Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12819

nomination guidelines under Section

106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.

The project should be conducted with

input from experts in the various

professional disciplines involved in the

development and operation of the SRS

and led by historians whose area of

expertise includes twentieth century

military/industrial development in the

United States.

Those who submitted an Expression

of Interest (EOI) in response to the

Department’s August 1996 request for

EOI’s will automatically receive a copy

of the solicitation. Requests for copies of

the solicitation should be received in

writing or be transmitted via facsimile

to (803) 725–8573 no later than close of

business (4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard

Time) March 14, 1997. Requests or

notifications should be sent to Ms.

Angela M. Sistrunk, Contracts

Management Division, U.S. Department

of Energy, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802.

Telephonic requests will not be

accepted.

Issued in Aiken, SC, on March 4, 1997.

Ronald D. Simpson,

Head of Contracting Activity Designee,

Contracts Management Division, Savannah

River Operations Office.

[FR Doc. 97–6782 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of the Secretary

Privatization Working Group: Notice of

Availability of the Report of the

Privatization Working Group

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,

Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Privatization Working

Group, established by the Secretary of

Energy to examine how privatization

could help the Department utilize its

resources more efficiently, has

completed its work and provided its

recommendations to the Secretary. This

notice announces the availability of the

Working Group’s report entitled,

‘‘Harnessing the Market: The

Opportunities and Challenges of

Privatization’’ Report #DOE/S–0120. It

also requests the views of the public on

the policy, principles, and

recommendations contained therein.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before May 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on

Report # DOE/S–0120 should be sent to:

The Office of the Executive Secretariat,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Ave., SW,

Room 7E–054, Washington, DC 20585.

Copies of this report, #DOE/S–0120

may be ordered from the Public

Inquiries Office, U.S. Department of

Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Ave., SW, Room 1E–206

or by calling (202) 586–5575.

The report is also available on the

Internet at: http://www.doe.gov/

privatization/report.

Additionally, this report is available

for inspection in the Public Reading

Rooms at DOE Headquarters and in the

Department’s primary field offices. The

locations and telephone numbers of

these Reading Rooms are:

U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, 1000 Independence

Ave., Room 1E–090, SW, Washington,

DC 20585 (202) 586–5955

National Atomic Museum, Public

Reading Room, 20358 Wyoming

Boulevard SE, Kirtland Air Force

Base, NM 87117, 505–845–4378, Attn:

Diane Zepeda

Chicago Operations Office, Public

Reading Room, 9800 South Cass

Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, 630–252–

2010, Attn: Sandra Geib

Idaho Operations Office, Public Reading

Room, 1776 Science Center Drive,

Idaho Falls, ID 83415, 208–526–1144,

Attn: Gail Wilmore

Nevada Operations Office, Public

Reading Room, 2621 Losee Rd. Bldg.

B–3 Mail Stop 548, Las Vegas, NV

89030, 702–295–1628, 702–295–1128,

Attn: Janet Fogg

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public

Reading Room, Federal Building, 200

Administration Road, Oak Ridge, TN

37830, 423–576–1216, Attn: Jane

Greenwalt

Oakland Operations Office, Public

Reading Room-Room 1H/EIC, 1301

Clay Street, Oakland CA 94612, 510–

637–1794, Attn: Lauren Noble

U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, University of South

Carolina-Aiken, 171 University

Parkway, Second Floor Library,

Aiken, SC 29801, 803–725–1408,

Attn: Pauline Conner

U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, Ohio Field Office, 1

Mound Road, Miamisburg, OH 45342,

513–865–3174, Attn: Cindy Franklin1st Floor

U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, Richland Operations,

100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA

99352, 509–376–8583, Attn: Terri

Traub

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Contract Reform Project Office, U.S.

Department of Energy, room GA–155,

Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586–0800,

or the individual site offices as

designated below:

Albuquerque Operations Office—Jim

Hoyal (505) 845–5751

Chicago Operations Office—Jerry

Zimmer (630) 252–2129

Federal Energy Technology Center—

Carroll Labton (412) 892–6199

Golden Field Office—Jeff Baker (303)

275–4785

Idaho Operations Office—Jan Chavez

(208) 526–5968

Nevada Operations Office-Rick

Betteridge (702) 295–0520

Oak Ridge Operations Office—Steven

Wyatt (423) 576–0885

Oakland Operations Office—Jim

Hirahara (510) 637–1658

Ohio Field Office—Pete Greenwald

(937) 865–3862

Richland Operations Office—Lief

Erickson (509) 376–7272

Rocky Flats Field Office—Jeff Kerridge

(303) 966–2866

Savannah River Operations Office—

Chris Van Horn (803) 725–5313

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Former

Secretary of Energy, Hazel R. O’Leary,

initiated a broad slate of strategic and

managerial reform initiatives to

transform the Department to better meet

the challenges of the 21st Century. The

reports that support these reforms

consistently identified privatization as a

potentially powerful management tool

to enable institutional change. In

recognition of this and in support of the

Clinton Administration’s commitment

to a government that works better and

costs less, the Secretary formed the

Privatization Working Group to examine

how privatization could help transform

DOE.

