The Census Bureau is authorized to take surveys necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses authorized by Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 61, 81, 182, 224, and 225. These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data on manufacturing for the period between economic censuses. The next economic censuses will be conducted for the year 2002. The data collected in these surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic censuses.

Most of the following commodity or product surveys provide data on shipments or production, data on stocks, unfilled orders, orders booked, consumption, and so forth. Reports will be required of all, or a sample of, establishments engaged in the production of the items covered by the following list of surveys.

The following list of surveys represent annual counterparts of monthly and quarterly surveys and will cover only those establishments that are not canvassed, or do not report, in the more frequent surveys. Accordingly, there will be no duplication in reporting. The content of these annual reports will be identical with that of the monthly and quarterly reports.

The Annual Survey of Manufactures collects industry statistics, such as total value of shipments, employment, payroll, workers' hours, capital expenditures, cost of materials consumed, supplemental labor costs, and so forth. This survey, while conducted on a sample basis, covers all manufacturing industries, including data on plants under construction but not yet in operation.

The Survey of Industrial Research and Development measures spending on research and development activities in private U.S. businesses. The Census Bureau collects and compiles this information with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF publishes the results in its publication series. Four data items in the survey provide interim statistics collected in the Census Bureau's Economic Censuses. These items (total company sales, total company employment, and total expenditures and Federally-funded expenditures for research and development conducted within the company) are collected on a mandatory basis under the authority of Title 13, U.S.C. Responses to all other data collected for the NSF are voluntary.

The Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization is designed to measure the use of industrial capacity. The survey collects information on actual output and estimates of potential output in terms of value of production. These data are the basis for calculating rates of utilization of full production capability and use of production capability under national emergency conditions.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, the OMB approved the 2000 Annual Surveys under the following OMB Control Numbers: Current Industrial Reports—0607-0206, 0607-0392, 0607-0393, 0607-0395, 0607-0476, and 0607-0776; Annual Surveys of Manufactures—0607-0449; Survey of Industrial Research and Development—3145-0027; and, Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization—0607-0175. We will provide copies of the form upon written request to the Director, Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-0001.

Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the Annual Surveys in the Manufacturing Area be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.

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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

On August 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review (65 FR 48464) of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) (59 FR 59209, November 16, 1994). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results. We received no comments and have made no changes to our preliminary results for the final results of review.

We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

The products subject to this antidumping duty administrative review are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.

The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed.

The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

Our use of facts otherwise available in this review has not changed from the preliminary results, in which we assigned a PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent since the three respondents did not respond to our requests for information. For a detailed discussion of our application of facts otherwise available, see our preliminary results at 65 FR 48464 (August 8, 2000).

We determine that a margin of 376.67 percent exists for all producers/exporters of the subject merchandise as the PRC-entity for the period November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999. The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For all PRC exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will be 376.67 percent; and (2) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. See 19 CFR 351.306 and 19 CFR 354.3.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

On March 5, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register (51 FR 7600) the antidumping duty order on ICC from Canada. On March 16, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 14242) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. On March 31, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the respondent Canada Pipe requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States. We published the notice of initiation of this review on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25303).

The merchandise covered by the order consists of certain iron construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010, 7325.10.0020, and 7325.10.0025. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.

The ICC exported by Canada Pipe to the United States includes manhole sets, catch basin sets, and trench gates and is the identical merchandise sold by Canada Pipe in its home market in Canada. Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in Canada.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price (“EP”) as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.

Canada Pipe sells subject merchandise directly to its customers in the United States and uses its affiliate Bibby USA as the importer of record. The sales documentation on the record in this proceeding indicates that Canada Pipe's U.S. sales occurred in Canada between Canada Pipe and the unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. Specifically, we have found the following facts: (1) Bibby USA does not contact the U.S. customers; (2) Bibby Ste-Croix in Canada contacts the U.S. customers; (3) the U.S. customers send the purchase order to Canada Pipe; (4) Canada Pipe makes all arrangements for shipping and delivery to the U.S. customers directly in Canada; (5) Canada Pipe invoices are issued and the U.S. customers pay Canada Pipe directly in Canada; and (6) Canada Pipe retains title to the merchandise until the point of delivery to the U.S. customers. Given these facts, we preliminarily determine that these sales were made in Canada by Canada Pipe and, thus, should be treated as EP transactions ( see Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 13359 (March 13, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 12; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico, Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 2).

We calculated an EP for all of Canada Pipe's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Canada Pipe to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We compared the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales and determined that the quantity of the company's sales in its home market was more than five percent of the quantity of its sales to the U.S. market. Consequently, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based normal value (“NV”) on home market sales, all of which were to unaffiliated customers.

We calculated monthly weighted-average NVs based on ex-works or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments to the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for early payment discounts, inland insurance, and inland freight. We made circumstance of sale (“COS”) adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value (“CV”), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price and EP transactions, the LOT is the level of the sale to the unaffiliated customer, and with respect to CEP transactions, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level, and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Canada Pipe reported that during the POR it sold subject merchandise through three channels of distribution in the home market: sales made by Canada Pipe directly to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) (Channel 1), sales from Canada Pipe directly to end-users (Channel 2), and sales from Canada Pipe to distributors (Channel 3). In examining the record, we found that Canada Pipe performs substantially similar selling functions ( e.g. sales planning, advertising, technical service, etc.) for all three reported channels of distribution. Due to the proprietary nature of the examined selling functions, see Preliminary Determination: Level of Trade Analysis (Preliminary LOT Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice, on file in Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, the Central Records Unit (“CRU”). Based upon an analysis of the information provided on the record, we conclude that there is no difference in the selling functions performed by Canada Pipe in making sales through these three channels of distribution. Therefore, using the information on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Canada Pipe makes all sales at the same LOT in the home market.

Canada Pipe reported two channels of distribution ( i.e. sales to OEMs and sales to distributors) in the United States during the POR. In examining the record, we found that Canada Pipe performs substantially similar selling functions ( e.g. sales planning, advertising, technical service, etc.) for both reported channels of distribution. Due to the proprietary nature of the examined selling functions, see Preliminary LOT Memorandum. Based upon an analysis of the information provided on the record, we conclude that there is no significant difference in the selling functions performed by Canada Pipe in making sales through both channels of distribution. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that Canada Pipe makes all sales at the same LOT in the United States market. See Preliminary LOT Memorandum.

In order to determine whether sales in the United States are at a different LOT than sales in the home market, we reviewed the selling activities associated with the LOT in each market. We compared Canada Pipe's selling activities for U.S. EP transactions to the selling activities performed for the home market LOT sales by Canada Pipe ( e.g. sales planning, advertising, technical service, etc.). We found that there was no significant difference in the selling functions performed for Canada Pipe's EP sales than for sales at the home market LOT, sufficient to constitute a difference in LOT. See Preliminary LOT Memorandum.

As such, we have preliminarily determined that a LOT adjustment is not appropriate. See Preliminary LOT Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 7.07 percent dumping margin exists for Canada Pipe for the period March 1, 1999, through February 29, 2000. The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would also provide the Department with an additional copy of the public versions of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer specific duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of examined sales. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimus, we will instruct Customs to assess duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of ICC from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Canada Pipe will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 14.67 percent, the “all-others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of administrative review for a subsequent review period.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The mission of the DARP is to restore natural resource injuries caused by releases of hazardous substances or oil under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ), or physical injuries in Naitonal Marine Sanctuaries under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ). The NOAA DARP consists of three component organizations: The Damage Assessment Center (DAC) within the National Ocean Service; the Restoration Center within the National Marine Fisheries Services; and the Office of the General Counsel for Natural Resources (GCNR). The DARP conducts Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs) as a basis for recovering damages from responsible parties, and uses the funds recovered to restore injured natural resources.

When addressing NRDA incidents, the costs of the damage assessment are recoverable from responsible parties who are potentially liable for an incident. Costs include direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are costs for activities that are clearly and readily attributable to a specific output. In the context of the DARP, outputs may be associated with damage assessment cases, or may be represented by other program products such as damage assessment regulations. In contrast, indirect costs reflect the costs for activities that collectively support the DARP's mission and operations. For example, indirect costs include general administrative support and traditional overheads. Although these costs may not be readily traced back to a specific direct activity, indirect costs may be allocated to direct activities using an indirect cost distribution rate.

Consistent with Federal accounting requirements, the DARP is required to account for and report the full costs of its programs and activities. Further, the DARP is authorized by law to recover reasonable costs of damage assessment and restoration activities under CERCLA, OPA, and the NMSA. Within the constraints of these legal provisions and their regulatory applications, the DARP has the discretion to develop indirect cost rates for its component organizations and formulate policies on the recovery of indirect cost rates subject to its requirements.

In December 1998, the DARP hired the public account firm Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered (R&M), to: (1) Evaluate the cost accounting system and allocation practices; (2) recommend the appropriate indirect cost allocation methodology; and, (3) determine the indirect cost rates for the three organizations that comprise the DARP.

The DARP requested an anlysis of its indirect costs for fiscal years (FY) where cost information was considered adequate to conduct such an analysis. Consequently, indirect cost rates were developed for the DAC and GCNR for FYs 1993 through 1999, and for the RC for FYs 1997 through 1999 (see Table below). The goal was to develop the most appropriate indirct cost rate allocation methodology and rates for each of the DARP component organizations.

R&M concluded that the cost accounting system and allocation practices of the DARP component organizations are consistent with Federal accounting requirements. R&M also determined that the most appropriate indirect allocation method was the Direct Labor Cost Base for all three DARP component organizations. The Direct Labor Cost Base is computed by allocating total indirect cost over the sum of direct labor dollars plus the application of NOAA's leave surcharge and benefits rates to direct labor. The indirect costs rates that R&M computed for each of the three DARP component organizations were further assessed as being fair and equitable. A report on R&M's effort, their assessment of the DARP's cost accounting system and practice, and their determination respecting the most appropriate indirect cost methodology and rates can be found on the DARP web site at: www.darp.noaa.gov. The report is entitled “Indirect Cost Rates Incurred by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Damage Assessment and Restoration Program.”

The DARP will include the costs of program policy work and techniques and methods development in indirect cost pools of its component organizations, but will monitor these activities annually to control costs. The indirect cost pools also include the cost of general management and administrative support and preparedness for spill response work.

The DARP will apply the revised rates recommended by R&M for the respective fiscal years for each of the DARP component organizations as provided in the following table:

The revised rates identified in this policy will be applied to all damage assessment and restoration case costs as of October 1, 2000, using the Direct Labor Cost Base allocation methodology. For cases that have settled and for cost claims paid prior to October 1, 2000, the DARP will not re-open any resolved matters for the purpose of applying the revised rates in this policy. For cases not settled and not cost claims not paid prior to October 1, 2000, costs will be recalculated using the revised rates in this policy. The DARP will use the FY 1999 rates for future fiscal years until year-specific rates can be developed.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU's) are covered in this notice:

Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ).

Application 1273 : The North Carolina Aquarium Division proposes to continue to maintain 17 endangered shortnose sturgeon for the purposes of public education through species enhancement as identified in the Final Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon.

Permit 1254 : Notice was published on June 28, 2000 (65 FR 39869) that Central Hudson Gas& Electric Corporation/Dynergy Danskammer, L.L.C.& Dynergy Roseton, L.L.C. applied for a scientific research permit (1254). The applicant has requested a scientific research permit to conduct a monitoring study as part of an incidental take permit for the operation of the Roseton and Danskammer Point power plants. The applicant will be collecting larvae, juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon in various location in the Hudson River between the estuary and River mile 65. Permit 1254 was issued on November 29, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1254 expires August 31, 2005.

Patent No. 5,202,034 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Removing Water from Aqueous Sludges,” issued April 13, 1993. The concrete armor unit was invented by Dr. C. James Martel. The United States of America owns the rights to this technology. The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army intends to grant a partially exclusive license for all fields of use, in the manufacture, use, and sale of the patented technology in the territories and possessions of the U.S.A. and Canada, and in the field of use in the pulp and paper industry globally, to 3131807 Canada, Inc., a consortium comprising two companies: Le Groupe STEICA, Inc. of Sherbrooke, Quebec, and BESTH20, Inc. of La Prairie, Quebec, with principal offices at 170, rue des Pivoines, Le Prairie, Quebec, Canada J5R 5J6. Pursuant to 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), any interested party may file a written objection to this prospective exclusive license agreement.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS 2002).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 51,597. Burden Hours: 59,497.

Abstract: Year 2001 field test of 50 schools in five states, students, parents, teachers, and librarians. The main study in Spring 2002 in all 50 states and District of Columbia will constitute the baseline of a longitudinal study of school effectiveness and impact on postsecondary and labor market outcomes.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy_Axt at her internet address Kathy_Axt@)ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

DOE has prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This Record of Decision is based on DOE's final EIS for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project (DOE/EIS-0289, June 2000).

