69346 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Notices

NRC/ADAMS/index.html> at the NRC

Homepage.

A request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene may be filed within

30 days after publication of this notice

in the Federal Register. Any request for

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

shall be served by the requestor or

petitioner upon the applicant, the Office

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington

D.C. 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555; and the Executive Secretary,

U.S. Department of State, Washington,

D.C. 20520.

In its review of the application for a

license to export special nuclear

material noticed herein, the

Commission does not evaluate the

health, safety or environmental effects

in the recipient nation of the material to

be exported. The information

concerning this application follows.

NRC EXPORT LICENSE APPLICATION

Name of applicant

Date of application

Date received

Application number

Description of Material

Country of

destination Material type Total qty. End use

Transnuclear, Inc. .................................... Highly-Enriched Uranium

(93.30%).

10.05 kg Uranium/9.377 kg

Uranium-235.

Fabrication of target material for the production of

medical isotopes at the

Chalk River Laboratories.

Canada.

October 23, 2000 .....................................

October 24, 2000 .....................................

XSNM03171 .............................................

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated this 8th day of November 2000 at

Rockville, Maryland.

Ronald D. Hauber,

Deputy Director, Office of International

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–29380 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company, et al., Haddam Neck Plant;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by petition

dated September 26, 2000, the Citizens

Awareness Network (petitioner) has

requested that NRC take action with

regard to Connecticut Yankee Atomic

Power Company (CYAPCO). The

petitioner requests that the United

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC): (1) Conduct a full investigation

of CYAPCO’s garment laundering

practices and specifically of the

September 20, 2000, incident at a public

laundry facility; (2) revoke CYAPCO’s

license, or suspend it until such time

that an investigation is completed and

any contamination found as a result of

that investigation is remediated; (3)

report any violations of regulations to

the Department of Justice, and; (4)

conduct an informal public hearing.

As the basis for this request the

petitioner states that on September 20,

2000, CYAPCO laundered bright yellow

coveralls at a public laundromat in East

Hampton, CT. In addition, the petitioner

states that rubber boots and gloves from

the Haddam Neck Plant are also washed

at the laundromat on occasion. The

petitioner contends that although it is

not clear whether or not the garments

were radioactively contaminated that

the ‘‘laundering of Haddam Neck’s

protective garments at a public facility

constitutes a serious loss of radiological

control, and blatant disregard for public

and worker health and safety, the

environment, and NRC rules and

regulations.’’ In support of the claim the

petition cites a number of events that

the petitioner believes collectively

demonstrate an ‘‘inability on the

licensee’s part to follow NRC rules and

regulations * * *.’’

Based on the findings of an inspection

performed by the NRC staff as a result

of the petition, the staff is confident that

there is not an immediate safety issue

associated with this petition. Therefore,

the NRC does not intend to act

immediately on the petitioners’ second

request (suspension or revocation of the

Haddam Neck Plant operating license).

This request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As

provided by Section 2.206, appropriate

action will be taken on this petition

within a reasonable time.

The petition (ADAMS Accession

Number ML003755400) may be

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, located

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and is accessible

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Library component of the NRC Web site,

http://www.nrc.gov (the Public

Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Roy P. Zimmerman,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–29383 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

OMB Circular A–133 Information

Collection Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice of Submission for OMB

Review, Comment Request.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as

amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this

notice announces that an information

collection request was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget’s

(OMB) Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs for processing under

5 CFR 1320.10. The first notice of this

information collection request, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act, was published in the Federal

Register on July 11, 2000 (65 FR 42735).

The information collection request

involves two proposed information

collections from two types of entities:

(1) Reports from auditors to auditees

concerning audit results, audit findings,

and questioned costs; and, (2) reports

from auditees to the Federal

Government providing information

about the auditees, the awards they

administer, and the audit results. These

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Notices 69347

collection efforts are required by the

Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996

(31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) and OMB

Circular A–133, ‘‘Audits of States, Local

Governments, and Non-Profit

Organizations.’’ Circular A–133’s

information collection requirements

apply to approximately 30,000 States,

local governments, and non-profit

organizations on an annual basis.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

December 18, 2000. Late comments will

be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Edward Springer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, 725 17th Street NW., Room

10236, Washington, DC 20503.

Electronic mail comments may be

submitted via the Internet to

espringer@omb.eop.gov. Please include

the full body of the comments in the

text of the message and not as an

attachment. Please include the name,

title, organization, postal address, and

E-mail address in the text of the message

as well as the name and phone number

of a contact person.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, contact Terrill W.

Ramsey, Office of Federal Financial

Management, OMB, 725 17th Street

NW., Room 6025, Washington, DC

20503 (202–395–3993). The proposed

data collection form and its instructions

can be obtained by contacting the Office

of Federal Financial Management, as

indicated above or by download from

the OMB Grants Management home

page on the Internet at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Control No.: 0348–0057.

