Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices 25965

Application of As Low As Reasonably

Achievable (ALARA) is also a

requirement. The results of the final

survey will be used to demonstrate that

the predicted dose to a member of the

public from any residual activity does

not exceed the 25 mrem per year dose

limit.

All liquid waste that is generated

during the decommissioning activities

will be collected in barrels and disposed

of in accordance with state and Federal

guidelines. All decommissioning

activities will be carried out within the

Nuclear Engineering Laboratory’s

confinement boundary. Additional

containment measures will be taken as

necessary to minimize the spread of

contamination within the confinement

boundary. These measures will include

wood framing covered with plastic and

low volume water misting. Airborne

releases of radioactive materials are not

expected. Dust production will be

minimized by low volume water mist at

points where dust is produced.

Based on the review of the specific

proposed activities associated with the

dismantling and decontamination of the

ISU facility, the staff has determined

that the proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The four alternatives for disposition

of the UTR–10 reactor are: DECON,

SAFSTOR, ENTOMB, and no action.

These alternatives are defined as

follows:

DECON is the alternative in which the

equipment, structures, and portions of the

facility containing radioactive contaminants

are removed or decontaminated to a level

that permits the property to be released for

unrestricted use after cessation of operations.

SAFSTOR is the alternative in which the

nuclear facility is placed and maintained in

a condition that allows the nuclear facility to

be safely stored and subsequently

decontaminated (deferred decontamination)

to levels that permit release for unrestricted

use. ENTOMB is the alternative in which

radioactive contaminants are encased in a

structurally long-lived material, such as

concrete; the entombed structure is

appropriately maintained; and continued

surveillance is carried out until the

radioactivity decays to a level permitting

release of the property for unrestricted use.

The no-action alternative would leave the

facility in its present configuration. However,

the regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(b) only allow

a limited time for this condition to exist.

The radiological impacts of SAFSTOR

would be less because of radioactive

decay prior to DECON. The ENTOMB

option would result in lower

radiological exposure but continued use

of resources. ISU has determined that

the proposed action (DECON) is the

most efficient use of the existing facility,

since it proposes to use the space that

will become available for other

academic purposes. The SAFSTOR,

ENTOMB, and no-action alternatives

would entail continued surveillance and

physical security measures to be in

place and continued monitoring by

licensee personnel.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Environmental Report

submitted on January 4, 1999, and the

Decommissioning Report submitted on

January 6, 1999, for the UTR–10 reactor.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 7, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Iowa State official, Donald A.

Flater, Chief, Bureau of Radiological

Health, Iowa Department of Public

Health, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The state

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

letters dated January 4, and 6, 1999,

which are available for public

inspection at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20555. Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

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

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Branch Chief, Events Assessment, Generic

Communications and Non-Power Reactors

Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement

Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11103 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Request

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice; Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission (OSHRC)

submitted the following requirements to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1965, Pub.

L. 104–13. Interested persons may

obtain copies of the submissions by

calling the OSHRC Clearance Officer

listed. Send comments regarding this

information collection to the OMB

reviewer listed and to the OSHRC

Clearance Officer, Occupational Safety

and Health Review Commission, 1120

20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor,

Washington, DC 20036–3419.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before May 18, 2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Number: Not applicable, new

submission.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Emergency—

Approval requested by: 05/26/00.

Title: Evaluation of ‘‘Settlement Part’’

and Evaluation of ‘‘E–Z Trial’’.

Description: Information collection is

required to evaluate the Review

Commission’s ‘‘Settlement Part’’

process. The Review Commission is also

collecting information from key

stakeholders to evaluate the ‘‘E–Z–

Trial’’ program.

Respondents: Employers and/or their

representatives, labor organizations and

staff of the Office of the Solicitor of

Labor who have been involved in cases

with the Review Commission.

Estimated Number of Responses: 80.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

130 hours.

25966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices

ADDRESSES: Ledia Esther Bernal, OSHRC

Clearance Officer, 202–606–5390,

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission, 1120 20th Street, N.W.,

Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036–

3419, Stuart Shapiro, OMB Reviewer,

(202) 395–7857, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Patricia A. Randle,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00–11081 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Request for Agency and Public

Comments

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Request for agency and public

comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) publishes a request

for agency and public comments on

three proposed technical changes to the

OMB Circular A–76 Revised

Supplemental Handbook.

DATES: Agency and public comments on

the proposed changes are due to OMB

not later than June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

the Office of Federal Procurement

Policy, NEOB Room 9013, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

FAX Number (202) 395–5105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David C. Childs, Office of Federal

Procurement Policy, Telephone No.

(202) 395–6104.

AVAILABILITY: Copies of the OMB

Circular A–76, its Revised

Supplemental Handbook and currently

applicable Transmittal Memoranda may

be obtained at the OMB Home page. The

online address (URL) is http://

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/

index.html#numerical.

