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,

25398 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026; 202–326–4123. (For TTY/TDD

users, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be

connected to 202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC

proposes to establish a new debt

collection system of records entitled

PBGC–13, Debt Collection, pursuant to

the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

The new system of records will be

maintained to collect debts owed to

PBGC by various individuals. A routine

use will permit disclosure of certain

information about debtors and

delinquent debts to the Department of

Treasury (Treasury) to facilitate the

PBGC’s compliance with the transfer

and disclosure provisions of the Debt

Collection Improvement Act of 1996

(DCIA), 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) & (g). General

Routine Uses G1 and G4 through G8,

from PBGC’s Prefatory Statement of

General Routine Uses, last published at

60 FR 57462, 57463–57464 (1995), will

also apply to records maintained in

PBGC–13.

Section 3711(g) of DCIA requires

Federal agencies to transfer any non-tax

debt that is over 180 days delinquent to

the Department of Treasury for debt

collection action. This centralized

collection of government-wide debt is

called ‘‘cross-servicing.’’ Under section

3711(g), Treasury will use all

appropriate debt collection tools to

collect the debt, including referral to a

designated debt collection center or

private collection agency, disclosure to

a consumer reporting agency, and

administrative or tax refund offset.

Section 3711(e) of DCIA requires

agencies to disclose information about a

debt to a consumer reporting agency.

Under cross-servicing, Treasury is

authorized to disclose debts to

consumer reporting agencies and will

do so if the creditor agency has not done

so. The PBGC intends, in most cases, to

comply with DCIA’s requirement to

disclose debts to consumer reporting

agencies by transferring the debt to

Treasury for cross-servicing.

Issued in Washington, DC this 26 day of

April, 2000.

David Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

PBGC–13

SYSTEM NAME:

Debt Collection—PBGC.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

Not applicable.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026 and/or

field benefit administrator, plan

administrator, and paying agent

worksites.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Anyone who may owe a debt to the

PBGC, including but not limited to:

Employees of the PBGC; individuals

who are consultants and vendors to the

PBGC; participants and beneficiaries in

terminating and terminated pension

plans covered by Title IV of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and

individuals who fraudulently received

benefit payments from PBGC.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Names; addresses; social security

numbers; taxpayer identification

numbers; employee number; travel

vouchers and related documents filed

by employees of the PBGC; invoices

filed by consultants and vendors to the

PBGC; records of benefit payments

made to participants and beneficiaries

in terminating and terminated pension

plans covered by Title IV of ERISA; and

other relevant records relating to the

debt including the amount, status, and

history of the debt, and the program

under which the debt arose. The records

listed herein are included only as

pertinent or applicable to the individual

debtor.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

29 U.S.C. 1302; 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) &

(g).

PURPOSE(S):

This system of records is maintained

for the purpose of collecting debts owed

to PBGC by various individuals,

including, but not limited to, the

PBGC’s employees, consultants and

vendors, participants and beneficiaries

in terminating and terminated pension

plans covered by Title IV of ERISA, and

individuals who received benefit

payments to which they are not entitled.

This system facilitates the PBGC’s

compliance with the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

1. A record from this system of

records may be disclosed to the United

States Department of Treasury for crossservicing to effect debt collection in

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).

General Routine Uses G1 and G4

through G8 (see Prefatory Statement of

General Routine Uses) apply to this

system of records.

DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING

AGENCIES:

Information may be disclosed to a

consumer reporting agency in

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) (5

U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Records are maintained in paper and

electronic form.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Records are indexed by any one or

more of the following: employer

identification number: social security

number; plan number; and name of

debtor, plan, plan sponsor, plan

administrator, participant or

beneficiary.

SAFEGUARDS:

Paper records are kept in file folders

in areas of restricted access that are

locked after office hours. Electronic

records are stored on computer

networks and protected by assigning

user identification numbers to

individuals needing access to the

records and by passwords set by

authorized users that must be changed

periodically.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Records relating to the debts of

consultants and vendors are destroyed 6

years and 3 months after the date of the

voucher.

Records relating to debts of PBGC

employees involving payroll, leave,

attendance, and travel are maintained

for various periods of time, as provided

in National Archives and Records

Administration General Records

Schedules 2 and 9.

Records relating to debts of

participants and beneficiaries in

terminating and terminated pension

plans covered by Title IV of ERISA are

transferred to the Washington National

Federal Records Center 6 months after

either the final payment to a participant

and/or beneficiary, or the PBGC’s final

determination that a participant or

beneficiary is not entitled to any

benefits, and are destroyed 7 years after

such payment or determination.