Title: Data Collection Form.

Form No: SF–SAC.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: States, local

governments, and non-profit

organizations (Non-Federal entities).

Estimated Number of Respondents:

60,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 59

hours for each of 400 large respondents

and 17 hours for each of 59,600 small

respondents for estimated annual

burden hours of 1,036,800.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Needs and Uses: Reports from

auditors to auditees and reports from

auditees to the Federal government are

used by non-Federal entities, passthrough entities, and Federal agencies to

ensure that Federal awards are

expended in accordance with applicable

laws and regulations. The Federal Audit

Clearinghouse (FAC) (maintained by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census) uses the

information on the SF–SAC to ensure

proper distribution of audit reports to

Federal agencies and identify nonFederal entities who have not filed the

required reports. The FAC also uses the

information on the SF–FAC to create a

governmentwide database which

contains information on audit results.

This database is publicly accessible on

the Internet at http://

harvester.census.gov/sac/. It is used by

Federal agencies, pass-through entities,

non-Federal entities, auditors, the

General Accounting Office, OMB, and

the general public for management and

information about Federal awards and

the results of audits.

B. Public Comments and Responses

Pursuant to the July 11, 2000, Federal

Register notice, OMB received 27

comment letters relating to the proposed

revision to the information collection.

Six of the letters had no suggested

changes. General comments included

that the changes seemed reasonable,

would provide additional information at

little additional costs, and the clarity of

the instructions was improved. Letters

came from Federal agencies (including

Offices of Inspectors General), State

governments (including State auditors),

certified public accountants (CPAs),

non-profit organizations (including

colleges and universities), professional

organizations, and others. The

comments received relating to the

information collection and OMB’s

responses are summarized below.

Reporting Burden

Comments: Two comments were

received relating to the reporting

burden. One State auditor commented

that although more work will be

required by non-Federal entities for the

first year the amendments are in effect,

they believed that in the long run the

changes have the potential to lessen

burdens on non-Federal entities.

Another State auditor commented that

the estimate to prepare the Data

Collection Form seemed to be about

right, maybe a little high.

Response: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in conjunction with

the Federal awarding agencies, the

National State Auditors Association

(NSAA), the American Institute of

Certified Public Accountants (AICPA),

the General Accounting Office (GAO),

and the Federal Audit Clearinghouse

(FAC) assembled a task force to redesign

the Data Collection Form. The primary

goal of the task force was to make

improvements to the form that would

increase the Federal awarding agencies

ability to monitor their grants, while

minimizing the potential for increased

reporting burden. Based on the

comments received, it appears this goal

was achieved.

Research and Development

Comment: The NSAA and a state

auditor suggested only requiring entities

to check the ‘‘Yes’’ box in Part III, Item

11b for Research and Development

(R&D) programs rather than a positive

answer of either ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’

Response: The requirement to check

the ‘‘No’’ box in Part III, Item 11b for

non-R&D programs was not changed.

Respondents are required to provide an

positive answer for every question on

the Data Collection Form (with the

exception of fax numbers and email

addresses) for the purpose of

maintaining database integrity. If Part

III, Item 11b is left blank to mean ‘‘No,’’

it would be unclear whether the form

preparer may have overlooked the item

or meant ‘‘No.’’

Multiple Employer Identification

Numbers (EINs)

Comment: Three State auditors

commented on the new requirement to

capture the multiple Employer

Identification Numbers (EINs) covered

by the single report. All three comments

recognized the additional effort the

States will have to put forward the first

year to capture this information, but

none felt the new requirement placed an

undue burden. The commenters also

recognized the Federal agencies need

this information to help ensure that all

single audit reports were filed.

Response: No change was made. The

multiple EINs covered by the single

audit report will improve the ability to

identify entities who did not file the

audits required by Circular A–133.

Cognizant Agency Determination

Comment: Three State auditors, a

Federal awarding agency representative,

and two CPAs submitted comments

questioning the instructions relating to

the cognizant agency determination.

The current Data Collection Form

requires entities to identify if they have

a cognizant or oversight agency for

audit, and the name of Federal

cognizant or oversight agency. Research

has shown that responses to these

questions have not been completely

accurate, and the FAC believes that

much of the misreporting has resulted

from a lack of understanding by the

non-Federal entity. To simplify

reporting and improve the accuracy of

responses, two actions were taken in the

69348 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).

2 17 CFR 240.12d2–2(d).

3 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).

proposed revision. First the

identification of Oversight agency will

be performed by the FAC. This

determination will be made after the

Data Collection Form is entered into the

FAC database and will be available on

the FAC website. Second, the questions

related to Cognizant agency have been

reworded for clarity.

Response: Further clarification has

been made to the instructions for

determining the cognizant agency.

Comment: A Federal awarding agency

representative asked whether the FAC

could computer generate the cognizant

agency for audit assignments the same

as the oversight.

