37332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Basement, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments may be submitted

electronically to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII, WP6.1, or WP8 file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Electronic comments

must be identified by the docket number

W–98–23. Comments and data will also

be accepted on disks in WP6.1, WP8, or

ASCII format. Electronic comments on

this action may be filed online at many

Federal Depository libraries.

Please submit a copy of any references

cited in your comments. Facsimiles

(faxes) cannot be accepted. EPA would

appreciate one original and three copies

of your comments and enclosures

(including any references). Commenters

who would like EPA to acknowledge

receipt of their comments should

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope.

The proposed rule and supporting

documents, including public comments,

are available for review in the Water

Docket at the address listed previously.

For information on how to access

Docket materials, please call (202) 260–

3027 between 9 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries regarding the

proposed regulations, contact the Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(mailcode 4607),1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington DC, 20460.

Phone: (202) 260–3309. For general

information, contact the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline, phone (800) 426–4791.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

10, 2000 EPA published the proposed

GWR, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 (65 FR

30194). The May 10, 2000 notice

provided a deadline of 60 days from the

date of publication for receipt of public

comments. Since the publication date,

EPA has received requests to extend the

comment period to allow sufficient time

for all parties potentially impacted by

this proposal to consider and provide

comprehensive comments. In response

to these requests, EPA has decided to

extend the public comment period by an

additional 30 days to August 9, 2000.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–15031 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98–153; FCC 00–163]

Revision of the Rules Regarding UltraWideband Transmission Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document is proposing

regulations that would permit the

operation of ultra-wideband (UWB)

radio systems on an unlicensed basis

under the Commission’s rules.

Comments are requested on the

standards and operating requirements

that are proposed to be applied to UWB

systems to prevent interference to other

radio services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 12, 2000, and reply

comments on or before October 12,

2000.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, SW, TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Reed, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2455.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.

98–153, adopted May 10, 2000, and

released May 11, 2000. The complete

text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

1. This Notice of Proposed Rule

Making responds to an earlier Notice of

Inquiry in this proceeding, 63 FR 50184,

September 21, 1998. We are proposing

to amend 47 CFR 15 to permit products

incorporating ultra-wideband (UWB)

technologies. While comprehensive

tests have not been completed, UWB

devices appear to be able to operate on

spectrum already occupied by existing

radio services without causing

interference. This would permit scarce

spectrum resources to be used more

efficiently. Further testing and analysis

is needed before the risks of interference

are completely understood. Such testing

is being planned by a number of

organizations, and an ample

opportunity will be provided to ensure

that the test results are submitted into

the record for public comment.

2. Most near-term applications

involve relatively low powers and short

operating ranges. Further, it appears that

UWB devices are intended to be mass

marketed to businesses and consumers

such that individual licensing of each

device would be impractical.

Accordingly, it is proposed that UWB

devices be regulated under part 15 of

the rules.

3. UWB definition. We propose to

employ the definition established by the

OSD/DARPA UWB radar review panel

with some modifications. The OSD

definition states that the ¥20 dB

fraction bandwidth of an UWB emission

must be at least 0.25, i.e., the ¥20 dB

bandwidth must be at least 25% of the

center frequency. We propose to define

a UWB device as any device where the

¥10 dB fractional bandwidth is greater

than 0.25 or the ¥10 dB bandwidth is

greater than 1.5 GHz. The center

frequency is proposed to be defined as

the average of the upper and lower ¥10

dB points. We also propose that the

bandwidth be determined using the

antenna designed to be used with the

UWB device. Comments are requested

on the following: (1) Should the

fractional bandwidth be changed to

account for the narrower bandwidth that

would be measured using the ¥10 dB

emission points instead of the ¥20 dB

points. (2) Should some other method

be used to determine the emission

bandwidth, such as a calculated

bandwidth based on pulse width. (3)

Should UWB be defined as limited to

devices that solely use pulsed emissions

where the bandwidth is directly related

to the narrow pulse width. (4) Should

extremely high speed data systems that

comply with the UWB bandwidth

requirements only because of the high

data rate employed, as opposed to

meeting the definition solely from the

narrow pulse width, be permitted. (5)

What alternative definitions should be

considered?