Interested parties are reminded that

OMB Circular No. A–76, Transmittal

Memoranda 1 through Transmittal

Memorandum 14 are canceled.

Transmittal Memorandum No. 15

provided the Revised Supplemental

Handbook dated March 27, 1996

(Federal Register, April 1, 1996, pages

14338–14346) and remains in effect.

Transmittal Memoranda No. 16, 17 and

18, which provided previous A–76

related Federal pay raise and inflation

factor assumptions are canceled.

Transmittal Memorandum No. 19, to the

extent that it provided last year’s A–76

related Federal pay raise and inflation

factor assumptions, is canceled. The

standard retirement cost factors for the

weighted average CSRS/FERS pension

and Federal retiree health cost numbers

and the post-retirement health costs also

provided by Transmittal Memorandum

No. 19, remain in effect. Transmittal 20,

which implemented the Federal

Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act,

remains in effect.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. In last year’s Federal Activities

Inventory Reform Act (FAIR) guidance

(OMB Circular A–76 Transmittal

Memorandum No. 20), OMB stated that

the statutory 30-day and 28-day

challenge and challenge response

periods would be calendar days, while

the 10-day appeal period would be

working days. OMB is aware that the 30-

day deadline for filing challenges was

very difficult to meet in 1999. OMB

therefore proposes to change, Appendix

2, paragraph g.3., of the Revised

Supplemental Handbook to provide for

30-working days. It is likewise proposed

that Appendix 2, paragraph g.4., be

changed to reflect 28-working days.

2. When asked what, if any, other

changes are needed to the Supplemental

Handbook, the Department of Defense

expressed only one concern—that Part

1, Chapter 3, paragraph K.1.e., which

requires appellants to ‘‘demonstrate that

the items appealed (in an A–76 cost

comparison) individually or in

aggregate, would reverse the tentative

decision,’’ appears to be in conflict with

the statement at Part 1, Chapter 3,

paragraph K.7., that provides that

sequential appeals are not authorized. It

has been suggested that these two

statements create an inappropriate

standard for the initial winner of the

tentative decision. We agree. All

concerns regarding the conduct of a cost

comparison should be brought forward

to the appeal authority within the single

appeal period. Therefore, to ensure that

all relevant concerns with the conduct

of a cost comparison are brought

forward, it is proposed that Part 1,

Chapter 3, paragraph K.1.e. be voided.

3. Recently, the General Accounting

Office expressed concerns regarding the

inclusion of Federal employees, whose

jobs are included in an A–76 cost

comparison study, as members of a

related A–76 Source Selection Team. As

a result, OMB has decided to strengthen

its long standing policy limiting such

participation, as a better business

practice. Individuals who hold positions

in an A–76 study should not be

members of the Source Selection Team,

unless an exception is authorized by the

head of the contracting activity.

Exceptions may be authorized only in

compelling circumstances and, in such

cases, the head of the contracting

activity will provide a written statement

of the reasons for the action. OMB has

also been concerned that serving on a

Source Selection Team develops certain

important skills among the employees

that the Government could be in greater

risk of losing, if this ‘‘workforce

investment’’ became subject to being

outsourced. OMB has, therefore,

determined that restrictions on source

selection evaluation or advisory team

membership should be clarified. OMB

proposes to revise Part 1, Chapter 3

paragraph H. 3.b. of the Revised

Supplemental Handbook as follows:

b. ‘‘The Government should establish

a source selection evaluation or

advisory team. Individuals who hold

positions in the function under study

should not be members of the team,

unless an exception is authorized by the

head of the contracting activity.

Exceptions will be authorized only in

compelling circumstances and, in such

cases, the head of the contracting

activity shall provide a written

statement of the reasons for the action.’’

Sylvia M. Mathews,

Deputy Director.

Circular No. A–76 (Revised)

Transmittal Memorandum No. 22

To the Heads of Executive Departments

and Agencies

Subject: Performance of Commercial

Activities

This Transmittal Memorandum

implements changes to the OMB

Circular A–76 Revised Supplemental

Handbook in furtherance of the

requirements of the Federal Activities

Inventory Reform Act (‘‘The FAIR Act’’),

Public Law 105–270 and to clarify other

issues of concern. The March 1996

Revised Supplemental Handbook was

issued through Transmittal

Memorandum 15, published in the

April 1, 1996, Federal Register at pages

14338–14346. The March 1996 Revised

Supplemental Handbook was further

revised to implement the requirements

of the FAIR Act on June 14, 1999,

Federal Register at pages 33927–33935.

The Federal Activities Inventory

Reform Act (FAIR) provides that there

shall be a 30-day administrative

challenge period available to interested

parties who might wish to challenge and

agency’s decision to include or omit an

activity from the list of potential

commercial activities. As a part of OMB

Circular A–76 Transmittal

Memorandum No. 20, dated June 14,