For the CCT Program, DOE developed a strategy that is consistent with CEQ and DOE regulations for compliance with NEPA and which includes consideration of both programmatic and project-specific environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a project. This strategy, called tiering (40 CFR 1508.28), refers to the consideration of general issues in a broader EIS ( e.g., for the CCT Program), followed by more focused environmental impact statements or other environmental analyses that incorporate by reference the general issues and concentrate on those issues specific to the proposals under consideration.

The DOE strategy has three principal elements. The first element involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic EIS for the CCT Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the potential environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of each of 22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies.

The second element involved preparation of a pre-selection, project-specific environmental review of proposed CCT projects based on project-specific environmental data and analyses in accordance with DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.216). For the proposed CFB combustor project, JEA supplied DOE with environmental data as part of their proposal. DOE reviewed the potential site-specific environmental, health, safety, and socioeconomic issues associated with the proposed project before selecting JEA's proposal for further consideration. In its review, DOE analyzed the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposal and alternative sites and processes reasonably available to JEA.

The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA documents for each selected project. For the JEA proposed project, DOE determined that an EIS should be prepared. As part of the overall NEPA strategy for the CCT Program, the JEA EIS draws upon the Programmatic EIS and pre-selection environmental reviews.

On November 13, 1997, DOE published in the Federal Register (62 FR 60889) a Notice of Intent to prepare the JEA EIS and hold a public scoping meeting. The Notice of Intent invited comments and suggestions on the proposed scope of the EIS, including environmental issues and alternatives, and encouraged participation in the NEPA process. DOE held the scoping meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 3, 1997. DOE received 3 oral responses and 20 written responses from interested parties. The responses helped DOE to establish the issues to be analyzed in the EIS and the level of analysis warranted for each issue.

In August 1999, DOE issued the draft EIS for public review and invited comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the EIS. As part of the review, DOE held a public hearing in Jacksonville, Florida, on September 30, 1999. DOE received 1 oral comment and 59 written comments, which helped to improve the quality and usefulness of the EIS. In June 2000, DOE issued the final EIS, which considered and, as appropriate, incorporated public comments on the draft EIS. Among the issues raised in the comments were concerns about (1) reliability of CFB combustion technology in meeting expected air emissions rates for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), in view of limited large-scale operating experience; (2) air emissions of heavy metals, radionuclides, carcinogenic chemicals, and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ); (3) potential effects of cooling water discharge on the St. Johns River; (4) potential entrainment of juvenile sea turtles, such as endangered green sea turtles, in the cooling water intake; (5) potential effects on manatees and other endangered species; (6) potential effects on Essential Fish Habitat, such as estuarine emergent wetlands; (7) potential effects on cultural resources; (8) disposal of ash, including whether the planned ash marketing would be successful; (9) noise levels from construction, operation, and rail transportation; (10) electromagnetic fields; and (11) traffic congestion.

The site for the proposed project is located in Jacksonville, Florida, about 9 miles northeast of the downtown area, at JEA's existing Northside Generating Station. This 400-acre industrial site is situated along the north shore of the St. Johns River, approximately 10 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean. The local terrain is flat and there is a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural land use in the vicinity. The industrial 1,650-acre St. Johns River Power Park borders Northside Generating Station to the northeast, and the 46,000-acre Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve borders the site to the east. Blount Island, located immediately to the southeast in the St. Johns River, is a major port with facilities for docking, loading, and unloading large ocean-going vessels. The most striking environmental feature associated with the area is the nearby presence of estuarine salt marsh backwaters of the St. Johns River.

Northside Generating Station, which currently employs 265 people, has operated since November 1966 when the 297.5-megawatt (MW) Unit 1 came on-line. The 297.5-MW Unit 2 and the 564-MW Unit 3 started operation in March 1972 and June 1977, respectively. Unit 2 has been out of service since 1983 because of major boiler problems associated with the volume of its furnace being inadequate to accommodate the heat generated. The Unit 2 steam turbine is currently idle and the Unit 2 furnace and stack have recently been dismantled and removed. Units 1 and 3 can burn both natural gas and oil [No. 6 fuel oil or No. 2 fuel oil (diesel)]. Units 1 and 3 have no air pollution control with the exception of low-NO X burners on Unit 3. Once-through cooling water is withdrawn from and discharged into the St. Johns River. Existing facilities currently occupy about 200 acres of the 400-acre property. The property contains a number of wetland areas, especially in the perimeter areas.

The proposed project would repower the idle Unit 2 steam turbine to generate nearly 300 MW of electricity using a new coal- and petroleum coke-fired combustor to demonstrate CFB combustion technology. The new combustor would be located adjacent to the existing Unit 3. Piping and related infrastructure would be constructed to link the combustor with the Unit 2 steam turbine. The proposed project and related infrastructure would occupy about 75 acres of the Northside Generating Station property.

CFB combustion technology is an advanced method for burning coal and other fuels efficiently while removing pollutants from air emissions inside the sophisticated combustor system. CFB technology provides flexibility in utility operations because a wide variety of solid fuels can be used, including high-sulfur, high-ash coal and petroleum coke. In a CFB combustor, coal or other fuels, air, and crushed limestone or other sorbents are injected into the lower portion of the combustor for initial burning of the fuel. The combustion actually occurs in a bed of fuel, sorbent, and ash particles that are fluidized by air from nozzles in the bottom of the combustor. The air expands the bed, creates turbulence for enhanced mixing, and provides most of the oxygen necessary for combustion of the fuel. As the fuel particles decrease in size through combustion and breakage, they are transported higher in the combustor where additional air is injected. As the particles continue to decrease in size, unreacted fuel, ash, and fine limestone particles are swept out of the combustor, collected in a particle separator (also called a cyclone), and recycled to the lower portion of the combustor. This is the “circulating” nature of the combustor. Drains in the bottom of the combustor remove a fraction of the bed composed primarily of ash while new fuel and sorbent are added. The combustion ash is suitable for beneficial uses such as road construction material, agricultural fertilizer, and reclaiming surface mining areas.

The heated combustor converts water in tubes lining the combustor's walls to high-pressure steam. The steam is then superheated in tube bundles placed in the solids circulating stream and the flue gas stream. The superheated steam drives a steam turbine-generator to produce electricity in a conventional steam cycle.

The injected limestone could capture up to 98% of the sulfur impurities released from the fuel. When heated in the CFB combustor, the limestone, consisting primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ), converts to calcium oxide (CaO) and CO 2 . The CaO reacts with SO 2 from the burning fuel to form calcium sulfate (CaSO 4 ), an inert material that is removed with the combustion ash. The combustion efficiency of the CFB combustor allows the fuel to be burned at a relatively low temperature of about 1,650EF, thus reducing NO X formation by approximately 60% compared with conventional coal-fired technologies. Greater than 99% of particulate emissions in the flue gas are removed downstream of the combustor by either an electrostatic precipitator or a fabric filter (baghouse).

In addition to the CFB technology, the proposed project would use a polishing scrubber in combination with the CFB combustor to attain a 98% SO 2 removal rate. The polishing scrubber is a conventional scrubbing system that would use lime in a dry flue gas desulfurization process downstream of the combustor to convert SO 2 chemically to calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. It is called a polishing scrubber because the CFB combustor would remove 85-90% of the SO 2 and the polishing scrubber would remove or “polish off” the remainder. This design is driven by economic rather than technical considerations ( i.e., the CFB combustor alone could achieve a 98% SO 2 removal rate but the operating cost would be greater).

Another addition to the CFB combustion technology is that the proposed project would use a selective non-catalytic reduction system to further reduce NO X emissions. Aqueous ammonia, the reagent for this system, would be injected into the CFB combustor exhaust gas to convert NO X emissions to nitrogen gas and water via a chemical reduction reaction. Atmospheric emissions of ammonia can occur if the amount supplied to reduce NO X in the flue gas is not used up (ammonia slip). However, excess ammonia in the stack gas can typically be reduced by optimizing the amount of ammonia that is injected. For the proposed project, stack emissions of ammonia slip would not exceed 40 ppm.

A CFB combustor has several advantageous operating characteristics that differentiate it from more conventional technologies. Because the fuel and sorbent being added represent only a small fraction of the total fuel and sorbent available in the bed, the combustor reacts more slowly to variations in fuel or sorbent quality. Steam characteristics and furnace temperatures are more uniform, which usually results in easier operation, fewer upset conditions and emission spikes, and more consistency in the quality of combustion ash. As a consequence of bed fluidization and recycling of particles back to the lower portion of the combustor, enhanced mixing is achieved at more uniform temperatures, which allows more complete combustion and sorbent reaction. Another advantage of the combustor is the efficient transfer of heat due to the physical contact between the particles in the bed and the heat exchanger tubes in the walls. The technology also has lower operating and maintenance costs and a shorter “down time” for maintenance than conventional coal-fired technologies.

During the demonstration, Unit 2 would be operated on several different types and blends of coal and petroleum coke to explore the flexibility of the CFB technology. The coal would be transported by ship (from areas such as Columbia and Venezuela), by train (primarily from the central Appalachian region such as West Virginia and eastern Kentucky), and by a combination of train and ship (train from West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to Newport News, Virginia, and ship from Newport News to Jacksonville). The petroleum coke would be transported by ship from oil refineries in Venezuela and the Caribbean region. Limestone for the CFB combustor probably would be transported by ship from the Caribbean region and the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.

Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by nonfederal-government sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more limited role than if the federal government were the owner and operator of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives for siting the project. However, in dealing with an applicant, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted because the agency must focus on alternative ways to accomplish its purpose that reflect both the application before it and the function the agency plays in the decisional process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the applicant's needs in establishing a project's reasonable alternatives.

Based on the foregoing principles, the only reasonable alternative to the proposed action is the no-action alternative, including three scenarios that could reasonably be expected to result as a consequence of the no-action alternative. Other alternatives that did not meet the goals and objectives of the CCT Program or of the applicant were dismissed from further consideration.

The Department's proposed action is to provide approximately $73 million (about 24% of the total cost of approximately $309 million) for the design, construction, and operation of facilities to demonstrate CFB combustion technology at JEA's Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Florida. The new CFB combustor would use coal and petroleum coke to generate nearly 300 MW of electricity by repowering the existing Unit 2 steam turbine (the 297.5-MW unit that has been out of service since 1983). In doing so, the proposed project is expected to demonstrate emission levels of SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter that would be lower than Clean Air Act limits while at the same time producing power more efficiently and at less cost than conventional technologies using coal. The proposed project would demonstrate CFB technology for electric power generation at a size sufficient to allow utilities to make decisions regarding commercialization of the technology.

In addition, JEA plans to repower the currently operating Unit 1 steam turbine without cost-shared funding from DOE. The Unit 1 steam turbine would be essentially identical to the turbine for Unit 2 and would be repowered about 6 to 12 months after the Unit 2 repowering. Although the proposed project consists of only the Unit 2 repowering (because DOE would provide no funding for the Unit 1 repowering), the JEA EIS evaluates the Unit 1 repowering as a related action.

JEA's management has established a target of a 10% reduction in annual stack emissions of each of 3 pollutants (SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter) from Northside Generating Station (Units 1, 2, and 3), as compared to emissions during a recent typical 2-year operating period (1994-95) of the station (Units 1 and 3). Also targeted for a 10% reduction is the total annual groundwater consumption of Northside Generating Station, as compared to 1996 levels. These reductions are to be accomplished while increasing the total annual energy output of the station.

JEA, the project participant, is responsible for obtaining all applicable permits for the proposed project and would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. JEA plans to enter into a contract with Foster Wheeler Corporation, which would perform the design, engineering, procurement, and construction of the CFB combustor and air emissions control equipment. JEA and Foster Wheeler conceived and proposed the technology in response to the DOE solicitation under the CCT Program; DOE's role is limited to providing the cost-shared funding for the proposed project. In addition, DOE and JEA have different objectives to be attained through the proposed project: DOE's objective is to demonstrate CFB technology, while JEA's intent is to meet its future demand for electricity.

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed CFB combustor project. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT Program (DOE/EIS-0146) evaluated the programmatic consequences of no action. Under the no-action alternative for the proposed project, three reasonably foreseeable scenarios could result.

First, JEA could repower the existing Unit 2 steam turbine without DOE funding, thereby accepting more of the financial risk associated with demonstrating the CFB combustor (at its own risk, JEA has in fact begun initial construction activities without DOE funding). JEA would also proceed with the related action of repowering Unit 1. Under this scenario, construction materials and activities and project operations would be the same as for the proposed project. The same amount of electricity would be generated. Fuel requirements would be similar except that the blend of coal to petroleum coke might be slightly different, particularly during the first 2 years of operation. Under this scenario, more of the solid fuel used could be petroleum coke.