4. Frequency bands of operation. We

observe that ground penetrating radars

(GPRs) must operate at frequencies

below 2 GHz in order to obtain the

penetration depth and resolution

necessary to detect and obtain the

images of buried objects. GPRs can

neither avoid nor notch out the

restricted frequency bands. However, it

appears that the risk of interference

from GPRs is negligible because the

overwhelming majority of their energy

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37333

is directed into the ground where most

of the energy is absorbed and emissions

in other directions can be easily

shielded. Accordingly, we propose to

allow GPRs to operate in any part of the

spectrum.

5. It is unclear whether the same

arguments that apply to GPRs

concerning penetration depth and

resolution similarly apply to other

imaging devices. We invite comments

on whether we should treat such

imaging systems the same as GPRs or

restrict the operation of such devices

below a certain frequency. Comments

should address whether the operation of

through-wall imaging systems should be

limited to parties eligible for licensing

under the Public Safety pool of

frequencies in part 90 of our rules.

Comments also are requested on

whether through-wall imaging systems

should be required to incorporate

automatic power control feathers that

would reduce power levels to the

minimum necessary to function based

on the composition of the surface and

its absorption of RF energy.

6. We believe that most other UWB

devices generally can operate in the

region of the spectrum above

approximately 2 GHz without causing

harmful interference to other radio

services. We have significant concerns

about the operation of UWB devices,

except for GPRs and possibly throughwall imaging systems, in the region of

the spectrum below approximately 2

GHz. We invite comments on UWB

operations, potential restrictions on

operation for UWB below 2 GHz and the

impacts such restrictions would have on

any potential applications for UWB

technology. We also invite comments as

to the precise frequency below which

operations of UWB devices may need to

be restricted. We also wish to consider

a number of alternative approaches to

expressly prohibiting operations below

2 GHz. We invite comment as to

whether and at what levels, if any, we

should permit operation in the

restricted bands below 2 GHz, the

viability of establishing a general

emission limit for UWB devices below

2 GHz, and whether a very stringent

limit, or notch, should be applied to the

GPS band. We will consider allowing

access to the spectrum below 2 GHz

provided test results and detailed

technical analysis are submitted

demonstrating that there is no risk of

harmful interference to GPS, to other

services operating in restricted

frequency bands, or to TV broadcasting.

7. Further testing and analysis. We

understand that certain manufacturers

of UWB devices and other interested

parties are planning tests. We encourage

parties to submit the test results into the

record by October 30, 2000. We will

issue a public notice to provide an

opportunity to provide comments and

replies on the test results and analysis.

8. Emission limits. We tentatively

conclude that it is necessary to regulate

both the peak and average emission

levels above 1 GHz and the quasi-peak

emission levels below 1 GHz. We

request comment on whether it is

possible for UWB designers to select

system parameters to space the UWB

spectral lines in places within the GPS

band where GPS receivers are less

sensitive to interference. We also seek

comment on whether we should require

use of a scrambler technology that

prevents long strings of unchanging bits

or, alternatively, a performance

requirement that would show that the

transmitted spectrum remains noise like

in the case of unchanging input data.

9. We believe that the general

emission limits contained in § 15.209 of

our rules appear appropriate for UWB

operations. However, for emissions from

UWB devices other than GPRs and,

possibly, through-wall imaging systems

we tentatively propose that emissions

that appear below approximately 2 GHz

be attenuated by at least 12 dB below

the general emission limits. Comments

are requested on whether such an

attenuation level is necessary, or

whether additional attenuation below 2

GHz is possible or necessary. We also

seek comment on whether the proposed

reduction in the emission levels should

apply to all emissions below 2 GHz or

only to emissions below 2 GHz that fall

within the restricted bands. Comments

also are requested on whether UWB

devices other than GPRs, and possibly

through-wall imaging systems, should

be permitted to operate below 2 GHz

provided they comply with these

reduced emission levels.