Records relating to debts of other

individuals are maintained until their

disposition is authorized by the

National Archives and Records

Administration.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Director, Financial Operations

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25399

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Procedures are detailed in PBGC

regulations: 29 CFR part 4902.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

Same as notification procedure.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

Same as notification procedure.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Subject individual, plan

administrators, labor organization

officials, firms or agencies providing

locator services, and other Federal

agencies.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

None.

[FR Doc. 00–10811 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

Retirement Plan for Manually Set

Postage Meters

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Notice of proposed plan with

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service recently

completed the first phase of a plan to

remove insecure postage meters from

the marketplace with the decertification

of mechanical postage meters. A plan is

herewith proposed for the second phase,

which is the retirement of manually

reset electronic meters. Upon

completion of this phase all meters in

service will offer enhanced levels of

security, thereby greatly reducing the

Postal Service’s exposure to meter fraud,

misuse, and loss of revenue.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or delivered to the Manager,

Postage Technology Management, U.S.

Postal Service, Room 8430, 475 L’Enfant

Plaza SW, Washington DC 20260–2444.

Copies of all written comments will be

available at the above address for

inspection and photocopying between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas S. Stankosky, (202) 268–5311.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996

the Postal Service, in cooperation with

all authorized postage meter

manufacturers, began a phase-out, or

decertification, of all mechanical

postage meters because of identified

cases of indiscernible tampering and

misuse. Postal revenues were proven to

be at serious risk. With the recent

completion of this initial effort, 776,000

mechanical meters have been

withdrawn from service. Recent

advances in postage meter technology

offer high levels of security, operational

reliability, and flexibility for meter

users. As a result, the Postal Service is

addressing the next category of meter

insecurity, namely electronic meters

that are manually set by postal

employees. Of the current total installed

population of 1,587,000 meters, over 92

percent are remotely set through

telephone access to a manufacturer’s

setting center. Customers have

recognized the advantages of remote

setting, and as a result the marketplace

has moved in a positive direction. The

remaining 145,000 manually set

electronic meters are to be retired and

no longer authorized for use as postage

evidencing devices. It is the Postal

Service’s intent to make this an orderly

process minimizing impacts on meter

users. A schedule has been devised that

gives meter users ample time to make

timely and intelligent decisions on

replacement meters. The Postal Service

proposed plan is as follows:

1. Effective February 1, 2000, new

placements of manually reset electronic

postage meters ceased. The edict applies

to new customers as well as existing

meter users. All meter manufacturers

were notified of this policy and are

complying.

2. Meters must be withdrawn at the

expiration of a user’s lease, with one

exception. The Postal Service will allow

a lease extension up to December 31,

2001, for any lease which expires during

calendar year 2000. No other lease

extensions are permitted by the Postal

Service. Manufacturers or users cannot

avoid meter retirement by the

manipulation of leases.

3. Some users currently have

multiple-year leases which expire after

June 30, 2001. Any meter covered under

such a lease may be used until the lease

expires.

4. All retired meters must be

withdrawn from active service records

immediately upon lease expiration.

Manufacturers must process PS Form

3601–C, Postage Meter Activity Report,

to withdraw the meter effective the lease

expiration date.

5. Retired meters must be physically

returned to the manufacturer within 30

business days after lease expiration. The

use of a retired meter in the time period

between the expiration date and when

the meter is returned to the

manufacturer may result in the

cancellation of the user’s meter license.

6. Official notification to users

explaining this action will be sent

directly by the Manager, Postage

Technology Management, Postal Service

Headquarters. No other correspondence

will be considered to be official.

7. Any manufacturer correspondence

to these meter users must be provided

to and reviewed by the Manager,

Postage Technology Management prior

to distribution.

8. Manufacturers will provide the

Postal Service with a complete listing of

lease expiration dates including those

extended under item 2 above.

9. The meters affected by this rule are:

Ascom Hasler

1441

1446

SM1441

SM1446

16410

16410TMS

16413

16463

SM16410

SM16413

SM16463

17563

SM17563

741

SM741

7410

7413

SM7410

SM7413

7560

7563

SM7560

SM7563

Neopost

9212

9212G

9248

9248G

9252

9252G

9257

9257G

9258

9258G

9252U

9257U

9258U

9258UG

9267

9268

9268G

Francotyp-Postalia

7000

7100

7200

Pitney Bowes

6501

6502

6513

B901