The report of the Working Group,

Harnessing the Market: The

Opportunities and Challenges of

Privatization, provides an analysis of

the major issues that affect privatization

within the Department of Energy. The

report includes 13 case studies that

explore actual DOE privatization efforts

over the past two years. Additionally, it

summarizes the key legal authorities

that govern each of the three types of

privatization opportunities discussed in

the report. Finally, the report makes a

series of recommendations and outlines

accompanying actions that will help the

Department seize the opportunities

presented by privatization and confront

its challenges. The report stresses that

when wisely considered and carefully

implemented, privatization is a

powerful strategic management tool.

The Department is interested in the

views of stakeholders on the report’s

recommendations and action items.
12820 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

Issued in Washington, DC on March 12,

1997.

Dan W. Reicher,

Chief of Staff, Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–6780 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of General Counsel

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;

Intergovernmental Consultation

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel,

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of final statement of

policy.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) today publishes a final statement

of policy on intergovernmental

consultation under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The

policy reflects the guidelines and

instructions that the Director of the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) provided to each agency to

develop, with input from State, local,

and tribal officials, an

intergovernmental consultation process

with regard to significant

intergovernmental mandates contained

in a notice of proposed rulemaking.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy is effective

March 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Duarte, Office of the Assistant

General Counsel for Regulatory Law,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. 1533,

requires that, prior to establishing

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, the agency shall have

developed a plan that, among other

things, provides for notice to potentially

affected small governments, if any, and

for a meaningful and timely opportunity

to provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals. Section 204(a) of

the Act requires each agency to develop,

to the extent permitted by law, an

effective process to permit timely input

by elected officers (or their designees) of

State, local, and tribal governments in

the development of a regulatory

proposal containing a proposed

‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate’’ that is not a requirement

specifically set forth in law. 2 U.S.C.

1531, 1534(a).

A ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate’’ under the Act is any

provision in a Federal agency regulation

that: (1) Would impose an enforceable

duty upon State, local, or tribal

governments (except as a condition of

Federal assistance); and (2) may result

in the expenditure by State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. See 2 U.S.C.

658(5)(A)(i), 1532(a). The Act defines

‘‘small government’’ to mean any small

governmental jurisdiction defined in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

601(5), and any tribal government. 2

U.S.C. 658(11).

In January 1996, DOE published a

notice of a proposed policy to

implement this portion of the Act and

the OMB guidelines and instructions

published on September 29, 1995 (60 FR

50651) that deal with the

intergovernmental consultation process.

DOE sought public comment on the

proposed policy in order to give State,

local and tribal officials, as well as

members of the public, an opportunity

to comment on the policy before it was

finalized. DOE received comments from

one commenter. The DOE reviewed the

comments and has determined to

finalize the proposed policy with the

modifications as described below.

The commenter suggested that

indirect notification to local elected

officials (or their designees) through the

National League of Cities, the National

Association of Counties, and the U.S.

Conference of Mayors may not provide

notification to those local elected

officials who are not members of these

national organizations. The commenter

suggested that DOE also notify the State

Municipal Leagues. DOE has decided to

implement this suggestion in the

following manner. DOE understands

that a number of the State Municipal

Leagues are members of, and are

represented by, one or another of the

named national organizations. DOE will

notify directly the State Municipal

Leagues that are not otherwise

represented by one of the named

national organizations.

The commenter suggested that, in

determining if an unfunded mandate

triggers the $100 million threshold, the

DOE should not discount future costs to

present value. After consulting with

OMB, DOE has accepted this suggestion.

The commenter also suggested that

DOE open the consultation process

whenever a DOE rule would create an

unfunded mandate, without regard for

the cost of the mandate. DOE has not

accepted this suggestion because the Act

provides otherwise, and in any event,

issues about a proposed mandate could

be presented during the comment

period provided in the notice of

proposed rulemaking. The Act assigns

to the agency the obligation to assess the

effects of Federal regulatory actions on

State, local and tribal governments. 2

U.S.C. 1531. The Act requires that the

agency permit State, local, and tribal

governments to provide input in the

development of regulatory proposals

when the regulatory proposals contain

significant Federal intergovernmental

mandates. 2 U.S.C. 1534. If the agency

finds that the unfunded mandate does

not rise to the level of a ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act, then the consultation process is not

required. However, such a finding

would not preclude a State, local, or

tribal government from commenting in

a public hearing or in a meeting with

agency officials on a proposed

intergovernmental mandate that is

below the threshold of a ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate.’

Finally, the commenter suggested that

DOE create a review process whereby

local government officials can petition

to have DOE’s threshold determination

reviewed by a ‘‘neutral party.’’ DOE has

not accepted this suggestion because the

Act specifically provides for judicial

review. 2 U.S.C. 1571.

In accordance with section 801 of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

report to Congress the promulgation of

this Statement of Policy prior to its

effective date.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11,

1997.

Mary Anne Sullivan,

Acting General Counsel.

On the basis of the foregoing, DOE

adopts the following Statement of

Policy:

Statement of Policy on the Process for

Intergovernmental Consultation Under

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

I. Purpose

This Statement of Policy implements

sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Act), 2

U.S.C. 1533, 1534, consistent with the

guidelines and instructions of the

Director of the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB).

II. Applicability

This Statement of Policy applies to

the development of any regulation

(other than a regulation for a financial

assistance program) containing a

significant intergovernmental mandate

under the Act. A significant

intergovernmental mandate is a

mandate that: (1) Would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, or

tribal governments (except as a

condition of Federal assistance); and (2)