Second, rather than repowering Unit 2, JEA could construct and operate a new gas-fired combined cycle facility at Northside Generating Station or at one of its other existing power plants. The natural gas would drive a gas combustion turbine and the heat from combustion would be used to produce steam that would drive a steam turbine. Based on modeling projections by JEA, the facility would be expected to generate approximately 230 MW of electricity.

Under this scenario, Northside Unit 1 would remain in its current oil-and gas-fired configuration, and JEA would not proceed with the related action of repowering Unit 1. Based upon the projected cost of natural gas and the combined cycle unit efficiency, the cost of generating electricity at the new combined cycle facility was projected to be in the same range as the existing oil-fired units. This resulted in the new combined cycle unit being projected to operate at about a 60% capacity factor (the percentage of electricity actually generated by a unit during a year compared with the unit's maximum capacity). The difference in generating output between the proposed combined cycle unit operating at a 60% capacity factor and the two proposed CFB combustors operating at a 90% capacity factor would be supplied by operating the existing units at higher capacity factors, by purchasing electricity from other utilities, or most likely by a combination of these two options. If the existing Northside units were to remain operating at their historical levels, then the addition of a combined cycle unit would result in an increase in JEA emissions. The more likely scenario is that the existing units would operate at higher capacity factors than in recent years, resulting in a larger increase in emissions compared with historical levels and an even larger increase of most pollutants compared with JEA emissions expected following the repowering of Units 1 and 2 with CFB combustors. Therefore, even though air emissions of most pollutants from the combined cycle facility alone would be less than corresponding emissions from a CFB combustor alone, the emissions from the existing oil-fired units would result in greater overall emissions under the combined cycle facility scenario.

Construction activities and operations would be similar for the gas-fired combined cycle facility and the CFB combustors but with notable differences related to fuel, sorbent, and ash handling and storage facilities. Under the combined cycle facility scenario, natural gas would be delivered by pipeline; no coal, petroleum coke, limestone, or lime would be used. No combustion ash would be generated. This scenario would not contribute to the CCT Program goal of demonstrating advanced, more efficient, economically feasible, and environmentally acceptable coal technologies.

Third, rather than repowering Unit 2, JEA could purchase electricity from other utilities to meet JEA's projected demand. Under this scenario, no construction activities or changes in current operations would occur within the JEA system of power plants, including Northside Generating Station. JEA would not proceed with the related action of repowering Unit 1. There could be construction activities or changes in operations at the other utilities providing electricity to JEA if the needed electricity capacity were not already available.

This scenario would not contribute to the CCT Program goal, would not provide employment for construction workers in the Jacksonville area, and would not result in reductions of atmospheric emissions or groundwater use at Northside Generating Station. Moreover, existing Units 1 and 3 might be required to operate at capacity factors greater than historical levels if JEA were unable to purchase sufficient electricity from other utilities. Under those circumstances, annual air emissions and groundwater consumption would increase.

Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project are evaluated in the JEA EIS for resource areas including air quality, surface water, groundwater, floodplains and wetlands, ecological resources, noise, transportation, solid waste, and cultural and socioeconomic resources. The following summary provides key findings for areas of potential concern.

A computer-based air dispersion model was used to estimate maximum increases in ground-level concentrations of SO 2 , nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and particulate matter that would occur at any location as a result of emissions from the CFB combustor and limestone dryers for the proposed project (the Unit 2 repowering). Results indicate that maximum modeled increases are always less than 15% of their corresponding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II increments (standards in the ambient air for increases in pollutant concentrations). One set of allowable increments exists for Class II areas, which cover most of the United States, and a much more stringent set of allowable increments exists for Class I areas, which include many national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. Maximum concentrations generally occur at locations along, or very close to, the site boundary, often within 0.6 mile of the proposed CFB combustor stack. Dispersion of pollutants would reduce atmospheric concentrations at the nearest PSD Class I areas (more than 30 miles from the proposed facility) to only a small fraction of the maximum modeled increases near the site. The increases in pollutant concentrations at the nearest PSD Class I areas would be expected to be only small fractions of the corresponding Class I increments.

The combination of the proposed project and related action would result in emissions from the new 495-ft twin-flued stack that would be twice those considered in the analysis of the proposed project alone. However, as part of the related action, the elimination of emissions from the existing 250-ft stack serving Unit 1 would more than compensate for the added emissions. Compared to existing emissions at Northside Generating Station, a net decrease in maximum hourly emissions of SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter would result from the addition of the repowered Unit 2 and the limestone dryers and the replacement of the existing Unit 1 with the repowered Unit 1. Therefore, a decrease in ground-level concentrations of these pollutants would be expected most of the time at most locations in the surrounding area (the overall effect would be beneficial). However, pollutant concentrations would not decrease for all averaging times at all locations; maximum ground-level concentrations at some locations could increase because the characteristics and location of the proposed new stack would be different from those of the stack currently serving Unit 1. The net impacts could be positive or negative on any particular day at any particular location.

Air dispersion modeling also was used to evaluate maximum adverse impacts possible from the proposed project in conjunction with the related action. Maximum modeled increases in ground-level concentrations are very similar to those for the proposed project alone. Maximum increases are always less than 15% of their corresponding Class II increments. Because the nearest PSD Class I areas are more than 30 miles away, pollutants from Northside Generating Station would be well mixed in the atmosphere, and stack characteristics would have little effect on ground-level pollutant concentrations in these areas. Therefore, a net decrease in pollutant emissions resulting from the proposed project in conjunction with the related action would be expected to improve air quality, albeit by a very small amount, at the nearest PSD Class I areas.

Regarding potential cumulative air quality impacts, results of modeling regional sources and the proposed project indicate that no exceedances of national or state ambient air quality standards would be expected if the proposed project were implemented. Florida standards are the same as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) except for annual and 24-hour standards for SO 2 , for which the Florida standards are more stringent. During the 6-to 12-month transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, the 24-hour average SO 2 concentration is estimated to be as high as 97% of the corresponding Florida standard. This large concentration results from aerodynamic downwash effects caused by the proposed 200-ft tall combustor structure that would induce downward motion on the exhaust gas emitted from the 250-ft stack serving the existing Unit 1 and the 350-ft stack serving the existing Unit 3 (exhaust gas from the proposed 495-ft CFB combustor stack would not be subjected to appreciable downwash because the stack is taller). During the 6- to 12-month transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, JEA has committed to reduce maximum hourly SO 2 emissions from the existing Unit 1 by nearly 93% when operations commence for the proposed project. This reduction, which would be accomplished by using natural gas and fuel oil with an SO 2 emission rate averaging no more than 0.143 lb/MBtu (effectively, a blend with a sulfur content averaging no more than 0.13%), would assure that the maximum 24-hour average SO 2 concentration would not exceed the Florida standard.

Estimated SO 2 concentrations for other averaging periods are less than 60% of their respective standards. The annual average NO 2 concentration is less than 40% of its NAAQS. The 24-hour and annual averages of particulate matter are less than 65% of the NAAQS, even though ambient background particulate concentrations for both averaging periods are over 40% of the NAAQS.

Results of modeling regional sources and the proposed project in conjunction with the related action of repowering the existing Unit 1 indicate that maximum concentrations are always less than corresponding concentrations without the related action. For example, the 24-hour average SO 2 concentration for regional sources and the proposed project in conjunction with the related action is 91% of the Florida standard, compared to 97% for regional sources and the proposed project without the related action.

Ozone (O 3 ) concentrations during 1993-97 at the nearest monitor located about 5 miles north-northwest of Northside Generating Station were always less than 90% of the 1-hour NAAQS. Because changes in NO X and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the proposed project alone or in conjunction with the related action would be less than 1% of emissions in Duval County, they would not be expected to lead to any exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS for O 3 at that monitoring location.

Regarding toxic air pollutants, findings indicate that the proposed project alone or in conjunction with the related action would not lead to any exceedances of, or close approaches to, guideline values for noncarcinogenic effects from toxic materials. Further, including both the inhalation and ingestion pathways, the maximum annual cancer risk to a member of the public resulting from dioxins, furans, and other carcinogenic substances emitted during operations was estimated to be less than 1 in 1 million (risk from lifetime of exposure estimated to be less than 3 in 100,000); given the upper-bound assumptions in the estimate, the risk would probably be less.

Because Unit 2 has not operated since 1983, the proposed project would increase the demand for cooling water. After Unit 2 is repowered, the demand by the entire 3-unit plant would be approximately the same as when the three units operated together from approximately 1978 until 1980. The sustained flow of the back channel of the St. Johns River would not be depleted by this diversion because nearly all of the withdrawn cooling water would be returned to the river after passing through the condensers. The amount of heat discharged to the St. Johns River would also increase as a consequence of the proposed project. However, the size of the thermal plume would not increase because simultaneous operation of all three units would increase the discharge velocity and enhance mixing.

Operation of the proposed project would reduce by 10% the groundwater consumption from the upper Floridan aquifer by Northside Generating Station, which would decrease the rate of decline of the potentiometric surface of that aquifer. As a result, more groundwater would be available to local users, and water quality of the aquifer would be stabilized because of reduced influx of brackish or saline groundwater from deeper aquifers.

No impacts from flooding would be expected to occur, and proposed activities would have a negligible effect on floodplain encroachment. A category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane in Jacksonville is a low-probability event that, if it occurred, would have serious consequences for Northside Generating Station. Although the effects of storm surge and waves that would occur along the beaches would partially be mitigated at Northside Generating Station by (1) its inland location, (2) the presence of the beach ridge along the dune line, and (3) Blount Island, the first floor of the station could be inundated by this unlikely event.

Ecological impacts to wetlands from the proposed project would be minor because no more than 1.8 acres of isolated hardwood wetland habitat would be lost during construction of the ash storage area, and disturbance of salt marsh habitats during construction of the solid fuel delivery system would be negligible. Wetlands associated with the upper salt marsh communities would not be measurably affected because nearly all of the conveyor system for solid fuel delivery would span these habitats using existing structures and would involve no clearing or earthmoving activities. Although some pilings might need to be installed at the upper fringes of the salt marsh and in San Carlos Creek, any impacts resulting from piling installation would be very localized and temporary and should not measurably affect the normal structural and functional dynamics of the salt marsh and nearby estuarine ecosystems.

As a mitigation measure to offset the loss of 1.8 acres of wetlands, JEA would purchase slightly greater than 3 acres of wetlands from an offsite mitigation bank and would restore 1 acre of salt marsh, which together would result in a net gain in the amount of wetlands. In addition, JEA plans to set aside and preserve 15 acres of undisturbed, uplands maritime oak hammock along the west bank of San Carlos Creek. By preserving the land, JEA would maintain habitat for wildlife, help protect the water quality of the creek, and leave a high-quality forested buffer area in a developing industrial area.

With regard to threatened and endangered species, manatees are of the most concern. Impacts on this species from construction of a new fuel and limestone unloading dock are unlikely because manatees probably would not regularly frequent the dock area due to the paucity of submerged vegetation such as seagrasses and emergent cordgrasses in the immediate vicinity of the dock. Potential impacts resulting from operational activities such as docking of vessels would also be unlikely. The potential for manatees to be trapped and pinned between the dock and a vessel are minimal because the dock would be supported by widely spaced support pilings rather than consisting of one long continuous structure. Because manatees generally avoid swift currents and prefer slow-moving or stagnant water, they would not frequent the main discharge area in the back channel of the St. Johns River where currents are relatively swift. In addition, it is very unlikely that all units for both the St. Johns River Power Park and Northside Generating Station would be shut down simultaneously, thereby minimizing the probability that manatees would be harmed by a cold shock event.

Four or five juvenile loggerhead, Kemps Ridley, and/or green sea turtles (a listed endangered species) became trapped in the Northside Generating Station intake basin on one occasion during summer 1997 (the turtles were released unharmed). In order to prevent any further occurrences of juvenile turtles entering the intake structure, where they might become trapped, JEA installed on the intake trash rakes a finer grid of mesh bars (welded wire screen on 6-in. centers contrasted to the old 12-in. centers). The denser grid has excluded turtles of sizes similar to those observed from entering the intake basin and becoming trapped.

Because the area in the vicinity of the proposed project is rich in archaeological resources and the excavation of undisturbed land could affect important archaeological artifacts, both a cultural resources assessment survey of the proposed project site and a follow-up Phase II investigation were conducted. These studies found that there are no potentially significant historic or archaeological sites located in the area that would be disturbed by the proposed project. Under the terms of the Submerged Lands & Environmental Resource Permit that would be issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), JEA would be required to notify the appropriate agencies [the St. Johns River Water Management District, the FDEP, and the State Historic Preservation Officer] immediately upon discovery of any archaeological artifacts on the project site [Rule 62-330.200(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code].