Response: §l.400(a) of the Circular

provides the criteria used to make the

cognizant agency determination. It

explains that to provide for continuity

of cognizance, the determination of the

predominant amount of direct funding

shall be based upon direct Federal

awards expended in the recipient’s

fiscal years ending in 1995, 2000, 2005,

and every fifth year thereafter. Since the

revised Data Collection Form will apply

to entities with fiscal end dates on or

after January 1, 2001, and since the

current Data Collection Form does not

distinguish between direct and indirect

awards, it is not possible to use fiscal

year 2000 data to computer generate the

cognizant agency assignments.

Questioned Costs Detail

Comment: Two Federal awarding

agency responses stated their objections

to the elimination of questioned costs

detail by program.

Response: Questioned costs detail by

program will not be collected because of

inconsistencies in the amounts

identified by the auditor as questioned

costs and Federal agencies need to

consider questioned costs in the context

of the complete audit finding. Normally

auditors only report as questioned costs

the exceptions specifically identified

during testing (e.g., Circular A–133 does

not require the auditor to provide a

statistical projection of all questioned

costs). Auditors application of judgment

in determining the amounts to question

varies significantly. The amounts

sustained by Federal agencies as part of

audit resolution varies significantly

with the amounts questioned by the

auditor and the amount of questioned

costs is only meaningful when

considered in the context of the

complete audit finding. As proposed in

the July 11 Federal Register Notice, the

revised Data Collection Form will

identify if the audit disclosed any

questioned costs related to Federal

awards. Federal awarding agencies

receive a copy of the reporting package,

including audit findings, which

provides the more complete information

needed in resolving audit findings with

questioned costs.

Internal Control Detail

Comment: The NSAA and two State

auditors questioned the proposed

removal of collecting internal control

detail by program.

Response: The current Data Collection

Form captures internal control detail by

program. FAC research has shown that

reporting in this area is inconsistent. As

proposed in the July 11 Federal Register

Notice, the revised Data Collection Form

will identify if the audit disclosed any

reportable conditions and material

weaknesses related to the Federal

awards. Federal awarding agencies

receive a copy of the reporting package,

including audit findings, which

provides the more complete information

needed in resolving the audit finding

concerning internal control.

Electronic Submission of the Data

Collection Form

Comment: Two State auditors, the

NSAA, the AGA, and two CPAs

commented on the online Internet

submission process for filing the Data

Collection Form and the use of

electronic signatures.

Response: The online Internet

submission process does not capture

electronic signatures. Currently, the

Data Collection Form can be entered,

edited, and submitted via the Internet.

The respondents are required to print a

copy of the edited form for signature by

the auditor and auditee. The signed

copy is then attached to the reporting

package and mailed to the Federal Audit

Clearinghouse. Since only the Data

Collection Form can be filed

electronically, and non-Federal entities

are required to mail the reporting

package, the capability to capture

electronic signatures has not been built

into the online Internet submission

process. During the next year, the FAC,

in conjunction with the Federal

awarding agencies and other single

audit stakeholders, will explore the

possibility of electronic submission of

the reporting package.

Type of Entity

Comment: One State government

suggested capturing the type of entity

(nonprofit, government, hospital,

school, etc.) on the Data Collection

Form.

Response: The revised Data Collection

Form will not capture the type of entity.

The FAC will review the Data Collection

Form and identify the type of entity.

This information will be accessible on

the FAC website. The FAC was chosen

to make this determination based on

their experience classifying

governmental entities. Also, the FAC

will use a predetermined list which

should provide for consistency within

the classifications. The FAC website

will clearly note that this determination

was made by the FAC.

Joshua Gotbaum,

Executive Associate Director and Controller.

[FR Doc. 00–29296 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Ampal-American Israel

Corporation, Class A Stock, $1.00 Par

Value) File No. 1–08466

November 8, 2000.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation

(‘‘Company’’) has filed an application

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant

to Section 12(d) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule

12d2–2(d) thereunder,2 to withdraw its

Class A Stock, $1,00 par value

(‘‘Security’’), from listing and

registration on the American Stock

Exchange (‘‘Amex’’).

On May 1, 2000, the Security became

designated for quotation on the National

Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

(‘‘Nasdaq National Market’’), and

trading was simultaneously suspended

on the Amex. The Company hopes that

quotation on the Nasdaq National

Market will enhance the marketability

of its Security by providing greater

liquidity and visibility than it had found

through its listing on the Amex.

The Company has stated that it has

complied with the Rules of the Amex

governing the withdrawal of its Security

and that the Amex has indicated that it

has no objection to such withdrawal.

The Company’s application relates

solely to the withdrawal of the Security

from listing and registration on the

Amex and shall have no effect upon its

continuing to be designated for

quotation on the Nasdaq National

Market and registered under Section

12(g) of the Act.3

Any interested person may, on or

before December 1, 2000, submit by

letter to the Secretary of the Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth