25396 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Public Electronic Reading Room).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Dino C. Scaletti, Decommissioning

Section, Project Directorate IV &

Decommissioning, Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555. Mr. Scaletti can be contacted

at the aforementioned telephone

number.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dino C. Scaletti,

Senior Project Manager, Decommissioning

Section, Project Directorate IV and

Decommissioning, Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–10741 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit No. 1; Notice of

Correction to Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Operating Licenses Involving No

Significant Hazards Considerations

On April 19, 2000 (65 FR 21034), the

Federal Register published the

Biweekly Notice of Applications and

Amendments to Operating Licenses

Involving No Significant Hazards

Considerations. On page 21042, under

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–

313, the amendment number was

incorrectly noted. It should read,

‘‘Amendment No.: 205.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

M. Christopher Nolan,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–10740 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Proposed New Appendix to Standard

Review Plan (NUREG–0800), Chapter

19, ‘‘Use of Probablistic Risk

Assessment in Plant-Specific, RiskInformed Decisionmaking: General

Guidance’’

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Workshop.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) will host a public

workshop to discuss the proposed new

appendix to Chapter 19 of the Standard

Review Plan (NUREG–0800), entitled

‘‘Appendix D—Use of Risk Information

in Review of Non-Risk Informed License

Amendment Requests.’’ The appendix is

being developed to provide guidance to

the NRC staff on the use of risk

information in those rare instances

where license amendment requests

appear to meet regulatory requirements

but raise significant risk concerns due to

some special circumstances associated

with the request. The workshop is open

to the public.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

May 16, 2000, from 9 am to 12 noon.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Room T–8A1, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Egan Y. Wang, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone (301) 415–1076, e-mail

eyw@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed new appendix and a Notice of

Opportunity for Public Comment on the

appendix was issued in the Federal

Register on April 10, 2000 (FR, Vol. 65,

No. 69, 19030–19034). This workshop

will provide an opportunity to discuss

topics related to the appendix. Anyone

interested in providing a presentation

on this topic should contact Egan Wang

at (301) 415–1076.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven K. West,

Acting Chief, Generic Issues, Environmental,

Financial and Rulemaking Branch, Division

of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–10739 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

OMB Circular A–110, ‘‘Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals and Other NonProfit Organizations’’

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Revision.

SUMMARY: This advance notice seeks

comments on a proposal by the Grants

Management Committee of the Chief

Financial Officer’s Council that would

ask OMB to amend Circular A–110,

‘‘Uniform Administrative Requirements

for Grants and Agreements with

Institutions of Higher Education,

Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit

Organizations.’’ The amendment would

require Federal awarding agencies to

offer recipients the option to request

cash advances on a ‘‘pooled’’ basis.

Before making this recommendation, the

Council seeks comments from recipients

and Federal agencies on the merits of

pooled payment systems and grant-bygrant payment systems.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: F. James Charney, Policy

Analyst, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 6025, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments may be submitted via e-mail

(grants@omb.eop.gov), but must be

made in the text of the message and not

as an attachment. The full text of

Circular A–110 may be obtained by

accessing OMB’s home page (http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb), under the

heading ‘‘Grants Management.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Maupin, Chief Financial Officer, Food

and Nutrition Service, United States

Department of Agriculture, at (703) 305–

2046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

22(c) of the Circular provides that

‘‘whenever possible, advances shall be

consolidated to cover anticipated cash

needs for all awards made by the

Federal awarding agency to the

recipient.’’ The Chief Financial Officers

Council (Council) is considering

whether to recommend an amendment

to the Circular that would expand on

this provision by requiring agencies to

offer a pooled payment procedure

(where cash advances are requested

from a ‘‘pool’’ of grants rather than on

a grant-by-grant basis) as an option for

recipients in requesting cash advances

under Federal awards. Under either

method, however, a recipient must

maintain systems that minimize the

time elapsing between the receipt of

Federal advance payments and their

disbursement for program purposes.

This issue emerged from the work of the

Council’s Grants Management

Committee as it considered a proposal

to formally incorporate a pooled

payment process into the Federal

Government’s body of accounting

standards.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25397

In considering this proposal, the

Council has consulted with several

Federal agencies and some recipients

subject to the Circular. However, OMB

and the Council are interested in

soliciting comments from the broader

grants community, learning how pooled

and grant-by-grant payment systems

affect Federal agencies and recipients,

as well as what specific problems or

benefits are created for recipients under

the two systems.

This proposal will not affect the

policy recently adopted by the Council

that each civilian agency permit

recipients the option of using one of two

governmentwide payment systems, the

Automated Standard Application for

Payments (ASAP) system managed by

the Department of the Treasury, and the

Payment Management System (PMS)

operated by the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS). Both of

these systems have the ability to track

either pooled or award-by-award

payment requests.