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in major impacts to population, employment, income, housing, local government revenues, or public services in Duval County. The percentage of Blacks and Asians in Duval County is greater than for Florida as a whole. Because there are relatively few people in poverty or Blacks and Asians living in the census tracts surrounding the proposed site, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income or minority populations would occur. In particular, because of the relatively low number of minority and low-income residents in the vicinity of the proposed project, very few members of these groups would experience the adverse effects associated with increased road and rail traffic and related noise.

Construction-induced traffic during the peak traffic hour would not exceed available capacity except for the section of Heckscher Drive from State Route 9A to Drummond Point (just west of Eastport Road). Without mitigation the congestion experienced on this segment would be significant. Accordingly, JEA has committed to encourage carpooling and suggest alternate routes to and from the site. The increased traffic would also result in noticeable congestion on New Berlin Road, especially at the intersection of Ostner and New Berlin Roads. To avoid a significant impact, JEA has committed to monitor traffic at the above-mentioned intersection and to place a police officer at the intersection to direct traffic during peak times, if needed. Should the presence of a police officer prove inadequate to control project-induced traffic, JEA has further committed to pursue authorization of a temporary traffic signal at that intersection.

Based on current projections, marine transportation would be the most economic means of delivering solid fuel and limestone for the proposed project. Consequently, no more than one 90-car train per week would be required to transport coal for the proposed project, and this could be offset by decreased rail deliveries and corresponding increased waterborne deliveries for operations at the St. Johns River Power Park. However, in the less likely event that all necessary coal would be transported by rail, up to 3 additional trains per week would be required for a total of 6 new one-way trips by 90-car unit trains. If all coal were transported by train, the 6 new one-way train trips per week would exacerbate impacts associated with noise, vibration, and blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings resulting from existing train traffic. These impacts are a source of concern for residents of Panama Park, North Shore, and San Mateo. Project-induced train traffic would increase total movement on the CSX line paralleling U.S. 17 by about 5% and would increase traffic on the spur line from U.S. 17 to the St. John River Power Park and Blount Island by approximately 8%. Additional train traffic could be minimized by relying more heavily on barges and ships for coal transport. As mentioned earlier, economic projections indicate that the marine fuel delivery mode is more likely.

During construction of the proposed project, noise levels would increase from the present operational levels. Construction would primarily occur adjacent to the existing turbine building. The noisiest periods of construction would be during steam blowouts and during the operation of a pile driver and other construction equipment. Except possibly during steam blowouts and possibly during operation of equipment used to construct a nearby segment of a conveyor, construction noise should not appreciably change the background noise of nearby residences, interfere with outside voice communications, or exceed the limitations of Rule 4, Noise Pollution Control, promulgated by the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board (1995). This rule limits daytime construction noise levels to 65 dB(A) at residential property.

JEA likely would perform continuous, low-pressure, high-velocity steam blowouts. Although this activity would be conducted around the clock, noise levels at the nearest residences should be below levels of concern, because this type of blowout, uses low-pressure steam rather than high-pressure steam. However, because JEA's steam blowout plan has not been finalized, JEA has committed to installing mufflers if high-pressure steam blowouts are conducted, or, if mufflers are not installed, JEA has committed to measuring the noise levels at the nearest residences and ensuring that the levels would conform to the Noise Pollution Control ordinance limits.

The project-induced increased movement of trains through the local area would be accompanied by high-decibel train whistles and rattling rail cars. Train noise is a source of concern for residents of Panama Park, North Shore, and San Mateo. One local resident has reported the level of train whistles as being 108 dB(A) and the level of rattling rail cars as being up to 85 dB(A). As mentioned in the transportation section above, additional train noise could be minimized by relying more heavily on barges and ships for coal transport.

The preferred alternative for management of the combustion ash would be to sell it as a by-product to offsite customers. An aggressive marketing program would be implemented to maximize the quantity sold. If more than approximately 70% of the ash could be sold over the 30-year lifetime of Northside Generating Station, the 40-acre storage site would be sufficient for complete containment, and disposal of the material would not be an issue. Additional permanent disposal space would be required if JEA cannot sell more than 70% of the ash. In the unlikely event that none can be sold, an additional 80 to 100 acres of disposal space would be required over the 30-year operating life of the facility. If additional space were required, potential locations for disposal include the property directly north of the Northside property, available land at the St. Johns River Power Park, and existing offsite landfills. Four large landfill sites that are permitted to dispose of nonhazardous industrial wastes have been identified in northeastern Florida and southeastern Georgia.

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed project; three reasonably foreseeable scenarios could result (see Alternatives above). Under the first scenario, in which JEA would repower the existing Unit 2 steam turbine without DOE funding, environmental impacts would generally be very similar to those of the proposed project. However, more of the solid fuel used could be petroleum coke, which would be brought to the site by waterborne transport. If current projections about the economic advantages of marine transportation change and rail transport is the primary means of moving coal to the project site, the increased use of petroleum coke under this scenario would result in less train traffic and more marine traffic to deliver the fuel as compared with the proposed project. As a result, there would be fewer train trips through the neighborhoods in the vicinity of Northside Generating Station, which would reduce potential problems with noise, vibration, and blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings.

Under the second scenario, in which JEA would construct and operate a new gas-fired combined cycle facility at Northside Generating Station or at one of their other existing power plants, there would be no train, marine, or truck traffic associated with fuel and sorbent delivery. No combustion ash would be generated and there would be no truck traffic to remove ash from the site. Consequently, impacts related to traffic noise and disruptions would be minimized. Air emissions would be expected to increase compared with historical levels because of the operation of the combined cycle facility in addition to the existing Northside units operating at the same or higher capacity factors. Therefore, air emissions under this scenario would generally be greater than those for the proposed project. Changes in concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air would depend on the location and project-specific nature of the facility ( e.g. , stack height and exit temperature and velocity). Impacts to cultural resources could be less if there were less disruption to construct conveyors and other facilities on previously undisturbed land; conversely, impacts could be greater if more onsite and/or offsite land were disturbed because of a need to construct or upgrade a pipeline supplying natural gas to the facility.

Under the third scenario, in which JEA would purchase electricity from other utilities to meet JEA's projected demand, there would be no change in current environmental conditions at the site, and the impacts would remain unchanged from the baseline conditions. It is possible that existing Units 1 and 3 would operate at capacity factors greater than historical levels if JEA were unable to purchase sufficient electricity from other utilities. Consequently, annual air emissions and groundwater consumption would increase. In addition, some impacts to resources could result in the geographical area of the other utilities, particularly if a new facility were built to meet the JEA demand or if additional fuel were transported to the other site or sites to generate additional electricity. The level of any such impacts would depend on the project-specific characteristics of any facility construction, the fuel required by the facility, and the affected resources in the area.

The environmentally preferred alternative would likely be the first scenario under the no-action alternative. This scenario is nearly identical to the proposed project [ e.g. , in both cases there would be a 10% reduction in annual stack emissions of each of 3 pollutants (SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter) from Northside Generating Station and a 10% reduction in the total annual groundwater consumption of the station]. Consequently, under the first scenario, environmental impacts would be very similar to those of the proposed project except that there could be less train traffic and more ship and barge traffic to deliver the fuel because more of the solid fuel used could be petroleum coke. Assuming that there would be fewer train trips, the potential impacts associated with train noise, vibration, and blocked crossings would be reduced under the first scenario.

Under the second scenario of the no-action alternative, even though air emissions of most pollutants from the combined cycle facility alone would be less than corresponding emissions from a CFB combustor alone, the emissions from the existing oil-fired units would result in greater overall emissions compared to those of the proposed project. This environmental drawback would tend to outweigh the scenario's environmental benefits ( e.g. , no train-, ship and barge-, or truck-related noise from traffic associated with fuel and sorbent delivery or ash removal).

The third scenario of the no-action alternative would not result in reductions of atmospheric emissions or groundwater use at Northside Generating Station. Moreover, there could be potential impacts from construction activities or changes in operations at the other utilities providing electricity to JEA if the electricity were not already available. Therefore, this scenario is not considered the environmentally preferred alternative.

DOE received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission; the Florida Department of Transportation; the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources; the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4; and a member of the local community.

The Marine Mammal Commission expressed concern about potential harm to northern right whales from collisions with ocean-going vessels, and recommended that DOE consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to assess what mitigation measures might be needed to protect northern right whales from injuries due to project-related vessel traffic. The Commission also expressed concern about potential harm to manatees during routine delivery of fuel to the plant, and recommended that DOE consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the use of propeller guards should be required to protect manatees.

In regard to the protection of northern right whales from collisions with project-related vessels, approximately 50 to 60 ocean-going vessels are expected to deliver solid fuel, fuel oil, and limestone to Northside Generating Station annually after both units are repowered. In comparison, about 65 vessels delivered fuel oil to the station in 1998. However, some of these vessels were smaller river barges that did not enter into the Atlantic Ocean, which contains critical habitat for northern right whales from the shoreline out to as far as 15 nautical miles. As an upper-bound estimate, the annual increase in traffic in the Atlantic Ocean after both units are repowered would be about 50 vessels, which is less than 2.5% of the 2,047 round-trips made by vessels traveling between the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean in 1999. The ocean-going vessels are not expected to travel at speeds greater than about 12 knots. Because (1) the trips (about 1 per week) would be relatively infrequent, (2) the number of trips would be a small percentage of current traffic, and (3) the vessels would travel slower than the threshold speed of 14 knots above which most serious injuries to whales occur, no mitigation measures would be necessary to protect northern right whales from collisions with project-related vessels. Staff with the National Marine Fisheries Service have concurred with this assessment.

In regard to the use of propeller guards to protect manatees from vessels delivering fuel to Northside Generating Station, currently propeller guards are not used on vessels in the St. Johns River. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIS ( e.g. , the dock design would allow sufficient space between vessels and the dock structure such that manatees could easily avoid being trapped), it is unlikely that the proposed project would cause harm to a significant number of manatees, even without propeller guards on project-related vessels. Staff with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have concurred with this assessment.

The Florida Department of Transportation stated that the project may have a direct impact on the State Transportation System and requested that JEA submit all site plans and access plans to the Jacksonville permit engineer. JEA has contacted the Jacksonville permit engineer cited in the comment and both parties agree that, because project-related construction would not occur along Heckscher Drive and because the only access for construction personnel would be located at the New Berlin Road entrance to the facility, JEA is not required to submit site plans and access plans for the proposed project to the Florida Department of Transportation.

The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources stated that the JEA EIS addresses their concerns in regard to the potential impact on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The Division of Historical Resources also stated their opinion that no historic resources would be affected by the proposed action.

The U.S. EPA, Region 4, stated that their initial comments/concerns on the draft EIS have been satisfactorily addressed and that they appreciate the mitigation measures that JEA has agreed to employ in order to address potential impacts. EPA further stated that they continue to have environmental concerns about potential process releases and project impacts. DOE believes that by implementing the mitigation measures described in this Record of Decision it will address EPA's concerns.

A member of the local community expressed concerns regarding groundwater use, particulate emissions, and construction worker safety. Regarding groundwater use, as discussed above under Water Resources, JEA has committed to a 10% reduction in total annual groundwater consumption at Northside Generating Station after Units 1 and 2 are repowered (as compared to 1996 levels). Similarly for particulate emissions (see Air Quality above), JEA has established a target of a 10% reduction in annual stack emissions of particulate matter from Northside Generating Station (Units 1, 2, and 3), as compared to emissions during a recent typical 2-year operating period (1994-95) of the station (Units 1 and 3). These reductions are to be accomplished while increasing the total annual energy output of the station. In regard to the concerns expressed about construction worker safety, DOE believes that this concern reflects an accident that occurred in July 2000, while JEA was constructing (at its own risk) the solid fuel storage dome associated with the proposed project. In the response to the accident, JEA completed a root cause analysis to ensure that worker safety is not compromised. The analysis concluded that wind speeds during the incident exceeded the design threshold of the dome anchoring system during construction. Consequently, the construction process has been redesigned to use additional anchors and to delay installation of most of the dome covering until after the entire structural frame is permanently anchored.

DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately $73 million in cost-shared federal funding support to design, construct, and demonstrate the CFB technology proposed by JEA. The project is intended to demonstrate the combined removal of SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter in a promising technology that is ready to be commercialized within the range that is most desired by utilities (250 to 400 MW). The project is expected to generate sufficient data from design, construction, and operation to allow private industry to assess the potential for commercial application of the CFB technology. This decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed project was made after careful review of the potential environmental impacts, as analyzed in the EIS.

In accordance with § 1021.331(a) of the DOE NEPA regulations, DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action Plan that addresses mitigation commitments expressed in this ROD. Copies of the Mitigation Action Plan may be obtained from Dr. Jan Wachter, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, telephone: (412) 386-4809.

