Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations refer to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On November 30, 2001, Shinho Steel Co. (“Shinho”), a producer/exporter of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe in the Republic of Korea, requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea covering the period November 1, 2000 to October 31, 2001. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published the initiation of the review on December 19, 2001. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 65470. On December 19, 2001, Shinho withdrew its request for review.

The Department's regulations provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within ninety days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Shinho's request for review was withdrawn within the ninety-day deadline.

As a result of the withdrawal of the request for review and because the Department received no other request for review, the Department is rescinding this administrative review.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On June 28, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 66 FR 34410 (June 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Results ). The review covers two manufacturers/exporters. The POR is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, New World Pasta, a petitioner 1 in the case, filed a case brief on August 2, 2001, and the respondents filed case briefs on August 6, 2001. We received rebuttal briefs from New World Pasta and Pastavilla on August 13, 2001. A public hearing was not held with respect to this review because no party requested one. On September 26, 2001, respondents requested that the Department extend its final results in order to incorporate in our margin calculation programs the results from the most recently completed reviews of the countervailing duty order on pasta from Turkey. On November 1, 2001, the Department published a notice postponing the final results of this review until December 25, 2001 (66 FR 55160). The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:

(1) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (the CRU).

Pastavilla has had zero or de minimis dumping margins for the previous two review periods. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey 64 FR 69493 (December 13, 1999); see also, Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey 63 FR 68429 (December 11, 1998). However, as shown in the final results of this review, Pastavilla's weight-averaged dumping margin is 2.78 percent, which is above the de minimis rate of 0.50 percent. See 19 CFR 351.106(c). Consequently, Pastavilla has not made sales of subject merchandise “at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years” as required by the Department's regulations. Because one of the requirements to qualify for revocation has not been met, the Department has not addressed the issues of commercial quantities and whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping with regard to Pastavilla. Thus, we determine not to revoke this order with respect to Pastavilla.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Decision Memorandum) from Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We calculated the export price and normal value using the same methodology stated in the Preliminary Results , except as follows:

• For the countervailing duty field ( i.e. , CVDU) reported by Filiz, in the preliminary results, the Department mistakenly divided Filiz's reported figure by one thousand, on the premise that the figure was reported in $/metric ton and therefore must be converted to $/kilogram. We have corrected this error by not converting this field for purposes of these final results. In addition, we have reevaluated the appropriate amount of countervailing duties applicable to the dumping calculations for Filiz and Pastavilla.

• The Department has deleted its re-indexing of Pastavilla's fixed overhead (FOH) field and, instead, accepted Pastavilla's indexing of its FOH reported in the cost database.

• The Department corrected a typographical error for the amount to be indexed for hyper-inflation for the month of August 1999 in its affiliated party program.

These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the order during the POR.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the margin is de minimis or zero we will instruct Customs not to collect cash deposits; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 51.49 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey , 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On June 28, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy , 66 FR 34414 (June 28, 2001) (“ Preliminary Results ”). The review covers ten manufacturers/exporters. The POR is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. We received case briefs on August 6, 2001, from Ferrara, Pallante, and PAM. On August 6, 2001, Riscossa submitted a letter with one clerical error allegation. A public hearing was not held with respect to this review. 1 On November 1, 2001, the Department published a notice extending the final results until no later than December 25, 2001. See Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 55160 (November 1, 2001). We also received a letter from PAM dated December 5, 2001. 2 The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Istituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or by Codex S.R.L.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“ HTSUS ”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:

(1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, in the case file in the CRU.

(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari Company, Inc., dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU.

(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of Barilla, an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997 (62 FR 65673). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that Barilla's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention, with respect to the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act. See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order , 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).

(4) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.

The following scope ruling is pending:

(5) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pagani's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention, with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders , 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified U.S. sales information provided by Puglisi's U.S. affiliate, Rienzi & Sons. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the Puglisi verification report placed in the case file in the CRU. We revised certain sales verification findings. See the Puglisi verification report and calculation memorandum.

On March 12, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and issued an order remanding to the CIT the final determination of the antidumping duty less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation (covering the period from May 1, 1994 through April 31, 1995) on certain pasta from Italy. The CIT subsequently remanded the case to the Department. Delverde's LTFV margin is now de minimis . See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision and Revocation in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy , 66 FR 65889 (December 21, 2001). Therefore, because Delverde's LTFV margin is de minimis, Delverde is not subject to suspension of liquidation and has been excluded from the antidumping duty order on Pasta from Italy. We are rescinding this review with respect to Delverde because it has been excluded from the antidumping duty order.

On July 13, 2000, and July 31, 2000, Puglisi and Corex, respectively, submitted letters to the Department requesting, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b) and (e), revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to their sales of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), on July 31, 2000 and September 13, 2000, respectively, Puglisi and Corex submitted the required certifications and agreements that they had not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a period of three consecutive reviews, which included this review period, and that they sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities to the United States during each of these three years. Puglisi and Corex also have stated that they would not sell the subject merchandise at less than NV to the United States in the future, and each agreed to the reinstatement of the antidumping order with respect to its merchandise, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that either Puglisi or Corex sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii).

In our preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2), we stated our intent to revoke, in part, the order for certain pasta from Italy as it pertains to Corex and Puglisi sales of the subject merchandise. See Preliminary Results. No parties submitted comments on either Puglisi's or Corex's requests for revocation.

Therefore, because Puglisi has made sales at not less than NV for three consecutive reviews in commercial quantities ( see Memorandum from Geoffrey Craig to File, “Shipments of Pasta to the United States by Puglisi,” dated June 21, 2001) and because there is no evidence on the record to indicate the likelihood of resumption of sales at dumped prices, we are revoking the antidumping duty order, in part, with respect to subject merchandise produced or produced and sold by Puglisi. See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke Order In Part , 65 FR 39367 (June 26, 2000). Also, because Corex has made sales at not less than NV for three consecutive reviews in commercial quantities ( see Memorandum from Cindy Robinson to File, “Shipments of Pasta to the United States by Corex,” dated June 21, 2001) and because there is no evidence on the record to indicate continued application of the order is necessary to offset dumping, we are revoking the antidumping duty order, in part, with respect to subject merchandise produced or produced and sold by Corex. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for Puglisi's and Corex's merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2000 (the first day after the period under review), and will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to release any bond and refund any cash deposit.

In the Preliminary Results , we applied adverse facts available (“FA”) to determine Barilla's dumping margin. See Preliminary Results , at 66 FR 34116. We did not receive comments regarding this issue; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have continued to apply adverse FA to determine Barilla's dumping margin in the final results.

Consistent with the Preliminary Results , in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are assigning Barilla an adverse facts available rate of 45.59 percent. See Id. We did not receive comments with respect to the selection of this rate; therefore we have continued to apply the 45.59 percent rate for Barilla.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “ Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ” (“ Decision Memorandum ”) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. In situations in which the importer-specific assessment rate is above de miminis, we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the order during the POR.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the margin is de minimis or zero we will instruct Customs not to collect cash deposits; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.26 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO are sanctionable violations.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

On January 31, 1984, the Department published in the Federal Register (49 FR 3897) the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC. On January 30, 2001, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 of the Department's regulations, the Department received a timely request from Groupstars to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping order on potassium permanganate from the PRC.

Section 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations requires that the exporter or producer requesting a new shipper review include the following in its request: (i) A statement from such exporter or producer that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI); (ii) certification that, since the investigation was initiated, such exporter or producer has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; (iii) in an antidumping proceeding involving inputs from a non-market economy (NME) country, a certification that the export activities of such exporter or producer are not controlled by the central government; and (iv) documentation establishing: (a) The date on which the subject merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if this date cannot be established, the date on which the exporter or producer first shipped the subject merchandise for export to the United States; (b) the volume of that shipment and subsequent shipments; and (c) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Groupstars' new shipper review request was accompanied by information and certifications establishing the date on which the company first shipped and entered potassium permanganate for consumption in the United States, the volume of the shipment, and the date of first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Also, Groupstars certified that it did not export potassium permanganate from the PRC during the POI and was not affiliated with any company which had exported during the POI. In addition, Groupstars certified that its export activities are not controlled by the PRC's central government.

On February 28, 2001, the Department initiated a new shipper review of Groupstars covering the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. See Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 66 FR 13895 (March 8, 2001). On August 17, 2001, the Department published an extension of the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review until December 25, 2001. See Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 66 FR 43183.

On March 28, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Groupstars. Groupstars responded to the Department's questionnaire on May 11, 2001 and June 14, 2001. Additionally, Groupstars submitted responses to the Department's May, August and October, 2001 supplemental questionnaires during May, August and October 2001, respectively. On September 28, 2001, the Department provided all interested parties the opportunity to submit any information which they wanted the Department to consider when valuing factors of production (FOP) in this new shipper review. On October 14, 2001, Groupstars submitted publicly available information and comments for consideration in valuing the FOP used in our NV calculations. On October 15, 2001, petitioner also submitted publicly available information and comments for this purpose.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period, potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted a verification of the responses of Groupstars. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. At verification, we found that the Groupstars-Jinan plant, one of the two plants that produced the merchandise which Groupstars sold during the POR, was not operating. Company officials explained that other than producing a portion of the sale under review in July 2000, and 20 metric tons of potassium permanganate in September 2001, one month before verification, the Groupstars-Jinan plant had not produced any potassium permanganate due to problems with machinery. During our tour of the plant, we did not observe any repairs being performed on plant machinery. Moreover, none of the personnel that we interviewed at the plant were able to recall when the plant had last produced potassium permanganate. However, company officials were able to provide documentation to substantiate the FOP reported for the Groupstars-Jinan plant. For the preliminary results, we have used these FOP, as well as the verified FOP for Groupstars' other supplier, to calculate the margin reported in this notice. Complete information regarding our verification results is in our verification reports, which are in the public file of the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B099 of the main Commerce building.

In its June 18, 2001 submission to the Department, Carus Chemical Company, the petitioner in this proceeding, alleged that Mr. Eugene Ji (also known as Ji Yue Qin), Groupstars' owner during the POR, has had multiple close affiliations with producers and exporters of potassium permanganate covered by the investigation in this proceeding, and therefore, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and section 351.214 of the Department's regulations, Groupstars cannot be considered a new shipper. 1 Specifically, the petitioner alleges that Groupstars is or has been affiliated with investigated producers and exporters from the PRC because in 1992, Mr. Ji formed Waterman Chemical Company Ltd. (Waterman), a U.S. company which attempted to build a potassium permanganate plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana using PRC equipment and technology from Jinan Tailu, the PRC joint venture that in the mid-1980's took over the Jinan Huaiyin plant, one of the plants that supplied the exporter examined in the original investigation. In addition, the petitioner notes that Groupstars operated and produced potassium permanganate during the POR using the facilities of the former Jinan Huaiyin.

Based upon the questionnaire responses received from Groupstars, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Groupstars qualifies for a new shipper review. We have determined that Groupstars made its first sale or shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the United States. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the memorandum Whether Groupstars Chemical Co. Ltd. Qualifies as a New Shipper from Holly A. Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated December 26, 2001, which is in the CRU public file.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in a NME country this single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Groupstars provided the separate rates information requested by the Department and reported that its export activities are not subject to government control.

We examined the separate rates information provided by Groupstars in order to determine whether the company is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate rates test which is used to determine whether an exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20508 (May 6, 1991).

Groupstars reported that the subject merchandise was not restricted to any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and was not subject to export quotas during the POR. Groupstars submitted copies of its business license in its May 11, 2001 submission. See May 11, 2001 submission at attachment 3. We found no inconsistencies with Groupstars' statement regarding the absence of restrictive stipulations associated with its business license. Groupstars submitted copies of PRC legislation demonstrating the statutory authority for establishing the de jure absence of government control over the company. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with Groupstars' business license; and (2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC companies.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87 (May 2, 1994); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 56 FR at 22587 (May 2, 1994). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

Groupstars reported that it determines its prices for sales of the subject merchandise based on the cost of the merchandise, movement expenses, overhead, profit, and the market situation in the United States. Moreover, Groupstars stated that it negotiated the price directly with its customer. Also, Groupstars claimed that its prices are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization. In addition, the record indicates that Groupstars has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. Further, Groupstars claimed that its negotiations are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization. Finally, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the negotiation of contracts.

Furthermore, Groupstars reported that it has autonomy in making decisions regarding the selection of management. Groupstars claimed that its selection of management is not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the selection of Groupstars' management.

Finally, Groupstars reported that it retains the proceeds of its export sales, it uses profits according to its business needs, and its management determines how to allocate profits. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. Therefore, we find that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing that: (1) Groupstars sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) Groupstars has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) Groupstars has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and (4) Groupstars retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses.

The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Groupstars demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to its exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we are granting a separate rate to Groupstars.

To determine whether the respondent's sale of subject merchandise was made at less than normal value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice, below.

For all sales made by Groupstars to the United States, we used CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

We calculated CEP based on the packed prices from Groupstars Chemical L.L.C. (Groupstars LLC) (Groupstars' affiliated U.S. reseller) to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, U.S. Customs charges, and U.S. brokerage. Foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and ocean freight, were provided by NME vendors, and thus, we based the deductions for these movement charges on surrogate values as discussed below. In accordance with 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price an amount for profit. For additional information regarding these adjustments, see the calculation memorandum from John Conniff to the File dated December 26, 2001 which is in the CRU public file.

We valued foreign brokerage and handling using the Indian values that were reported in the public version of the questionnaire response placed on the record in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Review, 65 FR 31302 (May 17, 2000). We valued ocean freight using the international freight expense reported in the public version of the questionnaire response that the Viraj Group submitted in the stainless steel wire rod from India review covering the period December 1996 through November 1997. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999). We identify the source used to value foreign inland freight in the Normal Value section of this notice, below. We accounted for inflation or deflation between the time period that the values for movement charges were in effect and the POR, as described below in the Normal Value section of this notice.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or any other person: “(B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 * * * or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the [Department] * * * shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.”

The Department was unable to verify the total amount of indirect selling expenses incurred by Groupstars LLC during the POR. At verification, the Department found that Mr. Ji paid for certain indirect selling expenses incurred on Groupstars LLC's behalf using both his personal funds and the funds of New Phoenix Ltd. (New Phoenix), a company which he wholly owns. See US Verification Report at 8. Thus, not all of Groupstars LLC's indirect selling expenses were reported in the company's financial statement. At verification, Mr. Ji identified certain expenses ( e.g., rent) that did not appear on the company's financial statement and provided documents to substantiate the amount of such expenses. In addition, Mr. Ji provided the Department with access to his personal records and the records of New Phoenix. However, the record keeping systems he employed did not allow Department officials to identify which expenses related to Groupstars LLC. Because Groupstars LLC failed to provide the information the Department requested in the form and manner requested, and because we could not verify the information as provided, we find that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate. As facts available, we allocated a portion of New Phoenix's expenses to Groupstars LLC. For further discussion of this issue, see the calculation memorandum from John Conniff to the File dated December 26, 2001 which is in the CRU public file.

For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a FOP methodology if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from a NME country, and (2) available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets forth the methodology used by the Department to calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME. Because none of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of the Department's regulations.

In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOP utilized in producing potassium permanganate include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOP, to the extent possible, using the costs of the FOP in a market economy that is (1) at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, and (2) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum From Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Holly Kuga, Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, dated July 31, 2001, which is in the CRU public file.

In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOP using surrogate values that were in effect during the POR. However, when we were unable to obtain surrogate values in effect during the POR, we adjusted the values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for all factor values, except labor, using the wholesale price indices (WPI) for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) publication, International Financial Statistics. We valued the FOP as follows:

(1) We valued the direct materials, potassium hydroxide and manganese dioxide using the rupee per metric ton or rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the months of January-February and April-December 2000, as published in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II—Imports ( Indian Import Statistics ). 2

(2) We valued salt using the rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the months of January-February and April-December 2000, as published in Indian Import Statistics.

(3) We valued coal using the rupee per metric ton or rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the months of January-February and April-December 2000, as published in Indian Import Statistics.

(4) We valued electricity using the 1997 Indian electricity prices for industrial use as reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA), as adjusted for inflation. This rate is available in the IEA publication Energy, Prices and Taxes, 2nd Quarter 2000.

(5) We valued labor using a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This rate is identified on the Import Administration's Web site. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.

(6) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit using information reported for 1992-1993 in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin of January 1997. This is the most recent information that we were able to obtain. Using the information from the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, and energy expenses; SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of manufacturing; and profit as a percentage of the sum of the total cost of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.

(7) We valued packing materials, including pallets and steel drums using the rupee per piece or rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the months of January-February and April-December 2000, as published in Indian Import Statistics.

(8) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight services incurred to transport the finished product to the port and direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to Groupstars:

Truck Freight : We valued truck freight services using the 1999 rate quotes reported by Indian freight companies. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000).

Rail Freight: We valued rail freight services using the April 1995 rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association, as adjusted for inflation.

(9) We used the following sources to value ocean freight and marine insurance services incurred to transport the finished product to the port and direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to Groupstars:

Ocean Freight: We valued ocean freight services using the 1997 rate quotes reported by the Viraj Group in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; Notice of Preliminary Results of the Administrative and New Shipper Review, 63 FR 48184.

Marine Insurance: We valued marine insurance using the 1997 rate quotes reported by the Viraj Group in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; Notice of Preliminary Results of the Administrative and New Shipper Review, 63 FR 48184. For further discussion of the surrogate values used in this review, see Memorandum From Chris Brady to the File Regarding Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review of Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, dated December 26, 2001, which is in the CRU public file.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average percentage dumping margin exists for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000:

The Department will disclose the calculations it performed in this review to the parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of this preliminary result, unless the time limit is extended. Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service upon completion of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for potassium permanganate from the PRC. We divided the total dumping margin (calculated as the difference between NV and CEP) for the importer by the entered value of the reviewed sale. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will direct U.S. Customs to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered value of the entry of the subject merchandise by that importer during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of potassium permanganate from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the current PRC-wide rate, 128.94 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under Sec. 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

This amends the notice of membership opportunities on the U.S.-Egypt Presidents' Council published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57937-57938).

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species are covered in this notice:

Threatened and endangered green turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

Endangered hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

Endangered Kemp's ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

Threatened loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta )

Endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

The applicant proposes to test the effects of the ambient levels of discharged waste found in the waters of North Carolina on the growth and survival of shortnose sturgeon fry. Preliminary results of acute toxicity tests indicate these species are among the more sensitive fish relative to contaminant effects, indicating the importance of testing the hypothesis that water quality may be a limiting factor to the species recovery. Up to 3,000 fry will be placed into water shipped in from the rivers of North Carolina and observed for growth and survival.

The applicant proposes to investigate the demographic composition and genetic origin of sea turtles within the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. This will be done by the capturing of up to 100 green, 100 loggerhead, 50 Kemp's ridley, and 50 hawksbill turtles with nets and by hand. The turtles will be weighed, measured, blood sampled, PIT and flipper tagged, have stomach lavage and released back into the area where they were captured.

The National Security Agency's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 19, 2001, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

An exemption rule for this record system has been promulgated according to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 322. For additional information contact the system manager.

The FEIS analyzes three alternative courses of action with respect to the disposal and subsequent reuse of the 425 acres (371 land acres and 54 submerged land acres) comprising the OARB: (1) The no action disposal alternative, under which the property would be maintained in a caretaker status after closure; (2) the unencumbered disposal alternative, under which the Army would transfer the property without encumbrances, such as environmental restrictions, land use controls, and easements; and (3) the encumbered disposal alternative, under which the Army would transfer the property with various environmental restrictions, land use controls, and easements, limiting the future use of the property. The FEIS also analyzes the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of a range of community reuse alternatives: (1) Low intensity reuse alternative; (2) low-medium intensity reuse alternative, (3) medium intensity reuse alternative; (4) medium-high intensity reuse alternative (5) medium-high/high intensity reuse alternative; (6) high intensity reuse alternative; and (7) very-high intensity reuse alternative.

The FEIS concludes the no action alternative is not reasonable because the BRAC law mandates closure of the Oakland Army Base, and the Army has no requirement to retain the property. This FEIS also concludes that the unencumbered disposal alternative is not feasible given environmental conditions and legal requirements.

The Army's preferred alternative course of action is the encumbered disposal of excess property. Possible encumbrances include: covenants and restrictions pertaining to asbestos-containing material; lead-based paint; biological resources; historic properties; ground water usage; excavations; future remedial activities after transfer; infrastructure easements; and rights-of-way.

The FIES analyzes community reuse of the OARB property as a secondary action resulting from closure and disposal by the Army. While the Army does not control the community's reuse of the property, NEPA requires the Army to analyze the reasonable foreseeable impacts of its disposal action. The local community established the Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) to develop and implement a reuse plan for the installation. Approval and implementation of the reuse plan are within the discretion of the OBRA.

Comments on the FEIS, received during the 30-day public comment period, will be considered in preparing the Army's Record of Decision.

Copies the FEIS are available for review at the following libraries: the Oakland Public Library Main Branch, Science, Social Science and Documents Section, 125 Fourteenth Street, Oakland, California 94612; the West Oakland Branch Library, 1801 Adeline Street, Oakland, California 94607; and the Base Transition Office, 2475-D West 12th Street, Oakland, California 94607.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers and installers of aftermarket automobile catalytic converters.

Title: Enforcement Policy Regarding the Sale and Use of Aftermarket Catalytic Converters (OMB Control number 2060-0135; EPA ICR # 1292.05.) expiring 5/31/2002.

Abstract: Section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act) prohibits removing or rendering inoperative automobile emission control devices or elements of design. But for the adoption of the aftermarket catalytic converter enforcement policy (51 FR 28114-28119, 28133 (Aug. 5, 1986); 52 FR 42144 (Nov. 3, 1987)), the manufacture, sale or installation of aftermarket catalytic converters (catalysts) not equivalent to new original equipment (OE) catalysts would constitute a violation of the Act. However, because replacement OE catalysts are expensive, many consumers had elected to not replace catalysts that malfunctioned subsequent to the expiration of the emissions warranty on their vehicles.

The Agency believes that allowing the installation of aftermarket catalysts on older vehicles can be environmentally beneficial if the Agency can be assured that the aftermarket catalysts meet certain standards and if installers are accountable to select the proper aftermarket catalyst for each vehicle application. Manufacturers of new aftermarket catalysts are required, on a one-time basis, for each catalyst line manufactured, to identify the catalyst physical specifications and summarize pre-production testing of the prototype. In addition, the manufacturer must submit semi-annual reports to EPA of the number of each type of catalyst manufactured and a summary of warranty card information (or copies of warranty cards, at the manufacturer's option). Companies that recondition used catalysts must, on a one-time basis, identify the company and provide information regarding procedures to be used to test used catalysts. All used catalysts must be individually bench-tested, and the company must submit semi-annual reports to EPA of the identity of persons who distribute the reconditioned catalysts and the number of reconditioned catalysts of each type that are sold to each distributor. Companies that install aftermarket catalysts have no reporting requirements but for 6 months must keep copies of installation invoices and records that show the reason an aftermarket catalyst installation was appropriate. Removed catalysts must be tagged with identifying information and be kept for 15 days. EPA allows the use of pre-printed documents or computer-generated documents. All the recordkeeping under the policy is authorized by section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414 and section 208 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7542. Parties who comply with these policies are allowed to install aftermarket catalysts instead of OE catalysts.

Confidentiality provisions are found at 40 CFR part 2. These requirements have been in effect for over 10 years. Startup costs have been completed. The proposed ICR utilizes assumptions that are the same as the previous ICR. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

In addition to this information, you may obtain a copy of the draft ICR supporting statement as provided above. The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: For new catalyst manufacturers the average hourly burden per year per respondent is about 5 hours for the reporting required by the policy and the associated recordkeeping. The reporting is mandatory. The frequency of response is estimated to be 1 report per year for a new product line and 2 reports per year on manufacturing and warranty card information. There are 6 entities in the country covered by the requirements. Total burden for all new catalyst manufacturers is about 60 hours per year. There are annual operating and maintenance costs of about $60 per manufacturer. There are annualized purchased service costs of $35,700 per respondent. There are no annualized capital costs. Startup costs have been completed.

For parties who recondition used catalysts, the average annual hourly reporting burden is 631 hours per respondent. The reporting is mandatory. The frequency of response is 2 reports per year based on about 8,900 tests of used catalysts per respondent. Total burden for all 8 respondents is about 5,048 hours. There are annual operation and maintenance costs of about $200 per respondent. There are annualized capital costs of about $38,244 per respondent.

For parties who install aftermarket catalysts there is no reporting burden. The average annual recordkeeping burden is about 3.5 hours per respondent. There are no annualized operation and maintenance costs or annualized capital costs. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those municipalities that currently have section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment, have applied for a renewal of a section 301(h) waiver, or those with a pending section 301(h) waiver application, and the states within which these municipalities are located.

Title: Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters (OMB Control Number 2040-0088; EPA ICR Number 0138.07), expiring July 31, 2002.

Abstract: Regulations implementing section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are found at 40 CFR part 125, subpart G. The section 301(h) program involves collecting information from two sources: (1) The municipal wastewater treatment facility, commonly called a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and (2) the state in which the POTW is located. Municipalities had the opportunity to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment requirements, but that opportunity closed in December, 1982. A POTW seeking to obtain a section 301(h) waiver, holding a current waiver or reapplying for a waiver, provides application, monitoring, and toxic control program information. The state provides information on its determination whether the discharge under the proposed conditions of the waiver ensures the protection of water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of receiving waters and whether the discharge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or any other requirement for any other point or nonpoint sources. The state also provides information to certify that the discharge will meet all applicable state laws and that the state accepts all permit conditions.

There are 4 situations where information will be required under the section 301(h) program:

(1) A POTW continuing the application process for a section 301(h) waiver, or reapplying for a waiver. As the permits with section 301(h) waivers reach their expiration dates, EPA must have updated information on the discharge to determine whether the section 301(h) criteria are still being met and whether the section 301(h) waiver should be reissued. Under 40 CFR 125.59(f), each section 301(h) permittee is required to submit an application for a new section 301(h) modified permit within 180 days of the existing permit's expiration date. 40 CFR 125.59(c) lists the information required for a modified permit. The information that EPA needs to determine whether the POTW's reapplication meets the section 301(h) criteria is outlined in the questionnaire attached to 40 CFR part 125, subpart G.

(2) Monitoring and toxic control program information: Once a waiver has been granted, EPA must continue to assess whether the discharge is meeting section 301(h) criteria, and that the receiving water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of the receiving waters are protected. To do this, EPA needs monitoring information furnished by the permittee. According to 40 CFR 125.68(d), any permit issued with a section 301(h) waiver must contain the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 125.63(b), (c), and (d) for biomonitoring, water quality criteria and standards monitoring, and effluent monitoring, respectively. Section 125.68(d) also requires reporting at the frequency specified in the monitoring program. In addition to monitoring information, EPA needs information on the toxics control program required by § 125.66 to ensure that the permittee is effectively minimizing industrial and nonindustrial toxic pollutant and pesticide discharges into the treatment works.

(3) Application revision information: Section 125.59(d) of 40 CFR allows a POTW to revise its application one time only, following a tentative decision by EPA to deny the waiver request. In its application revision, the POTW usually corrects deficiencies and changes proposed treatment levels as well as outfall and diffuser locations. The application revision is a voluntary submission for the applicant, and a letter of intent to revise the application must be submitted within 45 days of EPA's tentative decision (40 CFR 125.59(f)). EPA needs this information to evaluate revised applications to determine whether the modified discharge will ensure protection of water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of receiving waters.

(4) State determination and state certification information: For revised or renewal applications for section 301(h) waivers, EPA needs a state determination. The state determines whether all state laws (including water quality standards) are satisfied. This helps ensure that water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of receiving waters are protected. Additionally, the state must determine if the applicant's discharge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or any other requirement for any other point or nonpoint sources. This process allows the state's views to be taken into account when EPA reviews the section 301(h) application and develops permit conditions. For revised and renewed section 301(h) waiver applications, EPA also needs the CWA section 401(a)(1) certification information to ensure that all state water quality laws are met by any permit it issues with a section 301(h) modification, and the state accepts all the permit conditions. This information is the means by which the state can exercise its authority to concur with or deny a section 301(h) decision made by the EPA Regional Office.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The estimated annual average burden for the 51 respondents totals 65,037 hours for this information collection. The average annual reporting burden varies depending on the size of the respondent and the category of the information collection. The frequency of response varies from once every five years, to case-by-case, depending on the category. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are displayed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Please send comments regarding these matters, or any other aspect of information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the address listed above.

ICR Title: Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification (EPA ICR 1759.03, OMB Control No. 2070-0148).

ICR Status: This is a request for extension of an existing approved collection that is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2001. EPA is asking OMB to approve this ICR for three years. Under 5 CFR 1320.10(e)(2), the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136) requires the Agency (EPA) to register pesticides prior to distribution and sale within the United States. The Agency is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides, 40 CFR part 170, includes requirements for protection of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers from hazards of pesticides used on farms, on forests, in nurseries and in greenhouses. The WPS is designed to reduce or eliminate exposure to pesticides and establish procedures for responding to exposure-related emergencies. The WPS requirements include prohibitions against applying pesticides in a way that would cause exposure to workers and others; a waiting period before workers can return to areas treated with pesticides; basic safety training and distribution and posting of information about pesticide hazards, as well as pesticide application information; arrangements for the supply of soap, water, and towels in case of pesticide exposure; and provisions for emergency assistance. The information collection activity involves the training of agricultural workers and information exchanges (third party notifications) between agricultural employers and employees at farm, forest, nursery and greenhouse establishments to ensure worker safety. No information is collected by the Agency under this ICR.

Burden Statement: The total annual respondent burden for providing the notifications associated with the Pesticides Worker Protection Standards as a whole is estimated to be 2,294,625 hours, with incremental activity burdens ranging from 2 minutes per respondent to provide initial basic safety information and 45 minutes per respondent for handler training. According to the PRA, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that is subject to approval under the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's information collections appear on the collection instruments or instructions, in the Federal Register notices for related rulemakings and ICR notices, and, if the collection is contained in a regulation, in a table of OMB approval numbers in 40 CFR part 9.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the information collection activity and the corresponding burden estimate, which is only briefly summarized here.

Respondents/affected entities: 4,476,250.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 4,476,250.

Frequency of response: As needed.

Estimated total/average number of responses for each respondent: 3.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 2,294,625.

Estimated total annual burden costs: $94,883,757.

Changes in the ICR Since the Last Approval: The total annual burden associated with this ICR has increased by 52,183 hours, from 2,242,442 hours in the previous ICR to 2,294,625 hours for this renewal ICR. The change is primarily related to information EPA obtained through the consultation process required by the PRA that led the Agency to increase its training burden estimate, and is described in detail in the ICR.

According to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has submitted this ICR to OMB for review and approval. Any comments related to the renewal of this ICR should be submitted within 30 days of this notice, as described above.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-1010. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1010 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-1010. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioners and represents the view of the petitioners. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition 1F6244 from Nutra-Park Inc., 8383 Greenway Blvd., Suite 520, Middleton, WI 53562, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the biochemical pesticide Lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LPE) in or on all food commodities.

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Nutra-Park Inc. has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Nutra-Park Inc. and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

The commercial name for the end use product containing Lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LPE) is LPE E94; 10% Aqueous, EPA File Symbol 70515-R. Presently, the product is being registered for use as a pre-harvest and post-harvest ripening and shelf life enhancer for fruits and vegetables. As a pre-harvest spray, 100 400 parts per million (ppm) of the active ingredient is sprayed on the raw agricultural commodities until run-off. As a post-harvest treatment, the raw agricultural commodities are dipped into or sprayed with a solution containing 25 100 ppm and air dried prior to storage.

1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues . The active ingredient LPE is a phospholipid derived from phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) by the enzymatic removal of one fatty acid. The residues in or on raw agricultural commodities are likely to be primarily the LPE. Small amounts of free fatty acid, phosphate and ethanolamine may be present. However, none of the residues would be distinguishable from the naturally occurring moieties.

2. Magnitude of residue at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue . The current analytical methodology cannot distinguish between naturally occurring residues and those residues resulting from the application of LPE. LPE is found in large quantities in egg yolk and meat. LPE is naturally present in small amounts in plant tissues and other biological matrices and can account for up to 10% of the phospholipid content of cell membranes. The additional amount of LPE as a result of its use as a ripening agent and shelf life enhancer will not significantly add to the amount of naturally occurring residues.

3. A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed . As stated above, the current analytical methodology cannot distinguish between naturally occurring residues present in or on the raw agricultural commodities and the residues resulting from application of the product. Based on the natural occurrence of the chemical, its favorable toxicological profile and inconsequential exposure resulting from label-directed uses, measuring of the residues is not warranted.

Based on the available acute toxicity data, LPE technical and its 20% formulation, do not pose any acute toxicity risks. The acute toxicity studies place LPE technical in acute toxicity category IV for acute oral (LD 50 > 5,000 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) male and female), inhalation (LC 50 > 2.5mg/L male and female), skin irritation (dermal irritation index is 0.0), and eye irritation (no irritation at 72 hours) and toxicity category III for acute dermal (LD 50 > 2,000 mg/kg male and female). The acute toxicity studies place the LPE 10% formulation in acute toxicity category IV for acute oral (LD 50 > 5,000 mg/kg male and female), eye irritation (no irritation at 72 hours), skin irritation (dermal irritation index is 0.0), and inhalation (LC 50 > 4.63 mg/L male and female) and toxicity category III for acute dermal (LD 50 > 2,000 mg/kg male and female). Both LPE technical and its 10% formulation cause skin sensitization in the guinea pig.

Information on the chronic effects of LPE is obtained from the open literature. LPE and related phospholipids, such as phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylglycerol, lysophosphatidylcholine, and lysophosphatidylserine, are synthesized by microorganisms, plants and animals. These important biomolecules are ubiquitous in nature and have multifunctional properties in living cells. Lysophospholipids are continuously generated in microbial, plant and animal systems and are readily utilized in various cell functions or used in synthesizing new phospholipids. All phospholipids have specific roles in executing certain cellular functions and maintaining the integrity of cellular membranes. Furthermore, these biomolecules are of immense importance to various food and non-food industries as safe multifunctional natural additives/ ingredients. Presence of hydrolytic enzymes, known as lipases, phospholipases and lysophospholipases, in microbial (including soil microorganisms), plant and animal (including humans) systems ensures the biodegradation of phospholipids and their lyso counterparts into harmless metabolites/by-products.

1. Dietary exposure —i. Food . LPE is a member of the phospholipids. Phospholipids are a heterogeneous group of compounds that are classed together partially on the basis of solubility and partially on the basis of the ester phosphorus present in the compounds. Phospholipids are found in all cellular organisms as part of the structure of the cellular membrane.

The framework of membranes surrounding the cell and intracellular organelles is composed of a bilayer of lipid. The basic unit of the bilayer is a composite of phospholipids (phosphatidylcholine, sphingomyelin, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol). LPE is a phospholipid derived from phosphatidylethanolamine by the enzymatic removal of one fatty acid. Residues of LPE naturally occur in raw agricultural commodities and are consumed daily. The level of residues of LPE in raw agricultural commodities through the use of this product will not be significantly increased over the level naturally occurring.

ii. Drinking water . Because of the benign nature of the compound and because it is composed of moieties that are consumed by all organisms, dissipation of LPE in the environment will, in all likelihood, be through microbial mediated degradation. There is little or no possibility of LPE leaching into the ground water. LPE may get into surface water during a run-off event. However, microbial degradation will rapidly remove the residues. The levels of residues that might get into ground or surface water used for drinking water will not be significant compared to the exposure from naturally occurring residues of LPE.

2. Non-dietary exposure . The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the potential use sites are commercial, agricultural, and horticultural settings. However, non-dietary exposure would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues or a level of residues present that are of no toxicological concern.

Based on its abundance in nature and long history of use by humans without deleterious effects, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to residues of LPE. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there are reliable information. The exposure to LPE as a result of its label directed use on raw agricultural food or feed commodities will not result in a significant increase in the cumulative exposure over the present exposure, daily consumption by the human population from both naturally occurring sources and from processed foods.

1. U.S. population . LPE is naturally present in small amounts in plant tissues and other biological matrices and can account for up to 10% of the phospholipid content of cell membranes. LPE is found in many food or feed commodities such as human breast milk, cow milk, corn grain and starch, oats and wheat. Large quantities are present in egg yolk and meat. Based on its abundance in nature and long historical use of the ingredient by the human population without deleterious effects, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population.

2. Infants and children . LPE is found in mother's milk and in cow milk. It is also present in egg yolk and meat and corn, oats, and wheat. These commodities do constitute a significant percentage of infant and children diets. Based on its long consumption by infants and children without deleterious effects, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from this additional inconsequential exposure to infants and children.

LPE is a naturally occurring residue in raw agricultural food and feed commodities and in processed food. To date, there is no evidence to suggest that LPE affects the immune system, functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disruptor.

LPE is a constituent naturally found in eggs and various animal tissue derived products (e.g., fish meal, fish oil, lard, meat meal) already exempted from regulation under section 25(b)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. There is a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance established specific to LPE (40 CFR 180.1199).

Nutra-Park Inc. is not aware of any tolerance, exemption from tolerance, or maximum residue level issued for LPE.

The Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1422(13)(B)), as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) (Pub. L. No. 106-102, 133 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999)) and § 900.1 of the Finance Board's regulations (12 CFR 900.1) require the Finance Board to adjust annually the limit in average total assets (CFI Asset Cap) set forth in section 2(13)(A)(ii) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1422(13)(A)(ii)) and § 900.1 of the Finance Board's regulations that defines a CFI, based on the annual percentage increase, if any, in the CPI-U, as published by the Department of Labor (DOL). Section 7(i)(2)(B) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427(i)(2)(B)), as amended by the GLB Act, and § 918.3(a)(1) of the Finance Board's regulations (12 CFR 913.3(a)(1)), require the Finance Board, beginning January 1, 2001, to make a similar annual adjustment to the compensation limits set forth in section 7(i)(2)(A) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427(i)(2)(A)) and § 918.3(a)(1) of the Finance Board's regulations, for members of the boards of directors of the Banks based on the annual percentage increase, if any, in the CPI-U, as published by the DOL.

Pursuant to the Finance Board's regulations, for purposes of the CFI Asset Cap, the Finance Board is required to publish notice by Federal Register of the CPI-U-adjusted cap. For purposes of the Banks' board of directors annual compensation adjustments, the Finance Board is required to publish notice, by Federal Register , distribution of a memorandum or otherwise, of the CPI-U-adjusted limits on annual compensation. The annual adjustment of the existing CFI Asset Cap and annual Bank director compensation limits, effective January 1 of a particular calendar year, reflects the percentage by which the CPI-U published for November of the preceding calendar year exceeds the CPI-U published for November of the year before the preceding calendar year (if at all). For example, the adjustment of the limits effective January 1, 2002 are based on the percentage increase in the CPI-U from November 2000 to November 2001. The Finance Board has determined that it is appropriate to use data from November rather than waiting for the December data to become available so that the Banks can be notified of the revised asset limit and compensation limits as close to the effective date as possible. Other Federal agencies do not rely on December data, which is published in mid-January, when calculating annual inflation adjustments and, as a result, are able to announce the adjustments prior to the effective date of January 1.

The DOL encourages the use of CPI-U data that has not been seasonally adjusted in “escalation agreements” because seasonal factors are updated annually and seasonally adjusted data are subject to revision for up to five years following the original release; unadjusted data are not routinely subject to revision, and previously published unadjusted data are only corrected when significant calculation errors are discovered. Accordingly, the Finance Board is using data that had not been seasonally adjusted to calculate the new CFI Asset Cap and annul Bank director compensation limits.

The unadjusted CPI-U increased 1.9 percent between November of 2000 and November of 2001. Based on this data, the Finance Board adjusted the CFI Asset Cap for 2001 from $517 million to $527 million, beginning January 1, 2002.

The Finance Board also adjusted, based on the 1.9 percent increase in the CPI-U, the annual compensation for the listed members of the boards of directors of the Banks as follows, beginning January 1, 2002: for a Chairperson—$26,341; for a Vice-Chairperson—$21,073; for any other member of a Bank's board of directors—$15,805.

The General Services Administration is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend a currently approved information collection, 3090-0023, concerning Surplus Personal Property Mailing List Application. This GSA Form 2170 is completed by persons who wish to have their names placed on the Surplus Personal Property Mailing List maintained by GSA Regional Sales Offices. Mailing labels are produced based on the type of property and geographical area indicated by the prospective bidder on the mailing list application.

Respondents: 12,000.

Annual responses: 12,000.

Burden hours: 996.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, or be telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0023, Surplus Personal Property Mailing List Application, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of service contracts for guards, childcare, cleaning, and maintenance. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection/reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.

Respondents: 15,496.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 15,496.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 15,496.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Plese cite OMB Control No. 3090-0006, Qualifications of Employees, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve information collection, 3090-0014, concerning Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet. This form is used by public agencies, nonprofit educational or public health activities, programs for the elderly, service education activities, programs for the elderly, service educational activities, and public airports to apply for donation of Federal surplus personal property. The SF 123 serves as the transfer instrument and includes item descriptions, transportation instructions, nondiscrimination assurances, and approval signatures.

Respondents: 63,000 .

Annual Responses: 63,000 .

Burden Hours: 18,900 .

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0014, Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration will be requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew information collection, 3090-0112, concerning GSA Form 3040, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property. This report complies with Public Law 94-519, which requires annual reports of donations of personal property to public agencies for use in carrying out such purposes as conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health, and public safety.

Respondents: 55.

Annual responses: 220.

Burden hours: 330.

Copy of Proposal. A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744 or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0112, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property, in all correspondence.

The IOM, at the request of the Commissioner, undertook a study of the use of FDA's advisory committees. In its final report in 1992, one of the IOM's recommendations was for FDA to adopt a policy of publishing an advance yearly schedule of its upcoming public advisory committee meetings in the Federal Register ; FDA has implemented this recommendation. The annual publication of tentatively scheduled advisory committee meetings will provide both advisory committee members and the public with the opportunity, in advance, to schedule attendance at FDA's upcoming advisory committee meetings. Because the schedule is tentative, amendments to this notice will not be published in the Federal Register . However, changes to the schedule will be posted on the FDA advisory committees' Web site located at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm. FDA will continue to publish a Federal Register notice 15 days in advance of each upcoming advisory committee meeting to announce the meeting (21 CFR 14.20).

The following list announces FDA's tentatively scheduled advisory committee meetings for 2002. You may also obtain up-to-date meeting information by calling the Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area):

The technology relates to the DPD gene. Cancer patients having a DPD deficiency are at risk of a severe toxic reaction to the commonly used anticancer agent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Claimed are DPD genes from human and pig, methods for detecting the level of nucleic acids that encode DPD in patient, and nucleic acids that are useful as probes for this purpose.

The prospective co-exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective co-exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty (60) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated co-exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Delta export service area of the Central Valley Project (CVP) has total contractual obligations and delivery losses of approximately 3.45 million acre-feet per year. The theoretical maximum pumping capability of CVP facilities serving this area is approximately 3.09 million acre-feet per year. Available supplies are apportioned under a hierarchy of allocation in which agricultural water service contracts, totaling about 1.85 million acre-feet per year, are provided water only after all other obligations are met. Implementation of the CVPIA provided water only after all other obligations are met. Implementation of the CVPIA (1992), Endangered Species Act (1993-1995), and revised Bay-Delta water quality standards has further reduced pumping capabilities and water supplies available to agricultural contractors. Currently these parties can expect to receive a long-term average supply of about 50 to 55 percent of contract water as compared to a pre-1992 average of 88 to 92 percent.

The project proponents propose to pump an average of 27,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year over the 10-year period from non-CVP wells located adjacent to the Mendota Pool into the Mendota Pool to make up for a portion of the annual shortfall in the contract water to be delivered via the CVP. The actual quantity of water to be pumped would depend on whether the year is classified as wet (0 acre-feet per year), normal (31,600 acre-feet per year), or dry (40,000 acre-feet per year). Of the total quantity pumped, a maximum of 25,000 acre-feet per year would be exchanged with Reclamation. This water would be made available to Reclamation in the Mendota Pool to offset their existing water contract obligations. In exchange, Reclamation would make an equivalent amount of CVP water available to the members of the Mendota Pool Group for irrigation purposes at Check 13 of the Delta-Mendota Canal. Any quantity of water pumped beyond the 25,000 acre-feet exchanged would be delivered directly to other lands that are presently under irrigation around the Pool. As part of this program, a maximum of 12,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater would be pumped from deep wells (i.e., screened interval greater than 130 feet deep), with the remainder coming from shallow wells (i.e., screened interval less than 130 feet deep). The proposed project will comply with the terms specified in the Settlement Agreement for Mendota Pool Transfer Pumping Program, effective January 1, 2001.

The primary environmental resource issues that have been identified, and that will be evaluated in the EIS, include groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence, surface water quality, and biological resources.

The environmental review will be conducted pursuant to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable laws, to analyze the potential environmental impacts of implementing each of the feasible alternatives. All reasonable alternatives as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations will be examined. The final Environmental Impact Report, certified by Westlands Water District in 1998, will provide a useful beginning, as will subsequent environmental reports and ongoing sampling activities, thus allowing Reclamation to expedite completion of the analysis. Alternatives, with their related designs and cost estimates identified in the earlier document, will be re-evaluated and updated to reflect current conditions. Public input on additional alternatives, or combinations of alternatives, that should be considered will be sought through the initial scoping meeting. In addition, public input will be sought on the criteria that should be used to carry forward alternatives, or combination of alternatives, for further consideration.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment letter. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

In April of 1998, the Commission published its determination that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of SRAMs from Taiwan found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold at less than fair value. The Commission also found that the domestic industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of SRAMs from the Republic of Korea. Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 (April 1998). See 63 FR 18443 (April 15, 1998).

The Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association and others sought review of the affirmative determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). On June 30, 1999, the CIT remanded the determination to the Commission with instructions to provide further explanation regarding the Commission's volume and price effects determinations. Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States, 59 F.Supp.2d 1324 (CIT 1999) (Taiwan I).

After an additional remand from the CIT on April 11, 2000, Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States, 105 F.Supp.2d 1363 (2000) (Taiwan II), the Commission determined that a domestic industry in the United States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of SRAMs from Taiwan. Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan (Views on Remand), Investigation No. 731-TA-762 (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3319 (June 2000). On August 29, 2000, the CIT affirmed the Commission's negative remand determination. Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States, 118 F.Supp.2d 1250 (CIT 2000) (Taiwan III).

On September 28, 2000, Commerce published notice of the CIT decision, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(c). 65 F.R. 58263. In accordance with Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Commerce stated that it would continue to order the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise. Commerce also indicated that, if the CIT decision was affirmed on appeal, it would revoke the antidumping duty order.

Petitioner Micron Technology, a domestic producer of SRAMs, appealed the CIT's decisions in Taiwan I and Taiwan III. On September 21, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the CIT's decision to remand for further explanation in Taiwan I, and affirmed the Commission's negative remand determination. Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States, 266 F.3d 1339 (2001). The CAFC issued its mandate on December 11, 2001.

The judicial proceedings having ended and the final court decision having been issued, the Commission, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), publishes notice of the final court decision affirming its negative remand determination.

The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the September 16, 1998 acquisition (the Acquisition), on behalf of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (the Fund), of certain Argentine bonds (the Bonds) from MS&Co, a party in interest with respect to the Fund, by the Capital Asset Trust (the Trust) at the direction of Alliance Capital Management L.P. (Alliance), an investment manager for the Fund, provided the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The Acquisition was a one-time transaction for cash;

(b) The Fund paid no more than the current fair market value of the Bonds as of the date of the Acquisition;

(c) The Fund paid no commissions or expenses with respect to the Acquisition;

(d) The Acquisition and subsequent sale of the Bonds (the Sale) resulted in the Fund's receipt of a one-day profit totaling $147,250.01;

(e) Upon identifying the Acquisition as a “prohibited transaction”, MS&Co and Alliance acted promptly to comply with the relevant provisions of ERISA and the Code;

(f) Alliance and MS&Co took whatever actions were necessary to ensure that the Fund was adequately protected with respect to the Acquisition;

(g) Subsequent to the Acquisition, Alliance implemented an internal computer system designed to prevent transactions between client plans and named fiduciaries with respect to such plans; and

(h) The transaction was not part of an agreement, arrangement or understanding designed to benefit a party in interest.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF EXEMPTION: The effective date of this proposed exemption, if granted, is September 16, 1998.

1. The Fund is a jointly managed Taft-Hartley Plan established in 1955. As of September 30, 1998, the Fund had approximately 375,604 participants and beneficiaries and an approximate fair market value of $17 billion.

2. At the time of the Acquisition, the named fiduciary for the Fund was Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (MSDW). MSDW is a worldwide financial services firm that provides services, either directly or through its subsidiaries, to corporations, governments, and individual investors. MSDW became the Fund's named fiduciary as a result of a court order issued pursuant to a consent decree (the Consent Decree) that, among other things, prohibited the Fund's investment managers from engaging in transactions with “parties in interest” such as MS&Co. 1

MS&Co is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MSDW having business offices in New York and other cities worldwide. MS&Co is, among other things, a registered broker-dealer, a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, and a member of most major United States and foreign commodity exchanges.

3. Pursuant to an agreement dated May 2, 1994 (the Agreement), MSDW (through its predecessor-in-interest, the Morgan Stanley Group, Inc.) appointed Alliance as an investment manager with respect to a portion of the assets in the Fund. In this regard, at the time of the Acquisition, Alliance acted as a “qualified professional asset manager”  2 with respect to certain Fund assets invested in the Trust, a Massachusetts trust in which the Fund was a participant. 3 Specifically, Alliance was hired to manage a particular type of asset class, International Fixed Income-Emerging Markets Debt. The applicant represents that Alliance, an investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is entirely independent of MSDW and its affiliates and does not have any management or ownership relationship with such entities.

Relevant sections of the Agreement provided that Alliance would: (a) invest Fund assets held in the Trust in accordance with investment objectives specified in writing by MSDW; (b) act in accordance with the Consent Decree and ERISA and not engage in any unexempted “prohibited transaction”; and (c) comply with all federal or state law requirements that are imposed with respect to transactions involving the assets of the Fund.

In addition, the applicant represents that MSDW delivered to Alliance, on a regular basis, a “prohibited transaction” notice. According to the applicant, such notice specifically advised that Alliance should not, among other things, execute trades through MS&Co. Furthermore, the applicant represents that Alliance's “Current Investment Guidelines” for the Trust, dated October 31, 1997, provided that Alliance: would not effect a prohibited transaction; and would not deal with any MSDW entity.

4. The applicant represents that, on September 16, 1998, Alliance learned through news reports that the International Monetary Fund and certain banks were preparing a package of loans worth $4.5 billion for Argentina. The applicant states that Alliance believed the news would have a positive effect on Argentine fixed income securities. As a result, Alliance contacted MS&Co and asked for an “offering” on the Bonds in contravention of the safeguards described above. The applicant represents that the Bonds are $9,500,000 Face Amount Argentina Floating Rate Bonds due March 31, 2005.

According to the applicant, as a result of inadvertent errors made by personnel involved in the Acquisition, MS&Co agreed to fill the order. Alliance's purchase of the Bonds was made for settlement on September 21, 1998 for $7,566,947.91 (the Acquisition Price). Of this amount, $7,262,750.00 consisted of principal and $304,197.91 consisted of accrued interest.

5. At the time of the Acquisition, MS&Co was a market maker in the Bonds. The applicant represents, however, that the Bonds were not in MS&Co's inventory at the time of the Acquisition. In this regard, the applicant states that a market maker will, from time to time, go into the market to replenish a particular security which the market maker has sold out of its inventory. Similarly, in this instance, MS&Co made a business decision to sell the Bonds at the Acquisition Price to Alliance even though it did not contemporaneously hold the Bonds. The applicant states that MS&Co committed itself to the Acquisition Price based on the belief that it could go into the market and obtain the Bonds at a discount relative to such price.

However, in meeting its obligations with respect to the Acquisition, MS&Co was ultimately required to purchase the Bonds at a price higher than the Acquisition Price. In this regard, despite its commitment to sell the Bonds to Alliance for $7,566,947.91, market conditions were such that MS&Co was forced to acquire the Bonds in two separate trades for a total cost of approximately $7,714,000. In so doing, the applicant represents, MS&Co lost approximately $147,000.

6. The applicant represents that the Acquisition Price represented the Bonds' fair market value at the time of the Acquisition. In this regard, it is represented that in providing the Acquisition price to Alliance, the MS&Co trader responsible for the emerging markets fixed income desk used pricing mechanisms commonly employed in the over-the-counter fixed income markets such that the purchase price was fair and reasonable. Specifically, the Acquisition Price was determined in consideration of: Bid and ask prices for the Bonds available on interdealer computer screens;  4 news events relating to Argentina's receipt of potential economic relief; prior bid and ask data historically furnished by interdealer brokers; certain volume requirements; and other objective criteria.

The applicant states that at the time the Acquisition occurred, the Bonds traded in relatively high volumes and were well known and well followed. As a result, the market for the Bonds was extremely “transparent” at the time of the Acquisition with only a nominal spread between relevant bid and ask prices. In consideration of these and other factors such as Alliance's status as a valued MS&Co client, the MS&Co trader offered to sell the Bonds to Alliance at the Acquisition Price.

7. Shortly after the Acquisition, Alliance decided to sell the Bonds. In this regard, during the course of the September 16, 1998 trading day, Alliance observed significant fluctuations in the price of the Bonds. The applicant states that when relevant bond prices rose to the extent that Alliance believed selling the Bonds would be in the best interest of the Fund, Alliance sold the Bonds. In this regard, Alliance sold the Bonds to Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman, Sachs) for $7,714,197.92 (the Sale). The applicant notes that the Fund, through the Trust, made a profit of $147,250.01 on the Acquisition and Sale. 5

8. In certifying its compliance with the Agreement to MSDW, Alliance noted that the Acquisition may have constituted a “prohibited transaction”. Upon being so alerted, the applicant represents that MS&Co filed a Form 5330 with the Internal Revenue Service on June 30, 1999, and paid an excise tax of $1,135,042.19 (15% of $7,566,947.91). The applicant notes that the Acquisition was fully disclosed in the Fund's audited financial statements and was corrected within the meaning of section 4975(f)(5) of the Code. 6

9. The applicant states that neither Alliance nor MS&Co intended to engage in a “prohibited transaction” when consummating the Acquisition. In this regard, various mechanisms were in place to prevent Alliance from inadvertently violating the “prohibited transaction” provisions of ERISA, all of which failed, the applicant represents, in an unforeseeable and improbable manner. 7 Subsequent to the Acquisition, Alliance has devised an internal computer system in an effort to ensure that future “prohibited transactions” do not similarly occur. Such system identifies situations when a specific trade is placed between a client plan and a party in interest who is a named fiduciary. The system flags the trade and alerts Alliance's compliance department.

10. The applicant represents that the proposed exemption is administratively feasible in that the Bonds were sold on the same day they were acquired. In addition, the applicant states that the transaction was in the interests of the Fund's participants and beneficiaries since the Acquisition and Sale resulted in the Fund's receipt of a one-day profit totaling $147,250.01. Finally, the applicant represents that the Acquisition was fair to the Fund since the Fund paid no more than the current fair market value for the Bonds at the time of the Acquisition.

11. In summary, the applicant represents that the requested retroactive individual exemption will satisfy the criteria of section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:

(a) The Acquisition was a one-time transaction for cash;

(b) The Fund paid no more than the current fair market value of the Bonds as of the date of the Acquisition;

(c) The Fund paid no commissions or expenses with respect to the Acquisition;

(d) The Acquisition and the Sale resulted in the Fund's receipt of a one-day profit totaling $147.250.01;

(e) Upon identifying the Acquisition as a “prohibited transaction”, MS&Co and Alliance, an investment manager for the Fund, acted promptly to comply with the relevant provisions of ERISA and the Code;

(f) Alliance and MS&Co took whatever actions were necessary to ensure that the Fund was adequately protected with respect to the Acquisition;

(g) Subsequent to the Acquisition, Alliance implemented an internal computer system designed to prevent transactions between client plans and named fiduciaries with respect to such plans; and

(h) The transaction was not part of an agreement, arrangement or understanding designed to benefit a party in interest.

1. Cargill is a Delaware corporation established in 1865 by William W. Cargill (Mr. Cargill). Cargill is engaged in, among other things, the wholesaling of agricultural and other bulk commodities. As of February 28, 2001, Cargill had approximately 85,000 employees and annual revenues in excess of $47 billion.

2. By October of 1993, Cargill had established certain tax qualified defined benefit plans (the Original Plans). At that time, the Original Plans were comprised as follows:

a. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Salaried Employees' Pension Plan (the Salaried Employees' Pension Plan);

b. Cargill, Incorporated Pension Plan for Seaboard Grain Miller Represented Employees (the Seaboard Grain Miller Employees' Pension Plan);

c. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Grain Miller Represented Employees (the Grain Miller Employees' Pension Plan);

d. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Union Represented Hourly Wage Employees (the Hourly Wage Employees' Pension Plan);

e. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Production Employees (the Production Employees' Pension Plan);

f. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Poultry Products Employees (the Poultry Products Employees' Pension Plan); and

g. Cargill, Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Union Represented Poultry Products Employees (the Union Poultry Products Employees' Pension Plan);

3. The Common Stock is one of five classes of stock authorized by Cargill. Each share of Common Stock, and, generally, each share of Cargill's other classes of stock, is entitled to one vote. In addition, holders of the Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends on their shares in an amount decided annually by Cargill's Board of Directors.

4. Prior to October 18, 1996, the Common Stock was held solely by the lineal descendants of Mr. Cargill and their spouses and ex-spouses (the Cargill Common Stock Holders), either directly or indirectly through corporations and trusts of which they are beneficiaries. 20 On October 18, 1996, the Original Plans obtained a portion of the Common Stock through the Stock Acquisition. 21 In this regard, on that date, the Master Trust acquired 167,832 shares of the Common Stock pursuant to the Stock Acquisition, for a purchase price of $178.75 per Share. The applicant represents that the Original Plans paid cash for the Common Stock, the aggregate value of which was $29,999,970 as of the date of the Stock Acquisition. According to the applicant, immediately after the Stock Acquisition, the Common Stock represented less than 10% of the assets in the Master Trust. 22

5. The applicant represents that State Street Bank and Trust Company (State Street) acted as Independent Fiduciary for purposes of the Stock Acquisition. State Street represents that it is independent of Cargill and receives less than 1% of its aggregate annual gross revenue from Cargill. In addition, State Street represents that it is qualified to act as Independent Fiduciary on behalf of the Master Trust due to its status as one of the country's largest trust companies and its extensive experience in managing retirement plan assets. The applicant represents that, subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, State Street has acted as Independent Fiduciary with respect to the Plans' continued holding of the Common Stock and the Put Option.

6. The applicant represents that, for purposes of the Stock Acquisition, the Cargill Common Stock Holders proposed a price of $178.75 per share. The applicant states that the Independent Fiduciary retained a qualified, independent advisor for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed $178.75 per share sale price exceeded the fair market value of such shares; and (2) the terms of the proposed Stock Acquisition were fair and reasonable to the Master Trust from a financial point of view. In this regard, the applicant states that the Independent Fiduciary selected Duff & Phelps Financial Consulting Co. (Duff & Phelps) to make such determinations.

In a letter dated October 18, 1996, Duff and Phelps stated that, in its capacity as financial advisor to the Independent Fiduciary for purposes of the Stock Acquisition, it reviewed, among other things: audited financial statements of Cargill; unaudited interim financial statements of Cargill for the three months ended August, 31, 1996; and certain internal documents and analyses provided by Cargill management. In carrying out its duties, Duff and Phelps stated that it additionally reviewed relevant financial and operating information for specific publicly traded companies which it deemed comparable in whole or in part to Cargill.

Upon this review, Duff and Phelps compared Cargill's historical results and future prospects against several sets of publicly traded companies. Duff and Phelps stated that the fair market value of the Common Stock was thereafter determined upon reviewing the relative performance and pricing multiples of such companies and discounting the derived common stock value to reflect the illiquidity of the Common Stock. In the October 18, 1996 letter, Duff and Phelps concluded that: (a) the price of $178.75 per share to be paid by the Master Trust was not in excess of fair market value within the meaning of ERISA; and (b) the terms of the proposed Stock Acquisition were fair and reasonable to the Master Trust from a financial point of view.

The applicant represents that, upon the Independent Fiduciary's review of the information provided by Duff and Phelps, the Independent Fiduciary determined that, as of October 18, 1996, the Stock Acquisition was appropriate for, and in the best interests of, the Original Plans and the Master Trust. The applicant states that, in consideration of this, on that date, the Independent Fiduciary directed that the Master Trust acquire the Common Stock pursuant to the Stock Acquisition.

7. The applicant represents that at no time subsequent to the Stock Acquisition did the Common Stock represent more than 10% of the fair market value of any Original Plan or, after the merging of the Original Plans (see paragraph 9), any Remaining Plan. The applicant additionally represents that the Master Trust has never held, and will never hold, more than 25% of the aggregate amount of Cargill's issued and outstanding Common Stock.

8. In addition to receiving the Common Stock pursuant to the Stock Acquisition, the Trust received the Put Option. In this regard, the Trust received an option which requires that Cargill, at the direction of the Independent Fiduciary, purchase from the Master Trust any or all of the Common Stock held by the Master Trust. According to the terms of the Put Option, the price of any share sold pursuant to a Put Option shall be the greater of: (1) the price at which the Master Trust acquired the Common Stock; or (2) the fair market value of the Common Stock as of the date the Put Option is exercised. The applicant represents that the Put Option has remained in effect since the Stock Acquisition and will continue to remain in effect to the extent the Master Trust continues to hold any of the Common Stock.

9. After the Stock Acquisition, Cargill decided to merge certain of the Original Plans. In this regard, on January 1, 1997, the Seaboard Grain Miller Employees' Pension Plan, the Grain Miller Employees' Pension Plan, and the Union Poultry Products Employees' Pension Plan were merged into the Salaried Employees' Pension Plan. In addition, at the same time, the Poultry Products Employees' Plan was merged into the Production Employees' Pension Plan. Thus, after the mergers, the following plans remained: the Salaried Employees' Pension Plan having 22,726 participants and $652,213,466 in total assets as of December 31, 1999; the Production Employees' Pension Plan having 6,564 participants and $48,773,333 in total assets as of December 31, 1999; and the Hourly Wage Employees' Pension Plan having 8,449 participants and $147,72,972 in total assets as of December 31, 1999.

10. Subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, State Street retained responsibility for monitoring the Master Trust's continued ownership of the Common Stock. Thus, for as long as the Master Trust held the Common Stock, State Street, as Independent Fiduciary, was required to determine whether it would be in the interests of the Master Trust for the Master Trust to exercise the Put Option. State Street was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the financial status of Cargill at regular intervals to determine whether the Common Stock continued to be a stable and prudent investment for the Plans and the Master Trust.

State Street was also given full investment discretion with respect to the Common Stock. As a result, State Street had the authority to: (1) Direct the trustee of the Master Trust with respect to the exercise of voting rights, conversion rights or tender offers; (2) join in or oppose voting trusts, mergers, consolidations, foreclosures, reorganizations, recapitalizations and liquidations and (3) exercise any and all rights relating to the Common Stock. The applicant represents that State Street will continue to have each of these responsibilities for as long as the Master Trust and the Plans hold the Common Stock.

11. Cargill established, and continues to maintain, an escrow account (the Escrow Account) to secure Cargill's obligations under the Put Option. The applicant represents that the Escrow Account will remain in effect for the duration of the Trust's ownership of any of the Common Stock and will be maintained at an independent banking institution approved by State Street. The purpose of the Escrow Account, the applicant states, is to ensure that the Master Trust will receive a price for the Common Stock that is in accordance with the terms of the Put Option. Specifically, pursuant to any exercise of the Put Option by the Master Trust, State Street is entitled, as Independent Fiduciary, to draw upon the Escrow Account to satisfy Cargill's obligations under the terms of the Put Option in the event Cargill fails to purchase the Common Stock at the price required by such option. According to the applicant, the Escrow Account contains only cash and/or United States government securities amounting to at least 25% of the total fair market value of the Common Stock held by the Master Trust. Subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, the Master Trust has at all times had, the applicant states, a lien against the assets in the Escrow Account that gives the Master Trust priority over all creditors of Cargill with respect to the assets in the Escrow Account. The applicant represents that this lien will remain in place to the extent the Master Trust continues to hold any of the Common Stock.

12. Cargill previously received temporary exemptive relief, pursuant to Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 94-23 (59 FR 10830 (March 8, 1994)), for the purchase and holding of Common Stock by the Master Trust. 23 Subsequent to the publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register (58 FR 58194 (October 29, 1993), the Department received a written comment objecting to the Master Trust's payment of the fees of State Street and Duff and Phelps. In response, as noted in PTE 94-23, Cargill agreed to pay such fees in order to avoid the depletion of the assets of the Master Trust.

Cargill failed to meet this requirement when it inadvertently caused the Master Trust to pay the Legal Fees. In this regard, subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, Cargill directed that the Master Trust pay certain of the Independent Fiduciary's legal fees, the amount of which totaled $80,791. The applicant represents that such payment was due, in part, to certain personnel changes occurring within Cargill. Since Cargill failed to act in accordance with the representations it made in response to a commentator under PTE 94-23, the relief provided by the exemption ceased to be available. As a result, the applicant is seeking retroactive relief for the Stock Acquisition, as well as the Plans' subsequent holding of the Common Stock, and the acquisition, holding and potential exercise of the Put Option, by means of this proposed exemption.

13. The applicant states that Cargill has taken the appropriate steps to reimburse the Master Trust for its payment of the Legal Fees. In this regard, the applicant represents that the Master Trust was reimbursed $80,791 for the Legal Fees. The applicant states that, in addition, Cargill paid certain interest to the Master Trust. According to the applicant, the amount of such interest, $36,696, represented the Master Trust's overall rate of return on its entire portfolio of investments from the date the Legal Fees were paid by the Master Trust to the date the Legal Fees were refunded to the Master Trust.

The applicant represents that Cargill will undertake certain steps to prevent future inappropriate payments of expenses by the Master Trust. In this regard, the applicant represents that, if this proposed exemption is granted, Cargill will designate a fiduciary, as such term is defined by the Act, to review all expenses submitted for payment by the Master Trust. The applicant represents that, only upon such fiduciary's determination that an expense is reasonable and necessary for the administration of a Remaining Plan will the fiduciary approve, in writing, the payment of the expense. In addition, the applicant represents that no expense associated with any transactions between Cartill and a Remaining Plan will be paid by such Remaining Plan unless Cargill obtains a written opinion from independent legal counsel.

14. In summary, that applicant represents that the proposed exemption is protective of, and in the best interests of, the Remaining Plans and the Master Trust since:

(A) Prior to the Stock Acquisition, the Independent Fiduciary determined that the Stock Acquisition was appropriate for, and in the best interests of, the Original Plans and the Master Trust.

(B) The $178.75 per share purchase price the Master Trust paid for each share of Common Stock pursuant to the Stock Acquisition equaled the August 31, 1996 fair market value of each such share as determined by a qualified, independent appraiser selected by the Independent Fiduciary.

(C) Subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, the Independent Fiduciary represented the interests of the Master Trust with respect to the Master Trust's holding of the Common Stock and the Master Trust's holding of the Put Option, and continues to represent such interests as long as the Master Trust holds such stock and Put Option.

(D) Subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, the Independent Fiduciary protected the rights of the Master Trust with respect to the Master Trust's holding of the Common Stock and the Master Trust's holding of the Put Option, and will continue to protect such rights as long as the Master Trust holds such stock and Put Option.

(E) Upon request by the Independent Fiduciary, Cargill purchased, or will purchase, all or a portion of the Common Stock held by the Trust, in accordance with the terms of the Put Option, for the greater of: (1) The price of the Common Stock as of the date of the Stock Acquisition; or (2) the fair market value of the Common Stock as of the date any Put Option is exercised.

(F) Subsequent to the Stock Acquisition, the Common Stock did not, at any time, represent more than ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the assets held by any Original Plan or any Remaining Plan.

(G) For purposes of securing its obligations with respect to the Put Option, Cargill established, and will continue to maintain, an escrow account containing cash and/or U.S. government securities amounting to at least 25% of the total current fair market value of the Common Stock held by the Master Trust.

(H) All transactions between Cargill and the Master Trust; or between Cargill and a Plan, arising in connection with the Stock Acquisition, were no less favorable to the Master Trust or Plan than arm's-length transactions involving unrelated parties.

(I) Cargill reimbursed the Master Trust, with interest (i.e., the Reimbursement), for the Legal Fees.

(J) Cargill paid, and will continue to pay, the fees of the Independent Fiduciary and its financial advisor to the extent such fees relate to either the Stock Acquisition or the continued holding of the Common Stock and the Put Option by the Master Trust.

(K) At no time subsequent to the Stock Acquisition has the Master Trust held more than 25% of the aggregate amount of Common Stock issued and outstanding.

(L) Cargill adopts written procedures requiring that a plan fiduciary: (1) review all expenses submitted for payment by the Master Trust; and (2) approve the payment of only those expenses that are reasonable and necessary for the administration of a Remaining Plan.

(M) Cargill adopts written procedures requiring that independent legal counsel provide Cargill with a written opinion regarding the payment by the Master Trust or a Remaining Plan of expenses associated with a transaction between Cargill and a Remaining Plan.

(N) In the event this proposed exemption is granted, Cargill, within 60 days of the date of such grant, files Form 5330 with the Internal Revenue Service and pays the applicable excise taxes with respect to the Master Trust's payment of the Legal Fees.

Notice to Interested Persons: The applicant represents that notice to interested persons will be made within twenty (20) business days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Comments and requests for a hearing must be received by the Department not later than sixty (60) days from the date of publication of this notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register .

In section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), Congress directed the Office of Management (OMB) to issue, by September 30, 2001, government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies * * *” Section 515(b) goes on to state that the OMB guidelines shall:

“(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and

“(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply—

“(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);

“(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and

“(C) report periodically to the Director—

“(i) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by the agency and

“(ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.”

Proposed guidelines were published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2001 (66 FR 34489). Final guidelines were published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49718). The Supplementary Information to the final guidelines published in September 20001 provides background, the underlying principles OMB followed in issuing the final guidelines, and statements of intent concerning detailed provisions in the final guidelines.

In the final guidelilnes published in September 2001, OMB also requested additional comment on the “capable of being substantially reproduced” standard and the related definition of “influential scientific or statistical information” (paragraphs V.3.B, V.9, and V.10), which were issued on an interim final basis. The final guidelines published today discuss the public comments OMB received, the OMB response, and amendments to the final guidelines published in September 2001.

In developing agency-specific guidelines, agencies should refer both to the Supplementary Information to the final guidelines published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49718), and also to the Supplementary Information published today. We stress that the three “Underlying Principles” that OMB followed in drafting the guidelines that we published on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49719), are also applicable to the amended guidelines that we publish today.

In accordance with section 515, OMB has designed the guidelines to help agencies ensure and maximize the quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of the information that they disseminate (meaning to share with, or give access to, the public). It is crucial that information Federal agencies disseminate meets these guidelines. In this respect, the fact that the Internet enables agencies to communicate information quickly and easily to a wide audience not only offers great benefits to society, but also increases the potential harm that can result from the dissemination of information that does not meet basic information quality guidelines. Recognizing the wide variety of information Federal agencies disseminate and the wide variety of dissemination practices that agencies have, OMB developed the guidelines with several principles in mind.

First, OMB designed the guidelines to apply to a wide variety of government information dissemination activities that may range in importance and scope. OMB also designed the guidelines to be generic enough to fit all media, be they printed, electronic, or in other form. OMB sought to avoid the problems that would be inherent in developing detailed, prescriptive, “one-size-fits-all” government-wide guidelines that would artificially require different types of dissemination activities to be treated in the same manner. Through this flexibility, each agency will be able to incorporate the requirements of these OMB guidelines into the agency's own information resource management and administrative practices.

Second, OMB designed the guidelines so that agencies will meet basic information quality standards. Given the administrative mechanisms required by section 515 as well as the standards set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act, it is clear that agencies should not disseminate substantive information that does not meet a basic level of quality. We recognize that some government information may need to meet higher or more specific information quality standards than those that would apply to other types of government information. The more important the information, the higher the quality standards to which it should be held, for example, in those situations involving “influential scientific, financial, or statistical information” (a phrase defined in these guidelines). The guidelines recognize, however, that information quality comes at a cost. Accordingly, the agencies should weigh the costs (for example, including costs attributable to agency processing effort, respondent burden, maintenance of needed privacy, and assurances of suitable confidentiality) and the benefits of higher information quality in the development of information, and the level of quality to which the information disseminated will be held.

Third, OMB designed the guidelines so that agencies can apply them in a common-sense and workable manner. It is important that these guidelines do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens that would inhibit agencies from continuing to take advantage of the Internet and other technologies to disseminate information that can be of great benefit and value to the public. In this regard, OMB encourages agencies to incorporate the standards and procedures required these guidelines into their existing information resources management and administrative practices rather than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes. The primary example of this is that the guidelines recognize that, in accordance with OMB Circular A-130, agencies already have in place well-established information quality standards and administrative mechanisms that allow persons to seek and obtain correction of information that is maintained and disseminated by the agency. Under the OMB guidelines, agencies need only ensure that their own guidelines are consistent with these OMB guidelines, and then ensure that their administrative are consistent with these OMB guidelines, and then ensure that their administrative mechanisms satisfy the standards and procedural requirements in the new agency guidelines. Similarly, agencies may rely on their implementation of the Federal Government's computer security laws (formerly, the Computer Security Act, and now the computer security provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act) to establish appropriate security safeguards for ensuring the “integrity” of the information that the agencies disseminate.

In addition, in response to concerns expressed by some of the agencies, we want to emphasize that OMB recognizes that Federal agencies provide a wide variety of data and information. Accordingly, OMB understands that the guidelines discussed below cannot be implemented in the same way by each agency. In some cases, for example, the data disseminated by an agency are not collected by that agency; rather, the information the agency must provide in a timely manner is compiled from a variety of sources that are constantly updated and revised and may be confidential. In such cases, while agencies' implementation of the guidelines may differ, the essence of the guidelines will apply. That is, these agencies must make their methods transparent by providing documentation, ensure quality by reviewing the underlying methods used in developing the data and consulting (as appropriate) with experts and users, and keep users informed about corrections and revisions.

These guidelines apply to Federal agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Agencies are directed to develop information resources management procedures for reviewing and substantiating (by documentation or other means selected by the agency) the quality (including the objectivity, utility, and integrity) of information before it is disseminated. In addition, agencies are to establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines. Consistent with the underlying principles described above, these guidelines stress the importance of having agencies apply these standards and develop their administrative mechanisms so they can be implemented in a common sense and workable manner. Moreover, agencies must apply these standards flexibly, and in a manner appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated, and incorporate them into existing agency information resources management and administrative practices.

Section 515 denotes four substantive terms regarding information disseminated by Federal agencies: quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity. It is not always clear how each substantive term relates—or how the four terms in aggregate relate—to the widely divergent types of information that agencies disseminate. The guidelines provide definitions that attempt to establish a clear meaning so that both the agency and the public can readily judge whether a particular type of information to be disseminated does or does not meet these attributes.

In the guidelines, OMB defines “quality” as the encompassing term, of which “utility,” “objectivity,” and “integrity” are the constituents. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to the intended users. “Objectivity” focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. “Integrity” refers to security—the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. OMB modeled the definitions of “information,” “government information,” “information dissemination product,” and “dissemination” on the longstanding definitions of those terms in OMB Circular A-130, but tailored them to fit into the context of these guidelines.

In addition, Section 515 imposes two reporting requirements on the agencies. The first report, to be promulgated no later than October 1, 2002, must provide the agency's information quality guidelines that describe administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB and agency guidelines. The second report is an annual fiscal report to OMB (to be first submitted on January 1, 2004) providing information (both quantitative and qualitative, where appropriate) on the number, nature, and resolution of complaints received by the agency regarding its perceived or confirmed failure to comply with these OMB and agency guidelines.

Applicability of Guidelines . Some comments raised concerns about the applicability of these guidelines, particularly in the context of scientific research conducted by Federally employed scientists or Federal grantees who publish and communicate their research findings in the same manner as their academic colleagues. OMB believes that information generated and disseminated in these contexts is not covered by these guidelines unless the agency represents the information as, or uses the information in support of, an official position of the agency.

As a general matter, these guidelines apply to “information” that is “disseminated” by agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1)). See paragraphs II, V.5 and V.8. The definitions of “information” and “dissemination” establish the scope of the applicability of these guidelines. “Information” means “any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data * * *” This definition of information in paragraph V.5 does “not include opinions, where the agency's presentation makes it clear that what is being offered is someone's opinion rather than fact or the agency's views.”

“Dissemination” is defined to mean “agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public.” As used in paragraph V.8, “agency INITIATED * * * distribution of information to the public” refers to information that the agency disseminates, e.g., a risk assessment prepared by the agency to inform the agency's formulation of possible regulatory or other action. In addition, if an agency, as an institution, disseminates information prepared by an outside party in a manner that reasonably suggests that the agency agrees with the information, this appearance of having the information represent agency views makes agency dissemination of the information subject to these guidelines. By contrast, an agency does not “initiate” the dissemination of information when a Federally employed scientist or Federal grantee or contractor publishes and communicates his or her research findings in the same manner as his or her academic colleagues, even if the Federal agency retains ownership or other intellectual property rights because the Federal government paid for the research. To avoid confusion regarding whether the agency agrees with the information (and is therefore disseminating it through the employee or grantee), the researcher should include an appropriate disclaimer in the publication or speech to the effect that the “views are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the view” of the agency.

Similarly, as used in paragraph V.8., “agency * * * SPONSORED distribution of information to the public” refers to situations where an agency has directed a third-party to disseminate information, or where the agency has the authority to review and approve the information before release. Therefore, for example, if an agency through a procurement contract or a grant provides for a person to conduct research, and then the agency directs the person to disseminate the results (or the agency reviews and approves the results before they may be disseminated), then the agency has “sponsored” the dissemination of this information. By contrast, if the agency simply provides funding to support research, and it the researcher (not the agency) who decides whether to disseminate the results and—if the results are to be released—who determines the content and presentation of the dissemination, then the agency has not “sponsored” the dissemination even though it has funded the research and even if the Federal agency retains ownership or other intellectual property rights because the Federal government paid for the research. To avoid confusion regarding whether the agency is sponsoring the dissemination, the researcher should include an appropriate disclaimer in the publication or speech to the effect that the “views are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the view” of the agency. On the other hand, subsequent agency dissemination of such information requires that the information adhere to the agency's information quality guidelines. In sum, these guidelines govern an agency's dissemination of information, but generally do not govern a third-party's dissemination of information (the exception being where the agency is essentially using the third-party to disseminate information on the agency's behalf). Agencies, particularly those that fund scientific research, are encouraged to clarify the applicability of these guidelines to the various types of information they and their employees and grantees disseminate.

Paragraph V.8 also states that the definition of “dissemination” does not include “* * * distribution limited to correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public filings, subpoenas or adjudicative processes.” The exemption from the definition of “dissemination” for “adjudicative processes” is intended to exclude, from the scope of these guidelines, the findings and determinations that an agency makes in the course of adjudications involving specific parties. There are well-established procedural safeguards and rights to address the quality of adjudicatory decisions and to provide persons with an opportunity to contest decisions. These guidelines do not impose any additional requirements on agencies during adjudicative proceedings and do not provide parties to such adjudicative proceedings any additional rights of challenge or appeal.

The Presumption Favoring Peer-Reviewed Information. As a general matter, in the scientific and research context, we regard technical information that has been subjected to formal, independent, external peer review as presumptively objective. As the guidelines state in paragraph V.3.b.i: “If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity.” An example of a formal, independent, external peer review is the review process used by scientific journals.

Most comments approved of the prominent role that peer review plays in the OMB guidelines. Some comments contended that peer review was not accepted as a universal standard that incorporates an established, practiced, and sufficient level of objectively. Other comments stated that the guidelines would be better clarified by making peer review one of several factors that an agency should consider in assessing the objectivity (and quality in general) of original research. In addition, several comments noted that peer review does not establish whether analytic results are capable of being substantially reproduced. In light of the comments, the final guidelines in new paragraph V.3.b.i qualify the presumption in favor of peer-reviewed information as follows: “However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by the petitioner in a particular instance.”

We believe that transparency is important for peer review, and these guidelines set minimum standards for the transparency of agency-sponsored peer review. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.i: “If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by the petitioner in particular instance. If agency-sponsored peer review is employed to help satisfy the objectively standard, the review process employed shall meet the general criteria for competent and credible peer review recommended by OMB-OIRA to the President's Management Council (9/20/01) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/oira_review-process.html), namely, ‘that (a) peer reviewers be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer reviewers be expected to disclosed to agencies prior technical/policy positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector), and (d) peer reviews be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.’ ”

The importance of these general criteria for competent and credible peer review has been supported by a number of expert bodies. For example. “the work of fully competent peer-review panels can be undermined by allegations of conflict of interest and bias. Therefore, the best interests of the Board are served by effective policies and procedures regarding potential conflicts of interest, impartiality, and panel balance.” ( EPA's Science Advisory Board Panels: Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence and Balance, GAO-01-536, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, June 2001, page 19.) As another example, “risk analyses should be peer-reviewed and accessible—both physically and intellectually—so that decision-makers at all levels will be able to respond critically to risk characterizations. The intensity of the peer reviews should be commensurate with the significance of the risk or its management implications.” ( Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA, Summary Report, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC, April 1995, page 23.)

These criteria for peer reviewers are generally consistent with the practices now followed by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. In considering these criteria for peer reviewers, we note that there are many types of peer reviews and that agency guidelines concerning the use of peer review should tailor the rigor of peer review to the importance of the information involved. More generally, agencies should define their peer-review standards in appropriate ways, given the nature and importance of the information they disseminate.

Is Journal Peer Review Always Sufficient? Some comments argued that journal peer review should be adequate to demonstrate quality, even for influential information that can be expected to have major effects or public policy. OMB believes that this position overstates the effectiveness of journal peer review as a quality-control mechanism.

Although journal peer review is clearly valuable, there are cases where flawed science has been published in respected journals. For example, the NIH Office of Research Integrity recently reported the following case regarding environmental health research:

Although such cases of falsification are presumably rare, there is a significance scholarly literature documenting quality problems with articles published in peer-reviewed research. “In a [peer-reviewed] meta-analysis that surprised many—and some doubt—researchers found little evidence that peer review actually improves the quality of research papers.” ( See, e.g., Science, Vol. 293, page 2187 (September 21, 2001.)) In part for this reason, many agencies have already adopted peer review and science advisory practices that go beyond journal peer review. See, e.g., Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1990; Mark R. Powell, Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC., 1999, pages 138-139; 151-153; Implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's Peer Review Program: An SAB Evaluation of Three Reviews, EPA-SAB-RSAC-01-009, A Review of the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), Washington, DC., September 26, 2001. For information likely to have an important public policy or private sector impact, OMB believes that additional quality checks beyond peer review are appropriate.

Definition of “Influential” . OMB guidelines apply stricter quality standards to the dissemination of information that is considered “influential.” Comments noted that the breadth of the definition of “influential” in interim final paragraph V.9 requires much speculation on the part of agencies.

We believe that this criticism has merit and have therefore narrowed the definition. In this narrower definition, “influential”, when used in the phrase “influential scientific, financial, or statistical information”, is amended to mean that “the agency can reasonably determine that dissemination of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions.” The intent of the new phrase “clear and substantial” is to reduce the need for speculation on the part of agencies. We added the present tense—“or does have”—to this narrower definition because on occasion, an information dissemination may occur simultaneously with a particular policy change. In response to a public comment, we added an explicit reference to “financial” information as consistent with our original intent.

Given the differences in the many Federal agencies covered by these guidelines, and the differences in the nature of the information they disseminate, we also believe it will be helpful if agencies elaborate on this definition of “influential” in the context of their missions and duties, with due consideration of the nature of the information they disseminate. As we state in amended paragraph V.9, “Each agency is authorized to define ‘influential’ in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for which the agency is responsible.”

Reproducibility. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii: “If an agency is responsible for disseminating influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, agency guidelines shall include a high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.” OMB believes that a reproducibility standard is practical and appropriate for information that is considered “influential”, as defined in paragraph V.9—that “will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions.” The reproducibility standard applicable to influential scientific, financial, or statistical information is intended to ensure that information disseminated by agencies is sufficiently transparent in terms of data and methods of analysis that it would be feasible for a replication to be conducted. The fact that the use of original and supporting data and analytic results have been deemed “defensible” by peer-review procedures does not necessarily imply that the results are transparent and replicable.

Reproducibility of Original and Supporting Data. Several of the comments objected to the exclusion of original and supporting data from the reproducibility requirements. Comments instead suggested that OMB should apply the reproducibility standard to original data, and that OMB should provide flexibility to the agencies in determining what constitutes “original and supporting” data. OMB agrees and asks that agencies consider, in developing their own guidelines, which categories of original and supporting data should be subject to the reproducibility standard and which should not. To help in resolving this issue, we also ask agencies to consult directly with relevant scientific and technical communities on the feasibility of having the selected categories of original and supporting data subject to the reproducibility standard. Agencies are encouraged to address ethical, feasibility, and confidentiality issues with care. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.A, “Agencies may identify, in consultation with the relevant scientific and technical communities, those particular types of data that can practicably be subjected to a reproducibility requirement, given ethical, feasibility, or confidentiality constraints.” Further, as we state in our expanded definition of “reproducibility” in paragraph V.10, “If agencies apply the reproducibility test to specific types of original or supporting data, the associated guidelines shall provide relevant definitions of reproducibility ( e.g. standards for replication of laboratory data).” OMB urges caution in the treatment of original and supporting data because it may often be impractical or even impermissible or unethical to apply the reproducibility standard to such data. For example, it may not be ethical to repeat a “negative” (ineffective) clinical (therapeutic) experiment and it may not be feasible to replicate the radiation exposures studied after the Chernobyl accident. When agencies submit their draft agency guidelines for OMB review, agencies should include a description of the extent to which the reproducibility standard is applicable and reflect consultations with relevant scientific and technical communities that were used in developing guidelines related to applicability of the reproducibility standard to original and supporting data.

It is also important to emphasize that the reproducibility standard does not apply to all original and supporting data disseminated by agencies. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.A, “With regard to original and supporting data related [to influential scientific, financial, or statistical information], agency guidelines shall not require that all disseminated data be subjected to a reproducibility requirement.” In addition, we encourage agencies to address how greater transparency can be achieved regarding original and supporting data. As we also state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.A, “It is understood that reproducibility of data is an indication of transparency about research design and methods and thus a replication exercise ( i.e., a new experiment, test, or sample) shall not be required prior to each dissemination.” Agency guidelines need to achieve a high degree of transparency about data even when reproducibility is not required.

Reproducibility of Analytic Results. Many public comments were critical of the reproducibility standard and expressed concern that agencies would be required to reproduce each analytical result before it is disseminated. While several comments commended OMB for establishing an appropriate balance in the “capable of being substantially reproduced” standard, others considered this standard to be inherently subjective. There were also comments that suggested the standard would cause more burden for agencies.

It is no OMB's intent that each agency must reproduce each analytic result before it is disseminated. The purpose of the reproducibility standard is to cultivate a consistent agency commitment to transparency about how analytic results are generated: the specific data used, the various assumptions employed, the specific analytical methods applied, and the statistical procedures employed. If sufficient transparency is achieved on each of these matters, then an analytic result should meet the “capable of being substantially reproduced” standard.

While there is much variation in types of analytic results, OMB believes that reproducibility is a practical standard to apply to most types of analytic results. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.B, “With regard to analytic results related [to influential scientific, financial, or statistical information], agency guidelines shall generally require sufficient transparency about data and methods that an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. These transparency standards apply to agency analysis of data from a single study as well as to analyses that combine information from multiple studies.” We elaborate upon this principle in our expanded definition of “reproducibility” in paragraph V.10: “With respect to analytic results, ‘capable of being substantially reproduced’ means that independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical methods would generate similar analytic results, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision or error.”

Even in a situation where the original and supporting data are protected by confidentiality concerns, or the analytic computer models or other research methods may be kept confidential to protect intellectual property, it may still be feasible to have the analytic results subject to the reproducibility standard. For example, a qualified party, operating under the same confidentiality protections as the original analysts, may be asked to use the same data, computer model or statistical methods to replicate the analytic results reported in the original study. See, e.g., “Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality,” A Special Report of the Health Effects Institute's Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

The primary benefit of public transparency is not necessarily that errors in analytic results will be detected, although error correction is clearly valuable. The more important benefit of transparency is that the public will be able to assess how much an agency's analytic result hinges on the specific analytic choices made by the agency. Concreteness about analytic choices allows, for example, the implications of alternative technical choices to be readily assessed. This type of sensitivity analysis is widely regarded as an essential feature of high-quality analysis, yet sensitivity analysis cannot be undertaken by outside parties unless a high degree of transparency is achieved. The OMB guidelines do not compel such sensitivity analysis as a necessary dimension of quality, but the transparency achieved by reproducibility will allow the public to undertake sensitivity studies of interest.

We acknowledge that confidentiality concerns will sometimes preclude public access as an approach to reproducibility. In response to public comment, we have clarified that such concerns do include interests in “intellectual property.” To ensure that the OMB guidelines have sufficient flexibility with regard to analytic transparency, OMB has, in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.B.i, provided agencies an alternative approach for classes or types of analytic results that cannot practically be subject to the reproducibility standard. “[In those situations involving influential scientific, financial, or statistical information * * * ] making the data and methods publicly available will assist in determining whether analytic results are reproducible. However, the objectivity standard does not override other compelling interests such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections. ” Specifically, in cases where reproducibility will not occur due to other compelling interests, we expect agencies (1) to perform robustness checks appropriate to the importance of the information involved, e.g., determining whether a specific statistic is sensitive to the choice of analytic method, and, accompanying the information disseminated, to document their efforts to assure the needed robustness in information quality, and (2) address in their guidelines the degree to which they anticipate the opportunity for reproducibility to be limited by the confidentiality of underlying data. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.B.ii, “In situations where public access to date and methods will not occur due to other compelling interests, agencies shall apply especially rigorous robustness checks to analytic results and document what checks were undertaken. Agency guidelines shall, however, in all cases, require a disclosure of the specific data sources that have been used and the specific quantitative methods and assumptions that have been employed.”

Given the differences in the many Federal agencies covered by these guidelines, and the differences in robustness checks and the level of detail for documentation thereof that might be appropriate for different agencies, we also believe it will helpful if agencies elaborate on these matters in the context of their missions and duties, with due consideration of the nature of the information they disseminate. As we state in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.B.ii, “Each agency is authorized to define the type of robustness checks, and the level of detail for documentation thereof, in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for which the agency is responsible.”

We leave the determination of the appropriate degree of rigor to the discretion of agencies and the relevant scientific and technical communities that work with the agencies. We do, however, establish a general standard for the appropriate degree of rigor in our expanded definition of “reproducibility” in paragraph V.10: “ ‘Reproducibility’ means that the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. For information judged to have more (less) important impacts, the degree of imprecision that is tolerated is reduced (increased).” OMB will review each agency's treatment of this issue when reviewing the agency guidelines as a whole.

Commercial also expressed concerns regarding interim final paragraph V.3.B.iii, “making the data and models publicly available will assist in determining whether analytic results are capable of being substantially reproduced,” and whether it could be interpreted to constitute public dissemination of these materials, rendering moot the reproducibility test. (For the equivalent provision, see new paragraph V.3.b.ii.B.i.) The OMB guidelines do not require agencies to reproduce each disseminated analytic result by independent reanalysis. Thus, public dissemination of data and models per se does not mean that the analytic result has been reproduced. It means only that the result should be CAPABLE of being reproduced. The transparency associated with this capability of reproduction is what the OMB guidelines are designed to achieve.

We also want to build on a general observation that we made in our final guidelines published in September 2001. In those guidelines we stated: “... in those situations involving influential scientific[, financial,] or statistical information, the substantial reproducibility standard is added as a quality standard above and beyond some peer review quality standards” (66 FR 49722 (September 28, 2001)). A hypothetical example may serve to illustrate this point. Assume that two Federal agencies initiated or sponsored the dissemination of five scientific studies after October 1, 2002 (see paragraph III.4) that were, before dissemination, subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, i.e., that met the presumptive standard for “objectivity” under paragraph V.3.b.i. Further assume, at the time of dissemination, that neither agency reasonably expected that the dissemination of any of these studies would have “a clear and substantial impact” on important public policies, i.e., that these studies were not considered “influential” under paragraph V.9, and thus not subject to the reproducibility standards in paragraphs V.3.b.ii.A or B. Then assume, two years later, in 2005, that one of the agencies decides to issue an important and far-reaching regulation based clearly and substantially on the agency's evaluation of the analytic results set forth in these five studies and that such agency reliance on these five studies as published in the agency's notice of proposed rulemaking would constitute dissemination of these five studies. These guidelines would require the rulemaking agency, prior to publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking, to evaluate these five studies to determine if the analytic results stated therein would meet the “capable of being substantially reproduced” standards in paragraph V.3.b.ii.B and, if necessary, related standards governing original and supporting data in paragraph V.3.b.ii.A. If the agency were to decide that any of the five studies would not meet the reproducibility standard, the agency may still rely on them but only if they satisfy the transparency standard and—as applicable—the disclosure of robustness checks required by these guidelines. Otherwise, the agency should not disseminate any of the studies that did not meet the applicable standards in the guidelines at the time it publishes the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Some comments suggested that OMB consider replacing the reproducibility standard with a standard concerning “confirmation” of results for influential scientific and statistical information. Although we encourage agencies to consider “confirmation” as a relevant standard—at least in some cases—for assessing the objectivity of original and supporting data, we believe that “confirmation” is too stringent a standard to apply to analytic results. Often the regulatory impact analysis prepared by an agency for a major rule, for example, will be the only formal analysis of an important subject. It would be unlikely that the results of the regulatory impact analysis had already been confirmed by other analyses. The “capable of being substantially reproduced” standard is less stringent than a “confirmation” standard because it simply requires that an agency's analysis be sufficiently transparent that another qualified party could replicate it through reanalysis.

Health, Safety, and Environmental Information. We note, in the scientific context, that in 1996 the Congress, for health decisions under the Safe Drinking Water Act, adopted a basic standard of quality for the use of science in agency decisionmaking. Under 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A), an agency is directed, “to the degree that an Agency action is based on science,” to use “(i) the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and (ii) data collected by accepted methods or best available methods (if the reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies use of the data).”

We further note that in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress adopted a basic quality standard for the dissemination of public information about risks of adverse health effects. Under 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(B), the agency is directed, “to ensure that the presentation of information [risk] effects is comprehensive, informative, and understandable.” The agency is further directed, “in a document made available to the public in support of a regulation [to] specify, to the extent practicable—(i) each population addressed by any estimate [of applicable risk effects]; (ii) the expected risk or central estimate of risk for the specific populations [affected]; (iii) each appropriate upper-bound or lower-bound estimate of risk; (iv) each significant uncertainty identified in the process of the assessment of [risk] effects and the studies that would assist in resolving the uncertainty; and (v) peer-reviewed studies known to the [agency] that support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support any estimate of [risk] effects and the methodology used to reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific data.”

As suggested in several comments, we have included these congressional standards directly in new paragraph V.3.b.ii.C, and made them applicable to the information disseminated by all the agencies subject to these guidelines: “With regard to analysis of risks to human health, safety and the environment maintained or disseminated by the agencies, agencies shall either adopt or adapt the quality principles applied by Congress to risk information used and disseminated pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A) & (B)).” The word “adapt” is intended to provide agencies flexibility in applying these principles to various types of risk assessment.

Comments also argued that the continued flow of vital information from agencies responsible for disseminating health and medical information to medical providers, patients, and the public may be disrupted due to these peer review and reproducibility standards. OMB responded by adding to new paragraph V.3.ii.C: “Agencies responsible for dissemination of vital health and medical information shall interpret the reproducibility and peer-review standards in a manner appropriate to assuring the timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public. Information quality standards may be waived temporarily by agencies under urgent situations ( e.g., imminent threats to public health or homeland security) in accordance with the latitude specified in agency-specific guidelines.”

Administrative Correction Mechanisms. In addition to commenting on the substantive standards in these guidelines, many of the comments noted that the OMB guidelines on the administrative correction of information do not specify a time period in which the agency investigation and response must be made. OMB has added the following new paragraph III.3.i to direct agencies to specify appropriate time periods in which the investigation and response need to be made. “Agencies shall specify appropriate time periods for agency decisions on whether and how to correct the information, and agencies shall notify the affected persons of the corrections made.”

Several comments stated that the OMB guidelines needed to direct agencies to consider incorporating an administrative appeal process into their administrative mechanisms for the correction of information. OMB agreed, and added the following new paragraph III.3.ii: “If the person who requested the correction does not agree with the agency's decision (including the corrective action, if any), the person may file for reconsideration within the agency. The agency shall establish an administrative appeal process to review the agency's initial decision, and specify appropriate time limits in which to resolve such requests for reconsideration.” Recognizing that many agencies already have a process in place to respond to public concerns, it is not necessarily OMB's intent to require these agencies to establish a new or different process. Rather, our intent is to ensure that agency guidelines specify an objective administrative appeal process that, upon further complaint by the affected person, reviews an agency's decision to disagree with the correction request. An objective process will ensure that the office that originally disseminates the information does not have responsibility for both the initial response and resolution of a disagreement. In addition, the agency guidelines should specify that if the agency believes other agencies may have an interest in the resolution of any administrative appeal, the agency should consult with those other agencies about their possible interest.