The Pooled Payment System

Under a pooled payment process, the

recipient estimates the aggregate amount

of cash that it will need for all its

Federal awards from each awarding

agency and requests a draw in that

amount. The draw is then allocated

among all the awards based on a

formula. When recipients report

expenditures, the allocation is adjusted

to the actual reported expenditures.

The Council found that two major

agencies currently using the pooling

method—HHS and the National Science

Foundation—believe it provides a more

efficient and customer-friendly method

of drawing cash for grant purposes.

Recipients report individual cash

expenditures for each grant via a

financial report such as the Standard

Form (SF) 269 (Financial Status Report)

or SF–272 (Report of Federal Cash

Transactions). Many recipients have

expressed an inability to accurately

determine cash needs on a grant-bygrant basis at the time of draw.

Requiring this determination ‘‘up front’’

may cause recipients to draw larger

amounts of cash, less frequently,

resulting in poor management of Federal

funds.

Grant-By-Grant Payment Systems

Other Federal agencies have

developed systems that require

recipients to request funds on a grantby-grant basis. Some of these agencies

approve the requests on a grant-by-grant

basis; pool the individual amounts; and

issue payments in the aggregate. At least

one agency accepts grant-by-grant

payments as reports of cash usage and

records them as expenditures,

eliminating the requirement for

recipients to submit the SF–272 or, in

most cases, the SF–269.

Agencies that use grant-by-grant

payment systems believe that agency

grant officers have more timely

information on payments and can

provide more immediate technical

assistance to a recipient experiencing

problems with a particular grant. These

agencies believe that, under pooled

payment systems, reports often come in

too late for them to be able to help

recipients take corrective actions on

specific grants.

Effect on Federal Agencies

Federal agencies face some challenges

accounting for advances similar to those

of their recipients. These challenges

include identifying advances to

multiple awards. Those agencies that

currently use pooling address this

challenge by using estimates of how

recipients will distribute a pooled

payment request among the various

grants held by the institution. These

estimates are then adjusted to actual

when the recipients submit their

expense reports (SF–269 or SF–272).

After the agency has made these

adjustments, it gains a better

understanding of how the recipients are

using funds under each specific award.

Thus, accurate and timely reporting is

essential to the success of any pooling

method. For this reason, some agencies

believe that a transition from grant-bygrant to pooled payments for their

awards must be accompanied by

monthly reporting of actual

expenditures, in an electronic format,

rather than the paper-based quarterly

reporting that is currently required by

agencies currently using pooled

payment systems.

Request for Comment

OMB and the Council seek comments

from both recipients and Federal

agencies on the merits of pooled

payment systems and grant-by-grant

payment systems, as well as whether

recipients should have this option.

Specifically, commenters are asked to

respond to the following questions:

1. Would it be worth it to recipients

if they were allowed to make pooled

payment requests only in exchange for

a requirement to electronically report

their actual costs on a monthly basis?

(Section 52(a)(2)(iv) of the Circular

authorizes Federal agencies to require

monthly submission of the SF–272 from

recipients that receive advances of $1

million or more annually.)

2. Should the Circular include a

minimum number of awards and/or

dollars below which the pooled

payment option is not be offered? That

is, recipients that only get a few awards,

or for only small amounts, would not be

offered the option to make pooled

payment requests.

3. How might a pool payment system

impact the Federal agencies’ abilities to

monitor the financial performance of

recipients, and thus determine program

compliance?

4. Should recipients be permitted to

determine whether they receive

advances on a pooled or grant-by-grant

basis, or should Federal agencies

continue to make that determination?

Joshua Gotbaum,

Executive Associate Director and Controller.

[FR Doc. 00–10738 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of a new system of

records—PBGC–13, Debt Collection—

PBGC.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation proposes to establish a new

system of records maintained pursuant

to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

The new system of records, PBGC–13,

Debt Collection—PBGC, will be

maintained to collect debts owed to

PBGC by various individuals. A routine

use will permit disclosure of records to

the United States Department of

Treasury for debt collection pursuant to

the Debt Collection Improvement Act of

1996.

DATES: Comments on the new system of

records must be received on or before

May 31, 2000. The new system of

records will become effective June 15,

2000, without further notice, unless

comments result in a contrary

determination and a notice is published

to that effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of the General Counsel,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005–4026, or delivered to Suite 340 at

the above address. Comments also may

be sent by Internet e-mail to

reg.comments@pbgc.gov. Comments

will be available for public inspection at

the PBGC’s Communications and Public

Affairs Department, Suite 240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holli Beckerman Jaffe, Attorney,