ML20045G747
Text
..
J\\ r 2 ud pv i
{QCO)%
$, u.
/
'o, UNITED STATES pg
-y g(
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHWGTON D. C. 20555 r;
et FEB 211992 Mr. Edward A. Straker Sector Vice President Space, Energy and Environnent Science Applications International Corporation 1710 Goodridge Drive P.O. Box 1303 McLean, Virginia 22102
Dear Mr. Straker:
I am responding to your October 1,1991 letter in which you express concerns regarding certain provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) policy on Organizational Conflict of Interest (COI).
As you know, we published the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Comission Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR) for coment in the Federal Reaister on October 2, 1989.
Consistent with then current NRC COI policy, the NRCAR placed very strict limitations on the activities of firms performing work for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) challenged the NRC.
proposed application of the " work for others" provision to the entire broad scope and duration of task-ordering contracts.
In recognition of these concerns, we reconsidered our policy and relaxed this restriction to the relatively narrow scope and shorter duration of individual task orders rather than the entire scope and tenn of the basic contract.
In the limited case of task type contracts involving NRC work at a licensee or applicant site, the
" work for others' restriction under the revised policy includes all other cornercial work at that site and work in the same technical area for that licensee for the period of the task order and one year thereafter. Comparable restrictions apply when work is performed at a licensee or applicant site under other types of contracts. Enclosed are responses to specific questions that you raised regarding this provision.
On October 23, 1991, our staffs met to discuss SAIC's position with respect to provisions of HRC's COI policy. After careful consideration of concerns expressed by you and others, we believe the best interest of all parties will be served by proceeding with a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is for all technical assistance contractors to provide their views on the practicality of complying with the COI provisions of NRC's proposed rule or to provide alternatives that will achieve an equivalent level of COI protection.
Enclosed is a Federal Reaister Notice announcing the location, date, and time of the meeting. Additional information regarding the meeting will be provided to you under separate cover.
9307150124 930608
\\[
Mr. Edward A. Straker Our relationship with SAIC over the past years has been both positive and productive. Accordingly, we encourage SAIC to continue to respond to NRC solicitations for technical services.
Sincerely, Original Signed By:
James M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
JMTaylor JHSniezek HLThompson JLBlaha TEMurley, NRR RMBernero, NHSS ELJordan, AE00 JFScinto, OGC PGNorry ELHalman TFHagan WFoster ED0 r/f (EDO f 7067) i ADH r/f DCPM r/f PB r/f WP/G:/DEDS/Straker.3
~
P :A ADM DEDS E
fha 4 3Kildee PGN r y HLThompson JMT ylor
/92 2/2#/92 2/{ 92 2fD/92 2/ /92 4
ENCLOSURE 1 CLARIFICATION OF WORK FOR OTHERS PROVISIONS OF REVISED COI POLICY PJraaraoh (C)(2)
The prohibition contained in paragraph (c)(2) of the " work for others" section applies to the term and scope of the entire contract, except for task order contracts where the restrictions apply to the task order as appropriate.
Paraaraoh (C)(3)
The prohibition in paragraph (c)(3) was added to the prior COI language to prevent situations where a contractor may take advantage of its presence on a licensee's site to market the firm's services to the licensee. This provision also recognizes that a contractor's financial ties to a utility at a given site could introduce the potential for technical bias. NRC recognized that this may temporarily limit a firm's business activity with a licensee.
However, on balance, the protection of NRC from potential COI situations of this nature was considered paramount.
Additional Clarifyina Information In the case of task order type contracts, NRC's revised COI policy limits the application of COI restrictions to the relatively narrow scope and shorter duration of individual task orders rather than the entire scope and term of the basic contract.
This means, for example, that when the scope of a task is limited to providing technical support in the review of a site-specific licensing action, the contractor is free to perform any other work for any licensee that does not relate to the license review at that particular site.
The exception is in the case of task orders involving contractor work at a licensee site where the restriction encompasses all work at that site for that licensee and work on the same technical area for that licensee for one year thereafter.
Thus, in most cases, this change significantly reduces both the scope of activities and the time frame under which COI restrictions apply to firms performing technical services for NRC.
tftt,Lusuxt d 4
rederal Register / Vol. 57 No. 25 / Thursday. February 6.1992 / Notices MS2 sumrutmany osromasanosc On Agencies andPenons Consuhed August 15.1991 the Commission satisfy Type B testing requirements of to Cnt part 50. appen&x ].
De Cwmission's staff nviewed b approved a revision to its CO! policy.
licensee's design and did not consu!!
Dis nvised policy will become a part of
- Environmentollmpocts of the Pro;wed other agencies or persons.
the NRC Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Action chapter 20). when it is published in final Fioding of No Significant Impact The proposed Exemption substitutes en ahernative testing and replacement
%e Commission has determined not One major change from the provisions program for the Type B testmg to prepare an environmentalimpact NRC policy was the limitation of COI requiremenu of to CFR part $4 statement for the proposed bemption.
restnctions to the relatively narrow n
c 8
se pe and shorter duration ofindividual appenda J.The attemative testing program wdl detect bellows asserr.bhes
'[,d u th tas uden neu &an de atin scope with sigruficant flaws and resuh m Commission concludes that the and term of the basic contract.ne replacement of flawed anembhes propcsed action will not have a E"#E " "
- N'"8' I" I8 withm one opersung cycle.dunng which cignificant effect on the quality of the t enhance NRCs ability to obtain period there is reasonable assurance human environment, knowledgeable. experienced scientista that the be!!ows essembhes will not For further details with respect to th,is and engineers who are working daily in s offer execuive degradation. Thus, this
N" '" N
" *
- I'"" "I.
the real life environment of the nuclear Demption will not char ge the types, or November 12.1991. This document is industry.De draft version of this rule I" Pu%'IDSP"U n 816' was published in the Federal Reglotar aflow an increase in the amounts.of '"U'Y' ion.a PuWe Docummt Rwm-for public comment on October 2.1969 emuenta that may be released offsite.
Comnuss Nor wouhi11 resdt in an increase in the Celman Building. 21:'O L Stnet. NW M FR 40420)^
ir:div> dual or cu'nulative occupationag Washington. DC. at the Monis Public Under the rev.ised policy NRCa rtS.hi isappmu wmk fM c6en is Umhed ra diation exposure. Therefore. the Library. 004 Liberty Street. Morris.
t Comminion concludes that there are no llhnois 00450 and at the Dixon Public t those instances in which NRC already sigruficant radiological environmental IJbrary. 221 IIennepin Avenue, Dixon.
has h contractw Wonning under a unpacts associated with the preposed 11hnois 61021' specific task order. or plans to do so.
While the staff believes this revision bemption.
Dated at yemaSand, ein m day willincrease competition for NRC With regard to potential
- au* W Inhnical assistance and nuarth wwk.
norvad ologicalimpacts.the preposed Fw 6e.%ckar hgulaton Comuson.
additional restrictions were beroption insolves features lotsted Rdard J. Bamtt.
recommended to (a) avoid the potential entirely within restncted areas as Dunw. Pmeer Dhectorote Ill-2 paiamn of for unfatr competitive advantage that defined by 10 CFR part 20 ti does not Tuoew Pmeeta llulWV.
could result if NRC contractors were effect nonradiolopcal plant efil;ents In Doc. mm Fded 2+el s 43 aan) psiitted to market their services while and has no other environmentalimpact.
m"'G coot 75aH5*
worlung for NRC at a bcensee site, and nerefore, the Commission concludes fb) ensure NRC contnctors do not have that there are no eigruficant dmded firiancialinteresta while nonts&otogical envuonment al impacts Organizational Conflicts of Interest; working at a bcensee site.nerefore, the associated mth the proposed hiettlag Commission also approved the fo!!owing bemptin acDeer Nuclear Regulatory provision:
Afrernative Use of fresources Corranission.
When the contrsctoe perfonna work for the This action does not involse the use of actwc: Notice of public meetana-NRC under th.s opetract et any NRC licenwe or appbcant site, the contractor ahd neitbar any resources not previously considered in the finag 1:tivironmentag gtatement swumr.He Nudear Repdatory schcs nor perform work at se ate or ww6 m
[coratruction peraut and opesating Commission (NRC) wf!! hold a public the same tachtscal area for that bcenace er appbcant organization for a period Isense) for Dresden Nedear Power meeting to discuss its revised comacins with 6, paid of se task order Ststiert Urste 1 and 2.riated Novembeeorganizational Confbets of Interest or besens of wwi on $e ate 14 not e tad Wu and for Quad Cities Nuclest power [ COT) policy. A question and answer
der c ntractl and ending one par after Station. Units 1 and 2. deted Septembet period will fo!!ow opening remarks and com$uon of en wwn under se enociaW a discussion of the Poli'I's Erevisions ta sk order, or lest tune et the alte (J not a 19 4 by NRCs contreeting and legal staff.
tad wdet centract)
Alternatoe to (Ac Preposed Action ne NRC recognized that the above Since the Commission conch;ded that h
h*
3 restriction may tefoporarily hmit a firm's there are no sigruficant enuronmental E,*
business activity with a licensee, but impacts associated with the proposed aDDAt$5ts:%e meeting will be held in believes the protection of NRC from bercption, any alternatives with equal the Versaillee I Room at the Holiday Inn potential COI situations of this nature or greater ensironmental impact need Bethesda.8120 Wisconsin Avenue.
must be paramount. Further, the staff not be esaluated.The principal Bethesda MD 20814.
believes that, on balance, the revised alternative to the bemption w ould be policy relates the previous COI som fvnfutA swORMTtOM CONTACT:
testnctions eufficiently to foster to require t'ahl comphance with the Timothy F. llagan. Acting Director, improved competition in the technical requirements of atecnia j to 10CFR Division of Contracta & Property marketplace.
part 50. Sud acti.e would not enhance Management. Office of Administration, Recently, however, two of NRCs the proteem:. cJ rte ensironinent and (101) 492-4347 or William }{. Foster.
major technical assistance and research would renn in nw arr.nted licensee Chief. Policy Branch. Division of contractors have expressed the view empen&tuses of er.gineering and Contracts & Property Management.
that the above col provision was oserfy construction rttourtre, as well as t?ffice of Admir.'s'ratinn. l30".)492-7348.
h assumteu r.;.. a.
h
Tederal Register / Vol. 57. No. 25 / Thursday. February G.199: / Notices 4653 sestrictive and would impede rather collection without ar y change in the by the self regulatory organization. The than enhance NRC's abd4ty to increase substance or in the method of collection. Commission is publishing this notice to competition in the tectrucal assistance (6) Frequency of tesponse: On solicit comments on the proposed tute change from interested persons.
mark etplace. Therefore. m e invite all occasion.
contractors and other interested parties (7) Respondents: Individuals or to attend this rneeting to provide their households. Businesses or other for.
[t e a f T rm S
nce at siews on the practicahty of complying pront.
the Proposed Rule Change with this COI provision or to pronde (B) Estimated onnualnumber of He F.xchange proposes to extend for alternatnes that will achiese an respondents: See justi$ cation (!!cm 13).
tw elve months its existing pilot progra-equivalent les el of CO! protection.
(9) Totolonnuo/ responses 1.
under Amex Rule 205 requinns Dated ei Rodnlit. Mar >!and. this 2~th day (10) Avercge timeperresponse See execution of odd. lot market orders at justification (Item 13).
of January. In:.
(11) Totolonnua/ reporting hovts:1.
the prevailing Amex quote with no For th Nucle ar Regulatory Commission.
(12] Collection description:ne dnfferential charged.' he Exchange games nt toytoe.
Emitroad Retirement Board (RRB) received approval on a pilot basis expmng on February 8.1992.of D ecuar Daecerfor Operononx administers the Medacare program for amendments to Amex Rule 205.8 in Doc 92-2m6 TJed +e1 e as ami persons cos ered by the railroad ne text of the proposed rule change retirement system.He collection will is available at the Office of the m__
- obtain the information needed by The Travelers Insurance Company, the Secretary. Amex. and at the POSTA1. RATE COMMIS$lON RRB's carrier, to pay claims for services Commission.
Commission Visit and supplies covered under Part B of the H. Self Regulatory Orgen12ation's program.
Statement of the Purpose of,and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule January sus 9:
Additlocal laformation or Comrnenta On February 6.1W1 Ccmmissioner 8'
John W. Crutcher and Wdliam Ferguson.
Copies of the proposed forms and in its filing with the Commission. the Assistant Director. Technical Arialysis supporting documents can be obtained self. regulatory organization included and Planning. will visit the A-1 SORTS from Dennis EaEan. the agency statements concerning the purpose of f acility in M4ami. Flonda 11 is also clearance officer (312-751-4693).
end basis for the proposed rule change possible. but not cortfemed, that a visit Cortments regar6ng the information and discussed any comments il received will be made to an Amencan bpress, collection should be addressed to on the proposed rule change.%e text c' Inc. fac6ty in the same area on Ronald J. Hodepp. Railroad Retirement these statements may be examined at Febmary 7. m2 Board. 844 Rush Street. Chicago. Illinois the places specited in Item IV below.
A report of these nsits will be on file 60611 and the OMB renewer. laura The self regulatory organization has with the Commassion Docket Room. For Ola en (202-395-7316). Office of prepared summanes. set forth in further infonostion contact Wilham M anagement and Budget. room 300; Sections A. B. and C below, of the most Fugwns @ )7 m New becutne OfLce Buil6ng.
significant aspects of such statements Claitee 1. Capp.
%'a shington. DC 20503.
E*ss.
A Self-Regulatory Organization's 9:- sos Taed 2+o:. a es sml Clemnce Officer Statement of the Purpose of, and ln Doc e:-290s Fded 2-u:. a es sm)
Statutory Bosts for the ProposedRule Char;e
-- svoo coa nos.w, 1 Purpose RAILROAD RETIREutNT BOARD The Commission has approved. on s l
SECURITIES AND ERCHANGE Agency Forms Subm!rted for OWB Pilut basis, amendments to Eschange COMMISSION Radew Rule 205 to require the execution of odd-1 AccNCr. Railroad Retvement Board fl%sse No. M-30305,FDe No.SR Ames*
lot market orden at the prevaihng Ames M
quote with no odd tot 6fferential.nese ACT10ic in accordance with the Procedures were initially approved by Paperwork Reduction Act of1980144 Seif. Regulatory Organizations; Fihng the Commission on a pilot basis.8 and U S C chspter 35), the Railroad and Order Granting Temporary were subsequently extended four Retirement Board has subrnitted the Accelerated Approvalto Proposed I'* * '
following proposalts)for the collection Rute Change by American $tock of infonnstion to the Office of Eschange,Inc.Retating to a Pilot
' Tu behenae enks metmwd erprml et te Management and Budget for review and program for Decution of Odd-tot
P*d '*"
'"'d*1**
'b pms-am. =he=,u"espire on r'ebeury a" toes.'i.
appros at Manet Orders Summary of Proposal (s) jan ary 30.3991
"' *d *[6*",',
3,
,g, g, Pursuant io section 19(b)(1) of the
% mt,,, ea,m u ra soo 9pp.ouns ra,4 (1) Collection tette Fequest for Med carc Payment.
Securities Exchange Act of1934 ("Act").
$same.et.ao) 15 U.S C. 78s(b)(1), notice is bereby Danaan to usat u n ::ee kpproms w N'u
' 5 5"uma baare Act Reinse M 26 r
(2) form /s) submitted G-7408.G-given that on January 27,1992. the AJrerican Stock Esehange. Inc. (" Amex'
"$',*,$*'/s bh e Rebu m x 7405, and HCFA-1500 a
(3) OMB Number 3 :M131.
or "Eachange") filed with the Secunties Nmt.et e is913 u ra saa pppensne rde u (4) Empiration date ofcurrent OAfB Sa-wa-en-soi actes fuer. tem se n zases s
c/corance:nree yrars from date of and Exchenge Commission brPromarae m sa.wi+oet zs se OMB approval.
("Comminsion") the proposed rule
$ 4,, M f,'*,[u,s[n-w,'l 7, $ ' M,3 dy (5) Type offrquest Extension of the change s: described in items L Il and III g
im ppp omsrv a-as in espiration date of a currently approved below, which items have been prepared
A
/
/l&(g
- s LQ 4",
s..
O IMAGE EVAL.UATION NA
//j//
9 TIS *
[;%[(g TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
Y sf 5
l.0
~"-
!,,! 2.2 her ll@2.0
- n l,l w.m l'1 I.8
!!!==
[ I.2 5 j'
l.4 ll 1.6 i
i p_
4...._______.____.
150mm 4_____-_..
6" f
'3+ P n,,p,,),,
+. 8 6 j N\\\\
(
/x 3
s e
/pxx
~;
e w'o
~
+', a j
0)'
x a
-s h ',
s
/0
<c.
_3f 4,
v-o O
IMAGE EVALUATION AW
($@
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
</
[jjf fg,
//jj//
'I slk h,
I l.0 1"
" lm 3
l,l w=
! hl=1.8 N
==
1.25 llsm.4 g%l1 1.6 1
==
4_--.
150mm e-4 - _ _. _. _. - _ _ _ _ _ _. - -
6"
,% '4>dj 4g%,,,,0/$
- g4 s g, %,,, ), 7
.g 3 sg\\
sg :
< g, g,3, sp m
g,jj
,,f g
N
&*d sc&, e>
tO q,
vv a
4 9, %
IMAGE EVALUATION
/ ['e [,
g J/o/,'t }'
$)f#
TEST TARGET (MT-3) fr 4
4 9gy
////p
\\\\
$k/>
//g
/(g
~
4 1.0 it 2 m m m p=
t ;.y hN D
l,l l 1.8 l.25 1.4 1.6
=n 4
150mm 4
6"
%v;f> '5gf,by(f 4W 3'
e ]. fj %
4 s
s 4)gf44' y
4$@ 4+-
Op i:
};
j E
s s
- Nh p:
YDE Sb w _, s,,
s W
' n D
V' g,.
ll!
s-Letter to Mr.' Edward A. Straker from James M. Taylor dated FEB 211992
~
DISTRIBUTION:
JMTaylor..
JHSniezek HLThompson JLBlaha-
.TEMurley, NRR RMBernero, NMSS ELJordan, AE0D JFScinto, OGC'-
PGNorry p
l ELHalman
'~
TFHagan WFoster EDO r/f (EDO # 7067)
-ADM r/f CCPM r/f
'P8 r/f
. 2,;~
T\\ LJ T1
/Qc d -L
[
[o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3e g
7
-l W ASHING TO N, D. C. "0555 k..v /
FEB 211992 Mr. Edward A. Straker Sector Vice President Space, Energy and Environment Science Applications International Corporation 1710 Goodridge Drive P.O. Box 1303 McLean, Virginia 22102
Dear Mr. Straker:
I am responding to your October 1, 1991 letter in which you express concerns regarding certain provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) policy on Organizational Conflict of Interest (C0I).
As you know, we published the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Comission Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR) for coment in the Federal Reaister on October 2, 1989.
Consistent with then current NRC COI policy, the NRCAR placed very strict limitations on the activities of firms performing work for NRC.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) challenged the proposed application of the " work for others" provision to the entire broad scope and duration of task-ordering contracts.
In recognition of these concerns, we reconsidered our policy and relaxed this restriction to the relatively narrow scope and aiorter duration of individual task orders rather than the entire scope and term of the basic contract.
In the limited case of task type contracts involving NRC work at e licensee or applicant site, the
" work for others" restriction under the res* sed policy includes all other comercial work at that site and work in the same technicai area for that licensee for the period of the task order and one year thereafter.
Comparable restrictions apply when work is performed at a licensee or applicant site under other types of contracts.
Enclosed are responses to specific questions that you raised regarding this provision.
On October 23, 1991, our staffs met to discuss SAIC's position with respect to provisions of NRC's COI policy. After careful consideration of concerns expressed by you and others, we believe the best interest of all parties will be served by proceeding with a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is f
for all technical assistance contractors to provide their views on the practicality of complying with the COI provisions of NRC's proposed rule or to provide alternatives that will achieve an equivalent level of COI protection.
Enclosed is a Federal Reaister Notice announcing the location, date, and time of the meeting. Additional information regarding the meeting will be provided to you under separate cover.
l
Mr. Edward A. Straker Ou'r relationship with SAIC over the past years-has been both positive and productive. Accordingly, we encourage SAIC to continue to respond to NRC solicitations for technical services.
Sincerely, Origina! Signed By:
James M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
JMTaylor JHSniezek HLThompson JLBlaha TEMurley, NRR RMBernero, NMSS ELJordan, AE00
)
JFScinto, 0GC i
PGNorry ELHalman TFHagan WFoster EDO r/f (EDO # 7067)
ADM r/f DCPM r/f PB r/f WP/G:/DEDS/Straker.3 i
D[4: Adit ADM' D DS E
fha fi
[ildee BK PGNgr y HLThompson JMT yIor
/92 2/L8/92 2/f/92 2/tt/92 2/ /92 i
I ENCLOSURE 1 CLARIFICATION OF WORK FOR OTHERS PROVISIONS OF REVISED COI POLICY Paraaraoh (C)(2)
The prohibition contained in paragraph (c)(2) of the " work for others* section applies to the term and scope of the entire contract, except for task order contracts where the restrictions apply to the task order as appropriate.
ParaarardL20)(3)
The prohibition in paragraph (c)(3) was added to the prior COI language to prevent situations where a contractor may take advantage of its presence on a licensee's site to market the firm's services to the licensee. This provision also recognizes that a contractor's financial ties to a utility at a given site could introduce the potential for technical bias. NRC recognized that this may temporarily limit a firm's business activity with a licensee.
However, on balance, the protection of NkC from potential COI situations of this nature was considered paramount.
Additional Clarifyino Information In the case of task order type contracts, NRC's revised COI policy limits the application of COI restrictions to the relatively narrow scope and shorter duration of individual task orders rather than the entire scope and term of the basic contract. This means, for example, that when the scope of a task is limited to providing technical support in the review of a site-specific licensing action, the contractor is free to perform any other work for any licensee that does not relate to the license review at that particular site.
The exception is in the case of task orders involving contractor work at a licensee site where the restriction encompasses all work at that site for that licensee and work on the same technical area for that licensee for one year thereafter. Thus, in most cases, this change significantly reduces both the scope of activities and the time frame under which COI restrictions apply to firms performing technical services for NRC.
Y
ENCLOSURE 2 rederal Re;;ister / Vol. 57. No. 25 / Thursday. February 6.1992 / Notices 4652 SUPPurutNT ARY todriRManost On satisfy Type B testing requirements of to Agencies ondfersons Consuhed August 15.1991, the Commission CTR part 50, appendix 1 g gg;
.s staff reviewed the f
'Py, [,,,*d po! y Environmentallmpacts of the Troposed licensee's design and did not consul 7
11 o eap t of other agencies or persons.
the NRC Acquisition Regulatfor (48 CFR Action chapter 20), when it is published in final finding of No Significant Impact The proposed Exemption substitutes an alternative test ng and replacement ne Commission has determined not One major change from the provisions program for the Type B testmg to prepare an environmentalimpact NRC pobey was the hmitation of CO!
requirements of to CFR part 50, statement for the proposed bemption.
append 2x j.The alternative testing restnetions to the relatively narrow sc pe and shorter duration ofindividual en o en 1 ssess ent,the task rders rather than the entire scope program wul detect bellows assembhes with sigmficant f!aws and result in Commission concludes that the and term of the basic contract.n,e,
replacement of Cawed asse:nbhes proposed action will not have a prp se ihe changein m pohis within one operating cycle, danng w hich significant effect on the quality of the t enhance NRCs abdity to obtain knowledgeable, experienced scientists period there is reasonable assurance human environment.
that the bellows essembhes will not For further details with respect to this and engineers who are working daily in 8d n 8" N
,8
I the real-life environment of the nuclear suffer excenive degradation. Thus, this Demption wdl not char:ge the types, or November 12.19n. n"is document.
industry.De draft version of this rule is atlow an increase in the amounts. of evaHaW for pu%c mspechen at se was pubbshed in the Federal Register effluents that may be released offsite, Condnion,: Mc Document Room,
for public comment on October 5.1989 Nor would it result in an increase in the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street. NW.. (54 FR 40420)^
it;dividual or cumulative occupational Washington, DC, at the Morris Public Under the revised policy.NRCs n. ht g
radiation exposure.Therefare the Library.004 Liberty Street Morris.
t &sappt u w a f r omenislimited Commission concludes that there are n Illmois 60450, and at the Dixon Public t those instances in which NRC already sigmficant radiological environmental Library,221 llennepin Avenue. Dixon.
has the contractor performing under a impacts associated with the prc posed lilinois 61021.
specific task order, or plans to do so.
bernption.
Dated at hpnMa@and. this so h day While the staff believes this revision wdlincrease competition for NRC With reFard to potential 18"'8 9 N nonradiological impaets. the proposed for Muckar P egulaton Cone-uion.
techmcal assistance and research wo?.
D emption ins olves features located Maid J. Bamtt, tecommended to (a) avoid the potential additional restrictions were entirely within restricted areas as Durcscr. Pmeer Dimcfmere Ill4. Dnicon of for unfair competitive advantage that defined by 10 CFR part 20. It dc.es not Reactor Pmerfs111#WV could result if NRC contractors were affect nonradiolopcal plant efibents In Doc 92N Lied 2+G2. 8 45 em]
permitted to market their services while and has no other environrnental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes w rkmg for NRC at a bcensee site, and
- G coot na.4s that there are no sigmficant (b) ensure NRC contractors do not have nonra diological environmental impa cts Organizational Conflicts of interest; devided financialinterests while w rking at a bcensn sue.Denfore, the associated with the proposed Wng Commission also approved the following bemption.
Amcm Nuclear Regulatory 97ny,gon; A!!emotsre Use of Resources Commission.
