65686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

Minutes will also be available by

writing to the Fernald Citizens’

Advisory Board, % Phoenix

Environmental Corporation, MS–76,

Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, OH

43253–8704, or by calling the Advisory

Board at (513) 648–6478.

Issued at Washington, DC, on December 14,

2001.

Rachel Samuel,

Deputy Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–31349 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Objective Merit Review of

Discretionary Financial Assistance

Applications

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of objective merit review

procedure.

SUMMARY: This Notice establishes the

procedure followed by program and

regional support offices under the

purview of the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy in conducting the objective merit

review of discretionary financial

assistance applications.

DATES: Effective date: December 20,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LaTonya Poole, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE–

3.2, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

3835.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Applicability of Notice

III. Distinction between Solicited and

Unsolicited Proposals

IV. Objective Merit Review Procedure

V. Deviations

VI. EERE Selection Process

I. Introduction

The Department of Energy (DOE)

today gives notice of the procedure for

the objective merit review of

discretionary financial assistance in the

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy (EERE). Financial

assistance is provided, in the form of a

grant or cooperative agreement, when

the principal purpose of the transaction

is the transfer of money or property to

accomplish a public purpose of support

or stimulation as authorized by Federal

statute. Discretionary financial

assistance is financial assistance

provided under a Federal statute which

authorizes DOE to select the recipient

and the project to be supported and to

determine the amount to be awarded.

This differs from a procurement, which

refers to instruments used when the

principal purpose of the transaction is

the acquisition of supplies or services

for the direct benefit of the Government.

The procedure implements the objective

merit review provisions of the DOE

Financial Assistance Rules in (10 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 600.13).

II. Applicability of Notice

The procedure covers the evaluation

of all discretionary financial assistance

applications within the programs of the

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy and applies to both

solicited and unsolicited applications.

III. Distinction Between Solicited and

Unsolicited Proposals

Solicited proposals are direct

responses by interested organizations or

individuals to published requests issued

by DOE for the submission of

applications for discretionary financial

assistance awards. Solicited proposals

are awarded on a competitive basis

using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR

600.8. When a proposal is submitted

solely on the proposer’s initiative and

the idea, method or approach which

would not be eligible for assistance

under a recent, current, or planned

solicitation, and if, as determined by

DOE, a competitive solicitation would

not be appropriate, the proposal is

considered an unsolicited proposal.

Unsolicited proposals are awarded on a

noncompetitive basis using the criteria

set forth in 10 CFR 600.6 (c). The two

types of proposals are treated

differently, as described in paragraph

IV. (c), below.

IV. Objective Merit Review Procedure

(a) Definition and Purpose. Merit

review is the process of evaluating

applications for discretionary financial

assistance using established criteria.

The review is thorough, consistent and

independent and is completed by

individuals knowledgeable in the field

of endeavor for which support is

requested. The purpose of the review is

to provide advice on the technical and

cost-related merits of applications to the

Selection Official with decision-making

authority over the award of

discretionary financial assistance.

(b) Basic Review Standards. (1) Initial

Review. All discretionary financial

assistance applications received by

EERE will be assigned to the respective

EERE program official who will initially

review the document(s) for conformance

with the technical and administrative

requirements stated in the program rule,

notice or solicitation. Applicants not

meeting the technical and

administrative requirements of the

program rule, notice or solicitation will

be considered non-responsive. Nonresponsive applications will not receive

further consideration for financial

assistance. Non-responsive applicants

will be notified in writing. (2)

Evaluation. Solicited applications

which pass the initial review will be

evaluated in accordance with stated

evaluation criteria set forth in the

program rule, notice or solicitation.

Those applications not meeting the

evaluation criteria of the program rule,

notice or solicitation may be returned to

the sender to be corrected, modified or

supplemented by the sender. Those

applications judged to be so inadequate

that an evaluation is not warranted will

not receive further consideration for

financial assistance and may be

returned to the sender. Unsolicited

proposals will be reviewed to determine

whether program policy factors would

encourage further review of the

proposal.

(c) Criteria for Merit Review.

Applications which pass the initial

review and meet the evaluation criteria

set forth in the program rule, notice or

solicitation are subjected to an objective

merit review for discretionary financial

assistance. The criteria used for the

evaluation of solicited applications

must be clearly stated in the solicitation

along with the relative importance given

to each criterion. The criteria, and other

mandatory information specified in 10

CFR 600.8, must be in the solicitation.

If an unsolicited proposal is initially

favorably evaluated against program

policy factors, it should be considered

for an objective merit review for

discretionary financial assistance.

Eligibility requirements for the award of

unsolicited proposals are set forth in 10

CFR 600.6 (c).

(d) The Merit Review Committee. (1)

The Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(ASEE) has the ultimate responsibility

for appointments to a merit review

committee (the Committee). The ASEE

may delegate the appointment authority

and decision-making authority

(Selection Official function) to Deputy

Assistant Secretaries (DAS), Office

Directors and Regional Support Office

Directors.

(2) The Committee, whether a

standing committee or other review

committee, will consist of three or more

professionally and technically qualified

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65687

persons. The committee members may

be a mixture of Federal and Non-federal

experts. Non-federal members will be

selected on the basis of their

professional qualifications and

expertise.