Under this announcement, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing its intention to issue the Fiscal Year 2001 Broad Based Solicitation for Submission of Financial Assistance Applications Involving Research, Development and Demonstration (herein referred to as Broad Based Solicitation), DE-PS36-01GO90000. The Broad Based Solicitation expresses the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE), continuing interest in receiving Applications for Financial Assistance Awards (Grants and Cooperative Agreements) in support of renewable energy and energy efficiency basic research, applied research, cooperative demonstrations, and related activities. The Broad Based Solicitation will consist of two parts: the first part which establishes guidelines and requirements for submitting Applications in response to individual Supplemental Announcements; the second part will consist of individual Supplemental Announcements and will be specific to designated technology areas of interest. These individual Supplemental Announcements will contain technology specific information, anticipated programmatic funding levels, any specific eligibility requirements, any specific application instructions, evaluation criteria, any cost sharing requirements, application deadlines, and any other requirements specific to obtaining Financial Assistance Awards. The Broad Based Solicitation, consisting of the first part and all Supplemental Announcements, will be posted on the DOE Golden Field Office Home Page at http://www.golden.doe.gov/businessopportunities.html, under “Solicitations.”

DOE intends to issue Supplemental Announcements to this document throughout Fiscal Year 2001. Each Supplemental Announcement will be posted on the Golden Field Office Home Page. A notice to release Supplemental Announcements will be published in the Federal Register and, if appropriate, in the Commerce Business Daily or other publications. Any application that is submitted in response to this Broad Based Solicitation must also be in direct response to a specific Supplemental Announcement.

This notice is published annually and remains in effect until it is succeeded by another issuance by the Office of Science, usually published after the beginning of the fiscal year. This annual Notice 01-01 succeeds Notice 00-01, which was published November 5, 1999.

It is anticipated that approximately $400 million will be available for grant and cooperative agreement awards in FY 2001. The DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of an application. DOE reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this Notice.

In addition, the following program descriptions are offered to provide more in-depth information on scientific and technical areas of interest to the Office of Science:

The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program supports fundamental research in the natural sciences and engineering leading to new and improved energy technologies and to understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy technologies. The science areas and their objectives are as follows:

The objective of this program is to increase the understanding of phenomena and properties important to materials behavior that will contribute to meeting the needs of present and future energy technologies. It is comprised of the subfields metallurgy, ceramics, condensed matter physics, materials chemistry, and related disciplines where the emphasis is on the science of materials.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3427.

The objective of this program is to expand, through support of basic research, knowledge of various areas of chemistry, chemical engineering and atomic molecular and optical physics with a goal of contributing to new or improved processes for developing and using domestic energy resources in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. Disciplinary areas where research is supported include atomic molecular and optical physics; physical, inorganic and organic chemistry; chemical physics; photochemistry; radiation chemistry; analytical chemistry; separations science; actinide chemistry; and chemical engineering sciences.

Program Contact: (301) 903-5804.

This program's objectives are: (1) To extend the body of knowledge underlying current engineering practice in order to open new ways for enhancing energy savings and production, prolonging useful equipment life, and reducing costs while maintaining output performance, and environmental quality; and (2) to broaden the technical and conceptual base for solving future engineering problems in the energy technologies. Long-term research topics of current interest include: foundations of bioprocessing of fuels and energy related wastes, micro- and nano-scale energy transport, fracture mechanics, fundamental studies of multiphase flows and heat transfer, robotics and intelligent machines, nanotechnology, and diagnostics and control for plasma processing of materials.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3427.

The goal of this program is to develop a quantitative and predictive understanding of those geologic processes related to energy and environmental quality. The emphasis is on disciplinary areas of geophysics, geomechanics, hydrogeology and geochemistry with a focus on the upper levels of the earth's crust. Particular emphasis is on rock-fluid systems and interactions emphasizing processes taking place at the atomic and molecular scale. Specific topical areas receiving emphasis include: High resolution geophysical imaging; rock physics, physics of fluid transport, and fundamental properties and interactions of rocks, minerals, and fluids.

Program Contact: (301) 903-5804.

The primary objective of this program is to generate the fundamental understanding of biological mechanisms in the areas of botanical and microbiological sciences that will support technological developments related to DOE's mission. The research serves as the basic information foundation with respect to an environmentally responsible renewable resource production for fuels and chemicals, microbial conversions of renewable materials and biological systems for the conservation of energy. This program has special requirements for the submission of preapplications, when to submit, and the length of the applications. Applicants are encouraged to contact the program regarding these requirements.

Program Contact: (301) 903-2873.

This program supports about 90% of the U.S. efforts in high energy and nuclear physics. The objectives of these programs are indicated below:

The primary objectives of this program are to understand the ultimate structure of matter in terms of the properties and interrelations of its basic constituents, and to understand the nature and relationships among the fundamental forces of nature. The research falls into three broad categories: Experimental research, theoretical research, and technology R&D in support of the high energy physics program.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3624.

The primary objectives of this program are an understanding of the interactions and structures of atomic nuclei and nuclear matter at the most elementary level possible, and an understanding of the fundamental forces of nature as manifested in nuclear matter.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3613.

This program fosters and supports fundamental research in advanced computing research (applied mathematics, computer science and networking), and operates supercomputer, networking, and related facilities to enable the analysis, modeling, simulation, and prediction of complex phenomena important to the Department of Energy.

This subprogram supports a spectrum of fundamental research in applied mathematical sciences, computer science, and networking from basic through prototype development. Results of these efforts are used to form partnerships with users in scientific disciplines to validate the usefulness of the ideas and to develop them into tools. Testbeds on important applications for DOE are supported by this subprogram. Areas of particular focus are:

Applied Mathematics: Research on the underlying mathematical understanding and numerical algorithms to enable effective description and prediction of physical systems such as fluids, magnetized plasmas, or protein molecules. This includes, for example, methods for solving large systems of partial differential equations on parallel computers, techniques for choosing optimal values for parameters in large systems with hundreds to hundreds of thousands of parameters, improving our understanding of fluid turbulence, and developing techniques for reliably estimating the errors in simulations of complex physical phenomena.

Computer Science: Research in computer science to enable large scientific applications through advances in massively parallel computing such as very lightweight operating systems for parallel computers, distributed computing such as development of the Parallel Virtual Machine (PVM) software package which has become an industry standard, and large scale data management and visualization. The development of new computer and computational science techniques will allow scientists to use the most advanced computers without being overwhelmed by the complexity of rewriting their codes every 18 months.

Networking: Research in high performance networks and information surety required to support high performance applications—protocols for high performance networks, methods for measuring the performance of high performance networks, and software to enable high speed connections between high performance computers and networks. The development of high speed communications and collaboration technologies will allow scientists to view, compare, and integrate data from multiple sources remotely.

Program Contact: (301) 903-5800.

The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences program is to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology and, thereby the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) supports basic and applied research, encourages technical connectivity with the broader U.S. science community, and uses international collaboration to accomplish this mission.

This Division seeks to develop the physics knowledge base needed to advance the Fusion Energy Sciences program toward its goals. Research into physics issues associated with medium to large-scale confinement devices is essential to studying conditions relevant to the production of fusion energy. Experiments on this scale of devices are used to explore the limits of specific confinement concepts, as well as study associated physical phenomena. Specific areas of interest include: (1) Reducing plasma energy and particle transport at high densities and temperatures, (2) understanding the physical laws governing confinement of high pressure plasmas, (3) investigating plasma wave interactions, and (4) studying and controlling impurity particle transport and exhaust in plasmas.

Research is also carried out in the following areas: (1) Basic plasma science research directed at furthering the understanding of fundamental processes in plasmas; (2) theoretical research to provide the understanding of fusion plasmas necessary for interpreting results from present experiments, planning future experiments, and designing future confinement devices; (3) critical data on plasma properties, atomic physics and new diagnostic techniques for support of confinement experiments; (4) supporting research on innovative confinement concepts; and (5) research on issues that support the development of Inertial Fusion Energy, for which target development is carried out by the Office of Defense Programs in the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Agency.

Program Contact: (301) 903-4095.

This Division is responsible for overseeing the facility operations and enabling research and development activity budgets within the OFES. Grant program opportunities are in the enabling research and development activity. (Grants for scientific use of the facilities operated/maintained by this Division should be addressed to the Research Division.) The enabling technologies program supports the advancement of fusion science in the nearer-term by carrying out research on technological topics that: (1) Enable domestic experiments to achieve their full performance potential and scientific research goals; (2) permit scientific exploitation of the performance gains being sought from physics concept improvements; (3) allow the U.S. to enter into international collaborations gaining access to experimental conditions not available domestically; and (4) explore the science underlying these technological advances.

The enabling technologies program supports pursuit of fusion energy science for the longer-term by conducting research aimed at innovative technologies, designs and materials to point toward an attractive fusion energy vision and affordable pathways for optimized fusion development.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3068.

For over 50 years the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program has been investing to advance environmental and biomedical knowledge connected to energy. The BER program provides fundamental science to underpin the business thrusts of the Department's strategic plan. Through its support of peer-reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and private institutions, the program develops the knowledge needed to identify, understand, and anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use.

Research is focused on using DOE's unique resources and facilities to develop fundamental biological information and advanced technologies to understand and mitigate potential health effects of energy development, energy use, and waste cleanup. The objectives are: (1) To create and apply new technologies and resources in sequencing, comparative genomics, and bioinformatics to characterize the human genome; (2) to develop and support DOE national user facilities for use in fundamental structural biology; (3) to use model organisms to understand human genome organization, human gene function and control, and the functional relationships between human genes and proteins; (4) to characterize and exploit the genomes and diversity of microbes with potential relevance for energy, bioremediation, or global climate; (5) to understand and characterize the risks to human health from exposures to low levels of radiation; and (6) to anticipate and address ethical, legal, and social implications arising from genome research.

Program Contact: (301) 903-5468.

The research is designed to develop beneficial applications of nuclear and other energy-related technologies for medical diagnosis and treatment. The research is directed at discovering new applications of radiotracer agents for medical research as well as for clinical diagnosis and therapy. A major emphasis is placed on application of the latest concepts and developments in genomics, structural biology, computational biology, and instrumentation. Much of the research seeks breakthroughs in noninvasive imaging technologies such as positron emission tomography. The measurement science activities focus on research in the basic science of chemistry, physics and engineering as applied to bioengineering.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3213.

The research is primarily focused on the fundamental biological, chemical, geological, and physical processes that must be understood for the development and advancement of new, effective, and efficient processes for the remediation and restoration of the Nation's nuclear weapons production sites. Priorities of this research are bioremediation and operation of the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL). Bioremediation activities are centered on the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program, a basic research program focused on determining the conditions under which bioremediation will be a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective technique. This subprogram also includes basic research in support of pollution prevention, sustainable technology development and other fundamental research to address problems of environmental contamination.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3281.

The program seeks to understand the basic physical, chemical, and biological processes of the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans and how these processes may be affected by energy production and use. The research is designed to provide data that will enable an objective assessment of the potential for and consequences of global warming at global and regional scales. The program is comprehensive with an emphasis on understanding and simulating the radiation balance from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere (including the effect of clouds, water vapor, trace gases, and aerosols) and on enhancing the quantitative models necessary to predict possible climate change at global and regional scales.

The Climate Change Technology (CCT) research seeks the understanding necessary to exploit the biosphere's natural carbon sequestration processes to enhance the sequestration of carbon dioxide in terrestrial systems and the ocean and to understand its potential environmental implications. The CCT includes research that can lead to the development of approaches to reduce or overcome the environmental and biological factors or processes that limit the sequestration of carbon in these systems to enhance the net sequestration of carbon in terrestrial and ocean systems. The research includes studies on terrestrial and ocean carbon sequestration and disposal, including research to modify the carbon sequestration capacity and rate by marine and terrestrial organisms and to understand the potential environmental implications of purposeful policies intended to enhance the natural sequestration of carbon in terrestrial and marine systems and/or dispose of carbon by deep ocean injection.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3281.

This program supports energy research analyses of the Department's basic and applied research activities. Specific objectives include assessments to identify any duplication or gaps in scientific research activities, and impartial and independent evaluations of scientific and technical research efforts. Consistent with these overall objectives, this program conducts numerous research studies to assess directions in science and to identify and assess new and improved approaches to science management.

Program Contact: (202) 586-9942.

The objective of the EPSCoR program is to enhance the capabilities of EPSCoR states to conduct nationally competitive energy-related research and to develop science and engineering manpower to meet current and future needs in energy-related fields. This program addresses basic research needs across all of the Department of Energy research interests. Research supported by the EPSCoR program is concerned with the same broad research areas addressed by the Office of Science programs that are described in this notice. The EPSCoR program is restricted to applications, which originate in nineteen states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming) and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It is anticipated that only a limited number of new competitive research grants will be awarded under this program subject to the availability of funds.

Program Contact: (301) 903-3427.

This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

Under contract number 68-W0-0102, work assignment 002, the contractor will perform the following:

The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) maintains the OPP Public Docket in the Public Response Section of the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Information Resources and Services Division (IRSD). The OPP Docket supports the Agency's rulemaking activities as announced in the Federal Register , and Agency announcements concerning Special Reviews and Reregistration.

The Docket is open to the public and Agency staff from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The contractor shall identify himself/herself as a contractor to all visitors. The contractor shall be conversant about the history of the docket, the purpose of the docket, and regulatory mechanisms which trigger docketing requirements. The contractor shall assist Docket visitors in using Docket indices and locating documents, and in using Docket resources such as the PR Notice collection, the Compact Label File, the copier and microfiche reader.

The contractor will manage and maintain the OPP Public Regulatory Docket in PIRIB.

The contractor must have access to CBI in order to conduct records management activities associated with the OPP's Public Regulatory Docket.

This contract involves no subcontractors.

OPP has determined that the contract described in this document involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.

Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contract with ASRC Aerospace, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In addition, ASRC Aerospace is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to ASRC Aerospace until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to ASRC Aerospace will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for the contract. All information supplied to ASRC Aerospace by EPA for use in connection with the contract will be returned to EPA when ASRC Aerospace has completed its work.

Under Section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA, if EPA determines that additional data are required to maintain in effect an existing registration of a pesticide, EPA notifies all existing registrants of the pesticide in a “FIFRA Data Call-in Notice,” requiring each registrant to provide evidence within ninety days that it is taking appropriate steps to secure the additional data. If a registrant fails to comply, EPA may issue a notice of intent to suspend the registration of the pesticide for which additional data was required. The suspension becomes final and effective thirty days from receipt by the registrant of the notice of intent to suspend, unless within that time period: (1) The registrant demonstrates that it has fully complied with the requirements that served as a basis for the notice to suspend, or (2) a request for hearing is made by a person adversely affected by the notice. FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv).

Pursuant to Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of FIFRA, if a hearing is requested, the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with FIFRA section 6(d). Regulations implementing the hearing procedures are set forth in 40 C.F.R. part 164, subpart B.

Pursuant to Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of FIFRA, two issues to be adjudicated are: (1) Whether Kanoria has failed to comply with the terms of a Data Call-In Notice dated March 31, 1997, as to Lindane Technical Crystals (EPA Reg. No. 66951-1) and Lindane Technical Powder (EPA Reg. No. 66951-2); and (2) whether EPA's prohibition on distribution, sale, use offering for sale, holding for sale, shipping, delivering for shipment, receipt and (having so received) delivering or offering to deliver existing stocks of Lindane Technical Crystals and Lindane Technical Powder, is inconsistent with the terms of FIFRA. The Notice of Intent to Suspend, dated October 10, 2000, provides that after the suspension becomes final and effective, the registrant, including all supplemental registrants of Lindane Technical Crystals (EPA Reg. No. 66951-1) and Lindane Technical Powder (EPA Reg. No. 66951-2), are subject to the prohibition.

Any interested person may file a motion for leave to intervene in the hearing. Such motion must set forth the grounds for the proposed intervention, the position and interest of the movant in the proceeding and documents proposed to be filed relating to the Notice of Intent to Suspend the Registration of Lindane Technical Crystals (EPA Reg. No. 66951-1) and Lindane Technical Powder (EPA Reg. No. 66951-2). Such motion must be filed on or before December 15, 2000, or it must also set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to file the motion prior to that date. If leave to intervene is granted, the movant becomes a party to the proceeding with the full status of the original parties. If leave is denied, the movant may request that the ruling be certified to the Environmental Appeals Board, pursuant to § 164.200. 40 CFR § 164.31.

Persons not parties to the proceeding may file amicus briefs upon motion granted by the Administrative Law Judge. Such motion shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why the proposed amicus brief is desirable. Id .

Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of FIFRA requires that a hearing shall be held and a determination issued within seventy-five (75) days after receipt of a request for hearing. The petitioner's request for hearing was received on or about November 13, 2000. In order to fulfill the 75-day time limit, the hearing is scheduled to commence on January 9, 2001. Accordingly, the parties are scheduled to submit prehearing exchanges on December 15, 2000, and rebuttals thereto on December 22, 2000. Pre-trial motions, stipulations and verified statements are due on December 29, 2000.

The 75-day period may be extended if all parties to the proceeding stipulate to such an extension. The date for commencement of the hearing, and the prehearing schedule, are subject to postponement, continuation or cancellation upon short notice. Such dates should be confirmed by contacting Bessie Hammiel at (202) 260-4865.

The public docket containing the case file in the matter referenced above (FIFRA Data Docket No. 216) is located at: Office of the Hearing Clerk, Room C400, 401 M St. S.W., Washington D.C. 20460. The case file can be viewed from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0933.

Title: Community Broadband Deployment Database Reporting Form.

Form No.: FCC Form 460.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions, federal government, state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 150 respondents.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 37 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Pursuant to section 410(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, on October 8, 1999, the Commission convened a Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services to provide a forum for cooperative dialogue and information exchange between and among state and federal jurisdictions regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. As part of this ongoing effort, a searchable on-line database of community broadband demand aggregation and deployment efforts is being established. The collection of information from respondents is entirely voluntary. The information will be used by the Commission to prepare reports that help inform consumers and policy makers at the state and federal levels of the status of deployment of broadband services. The Commission will use this information to better inform our understanding of broadband deployment in conjunction with our Congressionally required Section 706 reports. Absent this information collection, the Commission will lack an essential tool for assisting it in determining the effectiveness of its policies and fulfilling its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Sections 80.385, 80.475, and 90.303, Automated Marine Telecommunications Service (AMTS).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Existing collection in use without OMB control number.

Respondents: Individuals or households and businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 10 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The reporting requirements are necessary to require licensees of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) stations to notify TV stations and two organizations (the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), and Interactive Systems, Inc.) that maintain databases of AMTS locations for the benefit of amateur radio operators of the location of AMTS fill-in stations. Amateur radio operators use some of the same frequencies (219-220 MHz) as AMTS stations on a secondary, non-interference basis for digital message forwarding systems. Reporting requirements are necessary to require amateurs proposing to operate within close proximity of an AMTS station to notify the AMTS licensee as well as the ARRL. The information is used to update databases concerning AMTS locations for the benefit of amateur radio operators. If the collection of this information was not conducted, the database would become inaccurate and the ability to avoid interference problems would deteriorate.

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0491.

Title: Section 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures.

Form No.: FCC 330/FCC 304.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Hours Per Response: 4.5 hours (0.5 respondent/4 hours attorney).

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Cost to Respondents: $116,240.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.991 requires that a wireless cable application be filed on FCC Form 330 (3060-0062), Sections I and V, with a complete Form 494 appended. The application must include a cover letter clearly indicating that the application is for a wireless cable entity to operate on ITFS channels. The applicant must also, within 30 days of filing its application give local public notice in a newspaper. The specific data that must be included in the newspaper publication is contained in Section 74.991(c). The notice must be published twice a week for two consecutive weeks. The data is used by FCC staff to insure that proposals to operate a wireless cable system on ITFS channels do not impair or restrict any reasonably foreseeable ITFS use. The data is also used to insure that applicants are qualified to become a Commission licensee and that proposals do not cause interference.

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0490.

Title: Section 74.902 Frequency assignments.

Form No.: FCC 330/FCC 327.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Hours Per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2.5 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.902 dictates that when a point-to-point ITFS station on the E and F MDS channels is involuntarily displaced by an MDS applicant, that the MDS applicant files the appropriate application for suitable alternative spectrum. The applications that would be used would be the FCC 327 (3060-0055) and the Form 330 (3060-0062). The burdens for these involuntarily displaced ITFS stations are included in the estimates for the FCC 327 and FCC 330. Additionally, Section 74.902(i) requires that a copy of this application be served on the ITFS licensee to be moved. The data will be used by the ITFS licensee to oppose the involuntary migration if the proposal would not provide comparable ITFS service and to ensure that the public interest is served.

OMB Control No: 3060-0939.

Title: E911-Second Memorandum and Order.

Form No: N.A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, state, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Occasional reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Total Annual Cost: 0.

Needs and Uses: Commercial Mobile Radio Service carriers and Public Safety Answering Points who can't agree on the choice of enhanced 911 transmission means and related technologies may ask the Commission to assist in reaching an accord. The requested information will be used by the Commission to enable it to fully participate in negotiations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0684.

Title: Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing Costs of Microwave Relocation, WT Docket No. 95-157, FCC No. 00-123

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimate Time Per Response: 54 mins. (avg.).

Frequency of Response: Biennial and on occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 1,790 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $862,000.

Needs and Uses: On April 5, 2000, the FCC adopted an Order on Reconsideration which revised its rules to effectuate the relocation of fixed microwave incumbents from the 2 GHz band to clear spectrum for the development of PCS. In doing so, the FCC implemented its plan for PCS relocators and subsequent PCS licensees to share the costs of relocating existing 2 GHz microwave facilities, thus providing for a fair and efficient relocation process. These rules, which govern both the relocation and cost-sharing plans, foster the development of competitive broadband PCS service throughout the country, while permitting incumbent providers of microwave service to relocate to higher spectrum bands. This information collection facilitates dispute resolution for PCS relocators and microwave licensees independent of the Commission and assists PCS relocators and microwave licensees when they negotiate relocation agreements. Furthermore, the information collection helps two industry clearinghouses maintain a national database, determine reimbursement obligations of subsequent PCS entities under the Commission's cost-sharing rules, and notify subsequent PCS entities of their obligations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0192.

Title: Section 87.103, Posting Station License.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Recordkeeping.

Number of Respondents: 47,800.

Estimate Time Per Response: 15 mins.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.

Total Annual Burden: 11,950 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: The recordkeeping requirement in 47 CFR Section 87.103 is necessary to demonstrate that all transmitters in the Aviation Service are properly licensed in accordance with the requirements of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, No. 2020 of the International Radio Regulations, and Article 30 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This requirement facilitates the quick resolution of any harmful interference problems and ensures that the station is operating in accordance with the appropriate rules, statutes, and treaties.

Decades of genetics research have brought about many important medical and public health advances. The pace of discovery in this area has enabled scientists to make rapid progress in understanding the role of genetics in many common yet complex diseases and conditions, such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. It also has increased knowledge that may lead to the development of new tests to identify these disease conditions in individuals, sometimes before symptoms occur. According to GeneTests, a genetic testing laboratory directory, genetic testing is clinically available for more than 400 diseases or conditions in more than 200 laboratories in the United States, and investigators are exploring the development of tests for an additional 338 diseases or conditions. However, most of the current genetic testing is for single gene disorders such as Huntington disease and cystic fibrosis.

Genetic tests can be performed for a number of purposes. Moreover, a test can be used in more than one way, such as when a test used for diagnostic purposes is also used to predict risk of disease. SACGT included the following types of testing within its definition: (1) an analysis performed on human DNA, RNA, genes, and/or chromosomes to detect heritable or acquired genotypes, mutations, phenotypes, or karyotypes that cause or are likely to cause a specific disease or condition; and (2) the analysis of human proteins and certain metabolites, which are predominantly used to detect heritable or acquired genotypes, mutations, or phenotypes. The purposes of both these types of genetic tests include predicting risks of disease, screening of newborns, directing clinical management, identifying carriers, and establishing prenatal or clinical diagnoses or prognoses in individuals, families, or populations. Not included in this definition are tests that are used primarily for other purposes, but that may contribute to diagnosing a genetic disease ( e.g. , blood smear, certain serum chemistries), and tests conducted exclusively for forensic identification purposes.

In the past, many tests were developed to detect or confirm rare genetic diseases. More recently, tests have been developed to detect mutations that may be involved in or contribute to more common, complex conditions (such as breast, ovarian, and colon cancer and cardiovascular disease), the effects of which generally do not appear until later in life. Optimally, these tests are used to predict a person's predisposition to disease where there is a family history of the disease, and in general, such tests are not recommended for individuals without such a history. However, in the future, the use of predictive tests may expand and be offered to individuals without a family history of certain diseases and conditions, e.g. , common adult-onset disorders.

In Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests, SACGT recommended that all new genetic tests be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they are used for clinical care or public health purposes. The Committee suggested that FDA's review be accomplished through “new and innovative oversight mechanisms that will not limit the development of new tests or inordinately delay their availability.” Determining the level of review required of a particular genetic test is crucial to ensuring that a test receives the appropriate level of review based on the characteristics of the test and its target disease or condition. In order to determine the appropriate level of review for genetic tests, SACGT concluded that a classification methodology was needed.

