the activity rule will either lose bidding eligibility in the next round or must use an activity rule waiver (if any remain).

10. The Bureau proposes to divide the auction into three stages, each characterized by an increased activity requirement. The auction will start in Stage One. The Bureau proposes that the auction generally will advance to the next stage ( i.e., from Stage One to Stage Two, and from Stage Two to Stage Three) when the auction activity level, as measured by the percentage of bidding units receiving new high bids, is approximately twenty percent or below for three consecutive rounds of bidding. However, the Bureau further proposes that it retain the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction. In exercising this discretion, the Bureau will consider a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentage of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.

11. For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes the following activity requirements:

Stage One: In each round of the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on licenses representing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by five-fourths (5/4).

Stage Two: In each round of the second stage, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 90 percent of its current bidding eligibility. During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by ten-ninths (10/9).

Stage Three: In each round of the third stage, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 98 percent of its current bidding eligibility. In this final stage, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by fifty/forty-ninths (50/49).

12. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals. If commenters believe that these activity rules should be changed, they should explain their reasoning and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with analyses and suggested alternative activity rules.

13. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required minimum level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license. Activity waivers are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of auction eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.

14. The FCC auction system assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any bidding period where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (1) there are no activity rule waivers available; or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements.

15. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding period by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described previously. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

16. A bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the bidding system) during a bidding period in which no bids or withdrawals are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no new valid bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.

17. The Bureau proposes that each bidder be provided with five activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction as set forth previously. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

18. For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes that, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureau emphasizes that exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureau, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

19. The Commission will conduct Auction No. 44 over the Internet. Telephonic Bidding will also be available. As a contingency, the FCC Wide Area Network, which requires access to a 900 number telephone service, will be available as well. Full information regarding how to establish such a connection, and related charges, will be provided in the public notice announcing details of auction procedures.

20. In past auctions, the Bureau has used the timing of bids to select a high bidder when multiple bidders submit identical high bids on a license in a given round. Given that bidders will access the Internet at differing speeds, the Bureau will not use this procedure in Auction No. 44. For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes to use a random number generator to select a high bidder from among such bidders. As with prior auctions, remaining bidders will be able to submit higher bids in subsequent rounds.

21. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction, and will be included in the registration mailings. The simultaneous multiple round format will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. Details regarding the location and format of round results will be included in the same public notice.

22. The Bureau has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

23. The Balanced Budget Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods for establishing a reasonable reserve price or a minimum opening bid when FCC licenses are subject to auction unless the Commission determines that a reserve price or minimum opening bid is not in the public interest. Consistent with this mandate, the Commission has directed the Bureau to seek comment on the use of a minimum opening bid and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction.

24. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. Reserve prices can be either published or unpublished. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. Also, the auctioneer often has the discretion to lower the minimum opening bid amount later in the auction. It is also possible for the minimum opening bid and the reserve price to be the same amount.

25. In light of the Balanced Budget Act's requirements, the Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bids for Auction No. 44. The Bureau believes a minimum opening bid, which has been utilized in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool.

26. Specifically, for Auction No. 44, the Commission proposes the following license-by-license formula for calculating minimum opening bids:

27. The specific minimum opening bid for each license available in Auction No. 44 is set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 44 Comment Public Notice. Comment is sought on this proposal.

28. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bids will result in substantial numbers of unsold licenses, or are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so, and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested reserve prices or minimum opening bid levels or formulas. In establishing the minimum opening bids, we particularly seek comment on such factors as the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands and any other relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the 698-746 MHz spectrum. Alternatively, comment is sought on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.

29. With respect to the 700 MHz EAG licenses, the Bureau notes that the populations for the various regions are very similar. That being the case, the Bureau seeks comment on whether, instead of applying the formula, the minimum opening bids should be the same for licenses of the same bandwidth. That is, the minimum opening bid would be the same for each of the A block and B block licenses, and the minimum opening bid would be the same for each of the D block and E block licenses.

30. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given license in any of nine different amounts. The Auctions Bidding System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts for each license. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, the Auctions Bidding System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that license for the following round, as described further. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each license will define the bid increment. The nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum acceptable bid (the standing high bid plus one bid increment) and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e., the second bid amount equals the standing high bid plus two times the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the standing high bid plus three times the bid increment, etc. ).

31. Until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. The additional bid amounts for licenses that have not yet received a bid will be calculated differently, as explained further.

32. For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes to calculate minimum acceptable bids by using a smoothing methodology, as the Bureau has done in several other auctions. The smoothing formula calculates minimum acceptable bids by first calculating a percentage increment, not to be confused with the bid increment, for each license based on a weighted average of the activity received on that particular license in all previous rounds. This methodology tailors the percentage increment for each license based on activity, rather than setting a global increment for all licenses.

33. In a given round, the calculation of the percentage increment for each license is made at the end of the previous round. The computation is based on an activity index, which is calculated as the weighted average of the activity in that round and the activity index from the prior round. The activity index at the start of the auction (round 0) will be set at 0. The current activity index is equal to a weighting factor times the number of new bids received on the license in the most recent bidding round plus one minus the weighting factor times the activity index from the prior round. The activity index is then used to calculate a percentage increment by multiplying a minimum percentage increment by one plus the activity index with that result being subject to a maximum percentage increment. The Commission will initially set the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage increment at 0.1 (10%), and the maximum percentage increment at 0.2 (20%).

34. Under the smoothing methodology, once a bid has been received on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license in the following round will be the high bid from the current round plus the dollar amount associated with the percentage increment, with the result rounded to the nearest thousand if it is over ten thousand or to the nearest hundred if it is under ten thousand.

i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 2 using the smoothing formula:

ii. Calculation of dollar amount associated with the percentage increment for round 2 (using I2):

iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 2 = $1,200,000.

i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 3 using the smoothing formula:

ii. Calculation of dollar amount associated with the percentage increment for round 3 (using I3):

iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 3 = $2,400,000.

i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 4 using the smoothing formula:

ii. Calculation of dollar amount associated with the percentage increment for round 4 (using I4):

iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 4 = $2,880,000.

35. As stated previously, until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded as described previously, and the minimum opening bid. That is, I = (minimum opening bid)(1 + N){rounded}—(minimum opening bid). Therefore, when N equals 0.1, the first additional bid amount will be approximately ten percent higher than the minimum opening bid; the second, twenty percent; the third, thirty percent; etc.

36. In the case of a license for which the standing high bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the license. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the second highest bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded, and the second highest bid.

37. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the Auctions Bidding System. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.

38. For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes the following bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Before the close of a bidding period, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By using the remove selected bids function in the bidding system, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid.

39. A high bidder may withdraw its standing high bids from previous rounds using the withdraw function in the bidding system. A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of the Commission rules. The Bureau seeks comment on these bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures.

40. In the Part 1 Third Report and Order , 63 FR 2315 (January 15, 1998) the Commission explained that allowing bid withdrawals facilitates efficient aggregation of licenses and the pursuit of efficient backup strategies as information becomes available during the course of an auction. The Commission noted, however, that, in some instances, bidders may seek to withdraw bids for improper reasons. The Bureau, therefore, has discretion, in managing the auction, to limit the number of withdrawals to prevent any bidding abuses. The Commission stated that the Bureau should assertively exercise its discretion, consider limiting the number of rounds in which bidders may withdraw bids, and prevent bidders from bidding on a particular market if the Bureau finds that a bidder is abusing the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures.

41. Applying this reasoning, the Bureau proposes to limit each bidder in Auction No. 44 to withdrawing standing high bids in no more than two rounds during the course of the auction. To permit a bidder to withdraw bids in more than two rounds would likely encourage insincere bidding or the use of withdrawals for anti-competitive purposes. The two rounds in which withdrawals are utilized will be at the bidder's discretion; withdrawals otherwise must be in accordance with the Commission's rules. There is no limit on the number of standing high bids that may be withdrawn in either of the rounds in which withdrawals are utilized. Withdrawals will remain subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions specified in the Commission's rules. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

42. The Bureau has discretion “to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to terminate the auction within a reasonable time.” For Auction No. 44, the Bureau proposes to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. A simultaneous stopping rule means that all licenses remain open until bidding closes simultaneously on all licenses.

43. Bidding will close simultaneously on all licenses after the first round in which no new acceptable bids, proactive waivers, or withdrawals are received. Thus, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, bidding will remain open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license.

44. However, the Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction No. 44:

i. Utilize a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. The modified stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the standing high bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether this modified stopping rule should be used at any time or only in stage three of the auction.

ii. Keep the auction open even if no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are submitted and no previous high bids are withdrawn. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. The activity rule, therefore, will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a remaining activity rule waiver.

iii. Declare that the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the specified final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of a specified preceding number of rounds. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.

45. Comments are due on or before February 6, 2002, and reply comments are due on or before February 13, 2002. Because of the disruption of regular mail and other deliveries in Washington, DC, the Bureau requires that all comments and reply comments be filed electronically. Comments and reply comments must be sent by electronic mail to the following address: auction44@fcc.gov. The electronic mail containing the comments or reply comments must include a subject or caption referring to Auction No. 44 Comments. The Bureau requests that parties format any attachments to electronic mail as Adobe(®) Acrobat(®) (pdf) or Microsoft(®) Word documents. Copies of comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

46. In addition, the Bureau requests that commenters fax a courtesy copy of their comments and reply comments to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850.

47. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

Title: Certification of Compliance with Mandatory Bars to Employment.

OMB Number: 3064-0121.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Persons interested in being employed or providing services to the FDIC.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66.6 hours.

General Description of Collection: Prior to an offer of employment, job applicants to the FDIC must sign a certification that they have not been convicted of a felony or been in other circumstances that prohibit persons from becoming employed by or providing services to the FDIC.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of this collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

According to 44 CFR 206.47, FEMA will annually adjust the statewide per capita threshold that is used to recommend an increase of the Federal cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406 and emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Stafford Act. The adjustment to the threshold is based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the U. S. Department of Labor. For disasters declared on January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, the qualifying threshold is $102 per capita of State population.

We base the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.6 percent for the 12-month period ended in December 2001. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on January 16, 2002.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

The Service has prepared the Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) for the incidental take application. A determination of jeopardy to the species or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will not be made until at least 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Steven and Susan Bearry plan to construct a single-family residence, within 5 years, on approximately 0.5 acre of the 22.849-acre Tract 23 in the Cottletown Ranches Subdivision, Bastrop County, Texas. This action will eliminate 0.5 acre or less of Houston toad habitat and result in indirect impacts within the lot. The Applicants propose to compensate for this incidental take of the Houston toad by providing $3,000.00 to the Houston Toad Conservation Fund at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for the specific purpose of land acquisition and management within Houston toad habitat.

The authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for “Indian judges” (See Tillett v. Hodel, 730 F.Supp. 381 (W.D. Okla. 1990), aff'd 931 F.2d 636 (10th Cir. 1991) United States v. Clapox, 13 Sawy. 349, 35 F. 575 (D.Ore. 1888)), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1.

There are approximately 225 tribes that contract or compact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to perform the Secretary's adjudicatory function and 23 Courts of Indian Offenses (also known as CFR courts). It is expected that 45 tribal entities will choose to assume this responsibility. The $1.5 million is earmarked to assist tribal courts to perform the increased responsibilities required by 25 CFR part 115. These funds will be distributed on the following formula:

Formula Example: The most recent data available shows there is a total universe of 33,217 Indian minor cases, and 1,667 non-compos mentis cases in the IIM system. The Office of Tribal Services, Division of Social Services, estimates that about 25 percent of these cases will require adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. Example: If it is expected there will be approximately 8,721 cases which require adjudication during FY 2002, applying the formula $172 per case is the result ($1.5 million divided by 8,721 = $172). If, for example, your court is expected to handle 35 cases in FY 2002, it is eligible to receive $6,020 ($172 × 35 = $6,020). This example assumes that all cases requiring adjudication will be disposed of. For FY 2002, only cases that a tribal court will “dispose of” will be considered in the case count for funding purposes.

