Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Wyatt Company, 303 West Madison Street, Board Room, Chicago, IL on Monday, October 21, 2002, from 8:30 am to 5 pm.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions, which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).

A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.

In April 2002, the USDA Office of Inspector General issued Audit Report Number 27601-0027-CH titled “National School Lunch Program—Food Service Management Companies,” which found that, in the States reviewed by the Office of Inspector General, many school food authorities that maintained fixed-rate-per-meal contracts did not receive proper credit for USDA donated commodities. Federal regulations require that any USDA donated commodities received by a school food authority and made available to a food service management company shall be used solely for the school food authority's food service operation and that the full value of all USDA donated food must accrue to the benefit of the school food authority.

The discussion topics of this meeting will be limited to (a) the Office of Inspector General's recommended approach for crediting USDA donated commodities, (b) value-pass-through methods currently used by food service management companies and school food authorities in food service management contracts, and (c) proposals for the development of new specific procedures for crediting USDA donated commodities.

For those unable to attend the meeting or those who attend and have additional comments on the discussion topics, the contact person named below will accept written statements before the meeting and until Friday, November 8, 2002.

The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the action will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.

The recommended plan consists of (1) implementing an incentive payment program to encourage the harvest of up to 400,000 nutria annually from coastal Louisiana by payment of $4.00 per nutria tail to registered program participants (Coastwide Nutria Control Program LA-03b), (2) investigating techniques to promote revegetation of damaged sites with native vegetation, and (3) pursuing additional funding and/or funding sources to conduct more comprehensive revegetation. The goal of the recommended plan is to reestablish the ecological balance (plant and animal) that existed when the number of nutria harvested was high. It is predicted that the plan would reduce the conversion of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marsh to open water by about 15,000 acres over 20 years.

The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Donald W. Gohmert.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “Department”) is one of the most diverse Federal departments, both in terms of its mission and the information it provides to the public. We are responsible for daily weather reporting, facilitating the use of technology both at home and in the workplace, collecting statistics that assist the public and private sector, and supporting the environmental and economic health of U.S. communities. Our mission is to promote job creation and improve living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that encourages economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development, conservation, and wise use of living marine resources.

To carry out this mission, three strategic goals have been identified. They are to provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and equitably; provide the infrastructure for innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness; and observe and manage the Earth's environment to promote sustainable growth.

Commerce provides the basic economic data necessary to develop sound business decisions, producing many of the commonly used economic statistics issued by the U.S. Government. The Department also produces information designed to encourage the use of science and technology in the production of consumer goods and services.

Commerce plays an important role in the nation's global business development. The Department develops and disseminates foreign market research and international trade opportunities through its offices in the United States and in 83 foreign countries. Commerce also monitors and enforces compliance with U.S. trade laws and agreements, and defends American firms from injurious foreign business practices by administering U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws.

The oceanic and atmospheric programs at Commerce improve the understanding and rational use of the natural environment to further the Nation's safety, welfare, security, and commerce. These responsibilities include predicting the weather, charting the seas, and protecting the oceans and coastal areas.

Domestically, Commerce's programs promote long-term business enterprises that create jobs for minority groups and in underdeveloped areas across the United States. These programs are supported by reports, publications, projections, and business expertise. The Department provides services to citizens and private business as well as to state, local, and tribal governments.

Given the broad responsibilities of the Commerce Department in scientific, technical, and statistical information, Commerce welcomes the opportunity provided by the issuance of the Office of Management and Budget information quality guidelines to demonstrate our thorough and professional approach to information release.

Our goal is to ensure and maximize the quality of the information we release to the public. We are committed to making the methods, models, and processes that produce our information transparent and rigorous. At the Commerce Department, we have a long tradition of producing relevant, credible, high quality information to the public at large, the academic community, and the private sector.

We believe that we uphold a high standard regarding information quality through the use of quality control procedures for statistical data collection and processing. The 2000 decennial census, conducted by the Census Bureau, was the most accurate census in the history of the Nation. Commerce has made significant strides in redesigning the national income and product accounts by improving the conceptual foundation and incorporating new estimating methods and other statistical improvements. Our scientific research incorporates both internal and external peer review as appropriate. The Department boasts two Nobel Prize winners in science. We operate supercomputers that rank in the Nation's top ten in processing power. These powerful computers allow us a high degree of model resolution that increases the number of data points used to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts.

In summary, these Commerce guidelines are a continuation of our commitment to information quality. We have a proven track record in producing high quality information and welcome the opportunity to present our information quality guidelines.

Because of the diversity of Commerce's mission, we have taken a distributed approach to preparing our information quality guidelines. Outlined below are the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce and the responsibilities of the individual operating units of the Department.

The Department of Commerce Chief Information Officer (CIO) will prepare and submit reports annually to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the number and nature of complaints received by the Department of Commerce regarding Department compliance with the OMB guidelines concerning the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such complaints were resolved, as required by section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the OMB Guidelines.

The operating units of the Department are organizational entities outside the Office of the Secretary charged with carrying out specified substantive functions ( i.e. , programs) of the Department. For purposes of this document, operating unit responsibilities will apply to the Office of the Secretary also.

1. By October 1, 2002, document and make available to the public information quality standards that address the requirements of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity for all non-exempt information disseminated by the operating unit.

2. By October 1, 2002, establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the operating unit on or after October 1, 2002, that does not comply with these Department guidelines and the OMB guidelines.

The operating unit will respond to all initial requests within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the operating unit will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date. The operating unit will respond to all requests for appeals within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the operating unit will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date.

In cases where the operating unit disseminates a study, analysis, or other information prior to the final operating unit action or information product, requests for correction will be considered prior to the final operating unit action or information product in those cases where the operating unit has determined that an earlier response would not unduly delay issuance of the operating unit action or information product and the complainant has shown a reasonable likelihood of suffering actual harm from the operating unit's dissemination if the operating unit does not resolve the complaint prior to the final operating unit action or information product.

3. Beginning on October 1, 2002, demonstrate in the operating unit's Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submissions to OMB the “practical utility” of a proposed collection of information that the operating unit plans to disseminate. Additionally, for all proposed collections of information that will be disseminated to the public, demonstrate in the operating unit's PRA clearance submissions to OMB that the proposed collection of information will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and used in a way consistent with applicable information quality guidelines.

4. Assist the Department CIO in the preparation of annual reports to OMB by providing information requested by the Department CIO.

The Department and its operating units received eleven responses to the request for comments. Four responses were received from public interest groups; one was from a voluntary professional association; two were from a for-profit corporation; and four were from industry associations. Some of the comments contained in the submissions were addressed either to the entire Federal government or to agencies other than the Department. In this notice, the Department is responding only to comments relevant to its applicable information quality standards. In addition, the Department has received further guidance from OMB (OMB guidance, June 10) on the development of information quality guidelines, which helps the Department respond to some of the comments. A detailed analysis of the comments, and the Department's response based on both the comments and the OMB guidance, follows.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department and its operating units should view information quality as a “performance goal.” One of these commenters requested, in particular, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) list the names of the component offices ( e.g. , National Marine Fisheries Service, National Weather Service, etc. ) that will be subject to the guidelines.

Response: In keeping with the guidance provided by OMB, the Department views its information quality guidelines as performance standards. NOAA's information quality guidelines apply to all its line (component) offices.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department provide additional, subsequent opportunity in the future for further public comment on the guidelines after publication on October 1, 2002. These commenters noted that the Department's guidelines lack a centralized focus and commitment to implementation of the new information quality and oversight system and administrative correction mechanisms. These commenters stated that the Department must establish a complete, centrally focused and harmonized information correction system.

Response: Pursuant to public request, the Department extended for 30 days the period for public comments on its draft guidelines. While the Department would like to gather additional public input, further extension of the public comment period, or a further round of comments, is not possible due to the statute's October 1, 2002, deadline for implementation of the Department's information quality guidelines.

Comment: Some commenters noted that the Department's guidelines lack a centralized focus and commitment to implementation of the new information quality and oversight system and administrative correction mechanisms. These commenters stated that the Department must establish a complete, centrally focused and harmonized information correction system.

Response: As to adopting a single, central information correction system, the Department's guidelines reflect the reality of the broad scope of the Department's mandate, from conducting each decennial census to forecasting the weather. In keeping with the first principle stated by OMB in its own guidance to federal agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective (67 FR at 8452). Were the Department or some of its component operating units (OUs) to attempt to apply a single centralized standard, it would necessarily be far less specific—and less effective as a performance standard—than the approach taken.

Comment: Several commenters urged the Department to establish a permanent, dedicated area on its Web site where all documents, notices of existing challenges to disseminated data, resolutions of those challenges, uncorrected information found wanting, and other items related to guidelines can be disseminated.