To assist FDA in determining the appropriate level of review, a working group on genetic test classification was convened in August, composed of SACGT members and ad hoc experts. The goal of the working group was to develop criteria for assessing the risks and benefits of genetic tests that would serve as the basis for a classification scheme. In classifying genetic tests by the level of review warranted, the working group explored a number of factors that could be used, including test characteristics (analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility), availability of safe and effective treatments, and the social consequences of a diagnosis or identification of risk status. They also considered whether the test would be for a common or an orphan (rare) disease or mutation; whether the test will be used for population-based screening or testing of individuals; whether the test is used to detect germline or somatic mutations; whether the test is primarily used for predictive or diagnostic purposes; the complexity of the test; the level of difficulty in interpreting test results; whether the mutation being tested for is highly or weakly penetrant (the likelihood of developing a disease or condition); and the availability of independent methods of confirmation to reduce the occurrence of false-positive test results.

In SACGT's August draft of the classification methodology, the working group developed two levels of review and four criteria to be used in the determination of review level for genetic tests. The four criteria related to test volume; whether a test is to be used for population-based screening; the purpose of the test (predictive or diagnostic); and for predictive tests, the availability of an intervention, the predictive value of the testing process, or significant medical or social risks associated with the test. After further deliberation and discussion of the proposed test classification methodology, SACGT modified the methodology at its November meeting. The modified approach maintains the two levels of review initially proposed (Level I and Level II) but revises and reduces the number of criteria. The revised criteria relate to analytical validity, population-based screening, and frequency of disease. SACGT is seeking public comment on this revised test classification methodology.

SACGT determined that two levels of review would provide the most straightforward review process for all new genetic tests. In SACGT's proposed classification methodology, tests for rare diseases or conditions, with the exception of those used for population screening, would receive a Level I review and all other new genetic tests would receive a Level II review. While details of the review processes have yet to be fully defined, the Committee has outlined its expectations for each review level.

A Level I review would be a streamlined review process that would involve assurances of pre-test/post-test information according to a standard template and, possibly, data collection from existing resources. SACGT currently proposes that pre-test information include a description of the purpose of the test, the clinical condition for which the test is performed, the definition of the test (specific laboratory protocol), and evidence of analytical and clinical validity. Less evidence of data would be permitted in Level I. The Level II review process would include a detailed review of pre-test/post-test information and, possibly, new data collection initiatives.

SACGT suggests that both review levels consider the use of standards developed in consultation with professional organizations, consumer representatives, and other relevant groups; post-market adverse event reporting; and assurances for informed consent as appropriate. SACGT also suggests that, as appropriate, peer-reviewed literature could be used to substantiate claims of analytical and clinical validity.

The three criteria SACGT proposes to use in determining the level of review of a genetic test are analytical validity, population screening, and frequency of disease. The first criterion is an essential feature that all genetic tests should be able to demonstrate. The two other criteria classify genetic tests according to the number of people who may be affected by the disease or condition.

SACGT believes that all tests should be analytically valid and that no test should be considered for further review unless shown to be so. Analytical validity is defined as the ability of a test to measure or detect the analyte it is intended to measure or detect. An analyte is defined as the substance measured by a laboratory test, e.g., DNA—mutation, allele, or chromosome, metabolites, or enzyme activity. Analytical validity includes analytical sensitivity (the probability that a test will detect an analyte when it is present in the sample) and analytical specificity (the probability that a test will be negative when an analyte is absent from a sample).

Population screening is the second criterion in the classification methodology. Population screening affects large numbers of people, most of whom are currently healthy. The risks of false-positive and false-negative test results need to be carefully evaluated. The type of follow-up for individuals who test positive must be clear and proven. In this schema, the definition of a population-based test is a test intended for use on a cluster of individuals who are identified as a group or population (>1000) on the basis of shared ethnicity, class, geographical location, gender, age, or other characteristics such as pregnancy, behavior ( e.g., smoking), physical traits ( e.g., baldness or height), or occupation in which the frequency of the disease allele or predispositional risk to be determined is higher than the frequency or risk in the general population. Carrier screening for Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population would be considered a population-based test. Another example would be a test used for all newborns.

The third criterion SACGT proposes to include in the classification methodology is the frequency of the disease. This criterion would divide tests according to whether they test for a common disease or rare disease. SACGT proposes to define a rare disease or condition as having a prevalence of less than one in 2,000 individuals or an incidence less than one in 10,000 individuals.

There were a number of reasons why SACGT chose to divide genetic tests on the basis of whether it was for a rare disease versus a common disease. The Committee believes that tests for common diseases or conditions should receive a higher level of review for two reasons. First, the molecular and metabolic basis of common diseases is often complex. Recent findings have shown that the genetic etiology of common diseases and conditions is not as straightforward as traditional Mendelian disorders and likely involve the consideration of a number of other factors such as environment, lifestyle, and other genetic factors. For this reason, a higher level of review and larger clinical studies may be necessary to demonstrate the accuracy and validity of tests for common diseases or conditions. Second, tests for common diseases or conditions have the potential to affect a greater number of people.

The Committee wishes to make recommendations that will facilitate the continued development and availability of tests for rare diseases and conditions. SACGT would not want to see the cost of, and time required for, review to become barriers to the provision of genetic tests for rare diseases, particularly those provided in the academic setting, given the limited financial resources and income of these laboratories.

These three criteria would be considered in a step-wise manner leading to a determination of the appropriate level of review warranted by a particular genetic test (see figure). When determining the level of review for a particular test, SACGT proposes that a test's analytical validity be ascertained first. If a test was shown to be not analytically valid, it would be automatically rejected. If a test was shown to be analytically valid, it would move on to the next criterion of population screening. In the Committee's view, tests used for population screening should receive a higher level of review because of the large number of people it would affect. If a test is to be used for population screening, it would receive a Level II review. If a test is not to be used for population screening, the third criterion would be applied. If the test is used to detect a rare disease or condition, it would receive a Level I review. Since it may take many years to gather large numbers of affected individuals for study, a Level I review would permit smaller data sets. Documentation would need to be provided to support the claim that a test is for a rare disease or condition. References may include peer-reviewed literature citations, specialized medical society proceedings, or governmental statistical publications. When no such studies or literature citations are available, the applicant may be able to demonstrate prevalence or incidence by providing credible conclusions from appropriate research or surveys. A rare disease test may sometimes warrant a Level II review. All other tests would receive a Level II review.

In order to ensure that a comprehensive and appropriate classification methodology is developed, SACGT would appreciate receiving public comment on the rationale and feasibility of the proposed test classification methodology. In addition, SACGT is interested in receiving input on the following specific questions:

1. Is the number of review levels appropriate? Should there be more than two levels? Should all genetic tests receive the same level of review?

2. Are the criteria of analytic validity, population screening, and frequency of disease appropriate for determining the proper review level? Should other criteria, such as the intended use of a genetic test ( e.g. , diagnostic, predictive, carrier, prenatal, etc.) or clinical utility, be considered in the classification of tests? If so, how should they be incorporated into the methodology?

3. Are the proposed definitions for population and rare diseases appropriate?

4. SACGT has not proposed a specific threshold or minimum standard for analytical validity. Should a threshold for analytical validity be defined? If so, what should the standard be?

5. What characteristics of a rare disease test would raise the level of review from Level I to Level II?

The National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee was established on June 6, 2000 to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS, Assistant Secretary for Health, the Director, Office for Human Research Protections, and other departmental officials on a broad range of issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.

In the Federal Register of September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57192), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0454. The approval expires on November 30, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) affects close to one million people in the United States. It is autoimmune disease in which the immune system produces antibodies that attack the body's own insulin-manufacturing cells in the pancreas. Patients require daily injections of insulin to regulate blood sugar levels. The invention identifies two proteins, named IA-2 and IA-2β, that are important markers for type I (juvenile, insulin-dependent) diabetes. IA-2/IA-2β, when used in diagnostic tests, recognized autoantibodies in 70 percent of IDDM patients. Combining IA-2 and IA-2β with other known markers increased the level of identification to 90 percent of individuals with IDDM. Moreover, the presence of autoantiboides to IA-2 and IA-2β in otherwise normal individuals was highly predictive in identifying those at risk of ultimately developing clinical disease. It is now possible to develop a rapid and effective test that can screen large populations for IDDM. In addition, IA-2 and IA-2β are candidates for immune tolerance and prevention of disease development. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective license may be limited to use of the invention for diagnostic and therapeutic uses in the detection and treatment of diabetes. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 60 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7

Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The patents and patent applications describe the use of the compound Hepatocyte Growth Factor/Scatter Factor (HGF/SF) for the stimulation of proliferation and differentiation of pancreatic cells. Upon exposure to HGF/SF the pancreatic cells proliferate and differentiate and are able to produce insulin. The ability to stimulate pancreatic cells to proliferate and differentiate into cells capable of producing insulin may provide a means for improving the treatment of Type I and Type II diabetes.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. This prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty (60) days from the date of this published notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Applications for a license ( i.e., a completed “Application for License to Public Health Service Inventions”) in the indicated exclusive field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated license. Comments and objections will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 35 U.S.C. 552.

Every three to five years, each State and local government that is a recipient of HUD formula grant funds through the Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program or the Emergency Shelter Grant Program must submit a complete Consolidated Plan that assesses its priority housing and homeless needs, including the needs of persons with disabilities, and establishes a strategic plan for addressing these needs. (In this notice, the term “jurisdictions” (or “jurisdiction”) refers to States and local governments that are recipients of this funding.)

Annually, jurisdictions must submit the Action Plan component of the Consolidated Plan which describes how these funds will be used. When preparing its Consolidated Plan and its Action Plans, the jurisdiction must include the participation of its citizens in accordance with its citizen participation plan. The citizen participation plan must provide for and encourage citizens to participate in the development of the Consolidated Plan, including any substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan, and preparation of the Annual Performance Report. Jurisdictions are also expected to take whatever actions are appropriate to encourage the participation of all its citizens, including minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.

In its annual submission to HUD, each recipient jurisdiction must submit a certification required by the Community Development Block Grant regulations (24 CFR 570.601(a)(2)) and the Consolidated Plan regulations (24 CFR 91.225(a)(1), 91.325(a)(1) [States] and 91.425(a)(1) [Consortia]) that it will affirmatively further fair housing. The jurisdiction's affirmatively furthering certification means that the jurisdiction will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions taken. If the jurisdiction is not undertaking these actions, the Department may reject the certification and disapprove the Consolidated Plan.

The analysis of impediments (AI) to fair housing choice includes an assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice. The amendments to the Act in 1988 made it unlawful to discriminate against persons because of disability, including the failure to make multifamily residential structures built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 accessible to persons with disabilities. The Act requires that all units in an elevator building with four or more units be accessible to persons with disabilities. In a non-elevator building with four or more units, all ground floor units must be accessible to such persons. These requirements apply whether the building is privately or publicly constructed and owned.

HUD encourages jurisdictions that are recipients of funds covered by the Consolidated Plan to make outreach efforts to ensure that persons with disabilities are consulted and have an equal opportunity to participate in developing the jurisdiction's analysis of needs and plans for the use of Federal and other resources. HUD staff in the State and Area Community Planning and Development and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Offices can be consulted in helping develop outreach efforts and a significant amount of information is found on HUD's homepage on the Internet at www.hud.gov.

During the new five-year Consolidated Plan cycle that begins in Fiscal Year 2001, Consolidated Plan jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to periodically review and update their AIs, as appropriate, to give the same attention to impediments to fair housing choice for persons with disabilities as is provided for other bases of discrimination such as race that have been prohibited by the Act since its inception in 1968. HUD in its review of Annual Action Plan submissions and during on-site reviews, will consider whether jurisdictions are giving appropriate attention in their Action Plans to compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act by both private and public housing providers.

Jurisdictions are also encouraged to take other actions to advance fair housing choice for persons with disabilities in support of their certification to affirmatively further fair housing. Recent HUD House Appropriations report language would direct HUD, when reviewing Consolidated Plans, to take into consideration a community's adoption of a building code that satisfies the Act's accessibility requirements along with the community's other efforts to remove impediments to fair housing (see H. Rep. 106-674).

With respect to building codes, HUD encourages elected officials and those engaged in housing and community development programs to determine whether the jurisdiction's building code is inconsistent in any respect with the Act's accessibility requirements. HUD's recently completed review of the four model building codes for consistency with the Act can assist with this determination because most local building codes are derived from one or more national model codes. HUD's final report reviewing the model building codes was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15740).

In its March 23, 2000 final report, HUD identified those areas of the model building codes that were not consistent with the accessibility requirements of the Act, and included recommended language for addressing these variations. Since that time, HUD has been working with the model code organizations and other interested persons in developing proposed code language to address the findings in the Department's final report with respect to the International Building Code 2000.