Qualified tribal applicants that assume responsibility over Supervised IIM Accounts under 25 CFR part 115 are eligible to receive funding under this NOFA. Applicants will consider the following sections of part 115 when responding to this NOFA:

Tribes seeking to apply will be responsible for (1) having codes or ordinances in place, and (2) appointing guardians, determining competency, awarding child support from Indian Individual Money (IIM) accounts, determining paternity, sanctioning adoptions, marriages, and divorces, making presumptions of death, and adjudicating claims involving trust assets as prescribed in the sections cited above. Funds provided under this NOFA are specifically made available to tribal courts that assume additional responsibility under 25 CFR part 115 to adjudicate Supervised IIM Accounts and are not intended to be used as general operating funds for a judiciary.

Qualified Applicant. A qualified applicant is a tribal government submitting an application for funding for a tribal court meeting the following threshold requirements:

(1) The tribal government has enacted the codes necessary for the tribal justice system to carry out its responsibility under 25 CFR part 115.

(2) The tribal court has adopted and made accessible the court rules setting forth the procedures to adjudicate these cases.

(3) Tribal court personnel have been trained to process these cases and the court is staffed to fulfill the tribal legislative mandate.

(4) The tribal justice system is one that serves as the judicial component of a tribal government which is federally recognized by the United States Government.

Case Disposed Of. A case in which a final decision is rendered by the court even though the court may retain jurisdiction to subsequently review the matter on submission of additional relevant facts by an interested party.

Tribal Courts. As used in this NOFA, reference to tribal courts includes Courts of Indian Offenses (CFR courts), established by the Department of the Interior under Title 25 part 11 (2001 edition) of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Application Process: (1) The tribal government will provide a certification as a response to Item #11 in SF-424 that the threshold requirements are met. (See form attached.)

(2) An SF-424 will be submitted with the number of Supervised IIM Accounts that will be disposed of during FY 2002 in Item #11.

(3) Funds will be awarded under the discretionary authority of section 103 of Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450h).

Applications must be submitted on the form entitled “Application For Federal Assistance,” identified with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval No. 0348-0043 (Standard Form 424, Rev. 7-97). The form is attached to this notice. The form may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.gsa.gov.

Mail applications to Ralph Gonzales, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Tribal Services, Branch of Judicial Services, MS Room 4660-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240; or fax to (202) 208-5113.

Applications are due 30 calendar days after the publication date of this NOFA and must be postmarked by midnight on the deadline date. Applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date; or, sent on or before the deadline date. Applicants may hand deliver applications to the address indicated above by close-of-business (5 p.m. EST) on the deadline date. Applications will be accepted by facsimile until the close-of-business (5 p.m. EST) on the deadline date, provided the original application is postmarked by midnight the day after the due date. No applications can be transmitted by e-mail (electronic mail). Applicants are responsible for ensuring proper delivery of the application and are encouraged to contact Ralph Gonzales at (202) 208-4401 to confirm its receipt.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (N1-462-01-3, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Investigative case files pertaining to allegations of wrong doing involving the Food Stamp program. Records pertain to cases closed in fiscal year 1986 that did not attract media or congressional attention or result in substantive changes in agency policies and procedures.

2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-00-31, 90 items, 90 temporary items). Short term records relating to military and civilian personnel management. Included are records relating to such matters as personnel procurement, the selection and classification of personnel, personnel processing, assignments, details, education, personnel evaluations, personnel absences, separations, and decorations, awards, and other honors. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which were previously approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-00-43, 20 items, 20 temporary items). Short term records relating to such matters as audit reporting, stock inventory reconciliations, installation property, and hospital linen inventories. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which were previously approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-09, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Short term records relating to safety liaison and awareness, target practice safety, system development management, and engineering safety. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which were previously approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-11, 28 items, 28 temporary items). Short term records relating to religious activities, morale, welfare and recreation, schools, service organizations, manpower and equipment control, and force development. Included are such records as chapel registers, non-appropriated fund property inventories, recreational event planning files, academic training records, staffing surveys and reports, and materiel and supply estimates. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which previously were approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

6. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-12, 47 items, 47 temporary items). Short term records relating to legal services, military police matters, and criminal investigations. Included are such records as applications and acceptance notices for the Army's legal education program, records of appearances of Army personnel as counsel or witnesses in civilian courts, court-martial records accumulated in offices below the level of Judge Advocate General, statistical and fiscal data on claims, requests for deviations from intellectual property contract clauses, automobile and traffic enforcement records, and identification card applications and registers, as well as reports, photographs, logs, evidence ledgers, polygraph examinations, and additional criminal investigation records other than those included in criminal investigation case files. Also included are records relating to overseeing of Army prisoners regarding such matters as mail, work assignments, appointment passes, and return to duty. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which previously were approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

7. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-13, 46 items, 46 temporary items). Short term records relating to such matters as engineering projects, facilities, internal reviews, audits, energy conservation, housing, maintenance activities, the operation of cemeteries, and laundry services. Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing are included. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which were previously approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

8. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-18, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master file of the Education Management Information System, an electronic information system pertaining to educational counseling and tuition assistance for military personnel. The system includes information concerning educational counseling actions, courses taken and grades attained, and tuition assistance committed and spent.

9. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-26, 9 items, 8 temporary items). Records relating to inspector general activities including investigative case files, inspection reports, inquiries, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule increases the retention period of investigative case files and inquiries concerning allegations against personnel, which were previously approved for disposal, while it decreases the previously approved retention period for records that relate to matters that do not result in the establishment of a formal case file. Recordkeeping copies of case files and reports relating to significant investigations and inspections are proposed for permanent retention. This schedule also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

10. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N1-370-00-5, 35 items, 27 temporary items). Records documenting geodetic field surveys and observational data such as points of latitude, longitude, height, scale, gravity, and orientation, and how these values change over time, across the United States. Included are field observations, abstracts of results, field party management files, instrument calibration files, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of historical astronomic observations, project reports and sketches, and adjusted electronic data derived from field observations.

11. Department of Defense, Joint Staff (N1-218-00-4, 65 items, 53 temporary items). Records relating to intelligence and security matters accumulated by the Joint Staff and combatant commands. Included are such records as directives, guides, correspondence, reports, studies, forms, and memorandums pertaining to general security administration, control of classified information, security audits and inspections, estimates of capabilities, and foreign national visits. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing and electronic systems maintained at combatant commands that feed into systems maintained at higher levels. Recordkeeping copies of records documenting security policy, intelligence planning and policy, investigations, information collection and dissemination, prisoners of war, and special access programs are proposed for permanent retention.

12. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (N1-57-01-4, 18 items, 12 temporary items). Planning and administrative records, including such files as reference copies of documents pertaining to history projects, management improvement project case files, administrative management subject files and reports, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as organizational charts and reorganization studies, program policy and mission files, historical project case files, and the files of the Bureau Director.

13. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration (N1-448-02-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Schedules of daily activities accumulated by the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards and members of his immediate office staff, 1980-1986. Records consist of brief notations concerning appointments, meetings, trips, speeches, and attendance at events.

14. Department of the Navy, U. S. Marine Corps (N1-127-01-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Student research papers prepared at such institutions as the Command and Staff College, the Amphibious Warfare School, the School of Advanced Warfighting, and the Command and Control System School. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

15. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Agency wide (N1-180-00-1, 100 items, 70 temporary items). Comprehensive records schedule covering all agency records. Records proposed for disposal include such file series as administrative files, recurring reports, congressional correspondence, applications for registration, registration fitness examinations, large trader report files, the exchange database system, reparations complaint files, training records, press clippings, working papers, and routine litigation, investigation, and enforcement case files. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such files as publications, reports to Congress, central files of the Chairman and the Commissioners, official minutes of Commission meetings, speeches, press releases, biography files, and historically significant case files relating to investigations, litigation, and enforcement actions.

16. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (N1-425-02-1, 16 items, 16 temporary items). Records of the Agency Services Division including such materials as reference files, reimbursable client records, financial statements and other financial documents, facilities management records, marketing material, policy and procedure documentation, office subject files, status reports, Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act reports, and electronic accounting records. Also included are the electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

17. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer (N1-465-02-2, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Pension plan company files, working files used in processing terminated plans, and plan termination case files. Included are correspondence, printouts, medical files, personnel and payroll records, and electronic records, such as imaged documents, computer disks, magnetic tapes, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the King County International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

On January 17, 2001, the FAA determined that the request to release property at King County International Airport submitted by the airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than March 6, 2002.

The following is brief overview of the request: King County International Airport is proposing the release of approximately .9 acres of airport property to allow the Museum of Flight a transportation corridor, which will provide off-airport access for the occasional movement of large display aircraft to a new off-airport museum building, provide for required fire access lanes and in support of a museum building expansion. All building expansion is being done off airport property. The transfer is necessary to allow improvements on the aircraft tow route by the Museum. The property is being exchanged in-kind for Museum property of a similar value. All costs associated with the exchange will be born by the Museum. The exchange is advantageous to civil aviation for several reasons. One 20-year old hangar will be replaced with a new one. A second 20-year old hangar will be relocated and reconstructed using current building codes. All existing tenants will be accommodated in equal or better facilities. Approximately 35 new general aviation tie downs will be added to King County International Airport.

Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at King County International Airport.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 195 meeting. The agenda will include:

• February 26:

• Working Group 1

• Progress of Change 1 to DO-267, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B) Data Link

• Overview of National Convective Weather Forecast

• Opening Plenary Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, approval of Agenda, Approval of Minutes, Review of Action Items)

• Report from Working Group 1

• Discussion of FIS Registry of Products

• Discussion of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) and Digital Automatic Terminal Information Service (D-ATIS) Product Definition

• Review of Change 1 to DO-267

• February 27:

• Continued Plenary Session (Review of Change 1 to DO-267)

• Closing Plenary Session (Review Action Items, Discussion of Future Workplan, Other Business, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn)

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

Section 757 of Public Law 106-81, The Wendel H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, required the FAA to establish a government-industry team to simplify the seat certification process in transport category airplanes. The FAA established this team and has been working for over a year to improve and simplify the process of seat certification in accordance with the Act.

The purpose of this meeting is to present information to the public regarding simplification of the seat certification process, and to hear comments and to solicit input from the general public.

If you wish to present any oral statements at the public meeting, you should submit your request to the FAA prior to February 15, 2002. Such requests should be submitted to the persons listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and should include a written summary of oral remarks to be presented, as well as an estimate of time needed for the presentation. Requests received after February 15, 2002, will be considered and may be scheduled, time permitting, during the meeting. The FAA will prepare an agenda of speakers who will be available at the meeting. Every effort will be made to accommodate as many speakers as possible in the time allotted.

The following procedures are established to facilitate the meeting:

• Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the space available.

• There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or participate in the meeting. The opportunity to speak will be available to all persons, subject to availability of time.

• The meeting is designed to provide information to, and hear comments from, the public concerning issues related to seat certification process simplification. The meeting will be conducted in an informal and nonadversarial manner; however, the FAA may ask questions to clarify a statement and to ensure a complete and accurate record.

• Representatives of the FAA will preside over the meeting. A panel of FAA personnel involved in this issue will be present.

• Statements made by members of the meeting panel are intended to facilitate discussion of the issues or to clarify issues and, unless stated as such, should not necessarily be construed as a position of the FAA.

• An individual, whether speaking in person or in a representative capacity on behalf of an organization, may be limited to a 10-minute statement. If possible, additional time may be allotted.

• The FAA will try to accommodate all questions, time permitting. However, the FAA reserves the right to exclude some questions, if necessary, to present a balance of viewpoints and issues.