Response: The Department and its OUs will publish the information quality guidelines as well as other appropriate information on their respective Web sites for public use.

Comment: Some of the commenters pointed out that the guidelines fail to require that the dissemination of the corrected data will be accomplished in a manner equal to the dissemination of and proportional to the significance and importance of the original data.

Response: The form of corrective action will be determined by the nature and timeliness of the information involved and such factors as the significance of the error on the use of the information and the magnitude of the error.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department's guidelines have not proposed complete, functional, and responsible administrative review mechanisms that will afford affected parties meaningful opportunity to ensure data quality and obtain timely correction of flawed information.

Response: OMB notes that under its guidelines “agencies need only ensure that their own guidelines are consistent with * * * OMB guidelines, and then ensure that their administrative mechanisms satisfy the standards and procedural requirements in the new agency guidelines.” (67 FR at 8453). In keeping with this directive, the administrative review mechanisms adopted by the Department's OUs are designed to ensure a fair opportunity to seek and obtain correction of information that does not comply with applicable guidelines.

Comment: Some commenters urged a clear statement in the guidelines that these mechanisms are available for challenges based on alleged non-conformance with the OMB or the Department's guidelines.

Response: Administrative mechanisms are provided for appropriate challenges based on all applicable guidelines.

Comment: One commenter urged the Department to make every effort to clearly assert that the guidelines are not judicially reviewable and that the Department is not legally bound by the guidelines and has the right to depart from them when appropriate.

Response: The Department takes the mandate of Section 515 seriously and has published information quality guidelines and standards designed to ensure and maximize the quality of information that it disseminates and will comply with those guidelines and standards. The Department notes that the guidelines are not intended to provide any right to judicial review.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department state that public access to information is a central government responsibility that the agency will uphold and that the guidelines should not impose unnecessary administrative burdens that would inhibit agencies from continuing to disseminate information that can be of great benefit and value to the public. The commenter suggested that the Department should look to Section 515 itself to determine the scope and components that are required to be in the guidelines. This commenter also stated that Section 515 should be reviewed as a clarification of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and that the Department should state that “quality” is only one factor to consider. The commenter stated that the agency must answer to its core substantive mission, operate within budgetary constraints, and consider the benefits of timely dissemination.

Response: The Department agrees that public access to information is a central government responsibility and intends to apply its information quality guidelines in ways conducive to wide dissemination of information that is of benefit and value to the public. The Department agrees that nothing in Section 515 is intended to diminish or interfere with the Department's core substantive mission and activities, or its ability to operate within budgetary constraints to timely disseminate beneficial information to the public.

Comment: One commenter urged the Department to provide appropriate policy direction to its operating units regarding the data quality standards and pre-dissemination review procedures to ensure that the OMB information quality standards will be met.

Response: Such policy direction has been an integral part of the Department's implementation of OMB's guidelines.

Comment: Some commenters noted that the Department should provide effective procedures for the timely correction of information determined to be flawed and for appropriate prohibitions on further use and dissemination of such information until it is corrected.

Response: In keeping with OMB's directive, the administrative review mechanisms adopted by the Department's OUs are designed to ensure a fair opportunity to seek and obtain correction of information that does not comply with applicable guidelines. In any given instance, the form of corrective action will be determined by the nature and timeliness of the information involved and factors including, but not limited to, the significance of the error on the use of the information and the magnitude of the error.

Comment: Some commenters noted that the Department should revise its draft guidelines to address the open issues, eliminate (or carefully circumscribe and narrow) the proposed exemptions and limitations, and set forth a complete, centrally focused data correction scheme for the Department that implements new information quality and oversight systems and the full administrative correction mechanisms contemplated by Congress and OMB. The commenters stated that the changes should include the specific measures recommended herein.

Response: The OMB guidelines clearly state that agencies should incorporate the standards and procedures required by OMB's “guidelines into their existing information resources management and administrative practices rather than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes.” (67 FR at 8453)

Comment: Several commenters stated that the Department should revise the “Scope” sentence to read: “These guidelines cover information disseminated (as defined in the OMB Guidelines) by the Department on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when the information was first disseminated.”

Response: The Department has clarified that it is the pre-dissemination review procedures that will apply only to information first disseminated on or after October 1, 2002. The Scope section now clearly states that the pre-dissemination review requirement applies to information that the agency first disseminates on or after October 1, 2002, and that the administrative correction mechanisms apply to information that the agency disseminates on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when the agency first disseminated the information. This language is consistent with OMB's guidance to federal agencies.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the Department's exemption of certain information from the guidelines. Some of these commenters suggested that the exemptions be “eliminated or narrowly circumscribed” to prevent undermining the mandate of the Act. One commenter objected to OMB's creation of exemptions not authorized by Section 515 and the inconsistency between OMB's “dissemination” exemptions in its Section 515 guidelines with OMB's broader definition of “dissemination” in implementing the PRA. This commenter also objected to additional exemptions proposed by federal agencies. One commenter noted that OMB exempts some types and categories of information from the guidelines and argues that neither OMB nor the agencies has legal authority to exempt “any information that an agency has in fact made public.” This commenter further objected to agency inclusion of OMB exemptions and to any agency interpretations, changes, or exemptions that differ from OMB's.

Response: The Department is implementing the guidance (guidelines and June 10 supplemental information) developed by OMB. Comments raising concerns with the OMB guidelines are outside the scope of the Department's actions. The Department has clarified that the exemption for press releases only applies to press releases themselves and not to any background information on which the press release is based. The Department and its OUs did not create exemptions in addition to those outlined by OMB.

Comment: Two commenters noted that Section 515 lists no exceptions to information disseminated by an agency and, therefore, the Department should not attempt to restrict coverage by narrowing the classifications of information covered. The commenters believe that all information disseminated by the Department should be covered by the guidelines, including information “initiated or sponsored” by the Department and third party information that the Department disseminates in a manner that reasonably suggests that the agency agrees with the information. The commenters suggested that the Department should include “information contained in rulemaking dockets” among the classes of information covered.

Response: The Department notes that the information not covered by the guidelines includes information that is not “disseminated” to the public by the Department (such as intra- or inter-agency information or responses to requests through FOIA, the Privacy Act, etc. ) and information that is already public (such as press releases, public filings, etc. ). The Department also points out that all “information” “disseminated”—as those terms are defined by OMB—by the Department is covered by these guidelines, including third party information. In addition, OMB exempted some types and categories of information within the statutory directive to “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information.” The Department has no control over the quality of information submitted to the agency during a rulemaking. However, any such information on which the Department might rely would be subject to the guidelines' provisions on third party information.

Comment: Several commenters suggested that these exemptions, especially, but not limited to, those covering adjudicatory proceedings and notice and comment-type proposed action, may undermine the mandate of Section 515. The commenters suggested that information dissemination as part of a proposed rule or proposed NRDAR plan not be excluded from the application of the guidelines. However, another commenter stated that the rulemaking process affords adequate procedures and opportunities for questioning and correcting information and that data disseminated from a rulemaking process should not be eligible for dispute under the information quality administrative mechanism.

Response: Regarding the commenters' suggestion that the Department include adjudicatory proceedings within the coverage of the guidelines, the Department notes that in the preamble to the OMB guidelines, OMB stated:

The Department agrees with this reasoning and has, therefore, retained the exemption for adjudicatory processes.

The Department's guidelines, including those of all the OUs, do not exempt information included in a rulemaking. However, the guidelines maintain the integrity of the rulemaking process by addressing requests for correction in a way that does not disrupt that process. This is in keeping with OMB's frequent reiteration, in its guidance, that disruption of existing processes is neither contemplated nor desired.

Further, the Department notes that the commenters may have misunderstood the language in its draft guidelines concerning such actions. Informal and formal rulemakings and Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Plans (NRDAR Plans) are subject to these guidelines. As such, the information quality standards remain applicable to information disseminated as part of a proposed rule or a proposed Natural Resource Plan.

Comment: Some commenters stated that there are no “case-by-case” exemptions from applicability of the guidelines and states that “Congress clearly intended OMB's Data Quality guidelines to apply to all information that agencies subject to the PRA in fact make public.” The commenters' examples suggest that, with regard to the meaning of “information,” the reach of Section 515 is identical to that of the PRA. The commenters complain that agency proposals “exempt material relating or [sic] adjudicatory proceedings or processes, including briefs and other information submitted to courts.” The commenters state that neither OMB nor any federal agency has authority to make this exemption.

Response: This exemption was listed specifically by OMB in its own information quality guidelines to federal agencies, and the Department believes it is appropriate and in keeping with long-established principles of adjudicative processes, which have many inherent safeguards.

