ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-09701-0
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-09701-7
Available from the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 202-334-2807; Internet, http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup.
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION
MARTHA KREBS (Chair), Director,
Energy R&D Division, California Energy Commission, Los Angeles, California
DAVID BISHOP, President,
New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium; Nanotechnology Research VP, Lucent Tech–Bell Labs, Murray Hill, New Jersey
MARVIN CASSMAN, Independent Consultant,
San Francisco, California
ULRICH DAHMEN, Director,
National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California
THOM H. DUNNING, JR., Director,
National Center for Supercomputing Applications;
Professor of Chemistry and Distinguished Chair for Research Excellence,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
MARILYN L. FOGEL, Staff Member,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
LESLIE KOLODZIEJSKI, Professor of Electrical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ALVIN KWIRAM, Professor of Chemistry, Vice Provost for Research Emeritus,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
WARREN S. WARREN, Ralph W. Dornte Professor of Chemistry,
Princeton University;
Director,
New Jersey Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Imaging, Princeton, New Jersey
DANIEL F. WEILL, Retired,
Eugene, Oregon
Principal Project Staff
DEBORAH STINE, Study Director
RACHEL COURTLAND, Research Associate and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Senior Program Assistant
SHADEEQUA MILLER, Program Assistant
RICHARD YEH, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
KELLY KROEGER, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President Emerita and Senior Scientific Advisor to CASE,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
UMA CHOWDHRY, Vice President,
Central Research and Development, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware
RALPH J. CICERONE (Ex officio), President,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
R. JAMES COOK, Interim Dean,
College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington
HAILE DEBAS, Executive Director,
Global Health Sciences,
Maurice Galante Distinguished Professor of Surgery,
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex officio), President,
Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC
MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex officio), Chancellor,
University of California, San Diego, California
ELSA GARMIRE, Professor,
School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
M.R.C. GREENWOOD (Ex officio), Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs,
University of California, Oakland, California
NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
WILLIAM H. JOYCE (Ex officio), Chairman and CEO,
Nalco, Naperville, Illinois
MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry,
Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
RICHARD A. MESERVE, President,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
ROBERT M. NEREM, Parker H. Petit Professor and Director,
Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President,
Programs, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan
CECIL PICKETT, President,
Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, New Jersey
EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Professor and Chair,
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor,
Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
WM. A. WULF (Ex officio), President,
National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist,
Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
Staff
RICHARD BISSELL, Executive Director
DEBORAH STINE, Associate Director
LAUREL HAAK, Program Officer
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Coordinator
CRAIG REED, Financial Associate
Preface
Forty years ago, Congress asked the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)—the only joint policy committee of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine—to look at the relationship between basic research and national goals. That request, from the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in 1964, resulted in the report Basic Research and National Goals.1 One essay in the report pointed out that a side effect of heavy investment in large research facilities is the large cost of operation and maintenance. Another essay addressed the issue of rising cost:
The costs of scientific research are steadily increasing. It is true that, with the efficient instruments we now have, problems that appeared very formidable many years ago can be solved in a matter of days instead of years, and thus much more cheaply. But we are concerned today with much more difficult problems. These require the full efforts of our investigators aided by the most modern instrumentation. It is the solution of the easy problems and the necessity for facing more difficult ones that makes research more expensive each year.2
Remarkably little has changed since that time, as COSEPUP now responds to a 21st century congressional request for guidance on the issue of instrumentation.
This study is in response to a request from Congress in Section 13(b) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002, which reads as follows:
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ASSESSMENT ON INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION CENTERS.
-
Assessment—Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the need for an interagency program to establish and support fully equipped, state-of-the-art university-based centers for interdisciplinary research and advanced instrumentation development.
-
Transmittal to Congress.—Not later than 15 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate the assessment conducted by the National Academy of Sciences together with the Foundation’s reaction to the assessment authorized under paragraph (1).
A wide array of universities have expressed concerns to Congress in recent years as to the challenge of investing in and finding support for advanced instrumentation used in scientific, engineering, and medical research. The universities highlighted an interest in and a need for the centralization of research equipment on their campuses, but they lacked the resources for that. The desire for concentrating resources has grown as advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) has grown more powerful, has required additional support, and has been increasingly used by researchers in many fields. Another concern of universities is the potential for direct federal allocation of funds to particular institutions, regions, and fields due to the lack of federal ARIF programs, which can lead to federal support for facilities that are not peer-reviewed and not cost effective.
In January 2004, NSF contacted COSEPUP about conducting this study. Staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Science were consulted, and they agreed that a committee addressing the issue should respond to the following questions:
-
What are the current programs and policies of the major federal research agencies for advanced research instrumentation?
-
What is the current status of advanced midsized research instrumentation on university campuses? How are such instruments currently designed, built, funded, operated, and maintained?
-
What challenges do federal agencies and universities identify regarding such instruments?
-
Would an interagency program to fund midsized advanced research instruments that are used by researchers funded by many agencies help respond to these challenges? If so, what should be the components of such a program?
-
Are sufficient federal programs available to provide the intellectual and financial resources necessary to develop new midsized instruments that respond to research community needs?