10. A limit on peak emissions is

necessary to reduce the potential for

UWB emitters to cause harmful

interference to radio operations above 1

GHz. The Notice proposes to establish

peak emission limits above 1 GHz as

follows: (1) the peak level of the

emission when measured over a

bandwidth of 50 MHz shall not exceed

the maximum permitted average

emission level by more than 20 dB; and

(2) the absolute peak output of the

emission over its entire bandwidth shall

not exceed the maximum permitted

average emission level by more than [20

+ 20log10(¥10 dB bandwidth of the

UWB emission in Hz/50 MHz)] dB or 60

dB, whichever is the lower value. We

intend to rely heavily on submitted test

data in determining what peak emission

standards should apply to UWB

products. We believe that further testing

and analysis is desirable on the

cumulative impact of emissions from

multiple UWB transmitters.

11. We believe that the existing limit

in § 15.207 for controlling the amount of

energy permitted to be conducted onto

the AC power lines is a reasonable

starting point for establishing standards

until additional experience can be

gained with this equipment. We do not

agree that higher conducted limits,

equivalent to the limits for Class A

digital devices, should be permitted in

non-residential environments.

12. Measurement procedures. Below 1

GHz, we propose to require emissions to

be measured using a quasi-peak

detector. Above 1 GHz, we propose to

require average measurements to be

made with a 1 MHz resolution

bandwidth (RBW) as we currently do for

intentional and unintentional radiators.

We also propose that spectrum analyzer

video averaging with a video bandwidth

(VBW) of no greater than 10 kHz or less

than 10 Hz be used in conjunction with

peak hold to determine the average level

as a function of frequency. We request

comments on applying the measurement

procedures specified in HP Application

Note 150–2.

13. We propose to measure the peak

emission levels of UWB signals directly

in the time domain. For peak

measurements over a 50 MHz

bandwidth, the IF output of a

microwave receiver that uses a wide

bandwidth, e.g., 50 MHz, can be

analyzed using a conventional

oscilloscope. We believe that the total

peak output can be measured with

standard sampling oscilloscope

techniques for UWB signals with evenly

spaced identical elements, such as radar

signals, and for UWB signals with

modulation on their amplitude or

spacing. We also request comments on

allowing peak measurements to be made

using the pulse desensitization

correction factor (PDCF) provided the

applicant can show that the

measurements, as corrected by the

PDCF, is the true peak for the waveform

being tested. As with average

measurements, the procedures specified

in HP Application Note 150–2 would be

applied. We recognize that the peak

level measured with a spectrum

analyzer is the RMS peak and must be

adjusted to obtain the true peak. We

seek comment on the type of UWB

signals, if any, for which this latter

measurement procedure would be

appropriate. Comments also are sought

on whether the PDCF should be

calculated based on an effective pulse

width, i.e., two divided by the

bandwidth, in Hertz, of the emitted

37334 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et.

seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of

the CWAAA is the Small Business Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

2 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

3 Id. Section 601(3).

4 Id. Section 632.

5 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under

contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

6 5 U.S.C. 601(4).

7 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under

contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

8 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

9U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

‘‘1992 Census of Governments.’’

10See 13 CFR 121.201.

11U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications, and Utilities, UC92–S–1, Subject

Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5,

Employment Size of Firms, 1992, SIC code 4812

(issued May 1995).

fundamental lobe. We seek comment on

what type of measurement antennas are

needed to make accurate peak

measurements and the least restrictive

way we might specify this in our rules.

14. For impulse systems, we believe

that the center frequency, as determined

by the ¥10 dB points, should be used

as the reference for determining the

upper frequency range over which

emissions should be measured.