Men the contractoe performs work for the This action does not invohe the use of Actom N tice f public meeting NRC under this contract at any NRC heenace any reacunes not previously considered or oppbcant sue, the mntractor shall nenber an ge Tsnag Envtronmenta; gtstement suuuAnn ne Nuclear Regulatory solot nor perform wort at the one or work m l construction permit and operatmg Commission (NRC) w11] hold a public the same techucal aru for that bcensee or license) for Dresden Nudear Power inecting to discuss its revised sprhcant organizata for a period cweencing with the surd e! th issk order Stat 2on. Units 1 and 2. dated Nosem' et organizational Cordlicts ofInterest
- ' beinuma of work a the site id not a task 1973, ar.d for Quad Cities Nuclear Power (CO!) policy. A question and answer S'd ("L'*C'I d '*d*8 **** * ' ' '
Station. Units 1 and 2. dated September period will follow opening remarks and e m#eu n of an'" won undu tt.e usocasW a d2scussien of the policy's provisions task order, or last tune at the sJte [d not e 29 4 by NRCs contracting and legal sta11.
guy,,3,, e,a,7,e,;.
Alternctise to the Preposed Action d
ne NRC recognL'ed that the above,
"E S nce the Commission concluded that h'
restnction may temporartly limit a farm s there are no significant environmental p,'
business activity with a licensee.but impacts associated with the proposed Aoonssts:The meeting will be held in beheses the protection of NRC from bereption, any ahernatives with equal the Versailles 1 Room at the Holiday Inn potential COI situations of this nature or greater enect. mental impact need Bethesda. B120 Wisconsm As enue, must be paramount. Further, the staff not be esaluated.ne pnneipal Bethesda MD 20814.
believes that on balance, the revised alternatae to the Exem; mon would be pohey re! axes the previous COI to require rigid comphance with the ton rumtn mronuAnON COVrACt restnctions sufficiently to fester require::,ents of append.x ] to to CFR Timothy F. Ifagan. Acting Director, improved competition m the technical Division of Contracts a Property part 50. Such acnon would not enhance Management. Office of Administration, mark etplace.
Recently. however, two of NRCs the protection of the enutormnt and woutd result in unwcrronted hernsee f 37.} 492-4347 or William 11 Foster.
major technical assistance and rescarth empendatures of er oneenng and Chief, Pobry Branch. Devision of cor.itructicn rt uurm a we!! as Contracts & Prtsperty MandErment.
contractors have expressed the view Offi:e of Admir.tration (37.) 424348.
that the above CO! preion was oserfy asnc.a o c.
/
l.
Federal Register / Vol. 57 No. 25 / Thursday February G.199: / Notices 4653 sestrictive and would impede rather collection without any change in the by the self regulatory organization. The than enhance NRC's abihty to increate substance or in the method of collection. Commission is pubbshing this notice to competition in the technical al.:4tance (f,) Prequency ofresponse: On solicit comments on the proposed rule mark etplace. Therefore, w e invite all occasion.
change from interested persons.
contractors erd other interested parties (7) Respondents: Individuals or R
a Organ 1 t on a to attend this rneeting to provide their households. Businesses or other for, g
views on the practicahty of complying profit.
Ga p sed Rule Change with this COI provision or to provide (8) Estimoted annualnumber of alternatises that will achieve an respondents: See justification (!!cm 13) ne Exchange proposes to extend for equivalent level of COI protection.
lo) Totalannuoltesponses:1.
twelve months its existing pilot progra~
Dated at Rockville. Maryland. this 2 th day (10) A rerege timeperresponset See under Amex Rule 205 requiring execution of odd. jot market orders at of Janua-),1991 justification (item 13).
the prevailing Amex quote with no (H) Totolonnuolteporting hocrs:1.
For the Nuclear ReFulator) Comrnission.
(12) Collection description:De differential charged.8 ne Exchange James kt Taylor.
Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) received approval, on a pilot basis La ccuine Darectorfor Opemtions.
administers the Med2 care program for exp:nng on February 8.1992. of amendments to Amex Rule 205.8 (G Doc 90-316 Filed 2+91 a 45 am) persons covered by the railroad ne text of the proposed rule change retirement system.ne collection will
- obtain the information needed by %e is available at the Office of the POSTAL RATE COMMISSION Travelers Insurance Company, the Secretary. Amex. and at the RRB's carrier, to pay claims for services Commission.
i Commission Visit and supplies covered under Part B of the II. Self-Regulatory Organirstion's pr gram.
Statement of the Purpose of, and january 31.1991 Statutory Basis for,the Proposed Rule On February 6.1992. Ccmmissioner AdditionalInformation or Ct.mments
- I*
John W. Crutcher and Wilh'am Ferguson.
Copies of the proposed forms and in its filing with the Commission. the Assistant Director. Technical Analysis supporting documents can be obtained self regulatory organization included and Planning. will visit the A-1 SORTS from Dennis Eagan, the agency statements concerning the purpose of facility in Miami. Florida It is also clestance ofhcer (312-751-4693).
possible, but not confumed. that a visit Comments regarding the information and basis for the proposed rule change will be made to an Amencan bpress, collection should be addressed to and discussed any comtnents it receised inc. fac1hty in the same area on Ronald J. Hodapp. Railroad Retirement on the proposed rule change.ne text c' February 7.1992-Board. M4 Rush Street. Chicago. Ilhnois these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below, A report of these visits will be on file 60611 and the OMB reviewer. Laura with the Commission Docket Room. For Obven (202-395-7316). OfLee of The self regulatory orger.iration has further information contact W ilham htsnagement and Budget, room 3002.
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A. B. and C below, of the most brpsa at (204 7N New becutive Ofhce Buildmg.
significant aspects of such statements
' I* U'PP-Washington. DC 20503.
^
- ## D
- 8"'# # #'##
(m 9:- f06 Filed 24-61 e 45 aml Clearcnce Officer-Staternent of the Purpose of. and
- ""#~*
lFR Doc. e -2904 Vded 24G2. 8 45 am)
Statutory Basis for. the ProposedRule Chcr;e m
m RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
- 1. Purpose The Commission has approved. on a Agency Forms Submitted foe OMB SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE pihet basis, amendments to bchange COMMISSION Review Rule 205 to require the execution of odd-AorNet Railroad Retirement Board f Release No. 34-30305, File No. SR-Amen-lot market orders at the prevaihng Amex 92-4j quote with no odd lot differential Rese AcT1onc in accordance with the pr cedures were initially appr ved by Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 {44 Seif. Regulatory Organizations; Fehng the E.ommission on a pilot basis,s and U.S.C. chspfer 35). the Railroad and Order Granting Temporary Retirement Board has submitted the Acceterated Approvst to Proposed we sjbsequently extended four
- tunes, following proposalts) for the collection Rute Change by American Stock of information to the Of' ace of Ezchange Inc. Relating to a Pilot blanagement and Budget for review and program for Execution of Odd-Lot
'
- E=*v uds =lerated *Pr'.o*al of 8-mm etey m edem euoo. =u approval.
Market Ordera amsw =Lch mu upire on february a isez. to Summary of Proposal (s)
January 30.1991
'" [ ' j,'," y ly ",,,,,, g m (1) Collection Istle Feque51 for Pursuant to section19(b)(1)of the tw. err t.cr 4.trin) u n wure teppmma de M r
Securities behange Act of 1934 ("Act")
58 *een-814o) 1 hiedicare Payment.
' 5" 5 u=* Enhae Act Poesa % 2688 1
(2) Form /s/ ssbmitted G-740D. G-15 tis C. 70s(b)(1). notice is hereby 7405, and HCFA-1500 given that on January 27.1991 the
[],"1 H n 2 4 lappmnna Fde &
l (3) OMB Number 322%0121.
American Stock Exchange. Inc. ("Ames"
- Lee semes tow Aci pae.w we m l
(4) bpsretion date of current OMB or "En change") Lied with the Secunties tw.emt.cr a wn) u ra se reprmma rde w c/corence:Dree years from date of and bchange Commission 58-he n-e1401 2m er. Iw re ipm a n zaae I"P**8 Fd' % 5b^*" *1-D'12s se OMD approsa!-
(" Commission") the proposed rule
- 15) T3pe of frquest:Diension of the change as described in Items I.11 and !!!
D'2,,'Q,$,"r h.P
- b l
ar e spiration date of a currently approved below, which items have been prepared itm.pp.omsrse % sn-wei-awit
,'hs Letter to Mr. Edward A. Straker from James M. Taylor dated FEB 2 1 1992 DISTRIBUTION:
JMTaylor-JHSniezek HLThompson JLBlaha TEMurley, NRR RMBernero, NMSS ELJordan, AE00 JFScinto, OGC PGNorry ELHalman TFHagan WFoster EDO r/f (ED0 # 7067)
ADM r/f DCPM r/f PB r/f
.