-
What federal policies could be put into place to enhance the design, building, funding, sharing, operations, and maintenance of mid-sized advanced research instruments?
The committee would propose policies, if needed, to make the most effective use of federal resources to fund such instruments. The instruments are and would be in a broad spectrum of academic institutions.
COSEPUP appointed the Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation to respond to the call from Congress. The charge to the committee defines ARIF as instrumentation and collections of instrumentation that are supported by neither the NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program nor the NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. By that definition, ARIF is distinguished by capital costs ranging from $2 million to several tens of millions of dollars. A more comprehensive definition of ARIF is put forth by the committee in Chapter 2 of this report. The committee includes all scientific and engineering research fields—including the physical sciences, life sciences, engineering, and social sciences—within the scope of the study.
This study is intended to complement a request in Section 13(a) of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 for NSF to “conduct a review and assessment” of the MRI program. The MRI program largely excludes support of the instrumentation discussed in this report, although it is capable of partially funding ARIF. NSF is involved in a 5-year effort to design and implement a method for collecting data on science and engineering research instrumentation as part of its study.
The present report also complements two other recent COSEPUP reports that address related issues. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation3 examined NSF’s MREFC account and recommended that the National Science Board (NSB) oversee a process whereby NSF
would produce a roadmap for large research facilities that it is considering for construction over the next 20 years; it also provided a set of overlapping criteria that should be used to set priorities among proposals for those projects. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research,4 part of the Keck Futures Initiative, recommended ways for funding organizations, university administrators, researchers, students and postdoctoral scholars, professional societies, and journal editors to take steps to realize the full potential of interdisciplinary research.
To respond to its charge, the committee sent surveys to university administrators; to scientific, engineering, and medical disciplinary societies; to independent research institutions; to national and federal laboratories; and to researchers. The surveys requested information on current ARIF (obtained in the last 5 years) and ARIF needs (anticipated in the next 5 years). In addition, the surveys gathered information on the opportunities and challenges that institutions, facilities, and researchers face with regard to instrumentation, including suggestions for possible federal policy changes.
The committee met or interviewed agency officials of NSF, NSB, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the US Department of Agriculture, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
As a result of its deliberations, the committee believes that, owing to the importance of ARIF, it should be elevated by NSTC as a subject of interagency coordination and cooperation; that would enable federal agencies to leverage their resources and thus have the greatest possible impact in responding to the needs of the nation’s research communities. The committee does not see a need for “an interagency program to establish and support fully equipped, state-of-the-art university-based centers for interdisciplinary research and advanced instrumentation development.”
The committee found that there is a critical gap in federal programs for ARIF and that federal agencies should pay more attention to ARIF than they do now. The committee also recommends that all federal research agencies create, maintain, and clearly document programs that allow researchers to submit requests for ARIF. In addition, the committee recommends that NSF and NIH increase or eliminate the capital cost limit of $2 million on proposals now accepted in their agencywide instrumentation programs and permit requests for operation and maintenance costs and that NIH re-evaluate the balance between support for ARIF
and for research and increase its investment in instrumentation. Technical research support staff are vital for ARIF, and the committee recommends increased recognition and support at both the academic level and the federal level.
By taking those steps, the nation will be able to optimize its investments in instrumentation for research. Instrumentation is the key to the advancement of scientific, engineering, and medical research and to the development of new and improved technologies. The continued competitiveness of our nation’s research depends critically on the tools we have available.
Martha Krebs
Chair
Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation
Acknowledgments
This report is the product of many people. First, we thank all those who spoke at our committee meetings (in alphabetical order):
ARDEN BEMENT, Director, National Science Foundation
NORMAN BRADBURN, Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago
NORKO RUIS BRAVO, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health
JERRY BRIDGES, Chair, Costing Policies Subcommittee, Council on Government Relations, Controller, Johns Hopkins University
DAN BYERS, Staff Director, House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research
SUSAN COZZENS, Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
MICHAEL CROSBY, Executive Officer, National Science Board
PATRICIA DEHMER, Associate Director, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, Department of Energy
JEAN TOAL EISEN, Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology
ANITA JONES, Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia; and Former Chair, Committee on Programs and Plans, National Science Board
LOUISA KOCH, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
JOHN H. MARBURGER, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
MICHAEL MARRON, Associate Director, Division of Biomedical Technology, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health
WILLIAM OLBRICHT, Professor, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University
RAY ORBACH, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy
NATHANIEL PITTS, Director, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation
DONALD TENNANT, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium and Lucent Technologies
We would also like to thank those we interviewed (in alphabetical order):
RICHARD A. BEHNKE, Section Head, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation
WILLIAM O. (BILL) BERRY, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense
DRAGANA BRZAKOVIC, Staff Associate, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation
PETER A. FREEMAN, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation
PAUL HERTZ, Assistant Associate Administrator for Science, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
DAVID LAMBERT, Program Director, Instrumentation and Facilities, National Science Foundation
MICHAEL MARRON, Associate Director, Division of Biomedical Technology, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health
ANN MORIMIZU, Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security
MURIEL E. POSTON, Deputy Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure, National Science Foundation
ROBERT M. ROBINSON, Program Manager, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation
DAVID RUST, Program Planning Administrator, US Department of Agriculture
GERALD B. SELZER, Program Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure, National Science Foundation
MARJORIE TINGLE, Health Scientist Administrator, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health
THOMAS A. WEBER, Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation
ROBERT M. WELLEK, Division of Chemical and Transport Systems, Directorate for Engineering, National Science Foundation
Thanks go to institutions that responded to the survey (in alphabetical order):
Arkansas, Little Rock, University of
Arkansas, University of
Auburn University
Boston College
Boston University
Brandeis University
Brown University
California, Berkeley, University of
California, Irvine, University of
California, Los Angeles, University of
California, Riverside, University of
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Cincinnati, University of
Colorado, Boulder, University of
Dartmouth University
Idaho State University
Illinois, Chicago, University of
Iowa State University
Kansas Center for Research, University of
Kansas University Medical Center
Lehigh University
Loma Linda University
Maine, University of
Marquette University
Maryland, Baltimore County, University of
Maryland, College Park, University of
Massachusetts, Boston, University of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michigan State University
Minnesota, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, University of
New Mexico State University
New York, State University of
North Carolina, Greensboro, University of
Northern Illinois University
Oakland University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
Princeton University
Purdue University
Rice University
Rutgers University
San Diego State University
Syracuse University
Tennessee, University of
Texas A&M-Health Science Center
Texas, Austin, University of
Washington State University
Washington University, St. Louis
Wayne State University
Wisconsin-Madison, University of
We also thank the following national laboratories and research centers for their informative responses to our survey:
Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Center for Microanalysis of Materials, Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory
Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Laboratory of Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
In addition, we thank the disciplinary societies that responded to our survey. Note that staff from some of the disciplinary societies responded to the survey as individuals with a broad view of the status and needs of their field and not as representatives of their society. The disciplinary societies are (in alphabetical order):
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Physical Society
Division of Condensed Matter Physics
Division of Particles and Fields
American Political Science Association
American Society for Mass Spectrometry
American Society of Plant Biologists
Federation of Materials Societies
The committee also thanks the individual researchers who responded to our survey. Without their input in addition to the input from institutions, this report would not have been possible.
Next, we would like to thank the reviewers of this report. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jerry Bridges, Johns Hopkins University; Richard Carlson, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Deborah Estrin, University of California; David Featherman, University of Michigan; Timothy Krabach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Mark Lively, Wake Forest University; William Olbricht, Cornell University; Mark Oreglia, University of Chicago; Manijeh Razeghi, Northwestern University; and Alfred Redfield, Brandeis University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Pierre Hohenberg, New York University, and R. James Cook (Retired), Washington State University. Appointed by the National
Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
We thank Maxine Singer, the chair of COSEPUP, and W. Carl Lineberger, chair of the guidance group that oversaw this project, which included
W. CARL LINEBERGER (Guidance Group Chair), Professor of Chemistry, University of Colorado
ELSA M. GARMIRE, Professor, Dartmouth College
GERALD M. RUBIN, Vice President for Biomedical Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
MAXINE SINGER, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Finally, we thank the staff for this project, including Deborah Stine, Associate Director of COSEPUP and study director, who managed the project; Rachel Courtland, research associate and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow, who helped to turn the committee’s thoughts into words; Neeraj P. Gorkhaly, senior program assistant, who provided project support; and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellows Richard Yeh and Kelly Kroeger, who helped to provide research and analytic support for the committee.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
NMR Spectrometer, |
||||
Magnetic Resonance Imager, |
||||
X-ray Crystallography, |
||||
Proteomics, |
||||
Beamlines, |
||||
Cyberinfrastructure, |
||||
Gaussian and the Nobel Prize, |
||||
Political Science Instrumentation, |
||||
Earth and Ocean Science Sensor Systems, |
||||
Composite Instruments, |
||||
National Nanofabrication Users Network, |
||||
Electron Microscope, |
||||
Telescopes and Global Sensors and Infrastructure, |
||||
Instrumentation and the Challenge of User Fees, |
||||
Costs and Requirements Associated with an 800 MHz NMR with Cryoprobe, |
||||
What Are Facilities and Administrative Costs?, |
FIGURES
1-1 |
National Science Foundation Tools, Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), and Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) budgets, FY 2004-2006, |
|||
2-1 |
Historical capability of NMR spectrometers, |
|||
3-1 |
Midsize materials science facility operating budgets, |
|||
3-2 |
Accumulation of operating costs for a transmission electron microscope, |
|||
3-3 |
Number of ARIF reported by institutional survey respondents, |
|||
3-4 |
ARIF at institutions, by field, |
|||
3-5 |
Major challenges that institutions face with regard to ARIF, |
|||
3-6 |
Number of funding sources specified, |
|||
3-7 |
Frequency of ARIF capital cost sources of support, |
|||
3-8 |
Itemized ARIF, by capital cost, |
|||
4-1 |
Major Research Instrumentation program FY 2004 awards by directorate, |
|||
4-2 |
Frequency of ARIF capital cost sources of support, |
|||
4-3 |
Total ARIF capital cost support, by source, |
TABLES