(3) Members of the merit review

committee should exclude anyone who,

on behalf of the Federal Government,

performs any of the following functions:

(i) Providing substantial technical

assistance to the applicant;

(ii) Approving/disapproving or having

any decision-making role regarding the

application;

(iii) Serving as the Contracting Officer

(CO) or performing business

management functions for the project;

(iv) Auditing the recipient for the

project;

(v) Exercising line authority over

anyone ineligible to serve as a reviewer

because of the above limitations.

(4) The Selection Official must

appoint one member of the merit review

committee to serve as chairperson. The

chairperson is responsible for:

(i) Obtaining signed certificates of

confidentiality from all committee

members;

(ii) Preparing the written summary of

the evaluation and recommendations for

the Selection Official for the applicant’s

file; and

(iii) Performing the merit review

duties of a regular committee member.

(5) The nature of EERE’s program

solicitations will dictate the feasibility

of using standing or ad hoc committees.

When solicitations are generally being

issued to meet specific program

objectives with time or subject

limitations, EERE program offices will

use ad hoc committees. Ad hoc

committees are also appropriate under

the following circumstances:

(i) For small numbers of applications

received intermittently;

(ii) For programs of short duration,

usually under one year;

(iii) To supplement review by

standing committees when the volume

of applications is usually large, and for

applications with special review

requirements.

(6) The regular use of ad hoc

committees does not preclude the use of

standing committees under the

following circumstances:

(i) When required by legislation,

(ii) When a sufficient number of

applications on a specific topic are

received regularly and there is a

sufficient number of qualified experts

willing to serve on the committee for a

prolonged tenure; and

(iii) When the legislative authority for

the particular program involved extends

for more than one year.

(7) Field readers may be used as an

adjunct to a review committee. Field

readers must be fully briefed by the

designated Contract Officer’s

Representative so as to understand the

process, including the review criteria,

the weight given each criterion, and the

fact that any criteria not specified in the

solicitation are not to be used to

evaluate the applications. Field readers

must sign a certificate of confidentiality,

as provided in 10 CFR 600.13(d). Field

readers should follow, as closely as

possible, the procedures that would

have been used by a standing

committee.

(e) Conflict of Interest. Members of the

review committee must act in a manner

consistent with 10 CFR 1010.101.

Reviewers who do not meet these

requirements shall not review, discuss,

or make recommendations concerning

the application. Review committee

members with a conflict of interest shall

also absent themselves from all

meetings in which the application in

question is discussed.

(f) Authorized Uses of Information.

The review committee must act in a

manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15

when dealing with applications

containing trade secrets, privileged,

confidential commercial, and/or

financial information, unless the

information is unrestricted information

available from other sources.

(g) Authority Beyond Evaluation. The

Selection Official may decide not to

accept a proposal that receives a

favorable recommendation from the

merit review committee due to policy

program factors. The explanation for the

decision not to accept a

recommendation from the merit review

committee must be documented in

writing for the applicant’s file and must

be prepared and signed by the ASEE or

his/her designee.

(h) Written Evaluation Summary.

Upon request, applicants are to be

furnished a written summary of the

evaluation of their application.

V. Deviations

If an EERE program office wants to

deviate from these procedures for merit

review of an application or a class of

applications, but will still follow the

rules of 10 CFR 600.13, that office must

obtain written permission from the

ASEE. Permission to use procedures

which deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be

requested in writing to the responsible

DOE Contracting Officer in accordance

with 10 CFR 600.4. The Head of

Contracting Activity has the authority to

approve such procedures for a single

case deviation, while the DAS for

Procurement and Assistance

Management has the authority to

approve a class deviation. A deviation

may be authorized only upon written

determination that the deviation is

necessary for any of the reasons set forth

in 10 CFR 600.4(b).

VI. EERE Selection Process

Selection of applications for

discretionary financial assistance will

be based on the Selection Officials’

acceptance of the merit review

committees’ recommendations and the

findings of a separate programmatic

review of program policy factors

relevant to EERE’s mission.

Issued in Washington, DC.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–31350 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. PR02–9–000]

Consumers Energy Company; Notice

of Petition for Rate Approval

December 14, 2001.

Take notice that on November 30,

2001, Consumers Energy Company

(Consumers) filed, pursuant to Section

284.123(b)(2) of the Commission’s

Regulations, a petition for rate approval

requesting that the Commission approve

an initial interruptible transportation

service rate on Consumers system of

$0.01065 per Dth, and an interruptible

transportation service rate of $0.01357

per Dth following Commission approval

in Docket No. CP02–22–000 of the rollin of the facilities of Michigan Gas

Storage Company to Consumers’

facilities. These rates will be applicable

to the transportation of natural gas

under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural

Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).

Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii),

if the Commission does not act within

150 days of the date of this filing, the

rates will be deemed to be fair and

equitable and not in excess of an

amount which interstate pipelines

would be permitted to charge for similar

transportation service. The Commission

may, prior to the expiration of the 150

day period, extend the time for action or

institute a proceeding to afford parties

an opportunity for written comments

and for the oral presentation of views,

data, and arguments.

Any person desiring to participate in

this rate proceeding must file a motion