Comment: Two commenters pointed out that the Department failed to provide any guidance on how influential scientific or technical information will be subjected to the required higher standards for quality and greater transparency. These commenters stated that the high level of generality provides insufficient guidance to NOAA's Fisheries Service, whose technical fishery conservation and management data is used to regulate fisheries. Some other commenters stated that the Department failed to address appropriate standards of objectivity for influential information.

Response: The Department has revised the guidelines to provide clearer guidance on quality standards for influential information and objectivity. The Department recognizes the importance of influential information that may be used in decisions such as fishery conservation and management. NOAA has revised its guidelines to discuss meeting the objectivity standard for influential information.

Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should narrowly define “influential” information, employing a high threshold for coverage to maximize its flexibility and preserve its ability to act in a timely fashion.

Response: The Department recognizes that a balancing process is involved in defining “influential” information. In keeping with OMB's directive that each agency “define ‘influential’ in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for which the agency is responsible” (67 FR at 8460), the Department's OUs have defined “influential” in ways appropriate to their specific missions and activities, with the goal of ensuring and maximizing information quality.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department should abandon its proposed “objectivity” standard and instead should adopt the “objectivity” standard established by OMB for non-scientific, non-financial and non-statistical information. These commenters stated that the Department should also direct its operating units to do the same.

Response: As the Department has noted above, OMB has stressed that its guidelines are intended to be flexible and that a one-size-fits-all approach has not been taken, and that it has deliberately allowed agencies to tailor their guidelines to their mission and activities.

Comment: Two commenters stated that the Department should define the categories of information that are “influential” scientific, financial, and statistical information and include within those categories all information disseminated in connection with NRDAR Plans. Two commenters objected to the fact that some agencies neither adopted OMB's definition of “influential” nor provided one of their own.

Response: The Department does not believe it is appropriate to list prospectively all information that may be “influential.” Rather, the OUs have defined the term “influential,” either by adopting or adapting OMB's definition of that term, and will characterize specific information as such when appropriate. Certain information, such as the gross domestic product, can readily be predicted to consistently meet BEA's definition. However, NRDAR Plans would not typically meet the “influential” threshold established by NOAA. Such Plans deal with site-specific liabilities of one or several persons responsible for unlawful releases of hazardous substances or oil. As such, NRDAR Plans are not expected to have a genuinely clear and substantial impact on major public policy and private sector decisions.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department should not unduly limit the concept of “quality” information by narrow definitions of the terms “objectivity, utility, and integrity.” This commenter suggested that the Department should begin the description of objectivity by pointing out that the term “objectivity” includes both the substance of information and its presentation.

Response: The Department has revised the definitions of objectivity, utility, and integrity, to incorporate the suggestion concerning both the substance and presentation of information.

Comment: Some commenters objected to the use of policy-driven or mission-driven assumptions or factors by agencies in connection with risk assessments. These commenters stated that only numerical information or factors can be considered in risk assessments and that risk management policy decisions should be clearly separated from the presentation of scientific data and analysis.

Response: The Department believes that an agency's (or operating unit's) activities and decisions must be consistent with and based upon its statutory mandate. Nothing in Section 515 or in the OMB guidelines repeals or amends the specific statutes governing agency action. Consistent with these statutes, the guidelines of all the Department's OUs require an absence of bias in both the presentation and substance elements of objectivity. In addition, the Department and all of its OUs are committed to transparency about how analytic results are generated, in terms of the specific data used, the various assumptions employed, the specific analytic methods applied, and the statistical procedures employed, consistent with other compelling interests such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections.

Comment: Several commenters pointed out that NOAA completely failed to either adopt or adapt the quality principles of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for risk assessment. Two commenters stated that federal agencies must adopt (not adapt) both the SDWA science quality and risk assessment standards unless they conflict with other federal statutory requirements. Two of the commenters suggested that NOAA should adopt the SDWA standards, including a commitment to apply best available science for all influential scientific information it disseminates, including information disseminated in connection with NRDAR plans. These commenters stated that NOAA should specifically adopt the SDWA statutory risk criteria for health assessments and apply them to NRDAR plans.

Response: Although Section 515 does not mention either risk assessments or the Safe Drinking Water Act, the OMB guidelines clearly direct agencies to adopt or adapt the risk principles of the SDWA. Specifically, the OMB guidelines state that “[w]ith 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.” NOAA's guidelines meet this requirement. NOAA has included in its guidelines a separate section discussing specifically the SDWA criteria for risk assessments. This discussion explains the adaptation of the SDWA criteria for “influential” information that constitutes assessment of risk to human health, safety, or the environment.

As to the suggestion by some commenters that the SDWA criteria apply to NRDAR Plans, the Department points out that NRDAR Plans are based upon existing statutory, regulatory, and other guidance that may not be completely compatible with the SDWA criteria. A natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) addresses the adverse impacts of past unlawful releases of hazardous substances or oil to determine the liability of the person(s) responsible for those unlawful releases. This liability is measured by the cost of actions to restore the natural resources injured by the releases. Each NRDA is highly fact, site, and party-specific. The impact of an NRDA on one or a few persons' liability for past actions does not constitute the forward-looking impact intended to be included in the category of influential information or SDWA risk assessment. NRDAs are not risk assessments as that term is used in the SDWA or the OMB guidelines. The action to be taken as a result of a NRDA is mandated by law and designed to return the environment to the condition it would have been had the release not occurred. Thus, NRDAs are not analyses of the possible effects on the environment of taking or not taking some future action as are SDWA risk assessments.

Comment: Two commenters urged NOAA to consider quality information as that which is “excellent, complete, up-to-date, and accurate.” These commenters stated that NOAA should adopt and expand upon the standards set forth in the SDWA, with more specific guidance regarding all data, especially “original data.” The commenters suggested these additional factors include:

Response: All of the Department's OUs strive to maintain and disseminate information that is excellent, complete, up to date, and accurate and their guidelines are designed to achieve that goal. However, the suggested additional factors, which go beyond those enumerated in the SDWA, are not all appropriate to every review of influential information or to every risk assessment and therefore would not be appropriate as standards. The Department notes that NOAA has added additional criteria concerning risk assessment to its guidelines.

Comment: One commenter felt that OMB went far beyond the congressional mandate to inappropriately ask agencies to adapt or adopt the SDWA risk assessment principles. The commenter stated that Department should state that the type of peer review envisioned by the SDWA is inappropriate for all types of risk analysis and may conflict with underlying statutes.

Response: In keeping with OMB's guidance, the Department has adapted the risk assessment principles of the SDWA.

Commenter: One commenter stated that OMB's guidelines require robustness checks for information that the agency cannot disclose, such as Confidential Business Information, but which is material to information that the agency does disseminate. The commenter proposed a standard for such robustness checks. This commenter also stated that OMB's “ ‘general standard’ for these robustness checks is “that the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision”' (citing 67 FR at 8452, 8457).

Response: The OMB Guidelines state that:

Where an operating unit of the Department relies on information that cannot be disclosed to support influential information that it disseminates, it performs and discloses robustness checks according to the requirements set by OMB Guidelines and implemented in its own information quality guidelines.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that information generated by third parties, such as states, municipalities, and private entities, that is relied upon and disseminated by the Department is subject to the requirements of Section 515. The commenters stated that such information is subject to the same data quality standards, pre-dissemination review procedures, and administrative correction mechanisms as information generated by the Department.

Response: The Department has added language specifically dealing with third party information. The Department believes it may use reliable outside information, even though third-party sources such as states, municipalities, and universities are not themselves subject to Section 515. The scientific instrumentalities of such third parties play an appropriate role in providing scientific, financial, or statistical information to federal agencies.

The diverse operating units of the Department use such third-party information in varying ways. When used to develop information products or to form the basis of a decision or policy, this information is then subject to the OUs' guidelines. Thus, for an OU to use third-party information, it must be of known quality, and any limitations, assumptions, collection methods, or uncertainties concerning it must be taken into account.

Comment: Some commenters acknowledged a distinction between information generated outside the Department and not used, relied upon, or endorsed by the Department, but merely made public by the Department, and information generated outside the Department and used, relied upon, or endorsed by the Department. Two of these commenters stated that this was a distinction without a difference and that the guidelines should apply to both types of dissemination. One commenter stated that “the data quality guidelines should clearly state that they only apply to information disseminated from the agency itself and not when the agency is merely acting as a conduit of information.”

Response: For Section 515 to apply, information must be “disseminated.” By definition, “dissemination” means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public. OU guidelines apply to information that the OU disseminates. However, 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. When an OU distributes information generated by a third party but in no way claims that information as its own, the OU will inform the public that the information is not subject to the Section 515 or applicable information quality guidelines.

Comment: One commenter discussed Federal agencies' use of third-party proprietary models, stating: “The OMB guidelines further explain that when public access to models is impossible for “privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections,: an agency ‘shall apply especially rigorous robustness checks to analytic results and documents what checks were undertaken’.” [sic]

Response: The Department agrees that when public access to models used to generate influential scientific, financial, or statistical information is impossible, especially rigorous robustness checks should be applied to analytic results and these checks should be disclosed.

Commenter: One commenter suggested that the Department prohibit use of third-party proprietary models that are barriers to public access to data in the guidelines, although the commenter did not cite a specific model.

Response: Without a specific indication of practices by the Department (or its OUs) using third-party models that the commenter finds objectionable, it is not possible to prepare a specific response. However, the Department strives for openness and transparency in all its scientific, financial, and statistical activities, consistent with applicable privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections.

Comment: Some commenters noted that the Department should develop provisions for new, and modify existing, contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants that require Department partners to furnish information that complies with the OMB and Department guidelines. The commenters also stated that these new provisions should prohibit use by these parties, in fulfilling their contractual, cooperative, or grant agreement obligations with the Department, of information that is not in compliance with the OMB and Department guidelines.

Response: The Department will consider any necessary modification of new and existing contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with regard to the quality of information presented to the Department through these vehicles. However, such documents already contain provisions requiring work products to be of appropriately high quality.

Comment: One commenter argued that, to the extent that the Department or NOAA refers or links to, or otherwise disseminates the first NACC, it is in violation of Section 515. The commenter further claimed that continuing to disseminate the NACC is unacceptable under the Act. The commenter continued with a lengthy, detailed condemnation of the NACC, produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Project (USGCRP).

Response: Although NOAA is one of many agencies that are partners in the USGCRP ( http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/usagency.html ), NOAA's activities in that capacity are the very sorts of activities that its mission requires. Any information that NOAA disseminates in connection with those activities, including any future contributions by NOAA to any collective product such as the NACC, will be in full compliance with NOAA's Information Quality Guidelines, when they become effective. However, any request for correction of the NACC itself should be addressed to the agency that created such information.

Comment: One commenter asked what the standard is for rebutting the presumption of objectivity resulting from formal, independent, external peer review. Another commenter questioned whether the presumption of validity will apply if the agency does not comply with peer review criticism, views, or recommendations.

Response: Consistent with OMB's guidelines (67 FR at 8452, 8454), the Department's guidelines make clear that the presumption of objectivity resulting from formal, independent, external peer review is rebuttable and that the requester has the burden of rebutting the presumption that information subjected to formal, independent, external peer review is objective.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department should state that “influential” information will not be subject to new formal, external, independent peer review to meet the “objectivity” standard. The commenter noted that, where peer review is employed, the Department should commit to using appropriately balanced peer review panels and avoid conflicts of interest.

Response: Formal, independent, external peer review is sometimes available and is sometimes used, depending on the specific information and program involved. But other means are also used to ensure objectivity, according to the specific applicable information quality standards. Where peer review is used, the Department attempts to appropriately balance panels and to avoid conflicts of interest, while at the same time ensuring that reviewers have sufficient knowledge of the subject to provide meaningful review.

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the Department's position that “[r]equests to correct information contained within a Natural Resource Plan must be made during the public comment period provided when it is posted for comment.” This commenter stated that Natural Resource Plans can be highly technical, and it is not always apparent whether they contain flawed information or conclusions at the time they are first disseminated. This same commenter stated that the provision in the draft guidelines stating that a comment or petition filed after a comment period has closed, “may be considered, at the discretion of the agency * * * as a late comment.” The commenter argued that Section 515 conveys independent rights granted to the public and neither Section 515 nor OMB's guidelines contain any such restrictions in instances where other notice and comment opportunities are available.

Response: The Department notes that, although Section 515 may not speak to requests for correction filed during a public comment period, OMB's guidance to the agencies does state that it is reasonable to meld the Section 515 correction process with a notice and comment process; therefore creating several procedures where an existing process will achieve the same purpose is unnecessary. Also, it is imperative that the operating unit drafting a rule or Natural Resource Plan be aware of and take into account any demonstration of incorrect information. Therefore, the guidelines continue to meld the Section 515 process into existing public input processes where appropriate. In addition, in some cases, public comment periods are required and shaped by existing statutes or regulations.

Comment: Some commenters believe that the draft guidelines excluded requests for information correction if they pertain to information disseminated as part of a proposed rule or a Natural Resource Plan, which is inconsistent with the objectives and terms of Section 515 and with the OMB directive providing affected parties the unfettered right to “timely” correction of flawed information. The commenters noted that this approach also fails to address or redress the injury affected persons may suffer outside the context of a specific rulemaking or Natural Resource Plan during the pendency of long rulemaking or Natural Resource Plan processes. The commenters noted that rulemakings, as well as natural resource damage assessments and restoration decisions and plans, may take years to complete, during which time discrete, easily resolved and/or important data correction requests may languish without response, all the while adversely affecting the general public and/or the requester who is entitled to a timely response under Section 515. The commenters stated that the Department's guidelines should provide that discrete requests for objective information correction are to be resolved in a timely fashion using the focused procedures of the guidelines, rather than the unwieldy and daunting vehicle of a rulemaking or some other extended decisionmaking process involving the opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: As explained earlier, the Department has not excluded from the administrative correction mechanism information disseminated as part of a proposed rule or a Natural Resource Plan. The Department notes that the responsible office may choose to provide a response prior to the completion of a rulemaking or Natural Resource Plan, if doing so is appropriate and will not delay the issuance of the final action in the matter, particularly if the complainant can demonstrate actual harm from the information or demonstrate substantial uncertainty as to whether the proposed rule or Natural Resource Plan will take an unusual length of time for final issuance.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the information correction mechanisms fail to meet the spirit, purpose, and objectives of Section 515 and the OMB guidelines.

Response: The Department has made numerous changes in the administrative mechanism in response to these comments. The Department does not intend to discourage requests for correction or erect procedural barriers that could block legitimate complaints. It is in the best interest of the Department and the public to timely correct information that does not comply with its guidelines.

Comment: Some commenters urged the elimination of the “savings clause” intended to exempt from coverage certain unidentified information challenges where unspecified “different procedures” for correction may exist.

Response: The Department has deleted the “savings clause” from its guidelines.

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department provide a broader definition of “affected persons” who can invoke these mechanisms, consistent with Congressional intent in Section 515 and similar to the proposals of several federal agencies. These commenters stated that the guidelines should also include procedures to enhance notification of and participation by affected parties.

Some commenters argued that the Department and its operating units definition of “affected person” resembles judicial requirement for “standing,” which neither Section 515 nor OMB's guidelines require. The commenters urged the Department to adopt a definition of “affected person” that includes “anyone who uses the information, benefits from it, or is harmed by it,” as well as trade associations and other groups who represent such persons.

Response: The Department never intended to limit the class of affected persons. However, the Department has revised the definition of “affected person” to describe more clearly a broad class of affected persons. Further, the revised definition is broad enough to include trade associations and others who are related to or associated with persons who may be affected.

Comment: Some commenters recommended that the Department designate which office within an operating unit would qualify as the responsible office that may decide initial information correction requests. Several commenters stated that the Department should create an independent, dedicated appeal board outside the program office within which the “responsible office” resides to ensure uniform, objective, and timely resolution of appeals of information correction request denials.

Response: The Department's operating units have taken varying approaches to designating the responsible office, in each case using a method that best fits their mission and activities. This is in keeping with OMB's guidance, which has provided flexibility so that “each agency will be able to incorporate the requirements of these OMB guidelines into the agency's own information resource management and administrative practices.” (67 FR at 8452). Also, as the Department has noted above, OMB encouraged agencies to incorporate the standards and procedures required by its guidelines into their existing information resources management and administrative practices rather than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes.

Comment: One commenter complained that some agencies do not provide any indication as to the official responsible for deciding the disposition of requests for correction.

Response: The operating units of the Department do provide this information.

Comment: One commenter suggested that allowing the “Appeal Official” to be only one administrative level above the official who made the initial decision is not sufficiently removed from the office that issued the contested information to ensure sufficient objectivity. The commenter noted that appeals should be made to a centralized Department-wide official, such as the Department's Chief Information Officer or the Section 515 officer. The commenter also stated that the guidelines should clearly state that the appeals officer should act in an “ombudsman” capacity, to objectively assess information complaints and not endeavor to uphold the agency's stated position.

Response: In all cases, the Department's intent is for the review to be objective. The Appeal Official must be sufficiently removed to make a fair and objective review but at the same time needs to have enough expertise to understand the issues. This involves a balance that different operating units have met in different ways. However, in no case is the appeal official in the same office as the one that decided the initial complaint.

Comment: Some commenters asked for assurances that the heads of responsible offices and appeal officials will be provided sufficient resources to allow for meaningful initial information correction requests and appeals of denials of such within the presumptive 60-day time limit.

Response: The Department has designed its administrative mechanisms to achieve timely response to requests for correction within available resources.

Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should “establish a timeliness requirement for requests after which an agency has the option to reject a request ( e.g. , a data quality complaint must be made within three month's of the information's release).”

Response: Since the information quality guidelines apply to information disseminated by the Department “on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when the information was first disseminated . . .”, the Department cannot limit requests for correction of information based on a specific dissemination date. Moreover, the Department believes that it is often difficult to define a specific date of dissemination of information from which to establish a timeliness requirement for a request for correction.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department clearly state that the burden of proof lies squarely with the requester to demonstrate both that they are an affected party and that the challenged information does not comply with OMB's guidelines.

Response: The Department and its operating units have added to their information quality guidelines a statement specifying that the burden of proof is on the requester to show both the necessity and type of correction sought and that, where appropriate, the requester has the burden of rebutting the presumption that information subjected to formal, independent, external peer review is objective. Additionally, the definition of “affected” has been changed. “Affected person” as now defined means an individual or entity that uses, benefits from, or is harmed by the disseminated information at issue. Any initial request for correction must include an explanation of how the requester is affected.

Comment: Some commenters addressed the issue of setting appropriate, specific time limits for agency decisions on information correction requests. Two of these commenters proposed language that provide agencies with flexibility for requests that may require a longer time frame for response without allowing open-ended delays for making decisions. Two commenters asked that the Department assure that proper and strict limits be imposed on the ability of the responsible offices to extend the time period for resolving initial information correction requests beyond the presumptive 60 day limit.

Response: The Department has retained the language in its draft guidelines: “An initial decision will be communicated to the requester, usually within 60 calendar days.”

In order to assist the Department in making a timely response, it has added to its guidelines a list of corrective actions that may be taken in response to a correction request, based on the nature and timeliness of the information involved, as well as factors such as the significance of the error on the use of the information, and the magnitude of the error. Actions contained in that list include: personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases, and postings on an appropriate Web site.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department establish effective procedures and schedules for the timely correction of information determined to be flawed and for appropriate prohibitions on further use and dissemination of such information until it is corrected.

Response: The timetable for corrective action depends on many factors, including but not limited to: the magnitude and significance of the error, the timeliness of the information involved, the original form of dissemination, and the nature of the correction. Any schedule for correction is dependent on these and other factors that cannot be determined in advance. According to the Department's model administrative mechanism, which is used by most of the operating units, the initial decision is a determination of whether the information should be corrected and what, if any, corrective action should be taken, and this decision is communicated to the requester.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the Department's guidelines set unreasonable time frames for filing and addressing complaints regarding some data that undercut accuracy requirements. The commenters argued that an affected individual should be allowed to request correction at any time after improper data is disseminated, particularly for a fishery where timely, accurate distribution of data is paramount.

Response: Timeliness is an important factor in the determination of the appropriate response to an information correction request. The Department has addressed this issue in its revised guidelines by adding the list of corrective actions mentioned above, which recognizes timeliness as an important factor in determining a remedy and which includes withdrawal or correction of the information in question as a form of correction where appropriate. The guidelines now contain the statement: “The form of corrective action will be determined by the nature and timeliness of the information involved and such factors as the significance of the error on the use of the information and the magnitude of the error.”

Comment: One commenter believes that agencies must provide a “specific time frame” for decisions on information correction requests.

Response: The Department provides time frames for response to requests for correction of information that it has disseminated. A single specific time limit for decision on requests for correction for all of the Department operating units is not possible because of the diverse missions of the Department's operating units. However, in all cases the Department will endeavor to respond as soon as reasonably possible, usually within 60 calendar days as stated in the Department's guidelines.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the guidelines should explicitly state that the administrative mechanism applies only to corrections of factual information and that the Department will not consider interpretations of data and information, or requests for de-publishing. The commenter stated that to avoid wasteful duplication of effort the Department should limit complaints to information that is not already subject to existing data quality programs and measures (giving the example of rulemaking proceedings), and that complaints for any data quality standard that presents a potential moving target (i.e., “best available evidence”) should be evaluated based on information available at the time of dissemination.

The commenter urged that the Department's response to correction requests should be proportional to the significance and importance of the information in question to establish the necessary flexibility to set aside a request that has been superceded or is otherwise outdated. The commenter also stated that the Department should limit the mechanism to only what is required in Section 515 to avoid any possibility of creating new rights under administrative law. Finally, the commenter noted that the Department needs adequate procedural safeguards to avoid becoming mired down in minor data disputes, bad faith requests, and frivolous, repetitive, or non-timely claims.

Response: Regarding consideration of interpretations of data and information, the Department's information quality guidelines and Section 515 itself are not designed to contemplate interpretations of data and information apart from requests for correction of information that is not in compliance with agency guidelines. Similarly, requests for de-publishing would be considered only in the context of an appropriate request for correction of Department-disseminated information, in which case withdrawal of the affected information would be one of the options considered if the information were found to be incorrect.

Although the Department has not limited complaints to information that is not already subject to existing data quality programs and measures, the Department has designed its administrative mechanisms to take advantage of existing processes that are designed to ensure the quality of information, such as rulemakings. The Department agrees that requests for correction should be evaluated based on the evidence available at the time of dissemination. However, where it is possible, timely, appropriate, and cost-effective to make corrections based on later-acquired evidence that meets the Department's quality standards, the Department will consider correction.

The Department agrees that its response to correction requests should be proportional to the significance and importance of the information in question (among other factors). The Department believes its guidelines provide the necessary flexibility to deal with superceded or outdated requests. The Department notes that its guidelines provide that requests that are duplicative, repetitious, or frivolous may be rejected and that information need not be corrected if the correction would serve no useful purpose.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department's rigid requirements for filing a request for correction serve as an entry barrier against the requestor. The commenter pointed out that no other federal agency has adopted such a rigid approach, which will terminate with prejudice the majority of requests received. The commenter noted that this practice could lead to retaining an acknowledged fact error in Department information by having such high barriers to a substantive examination of the error.

Response: The Department does not intend to place procedural barriers in the way of legitimate requests for correction. Numerous provisions in the Department's administrative correction mechanisms have been modified to make the process easier to use. In addition, provisions have been added allowing defective requests to be amended and resubmitted.

Comment: One commenter pointed out that the Department should be aware that Section 515 does not address reconsideration of complaints and that such a requirement is outside the scope of the statutory requirements. Therefore, the commenter stated that the Department's reconsideration process should remain fairly informal and limited in scope, since the review mechanism is to ensure that initial agency review was conducted with due diligence.

Response: Although the statutory language of Section 515 does not address reconsideration or appeals from initial denials of requests for correction, the Department has followed the OMB guidelines and, in keeping with those guidelines has, through its OUs, devised appeal processes “that serve to address the genuine and valid needs of the agency and its constituents without disrupting agency processes.” (67 FR at 8458)

Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department eliminate the requirement of a “proper request.” One commenter explained that the problem was that requesters whose requests were determined not to be proper were not given the opportunity to amend the request, thereby creating in effect a form of summary judgment with prejudice.

Response: To investigate a request for correction and respond to the requester, the Department must have appropriate contact information and sufficient information regarding the source of the information disseminated and how the requester believes that information fails to comply with the applicable information quality standards. This information can only be provided by the requester. Therefore, the Department has retained the requirement of a “proper request” but has added that if a request is determined not to be proper, the requester may amend the request and resubmit it.

Comment: Some commenters urged the elimination of the proposed requirement that the responsible office make a preliminary determination, on the basis of the strength of the assertions in the request alone, that the information in question was based on non-conformance with the Department's information quality standards before objectively investigating and analyzing the request.

Response: This provision has been amended to clarify its purpose. The provision was never meant to preclude any request for correction. Rather it was meant to ensure that the Department could determine from the request exactly what the requestor's claim or complaint is. A request that cannot be understood is not possible to address. Along with language clarifying this intent, language has been added stating that a request determined to not state a claim “may be amended and resubmitted * * *”

Comment: One commenter strongly opposed the Department's position that there is no appeal from a decision that a request does not state a claim.

Response: The Department points out that an appeal is not necessary for a decision by the responsible office that a request does not state a claim because the guidelines clearly state that a denied request may be amended and resubmitted for consideration. The elements of a valid claim are listed in the guidelines. A refused claim may be amended to ensure that these elements are included in the resubmission.

Duplicative Requests

Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should state that if a request has been made and responded to, then a new, similar request may be rejected as frivolous or duplicative.

Response: The Department has included a statement that requests that are duplicative, repetitious, or frivolous may be rejected.

Comment: One commenter questioned whether the Department would always correct information when it agrees (in some sense) with a request for correction. The commenter suggested that agencies should be required to correct information in all cases.

Response: The OMB guidelines provide that agencies 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.” (67 FR at 8453) Further, the OMB guidelines direct agencies to weigh the costs and benefits of higher quality information. The Department's guidelines are in compliance OMB guidelines.

Comment: Several commenters objected to the Department's assertion that it need not correct information that was within an “acceptable degree of imprecision” and information that failed to meet the applicable standards but would have been substantially the same or statistically the same had the applicable standards been met. One of these commenters also objected to the Department's assertion that it would not correct information the correction of which would serve no useful purpose.

Response: In the course of simplifying the Department's administrative correction mechanisms, references to the concepts of “acceptable degree of imprecision” and “substantially the same or statistically the same” have been removed from that part of the Department's guidelines. However, these concepts are fundamental to scientific inquiry and have not been discarded. In fact, the concept of “acceptable degree of imprecision” is inherent in OMB's view of “reproducibility” and is part of OMB's (and the Department's) definition of that term (67 FR at 8456, 8457, 8460). Similarly, concepts of acceptable statistical variability are essential to the scientific process. Information that falls within clearly delineated and acceptable statistical ranges is in fact scientifically correct. The Department has retained the assertion that no initial request for correction will be considered under these procedures concerning disseminated information the correction of which would serve no useful purpose, but has explained what is meant by “serve no useful purpose.” Specifically, “[c]orrection of disseminated information would serve no useful purpose with respect to information that is not valid, used, or useful after a stated short period of time” (such as a weather forecast or atomic time). The Department points out that information need not be corrected if the information would have been substantially or statistically the same or if the information is within an acceptable degree of error, in line with the scientific process.

Comment: Several commenters stated that budgetary constraints should not be a basis for failing to correct information determined by the Department to be flawed. Some of these commenters stated that Section 515 gives the public the right to seek and obtain correction of federally disseminated information. One commenter suggested that “this noncorrection of known errors seems to be too smooth a path of evasion by the most interested staff members, against those requesters seeking legitimate redress and whose claim of error is acknowledged to be correct.”

Response: The Department points out that budgetary constraints do not exempt information from any necessary correction. However, the OMB guidelines direct agencies to weigh the costs and benefits of higher quality information. The Department's intent in including the statement regarding resources unavailable to that official is now more correctly expressed, consistent with OMB's guidelines, as an examination of costs and benefits of higher quality information.

The Web sites that publish the Department of Commerce's information quality guidelines are noted below. The first site includes this document for the Department of Commerce. The remaining sites document the information quality guidelines for Commerce's operating units.

The original notice of availability and a map of the areas in Alaska where seal groupings appear discrete may be found at www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources .

NMFS issued a notice (67 FR 54792, August 26, 2002) that new information indicates that stock structure of harbor seals in Alaska may be more finely scaled than is currently recognized in marine mammal stock assessment reports compiled pursuant to section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS also advised in that notice that it is evaluating harbor seal stock structure through a co-management process with the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission. NMFS solicited additional information and viewpoints from the public that it should consider throughout the evaluation of harbor seal stock structure.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game requested that NMFS extend the comment period for 2 weeks. In response to this request, NMFS is reopening the comment period for 2 weeks.

The initial notice published on September 13, 2002 (67 FR 59492). The meeting will be rescheduled at a later date and announced in the Federal Register.

On August 5, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 50632) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Weddell seals had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 1033-1683 authorizes the Holder to capture, sample, instrument and release Weddell seals, incidentally harass crabeater seal (Lobodon carcinophagus), leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx), Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossii), southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), and Antarctic fur seal (Archtocephalus gazella), and import blood, feces and milk collected during research.

A draft resolution enacting the proposed amendments to Sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 of the Water Code and the text of the current Water Code (which is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan ) may be viewed on the Commission's Web site, at http://www.drbc.net.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): 2003.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 25,575.

 Burden Hours: 20,704.

Abstract: The TIMSS 2003 will assess the mathematical and science knowledge of students in over 50 participating countries. This is the third cycle of TIMSS studies. Previous TIMSS were conducted in 1994-1995 and in 1999. TIMSS 2003 will go to fourth and eighth graders in the United States. In addition to the assessments, in each participating country, the selected students and their 4th grade teachers and 8th grade science and math teachers, and administrators of the selected schools will also fill out background questionnaires to learn about curricula, instruction, home context, and school characteristics and policies.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2169. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the e-mail address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Guaranty Agency Financial Report.

Frequency: Monthly; Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 612.

 Burden Hours: 33,660.

Abstract: The Guaranty Agency Financial Report is used to request payments from and make payments to the Department of Education under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program authorized by Title IV, Part B of the HEA of 1965, as amended. The report is also used to monitor the agency's financial activities, including activities concerning its federal fund, operating fund and the agency's restricted account.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2145. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the e-mail address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: National College Alcohol, Drug and Violence Survey.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 50,000.

Burden Hours: 30,000.

Abstract: The National College Alcohol, Drug and Violence Survey is being conducted as a national probability sample in order for the Department to obtain national statistics on alcohol and other drug use and violence among students at institutions of higher education.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2088. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the e-mail address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Katrina Ingalls at her e-mail address Katrina.Ingalls@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On April 14, 1997, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized NYSEG to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada using the international electric transmission facilities owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and the New York Power Authority.

On September 17, 2002, NYSEG applied to amend its existing export authorization by adding to the list of authorized export points those international transmission facilities owned by Citizens Utilities Company, the Joint Owners of Highgate Project, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by NYSEG, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the NYSEG application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-137-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Mr. John R. Tigue, Manager, Bulk Power Sales, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Corporate Drive, Kirkwood Industrial Park, Post Office Box 5224, Binghamton, New York 13902-5224 and Mr. William J. Cronin, Esq., Rosa Pietanza, Esq., Huber Lawrence & Abell, 605 Third Avenue, 27th Flr, New York, New York 10158.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Regulatory Programs,” then “Pending Procedures” from the options menus.

The solicitation will be issued in accordance with 10 CFR part 600.6(b), eligibility for awards under this program will be restricted to U.S. colleges and universities having a duly licensed, operating nuclear research or training reactor because the purpose of the University Reactor Instrumentation (URI) program is to upgrade and improve the U.S. university nuclear research and training reactors and to contribute to strengthening the academic community's nuclear engineering infrastructure.

The statutory authority for this program is Pub. L. 95-91.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Yvonne Sherman's office at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Yvonne Sherman, Department of Energy Richland Operation Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352, or by calling her at (509) 376-1563.

Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy; assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy methane hydrate research and development program; and, submit to Congress a report on the anticipated impact on global climate change from methane hydrate formation, methane hydrate degassing and consumption of natural gas produced from methane hydrates.

• Welcome and Introductions—Mike Smith, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and Arthur Johnson, Advisory Committee Chairman

• Joint meeting with the Interagency Coordinating Committee—8:30 to noon Briefings on Methane Hydrate Accomplishments, Future Activities and R&D Issues by Minerals Management Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Science Foundation; Naval Research Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; and Department of Energy

• Presentation and discussion—Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 to Hydrate Ridge

• Presentation and discussion—Mallik Well and other Arctic studies

Ten minutes will be allowed for questions and public comment after each presentation.

• Review of draft report to Congress on Hydrates and Global Climate Change

• Continue review and revision of report to Congress on Hydrates and Global Climate Change

• Discussion of additional recommendations to Department of Energy

• Public comment period

• Adjournment, about 3:00 p.m.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Chairmen of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Edith Allison at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Transcripts will be available by request.

Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Coal Policy Committee of the National Coal Council is to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to coal and coal industry issues. The purpose of this meeting is to review the Council's document summarizing past Council reports that address energy security and mercury emissions control technology.

Tentative Agenda:

• Call to order by Ms. Georgia Nelson, Chairwoman, Coal Policy Committee.

• Review and discuss the Council's document summarizing past Council reports that address energy security and mercury emissions control technology.

• Discussion of other business properly brought before the Coal Policy Committee.

• Public comment—10 minute rule.

• Adjournment.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Margie D. Biggerstaff at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule.