• The FAA will review and consider all material presented by participants at the meeting. Participants are requested to provide 10 copies of all presentation materials for distribution to the panel members. Other copies may be provided to the audience at the discretion of the participant.

• The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript of the meeting and any material accepted by the panel during the meeting will be made a part of the official record. Any person interested in purchasing a copy of the transcript should contact the court reporter directly at the meeting.

the FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Juneau International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On January 22, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City and Borough of Juneau, Juneau International Airport, Juneau, Alaska, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than April 25, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Proposed charge effective date: July 1, 2002.

Proposed charge expiration date: May 1, 2005.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $3,171,559.

Brief description of proposed projects:

Construct snow removal equipment building; construct runway safety area phase II—mitigation and construction; develop Northwest Quadrant.

Rehabilitate access road (Cessna Dr./Alex Holden Way); reconstruct parallel taxiway; conduct terminal expansion feasibility study/design, phase 1.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: None

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT located at the FAA, Alaskan Region Airports Division, Anchorage, Alaska.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Juneau International Airport.

As indicated in the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2000, the FHWA, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), is preparing an EIS on a proposal to expand TH 169 from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane facility. As a result of agency and public involvement during scoping, the alternatives to be studied in the EIS have been expanded, requiring a revision to the northern terminus for the project. The EIS will consider alternatives to improve TH 169 from the intersection of TH 27 north of Onamia, Minnesota to the intersection of TH 18 and TH 6 northwest of the City of Garrison, Minnesota, approximately 36.5 kilometers (22.7 miles).

Coordination has been initiated and will continue with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the proposed action. Public meetings have been held in the past and will continue to be held, with public notice given for the time and place of the meetings.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), will prepare an EIS for a proposal to build improvements on Interstate 10 from Buckeye Road to Baseline Road in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed project will involve construction of facilities to provide safety, capacity, and operational improvements in the I-10 corridor within the study limits. The evaluation of alternatives will consider the social, economic, and environmental impacts to residential and commercial development, including Sky Harbor International Airport, cultural resources, historic roads and canals, Endangered Species, jurisdictional waters of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste. Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. A full range of reasonable alternatives will be considered including (1) no action; (2) alternative travel modes; (3) transportation system management improvements; (4) Collector-Distributor Road System and (5) mainline freeway improvements.

Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aviation Agency, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Game & Fish Department, City of Phoenix, City of Tempe, Maricopa County and Maricopa Association of Governments. Letters will also be sent to interested parties including, the South Mountain Village Planning Committee, Central City Village Planning Committee and appropriate Tempe neighborhood associations.

A series of public meetings will be held in the communities within the proposed study area. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Prior to the meetings and hearing, public notice will be provided advising of the time and place. A formal agency scoping meeting is planned between Federal, State, City, and County stakeholders.

To insure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

As indicated in the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1999, the FHWA, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), is preparing an EIS on a proposal to reconstruct and expand TH 371 from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane facility. The notice identified the southerly terminus of the project as County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 46 north of Little Falls. The correct southerly terminus is TH 10, approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) south of CSAH 46. Therefore, the EIS will consider alternatives to improve TH 371 from TH 10 to 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) north of CSAH 48 in Morrison County, Minnesota, approximately 12.9 kilometers (8.0 miles).

Coordination has been initiated and will continue with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the proposed action. Public meetings have been held in the past and will continue to be held, with public notice given for the time and place of the meetings.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

Title: Return Requirement for United States Persons Acquiring or Disposing of an Interest in a Foreign Partnership, or Whose Proportional Interest in a Foreign Partnership Changes.

OMB Number: 1545-1646.

Regulation Project Number: REG-209060-86.

Abstract: Section 6046A requires U.S. persons to provide certain information with respect to the acquisition or disposition of a 10-percent interest in, or a 10-percent change in ownership of, a foreign partnership. This regulation provides reporting rules to identify U.S. persons with significant interests in foreign partnerships to ensure the correct reporting of items with respect to these interests.

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

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

The burden is reflected in the burden of Form 8865.

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.