However, we are concerned that a

manufacturer could employ a low

frequency carrier with an extremely

narrow pulse or that a narrow pulse

impulse system could be used with a

low frequency antenna, resulting in

emissions extending far beyond the

tenth harmonic, the normal upper range

of measurements. Accordingly,

comments are requested on whether a

different method of determining the

frequency measurement range should be

employed, e.g., based on pulse rise time

and width. In addition, commenting

parties should note that the lower

frequency range of measurements would

continue to be determined by the lowest

radio frequency generated in the device.

Comments are requested on whether the

pulse repetition frequency, pulse

dithering frequency, modulating

frequency or other factors would permit

the investigation of a low enough

frequency to address the possible

amplification of the emitted signal due

to antenna resonances below the

fundamental emission.

15. Prohibition against Class B,

damped wave emissions. We agree that

we should eliminate the prohibition

against Class B, damped wave emissions

for UWB devices as this prohibition

does not appear relevant at the power

levels being proposed.

16. Other matters. In the Notice we

proposed specific regulations regarding

the frequency of operation and emission

levels that would apply to UWB

devices. We also propose to amend 47

CFR 15.215(c) to state that intentional

radiators operated under the provisions

of 47 CFR 15.217 through 15.255 or

subpart E of the current regulations

must be designed to ensure that the

main lobe or the necessary bandwidth,

whichever is less, is contained within

the frequency bands designated in those

rule section under which the equipment

is operated. The requirement to contain

the fundamental emission within one of

the specified frequency bands would

include the effects from frequency

sweeping, frequency hopping and other

modulation techniques that may be

employed as well as the frequency

stability of the transmission over

variations in temperature and supply

voltage. If a frequency stability is not

specified, the regulation would continue

to recommend that the fundamental

emission be kept within at least the

central 80 percent of the band in order

to minimize the possibility of out-ofband operation.

17. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘Notice’’).

Written public comments are requested

on this IRFA. Comments must be

identified as responses to the IRFA and

must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the Notice. The

Commission will send a copy of this

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

603(a). We have included this IRFA,

although we expect that this action will

not cause interference to existing radio

stations. We have determined to do this

analysis to create a fuller record in this

proceeding.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

This rule making proposal is initiated

to obtain comments regarding proposed

changes to the regulations for radio

frequency devices that do not require a

license to operate. The Commission

seeks to determine whether its

standards should be amended to permit

the operation of ultra-wideband

transmission systems.

B. Legal Basis

The proposed action is taken pursuant

to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f),

303(r), 304 and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, and 307.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide

a description of, and, where feasible, an

estimate of the number of small entities

that may be affected by the proposed

rules, if adopted.2 The Regulatory

Flexibility Act defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small business

concern.’’ 3 A small business concern is

one which: (1) is independently owned

and operated; (2) is not dominant in its

field of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

SBA.4 Nationwide, there are

approximately 4.44 million small

business firms, according to SBA

reporting data.5 A small organization is

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise

which is independently owned and

operated and is not dominant in its

field.’’ 6 Nationwide, as of 1992, there

were approximately 275,801 small

organizations.7 ‘‘Small governmental

jurisdiction’’ generally means

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ 8 As of 1992, there

were approximately 85,006 such

jurisdictions in the United States. This

number includes 38,978 counties, cities,

and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000.9 The Census Bureau estimates

that this ratio is approximately accurate

for all governmental entities. Thus, of

the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are

small entities. SBA has defined a small

business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) category 4812

(Radiotelephone Communications) to be

small entities when they have no more

than 1500 employees.10 According to

the Bureau of Census, only 12

radiotelephone firms out of a total of

1,178 such firms which operated during

1992 had 1,000 or more employees.11

Given this definition, nearly all such

companies are considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

Part 15 transmitters already are

required to be authorized under the

Commission’s certification procedure as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37335

a prerequisite to marketing and

importation. The reporting and

recordkeeping requirements associated

with these equipment authorizations

would not be changed by the proposals

contained in this Notice. These changes

to the regulations would permit the

introduction of an entirely new category

of radio transmitters. All radio

equipment manufacturers, large and

small, would be provided with the

opportunity to produce this equipment.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives: (1) The

establishment of differing compliance or

reporting requirements or timetables

that take into account the resources

available to small entities; (2) the

clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance or

reporting requirements under the rule

for small entities; (3) the use of

performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities. We do not expect that

the rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making will have a

significant economic impact on small

entities.