HUD also encourages jurisdictions to find ways to inform builders and architects as early as possible in the project design phase, but certainly no later than the issuance of a building permit, of the need to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Act.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces meetings of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Great Lakes Panel. The Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

The Great Lakes Panel, comprised of representatives from Federal, State, and local agencies and from private environmental and commercial interests, provides the following:

(a) Identify priorities for the Great Lakes Region with respect to aquatic nuisance species;

(b) Make recommendations to the Task Force regarding programs to carry out zebra mussel programs;

(c) Assist the Task Force in coordinating Federal aquatic nuisance species program activities in the Great Lakes region;

(d) Coordinate, where possible, aquatic nuisance species program activities in the Great Lakes region that are not conducted pursuant to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as amended, 1996);

(e) Provide advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of controlling aquatic nuisance species; and

(f) Submit an annual report describing activities within the Great Lakes region related to aquatic nuisance species prevention, research, and control.

The focus of this meeting will be to: Review panel activities for the past year, hear updates of ongoing activities, and review the Great Lakes Action Plan.

Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 851, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its final Cotton Dust Standard June 23, 1978 (43 FR 27351) and amended it December 12, 1985 (50 FR 51120). That standard is codified at 29 CFR 1910.1043.

OSHA has completed a “Lookback” review of the Cotton Dust Standard titled, “Regulatory Review of OSHA's Cotton Dust Standard, September 2000.” This Federal Register notice announces the availability of that review and briefly summarizes it.

The purpose of the Cotton Dust Standard is to greatly reduce the significant risk of byssinosis (brown lung disease), a disabling lung disease. Prior to the standard more than 50,000 cotton textile workers suffered from the disease at any one time.

The Cotton Dust Standard sets maximum permissible exposure limits (PELs) for cotton dust which vary by operation. It includes requirements for monitoring, medical surveillance, work practices and other requirements. It includes partial exemptions for the processing of cotton washed according to various protocols which greatly reduce the cotton's biological reactivity. Certain sections of the industry, such as knitting, are partially or completely exempt from the standard because those sections do not present significant risk of byssinosis.

In 1998, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began a review of its Cotton Dust Standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 610) and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review.

The purpose of a review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA):

The review requirements of Section 5 of EO 12866 require agencies:

To carry out these reviews, on June 23, 1998, OSHA asked the public for comments on all issues raised by these provisions (63 FR 34140). Among other things, OSHA requested comments on: the benefits and utility of the rule in its current form; the continued need for the rule; the complexity of the rule; and whether, and to what extent, the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, and local government rules. OSHA also asked for comments on new developments in technology, economic conditions, or other factors affecting the ability of covered firms to comply with the Cotton Dust Standard and on alternatives to the rule that would minimize significant impacts on small businesses while achieving the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA accepted written comments from June 23, 1998 through August 31, 1998. OSHA also conducted two public meetings, on July 24 and July 30, 1998, in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, DC, respectively. Comments were received from employers, trade associations, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the joint industry/government/union Task Force for Byssinosis Prevention, trade unions and textile workers. OSHA also considered the many published studies and reports on relevant issues. All documents, studies and comments received relevant to the review, transcripts of the oral hearings and documents discussed in this report are available at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-052F, Room N-3625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-2350.

Conclusions: Based on the comments and testimony of participants in this lookback review process and the studies and other evidence submitted to the public docket, OSHA concludes as discussed in depth in “Regulatory Review of OSHA's Cotton Dust Standard, Sept. 2000,” that the Agency's standard should be continued without change (except for an expansion of the washed cotton exemption discussed below). The evidence also demonstrates that the standard does not need to be rescinded or amended to minimize significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

OSHA also finds that the Cotton Dust standard is necessary to protect employee health, is compatible with other OSHA standards, is not duplicative or in conflict with other Federal, State, or local government rules, is not inappropriately burdensome, and is consistent with the President's priorities and the principles of EO 12866. Further, no changes have occurred in technological, economic, or other factors that would warrant revision of the standard at this time.

The major impact of the Cotton Dust Standard is on firms in the cotton-using 4 digit SIC sectors of the textile industry. These are firms which open and process raw cotton, spin that cotton into cotton and cotton blend yarn and thread, and turn that yarn and thread into cotton and cotton blend fabrics. (The report also discusses other sectors and operations where the standard has some impact.)

It is estimated that there are approximately 466 cotton using establishments in these textile sectors. It also can be estimated that between 70,000 and 105,000 employees work in these establishments.

It is estimated that the prevalence rate of byssinosis among cotton textile workers was approximately 20% in the early 1970's. The completion of studies confirming these rates and OSHA's announcement of regulatory activities led some firms to lower exposures leading to an estimated prevalence rate of 12% just before OSHA issued the Cotton Dust Standard in 1978.

The provisions of the Cotton Dust Standard, lowering workers' exposure to cotton dust and requiring medical surveillance, transfer to lower exposure areas, work practices, etc., helped reduce the byssinosis prevalence rate to approximately 0.68%. The number of workers with byssinosis has been reduced to approximately 700 from approximately 12,000 in 1978 and 50,000 in 1970 (when the number of exposed workers was higher). The cotton dust standard has been highly successful in protecting the health of cotton textile workers from byssinosis and achieving the stated objective of the OSH Act.

OSHA had estimated that the capital cost of the Cotton Dust Standard would be $550 million in 1977 dollars, which was the low end of varying estimates. The actual cost was $243 million in 1982 dollars or $153 million in 1977 dollars.

The reason for the lower costs was that the standard encouraged industry to invest in more productive equipment to come into compliance. Industry purchased such things as automated opening equipment and air-jet looms to come into compliance rather than utilizing add-on ventilation.

A further result was that the Cotton Dust Standard contributed to increasing industry productivity growth, which was 2.5% per year in the 1972-79 period and increased to 3.5% per year in the 1979-1991 period. It is clear that the technological changes since the standard was issued have been positive for the industry and the standard has encouraged those positive technological developments.

It is also clear that the rule did not have any significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The large majority of firms affected are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Sales in the major cotton-using SICs increased from $20 billion in 1982, to $27 billion in 1992 to $38 billion in 1996 to $40 billion in 1998. Sales of small businesses as defined by the SBA in those SICs increased from $34 billion in 1996 to $36.5 billion in 1998. Sales of the smallest firms in that period increased from $6 billion to $10 billion.

Further evidence of the health of the small business sector is the entry of new small businesses into the cotton using SICs. The number of establishments with 1-19 employees increased 21% from 1977 to 1992, and the number of firms with 1-19 employees increased 55% from 1990 to 1996. (Different statistical series were available for the different periods.)

There is a continuing need for the Cotton Dust Standard. Without the exposure limits, medical surveillance, and other requirements of the standard, byssinosis prevalence rates would increase. All commenters supported the retention of the Cotton Dust Standard, and there were no criticisms that it was too complex. The stakeholders understand the standard, and its more technical requirements are necessary for effective medical surveillance and accurate monitoring.

The Cotton Dust Standard does not conflict with other Federal or state rules. Most of the cotton textile industry is located in states with their own state OSHA's. Those states have adopted cotton dust standards which are virtually identical to the Federal standard (they must adopt standards that are at least as effective as the Federal standard), and those states enforce their state standards.

Some commenters recommended minor technical changes to the Cotton Dust Standard. Those are discussed and OSHA conclusions stated in chapter VI. 5 of the full review. OSHA concluded that some of the suggestions, such as technical changes to the medical protocol, were for provisions that are working effectively and it was not worth regulatory resources to propose minor changes. Some of the other recommended minor changes, such as on monitoring frequency, were quite controversial with many opposing such changes. Consequently OSHA concluded it was not appropriate to propose such changes absent meaningful new evidence which was not presented.

The “Reg Flex” and Executive Order reviews did bring convincingly to OSHA's attention one change to the Cotton Dust Standard that appears strongly justified. Consequently OSHA is issuing that change by direct final rule in today's Federal Register .

Washing cotton according to certain protocols reduces the bioactivity of that cotton and its ability to cause byssinosis. Not all washing processes reduce the bioactivity, and cotton washed by certain processes can not be spun and woven into quality textiles. The 1985 amendments to the Cotton Dust Standard give a partial exemption for processing cotton washed according to certain protocols based on studies showing such cotton has greatly reduced bioactivity.

The industry/government/union Task Force for Byssinosis Prevention sponsors research to develop washing techniques which reduce bioactivity and create processable cotton. That Task Force has recommended that OSHA add an additional washing process, batch kier processing, to those that receive partial exemption, because batch kier processing, according to a specified protocol, greatly reduces bioactivity. That recommendation is supported by studies and recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, industry groups and unions. Consequently, OSHA is taking prompt action to implement that recommendation and increase the flexibility available to the cotton textile industry while protecting textile worker health.

As applicants submit requests for regulatory deliverables ( e.g., license amendment approvals, topical report reviews, rulemaking petitions), they would voluntarily provide information about the impact their request would have on maintaining safety and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. Ideally, measures for safety impact would include changes in person-rem dose or changes in core damage frequency (CDF). Similarly, measures for regulatory burden reduction would include changes in licensee costs or power production capability. However, the staff recognizes that it may not be possible or practical to provide actual risk metrics or dollar savings, and that more qualitative measurements may be more realistic. The staff invites comments from our external stakeholders to ensure that the measures are uniform, practical, and meaningful, and provide the appropriate yardstick for measuring the impact that a proposed activity has on safety and regulatory burden. This information would be collected for many types of external stakeholder submittals including license amendments, topical reports, rulemaking petitions, and license renewal applications. The staff encourages suggestions on what other submittals such information should be collected for in response to this initiative. Recognizing that there are many factors that could inhibit licensees and other stakeholders from providing such information, we invite comments to obtain an understanding of what the factors are and how they may be overcome.

The information described above would assist NRR in (1) allocating staff resources and (2) measuring how the work NRR staff completes contributes to the agency goals of maintaining safety and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. The staff is requesting comments on this proposed information collection initiative.

With respect to the first purpose, allocating staff resources, NRR would use the information collected to improve its effectiveness by pursuing those regulatory activities that maintain safety (or involve acceptable reductions in margin) but provide the highest return in reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. NRR is establishing a “work planning center” to centralize the planning and scheduling of NRR work activities, including the prioritization of specific work items. The priority factors include consideration of public health and safety, operational significance, statutory significance, and stakeholder standing and merit. Also factored into the work prioritization process is the required responsiveness ( e.g., normal, increased, or immediate). The information collected through this initiative would become part of the input for this work planning and scheduling.

This use of information provided by licensees in order to prioritize agency work is similar to a regulatory approach employed by the agency and licensees in the early 1990's for cost beneficial licensing actions (CBLAs). In this approach, licensees identified for the agency those licensing actions that had high economic benefits, minimal impact on safety, and required minimal agency review time. Such actions were termed CBLAs, and the agency afforded these actions higher priority treatment. One difference between this proposed information collection initiative and the CBLA approach is that the latter was limited in its scope to licensing actions meeting the above criteria. A second, more important distinction between the two is that this proposed initiative has another purpose, which we describe in the following paragraph.

With respect to the second purpose, measuring how the work NRR staff completes contributes to the agency goals of maintaining safety and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, the information collected would support the agency's efforts toward becoming a performance-based organization. This is consistent with the enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The agency has established a framework for implementing the performance-based approach called the Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management (PBPM) process. This PBPM process consists of setting the strategic direction, budgeting resources, and measuring and assessing performance. The agency reports the measures and assessment of performance in yearly reports to the President and the Congress. The information collected as described in this initiative would be used in these yearly reports to demonstrate to stakeholders that safety is being maintained even as the staff allows for unnecessary burden reduction. The staff would also use the information collected to demonstrate to stakeholders what the staff has accomplished with the resources that we have been given. This type of information would allow the staff to better align its outputs ( e.g., license amendments) to NRR performance goals ( e.g., maintain safety). By compiling this type of information over the fiscal year, instead of simply stating that the NRR staff completed 1500 licensing actions per year (outputs), the staff can also quantify such performance measures as direct cost savings to licensees, person-rem savings, and reduced shutdown risk that resulted from approval of those licensing actions (outcomes).

The success of this voluntary initiative is dependent on industry's willingness to provide the information. The staff realizes that there may be concerns with how we will use the information collected to prioritize work within NRR. The staff invites comments and suggestions such that we may directly address such concerns. We also recognize that this information collection initiative should be as simple as possible while still providing meaningful information. We encourage comments on how to most simply characterize the safety and regulatory burden impact such that this information collection initiative does not become time-consuming or resource-intensive.

After receiving formal comments in response to this Federal Register notice, the staff plans to hold a public meeting to develop a consensus as to the type of voluntary information that could be used to measure impact on safety and reduction in unnecessary regulatory burden. This meeting is currently planned for February 2001. Finally, if reasonable and acceptable metrics can be developed and made available to all stakeholders, the staff expects to begin using voluntary information submitted under this initiative after October 1, 2001.