Overall, OMB does not envision administrative mechanisms that would burden agencies with frivolous claims. Instead, the correction process should serve to address the genuine and valid needs of the agency and its constituents without disrupting agency processes. Agencies, in making their determination of whether or not to correct information, may reject claims made in bad faith or without justification, and are required to undertake only the degree of correction that they conclude is appropriate for the nature and timeliness of the information involved, and explain such practices in their annual fiscal year reports to OMB.

OMS's issuance of these final guidelines is the beginning of an evolutionary process that will include draft agency guidelines, public comment, final agency guidelines, development of experience with OMB and agency guidelines, and continued refinement of both OMB and agency guidelines. Just as OMB requested public comment before issuing these final guidelines, OMB will refine these guidelines as experience develops and further public comment is obtained.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2001 (Public Law 106-554) directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue government-wide guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by Federal agencies.

Section 515 directs agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1)) to—

1. Issue their own information quality guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by the agency no later than one year after the date of issuance of the OMB guidelines;

2. Establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with these OMB guidelines; and

3. Report to the Director of OMB the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding agency compliance with these OMB guidelines concerning the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such complaints were resolved.

1. Overall, agencies shall adopt a basic standard of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a performance goal and should take appropriate steps to incorporate information quality criteria into agency information dissemination practices. Quality is to be ensured and established at levels appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated. Agencies shall adopt specific standards of quality that are appropriate for the various categories of information they disseminate.

2. As a matter of good and effective agency information resources management, agencies shall develop a process for reviewing the quality (including the objectivity, utility, and integrity) of information before it is disseminated. Agencies shall treat information quality as integral to every step of an agency's development of information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination. This process shall enable the agency to substantiate the quality of the information it has disseminated through documentation or other means appropriate to the information.

3. To facilitate public review, agencies shall establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or agency guidelines. These administrative mechanisms shall be flexible, appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the disseminated information, and incorporated into agency information resources management and administrative practices.

i. Agencies shall specify appropriate time periods for agency decisions on whether and how to correct the information, and agencies shall notify the affected persons of the corrections made.

ii. If the person who requested the correction does not agree with the agency's decision (including the corrective action, if any), the person may filed for reconsideration within the agency. The agency shall establish an administrative appeal process to review the agency's initial decision, and specify appropriate time limits in which to resolve such requests for reconsideration.

4. The Agency's pre-dissemination review, under paragraph III.2, shall apply to information that the agency first disseminates on or after October 1, 2002. The agency's administrative's mechanisms, under paragraph III.3., shall apply to information that the agency disseminates on or after October 1, 2001, regardless of when the agency first disseminated the information.

1. Agencies must designate the Chief Information Officer or another official to be responsible for agency compliance with these guidelines.

2. The agency shall respond to complaints in a manner appropriate to the nature and extent of the complaint. Examples of appropriate responses include personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases or mass mailings that correct a widely disseminated error or address or frequently raised complaint.

3. Each agency must prepare a draft report, no later than April 1, 2002, providing the agency's information quality guidelines and explaining how such guidelines will ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by the agency. This report must also detail the administrative mechanisms developed by that agency to allow affected persons to seek and obtain appropriate correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or the agency guidelines.

4. The agency must publish a notice of availability of this draft report in the Federal Register , and post this report on the agency's website, to provide an opportunity for public comment.

5. Upon consideration of public comment and after appropriate revision, the agency must submit this draft report to the OMB for review regarding consistency with these OMB guidelines no later than July 1, 2001. Upon completion of that OMB review and completion of this report, agencies must publish notice of the availability of this report in its final form in the Federal Register , and post this report on the agency's web site no later than October 1, 2002.

6. On an annual fiscal-year basis, each agency must submit a report to the Director of OMB providing information (both quantitative and qualitative, where appropriate) on the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding agency compliance with these OMB guidelines and how such complaints were resolved. Agencies must submit these reports no later than January 1 of each following year, with the first report due January 1, 2004.

1. “Quality” is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity. Therefore, the guidelines sometimes refer to these four statutory terms, collectively, as “quality.”

2. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public. In assessing the usefulness of information that the agency disseminates to the public, the agency needs to reconsider the uses of the information not only from perspective of the agency but also from the perspective of the public. As a result, when transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information's usefulness from the public's perspective, the agency must take care to ensure that transparency has been addressed in its review of the information.

3. “Objectivity” involves two distinct elements, presentations and substance.

a. “Objectivity” includes whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. This involves whether the information is presented within a proper context. Sometimes, in disseminating certain types of information to the public, other information must also be disseminated in order to ensure an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased presentation. Also, the agency needs to identify the sources of the disseminated information (to the extent possible, consistent with confidentiality protections) and, in a specific, financial, or statistical context, the supporting data and models, so that the public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to question the objectivity of the sources. Where appropriate, data should have full, accurate, transparent documentation, and error sources affecting data quality should be identified and disclosed to users.

b. In addition, “objectivity” involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. In a scientific, financial, or statistical context, the original and supporting data shall be generated, and the analytic results shall be developed, using sound statistical and research methods.

i. If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by the petitioner in a particular instance. If agency-sponsored peer review is employed to help satisfy the objectivity standard, the review process employed shall meet the general criteria for competent and credible peer review recommended by OMB-OIRA to the President's Management Council (9/20/01) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/oira_review-process.html), namely, “that (a) peer reviewers be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies prior technical/policy positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector), and (d) peer reviews be conducted in an open and vigorous manner.”

ii. If an agency is response for disseminating influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, agency guidelines shall include a high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.

A. With regard to original and supporting data related thereto, agency guidelines shall not require that all disseminated data be subjected to a reproducibility requirement. Agencies may identify, in consultation with the relevant scientific and technical communities, those particular types of data that can practicable be subjected to a reproducibility requirement, given ethical, feasibility, or confidentiality constraints. It is understood that reproducibility of data is an indication of transparency about research design and methods and thus a replication exercise (i.e., a new experiment, test, or sample) shall not be required prior to each dissemination.

B. With regard to analytic results related thereto, agency guidelines shall generally require sufficient transparency about data and methods that an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. These transparency standards apply to agency analysis of data from a single study as well as to analyses that combine information from multiple studies.

i. Making the data and methods publicly available will assist in determining whether analytic results are reproducible. However, the objectivity standard does not override other compelling interests such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections.

ii. In situations where public access to data and methods will not occur due to other compelling interests, agencies shall apply especially rigorous robustness checks to analytic results and document what checks were undertaken. Agency guidelines shall, however, in all cases, require a disclosure of the specific data sources that have been used and the specific quantitative methods and assumptions that have been employed. Each agency is authorized to define the type of robustness checks, and the level of detail for documentation thereof, in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for such the agency is responsible.

C. With regard to analysis of risks to human health, safety and the environment maintained or disseminated by the agencies, agencies shall either adopt or adapt the equality principles applied by Congress to risk information used and disseminated pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A) & (B)). Agencies responsible for dissemination of vital health and medical information shall interpret the reproducibility and peer-review standards in a manner appropriate to assuring the timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public. Information quality standards may be waived temporarily by agencies under urgent situations ( e.g., imminent threats to public health or homeland security) in accordance with the latitude specified in agency-specific guidelines.

4. “Integrity” refers to the security of information—protection of the information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification.

5. “Information” means any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms. This definition includes information that an agency disseminates from a web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks to information that others disseminate. This definition does not include opinions, where the agency's presentation makes it clear that what is being offered is someone's opinion rather than fact or the agency's views.

6. “Government information” means information created, collected, processed, disseminated, or disposed of by or for the Federal Government.

7. “Information dissemination product” means any books, paper, map, machine-readable material, audiovisual production, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristic, an agency disseminates to the public. This definition includes any electronic document, CD-ROM, or web page.

8. “Dissemination” means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public (see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) (definition of “Conduct or Sponsor”)). Dissemination does not include distribution limited to government employees or agency contractors or grantees; intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information; and responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or other similar law. This definition also does not include distribution limited to correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public filings, subpoenas or adjudicative processes.

9. “Influential”, when used in the phrase “influential scientific, financial, or statistical information”, means that the agency can reasonably determine that dissemination of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions. Each agency is authorized to define “influential” in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for which the agency is responsible.

10. “Reproducibility” means that the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. For information judged to have more (less) important impacts, the degree of imprecision that is tolerate is reduced (increased). If agencies apply the reproducibility test to specific types of original or supporting data, the associated guidelines shall provide relevant definitions of reproducibility ( e.g., standards for replication of laboratory data). With respect to analytic results, “capable of being substantially reproduced” means that independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical methods would generate similar analytic results, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision or error.

Section 406 of Public Law No. 106-170, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, established an assessment for the services required to determine and certify payments to attorneys from the benefits due claimants under Title II of the Act. This provision is codified in section 206 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 406). The legislation set the assessment for the calendar year 2000 at 6.3 percent of the amount that would be required to be certified for direct payment to the attorney under either section 206(a)(4) or 206(b)(1) before the application of the assessment. For subsequent years, the legislation requires the Commissioner of Social Security to determine the percentage rate necessary to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining and certifying fees to attorneys, but not in excess of 6.3 percent. For 2001, the Commissioner of Social Security determined that the assessment rate under section 206(d) of the Act would be 6.3 percent. (See 66 FR 5521, January 19, 2001).

The Commissioner of Social Security has determined, based on the best available data, that the current rate of 6.3 percent will continue for 2002. This assessment rate was based on information compiled by a private contractor, KPMG Consulting, who were tasked by the Social Security Administration to determine the costs we incur to determine and certify fees to attorneys. We will continue to review our costs on a yearly basis.

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), requires that a 30-day public notice must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed on an interest is surplus property.

The following is a brief overview of the request:

On February 18, 1987, the State of Arizona, granted patent No. 7213 to Mohave County, Arizona, for 433.37 acres to be developed as a public use airport. Since 1987, the Mohave County Airport Authority, Inc. has received Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, which contain certain grant obligations and assurances that the airport land be dedicated for aeronautical purposes. The Mohave County Airport Authority, Inc. has requested the release of approximately 83 acres of dedicated airport land from certain AIP grant obligations and assurances at the Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport located in Bullhead City Arizona. The purpose of the release is to permit the use of dedicated airport property for non-aeronautical purposes. Net proceeds from the leasing and development of the subject land will be utilized by the Authority for capital improvements, operation, and maintenance at the Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application (02-07-C-00-MFR) to impose and use PFC revenue at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 20, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Jackson County, Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, Oregon, was substantially complete with requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than March 27, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: June 1, 2003.

Proposed charge expiration date: May 1, 2004.

Total requested for use approval: $816,466.

Brief description of proposed projects: Realignment and Rehabilitation of Taxiway A; Terminal Area Plan (planning study).

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFC's: Operations by Air Taxi/Commercial Operators when enplaning revenue passengers in limited, irregular, special service air taxi/commercial operations such as air ambulance services, student instructions, non-stop sightseeing flights that begin and end at the airport and are concluded within a 25 mile radius of the airport.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Office located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, ANM-600, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Suite 315, Renton, WA 98055-4056.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Rouge Valley International-Medford Airport.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Lawton-Ft. Sill Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 19, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Airport was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than April 12, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: April 1, 2002.

Proposed charge expiration date: April 1, 2003.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $361,000.

PFC application number: 02-02-C-00-LAW.

Brief description of proposed projects(s):

Proposed class or classes of air carriers to be exempted from collecting PFC's: FAR part 135 on demand air Taxi/Commercial Operator (ATCO) reporting on FAA Form 1800-31.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA regional Airports office located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Planning and Programming Branch, ASW-610, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Lawton-Ft. Sill Regional Airport.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at San Francisco International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 14, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the San Francisco Airport Commission was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than March 21, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the impose and use application No. 02-02-C-00-SFO:

Level of proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: June 1, 2003.

Proposed charge expiration date: April 1, 2008.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $224,034,821.

Brief description of the proposed projects: Taxiway Improvements and Realignment, and Boarding Area “A” and “G” Apron Construction and Common Use Systems.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Non-Scheduled On-Demand Air Carriers (formerly called Air Taxi/Commercial Operators).

Any persons may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under For Further Information Contact and at the FAA Regional Airports Division located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the San Francisco Airport Commission.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at San Jose International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 14, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use a PFC submitted by the city of San Jose was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than March 20, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the impose and use application No. 02-13-C-00-SJC:

Level of proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: September 1, 2008.

Proposed charge expiration date: May 1, 2010.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $142,846,000.

Brief description of the proposed project: Expanded Noise Attenuation within the 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Noise Contour.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Nonscheduled/On-Demand Air Carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Division located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the city of San Jose.

On July 31, 2001, FMCSA published a notice requesting comments on its proposal to issue exemptions to certain insulin-treated diabetic drivers of commercial vehicles from the diabetes requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) (66 FR 39548). The comment period closed on October 1, 2001. That notice referenced analytical results of crash risks for CMV operators with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus from an agency sponsored study (“A Preliminary Study of the Risk Associated with the Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles by Drivers with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus,” 1999). Although the final results of this study were available and presented at the time of the July 31st notice, the report presenting the study methodology and findings had not been finalized and approved by FMCSA, and was not available to the public.

Therefore, we are placing a copy of this final report entitled, “A Study of the Risk Associated with the Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles by Drivers with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus,” 2001, in the docket and reopening the comment period.

Maritime Administration (MARAD).

Title: Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 2133-0005.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Vessel owners acquiring ships from MARAD on credit, companies chartering ships from MARAD, and companies having Title XI guarantee obligations.

Form (S): MA-172.

Abstract: The Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements are used as a basis for preparing and filing semi-annual and annual financial statements with the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Regulations requiring financial reports to MARAD are authorized by section 801, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 1881 hours.

Addressee: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer.

Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.