In response to the Notice of Inquiry,

in this proceeding no party raised small

entity issues. We have considered

several alternatives to the proposed

standards, however. For example, in

response to some of the comments, we

considered the possibility of prohibiting

all UWB operation below 2 GHz, (except

for ground penetrating radar systems) in

order to provide additional interference

protection to the authorized radio

services operating below this frequency.

Instead, we have indicated our concerns

about operation below 2 GHz and have

stated that such operation would be

considered provided test results and

technical analysis demonstrated that

there was no risk of harmful

interference to other authorized entities

(which would include small authorized

entities). Similar issues were considered

for all of the standards proposed in this

Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The

proposed standards are intended to

accommodate most of the systems

presented to us without favoring any

particular manufacturer’s design.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule

None.

18. The proposed action is authorized

under sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e),

303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, and 307.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14982 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 970

RIN 1991–AB46

Acquisition Regulation: Changes to

Department of Energy Cost Principles

and Various Clauses

AGENCY: Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) proposes to amend its

Acquisition Regulation to delete those

cost principles and related provisions of

Department of Energy Acquisition

Regulation (DEAR) that are adequately

covered by the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) and retaining only

that coverage which supplements the

FAR. There is one policy change in this

rulemaking. Cost of Money, a previously

unallowable cost, is proposed as an

allowable cost. This proposed

rulemaking results from a special review

performed by DOE and it will be

finalized concurrently with another

recently proposed rule published March

13, 2000. The two rules will result in a

complete reissuance of the DEAR.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted no later than August 14,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments (3 copies) should

be addressed to: Terrence D. Sheppard,

Office of Procurement and Assistance

Management, Office of Procurement and

Assistance Policy (MA–51), Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence D. Sheppard (202) 586–8193;

e-mail terry.sheppard@hq.doe.gov; fax

(202) 586–0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Section by Section Analysis

III. Public Comments

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

F. Review Under Executive Order 12612

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and general

Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Background

The Department of Energy (DOE) and

its predecessor agencies have

traditionally accomplished their defense

and energy research mission

responsibilities through the use of

management and operating (M&O)

contracts. Although M&O contracts are

authorized by the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) at Part 17.6, FAR

policies generally do not provide the

special terms and conditions for award

and contract administration processes

tailored to the M&O contracting

environment. Accordingly, the

Department has established specific

policies and procedures at Department

of Energy Acquisition Regulation

(DEAR) Parts 917 and 970. Included

among these policies and procedures is

a unique set of cost principles which

govern the allowability of costs under

M&O contracts.

Last year DOE conducted a review of

the policies and procedures governing

the award and administration of M&O

contracts. One of the objectives of the

review was to determine whether

current DEAR cost principle coverage

could be eliminated and reliance placed

on similar coverage contained in the

FAR. As a result of a comparative

analysis between the FAR and the DEAR

cost principles and related procedures,

the review concluded that the FAR cost

principles adequately addressed DOE

interests, and that supplemental

coverage was necessary only in a

limited number of cases.

In this notice DOE proposes to amend

the DEAR to implement the results of a

comparative analysis of the FAR, Part

31, and DEAR 970.31, and 970.52. The

amendments will delete those cost

principles and related provisions of

DEAR 970 that are adequately covered

by the FAR and renumber those cost

principles supplemented in the DEAR to

conform to the FAR numbering.

One exception is the ‘‘Travel costs’’

cost principle (FAR 31.205–46 and

DEAR 970.3102–17). DOE has retained

separate coverage, although identical to

the current FAR coverage, because there

is a proposed change to the FAR section

on travel costs that will change the

government-wide standard of travel cost

allowability to a ‘‘reasonableness’’

standard. If the FAR change is made,

DOE will need to retain the current