Transcripts: The transcript will be available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

As part of the 2002 appropriations process, Congress directed EPA to “begin immediately to review the Agency's affordability criteria and how small system variance and exemption programs should be implemented for arsenic” (Conference Report 107-272, page 175). Congress further directed the Agency to prepare a report, which EPA submitted (Report to Congress: Small System Arsenic Implementation Issues: EPA 815-R-02-003), “on its review of the affordability criteria and the administrative actions undertaken or planned to be undertaken by the Agency, as well as potential funding mechanisms for small community compliance and other legislative actions, which, if taken by the Congress, would best achieve appropriate extensions of time for small communities while also guaranteeing maximum compliance.” (Conference Report 107-272, page 175).

In evaluating treatment technologies for small systems, EPA currently uses an affordability threshold of 2.5% of median household income. EPA's national-level affordability criteria consist of two major components: an expenditure baseline and an affordability threshold. The expenditure baseline (derived from annual median household water bills) is subtracted from the affordability threshold (a share of median household income that EPA believes to be a reasonable upper limit for these water bills) to determine the expenditure margin (the maximum increase in household water bills that can be imposed by treatment and still be considered affordable). EPA compares the cost of treatment technologies against the available expenditure margin to determine if an affordable compliance technology can be identified. If EPA cannot identify an affordable compliance technology, then it attempts to identify a variance technology. Findings must be made at both the Federal and State level that compliance technologies are not affordable for small systems before a variance can be granted.

EPA is asking the NDWAC for advice on its national-level affordability criteria and the methodology used to establish these criteria. Taking into consideration the structure of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the limitations of readily available data and information sources, EPA is seeking the Council's opinion of the national level affordability criteria, methodology for deriving the criteria, and approach to applying those criteria to NPDWRs.

As part of the Council's review of EPA's national-level affordability criteria, the Agency is seeking input on (1) the Agency's overall approach, (2) alternatives, if any, to the use of median household income as a metric, (3) alternatives, if any, to 2.5% as a metric, (4) alternatives, if any, to calculating the expenditure baseline, (5) the usefulness of a separate criteria for ground and surface water systems, (6) including an evaluation of the potential availability of financial assistance, and (7) the need for making affordability determinations on a regional basis. Other issue areas may also be discussed. The meeting is open to the public; statements from the public will be taken at the close of the meeting. EPA is not soliciting written comments and is not planning to formally respond to comments.

This is the second work group meeting on this topic. At the first meeting held on September 11-12, the work group was briefed by EPA on the approach to affordability taken by the Agency. At the first meeting, the work group also devised an approach to answer the Agency's charge questions. In this second work group meeting, other technical experts have been invited to speak and the work group will continue with its deliberations.

In assessing environmental risk and determining restoration priorities, current environmental conditions must be known and rates of change must be measurable. Because of EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, within the Office of Research and Development, has focused on improving monitoring and assessment methodologies for aquatic ecosystems and their associated landscapes. EMAP has focused on developing indicators and unbiased statistical design frameworks to assess the status and trends of aquatic ecosystems at local, state, regional, and national scales. As is EMAP's primary mission, the goal of this Strategy is the development of sound scientific approaches to determine the health of the nation's aquatic ecosystems and the stressors most closely associated with impairment.

EMAP efforts ensure that comprehensive and comparable methods are being used at a national level, allowing meaningful assessments and the first regional comparisons of aquatic ecosystem conditions across the entire U.S. These results will significantly improve the quality of performance-based reporting to Congress and will better inform EPA national and regional decisions on priority issues and areas.

State managers and technical staff frequently struggle to balance local information needs with federal reporting requirements. EMAP will continue to work with State partners to develop cost-effective monitoring methodology to aid in decision-making. Results to date from EMAP approach applications in more than 30 States show cost-savings while producing full-coverage condition estimates. Often these cost-savings are used to address priority issues also identified through the EMAP process.

Finally, EMAP's approach and associated indicators serve the Agency and the public by contributing to scientifically based reports such as EPA's upcoming state of the environment report and the Heinz Center's “The State of the Nation's Ecosystems” report. EMAP's efforts help to fill important information needs at both national and at local levels. EMAP information will improve our ability assess our progress in environmental protection and provide valuable information for decision makers and the public.

This Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Research Strategy was subjected to external peer review by independent scientific experts. The final strategy reflects the comments of both internal and external peer review.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has finalized its Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These guidelines are currently published on EEOC's Web site www.eeoc.gov. Individuals without Intenet access may contact EEOC's Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4900 or TTY (202) 663-4494 for a hard copy.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization.

Form No.: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 241,335.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement and every 10 years (renewal).

Total Annual Burden: 211,169 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $48,267,100.

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 601 is a multi-purpose form use dot apply for an authorization to operate radio stations, amend pending applications, modify existing licenses, and perform a variety of other miscellaneous tasks in the Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Maritime Services (excluding ships), and Aviation Services (excluding aircraft). The Commission is submitting this information collection request to OMB as an extension of currently approved collection for the full-three year clearance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0855.

Title: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and Associated Requirements, CC Docket No. 96-45.

Form No.: FCC Forms 499, 499-A, and 499-Q.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 5,500 respondents; 14,300 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 6 hours for the annual report; 9.5 hours for the quarterly reports.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and quarterly reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 106,287 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $18,000.

Needs and Uses: Telecommunications carriers and certain other providers of telecommunications services must contribute to the support and cost recovery mechanisms for telecommunications relay services, numbering administration, number portability, and universal service. The Commission is submitting this information collection request to OMB as an extension of currently approved collection for the full-three year clearance.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0126.

Title: Section 73.1820, Station Log.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; and Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 15,122.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017 hours to 0.5 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 15,326.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1820 requires each licensee of an AM, FM, or TV broadcast station to maintain a station log. Each entry must accurately reflect the station's operation—adjustments to operating parameters for AM stations with directional antennas without an approved sampling system; the actual time of any observation of extinguishment or improper operation of tower lights for all stations; and entry of each test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) for commercial stations. The FCC staff in field investigations will use these data to assure that the licensee is operating in accordance with the technical requirements as specified in the FCC Rules and with the station authorization, and is taking reasonable measures to preclude interference to other stations. It is also used to verify that the Emergency Alert System is operating properly.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0329.

Title: Equipment Authorization—Verification, 47 CFR Section 2.955.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 5,655.

Estimated Time per Response: 18 hours (avg.).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion and one-time reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 101,790 hours.

Total Estimated Cost: $1,131,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission Rules, 47 CFR parts 15 and 18, require manufacturers of radio frequency (RF) equipment devices to gather and retain technical data on their equipment to verify compliance with established technical standards for each device operated under the applicable Rule part. Testing and verification aid in controlling potential interference to radio communications. The FCC will use these data, as necessary, to investigate complaints of harmful interference or to verify the manufacturer's compliance with FCC regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0888.

Title: Part 76, Cable Television Service Pleading and Complaint Rules.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; and Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4 to 40 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion requirements; Third party disclosure .

Total Annual Burden: 8,800 hours.

Total Respondent Cost: $1,600,000.

Needs and Uses: The FCC released a Report and Order (R&O) on January 8, 1999, CS Docket No. 98-54, FCC 98-348. Among other things, the R&O consolidated the general procedural requirements for part 76 in §§ 76.6 through 76.10; eliminated redundant requirements; expanded the types of submissions styled “Petitions for Special Relief” and standardized filing procedures for all petitions seeking a finding of “effective competition;” established a standard provision for part 76 pleadings to provide uniform filing format, deadlines, etc; required all submissions made pursuant to part 76 to be verified by the submitting party or the party's attorney—including written verification that the signatory had read the submission and that the submission is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1004.

Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems: Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision to an Existing Collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 251.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4 to 5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; Quarterly, Semi-Annual, and One-Time reporting requirements disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,282 hours.

Total Respondent Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: On July 26, 2002, the FCC released an Order to Stay in CC Docket No. 94-102, FCC 02-210 to stay temporarily the application for the wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II interim handset and network upgrade compliance deadlines under 47 CFR 20.18(f) and (g) for non-nationwide carriers that filed waiver requests relating to those deadlines—Tier II Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers must begin to comply on March 1, 2002 and Tier III CMRS carriers on September 1, 2003. Previously, the FCC had provided similar, but less extensive relief from these rules to the nationwide carriers that had requested it. The FCC also established reporting requirements of December 31, 2002 to monitor the progress and insure the E 911 compliance for these effected nationwide carriers. The Stay now places identical quarterly reporting requirements on Tier II carriers and a one-time reporting requirement on Tier III carriers.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 25.139, NGSO FSS Coordination and Information Sharing Between MVDDS Licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz Band.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 6.

Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 36 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-206, FCC 02-116, which requires NGSO FSS licensees to maintain a subscriber database in a format that can be readily shared with Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees for the purpose of determining compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna spacing requirement relating to qualifying existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set forth in 47 CFR 101.129.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 101.103, Frequency Coordination Procedures.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 354.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 177 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-206, FCC 02-116, which requires Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees to provide notice of intent to construct a proposed antenna to NGSO FSS licensees operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band and to maintain an Internet web site of all existing transmitting sites and transmitting antennas that are scheduled for operation within one year including the “in service” dates.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 101.1403, Broadcast Carriage Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 354.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.0 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 354 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-206, FCC 02-116, which requires Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) respondents that meet the statutory definition of Multiple Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) to comply with the broadcast carriage requirements located at 47 U.S.C 325(b)(1). Any MVDDS licensee that is an MVPD must obtain the prior express authority of a broadcast station before retransmitting that station's signal, subject to the exceptions contained in section 325(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 101.1413, License Term and Renewal Expectancy.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 354.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and ten year reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 177 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $8,900.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-206, FCC 02-116, which requires Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) renewal applicants to comply with the requirements to provide substantial service by the end of the ten-year initial license term.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 101.1417, Annual Report.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 354.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.0 hours.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 354 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order (MO&O and 2nd R&O), which requires Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees to file two copies of a “licensee information report” by March 1st of each year with the FCC, for the proceeding calendar year. This report must include the name and address of the licensee, station(s) call letters and primary geographic service area(s), and statistical data for the licensee's station(s). This report enables the Commission to keep track of the number of MVDDS licensee stations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Section 101.1440, MVDDS Protection of Direct Broadcast Satellites (DBS).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 354.

Estimated Time per Response: 40.0 hours.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 14,160 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order (MO&O and 2nd R&O), ET Docket No. 98-206, FCC 02-116, which requires Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees to conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transmitting antenna site to determine the location of all DBS customers that may potentially be effected by the introduction of its MVDDS service. This MO&O and 2nd R&O will ensure that Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) signal will not be in excess of the appropriate Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits as written in 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B) is causing interference to DBS customers. If the MVDDS licensee determines that its signal level will exceed the EPFD limit at any DBS customer site, it shall take whatever steps are necessary, up to and including finding a new transmission site.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 25, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint William Lokey of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Indiana to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include Public Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 25, 2002:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 26, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Scott Wells of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Texas to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Texas are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is reopened. The incident period for this declared disaster is now September 2-6, 2002.

If you would like to attend the Subcommittee meeting, you are encouraged to register by providing your name, title, organization name, address, and telephone number to Jessica Porras (address below). If you would like to speak at the meeting, please notify Jessica Porras when you register. Written comments may be submitted until December 20, 2002; comments received after October 24, 2002, will be shared at future subcommittee meetings. Submitted comments will be posted on the Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ICSH/index.htm .

To submit electronic comments, send via e-mail to jporras@cdc.gov . To submit comments by mail, send to: ICSH Cessation Subcommittee Public Comments (Attn: Ms. Jessica Porras), Office on Smoking and Health, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Room 317-B, Washington, DC 20201.

In the Federal Register of August 19, 2002 (67 FR 53805), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0494. The approval expires on March 31, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Under the statutory requirements contained in section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), no blood, blood component, or derivative may move in interstate commerce unless: (1) It is propagated or manufactured and prepared at an establishment holding an unsuspended and unrevoked license; (2) the product complies with regulatory standards designed to ensure safety, purity, and potency; and (3) it bears a label plainly marked with the product's proper name, manufacturer, and expiration date. In addition, under the biologics licensing and quarantine provisions in sections 351 to 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 to 264) and the general administrative provisions under sections 501 to 503, 505 to 510, and 701 to 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 to 353, 355 to 360, and 371 to 374), FDA has the authority to issue regulations designed to protect the public from unsafe or ineffective biological products and to issue regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread communicable diseases. The current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) and related regulations implement FDA's statutory authority to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. The lookback regulations are intended to help ensure the continued safety of the blood supply by providing necessary information to users of blood and blood components and appropriate notification of recipients of transfusion at increased risk for transmitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The information collection requirements in the CGMP and lookback regulations provide FDA with the necessary information to perform its duty to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. These requirements establish accountability and traceability in the processing and handling of blood and blood components and enables FDA to perform meaningful inspections. The recordkeeping requirements serve preventative and remedial purposes. The disclosure requirements identify the various blood and blood components and important properties of the product, demonstrate that the CGMP requirements have been met, and facilitate the tracing of a product back to its original source. The reporting requirements inform FDA of any deviations that occur and that may require immediate corrective action. In part 606 (21 CFR part 606), § 606.100(b) requires that written standard operating procedures (SOPs) be maintained for the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage, and distribution of blood and blood components used for transfusion and manufacturing purposes. Section 606.100(c) requires the review of all pertinent records to a lot or unit of blood prior to release. Any unexplained discrepancy or failure of a lot or unit of final product to meet any of its specifications must be thoroughly investigated, and the investigation, including conclusions and followup, must be recorded. Section 606.110(a) requires a physician to certify in writing that the donor's health permits plateletpheresis or leukapheresis if a variance from additional regulatory standards for a specific product is used when obtaining the product from a specific donor for a specific recipient. Section 606.110(b) requires establishments to request prior Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) approval for plasmapheresis of donors who do not meet donor requirements. Section 606.151(e) requires that records of expedited transfusions in life threatening emergencies be maintained. So that all steps in the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage and distribution, quality control, and transfusion reaction reports and complaints for each unit of blood and blood components can be clearly traced, § 606.160 requires that legible and indelible contemporaneous records of each significant step be made and maintained for no less than 5 years. Section 606.165 requires that distribution and receipt records be maintained to facilitate recalls, if necessary. Section 606.170(a) requires records to be maintained of any reports of complaints of adverse reactions as a result of blood collection or transfusion. Each such report must be thoroughly investigated, and a written report, including conclusions and followup, must be prepared and maintained. Section 606.170(b) requires that fatal complications of blood collection and transfusions be reported to FDA as soon as possible and that a written report shall be submitted within 7 days. Section 610.46(a) (21 CFR 610.46(a)) requires blood establishments to notify consignees, within 72 hours, of repeatedly reactive tests results so that previously collected blood and blood components are appropriately quarantined. Section 610.46(b) requires blood establishments to notify consignees of licensed, more specific test results for HIV within 30 calendar days after the donors's repeatedly reactive test. Section 610.47(b) (21 CFR 610.47(b)) requires transfusion services not subject to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations to notify physicians of prior donation recipients or to notify recipients themselves of the need for HIV testing and counseling. In addition to the CGMPs in part 606, there are regulations in part 640 (21 CFR part 640) that require additional standards for certain blood and blood components as follows: Sections 640.3(a); 640.4(a); 640.25(b)(4) and (c)(1); 640.27(b); 640.31(b); 640.33(b); 640.51(b); 640.53(c); 640.56(b) and (d); 640.61; 640.63(b)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(3); 640.65(b)(2); 640.66; 640.71(b)(1); 640.72; 640.73; and 640.76(a) and (b). The information collection requirements and estimated burdens for these regulations are included in the part 606 burden estimates, as described below. Respondents to this collection of information are licensed and unlicensed blood establishments inspected by FDA, and other transfusion services inspected by CMS. Based on FDA's registration system, there are approximately 2,841 registered blood establishments inspected by FDA. Of these 2,841 establishments, approximately 1,349 perform pheresis, approximately 1,041 annually collect 27 million units of Whole Blood, blood components including Source Plasma, and Source Leukocytes and are required to follow FDA “lookback” procedures, and approximately 166 are registered transfusion services that are not subject to CMS's “lookback” regulations. Based on CMS records there are an estimated 4,980 transfusion services. The following reporting and recordkeeping estimates are based on information provided by industry, CMS, and FDA experience. In table 1 of this document, we estimate that there are approximately 3,500 repeat donors that will test reactive on a screening test for HIV. FDA estimates that each repeat donor has donated two previous times, and an average of three components were made from each donation. Under § 610.46(a) and (b), this estimate results in 21,000 (3,500 x 2 x 3) notifications of the HIV screening test results to consignees by collecting establishments for the purpose of quarantining affected blood and blood components, and another 21,000 (3,500 x 2 x 3) notifications to consignees of subsequent test results. Under § 606.110(b), licensed establishments submit supplements to their biologics license applications to request prior CBER approval of plasmapheresis donors who do not meet donor requirements. The information collection requirements for § 606.110(b) are reported under OMB control number 0910-0338. In table 2 of this document, the recordkeeping chart reflects the estimate that 95 percent of the recordkeepers, which collect 98 percent of the blood supply, had developed SOPs as part of their customary and usual business practice. Establishments may minimize burdens associated with CGMP and related regulations by using model SOPs developed by industries' accreditation organizations. These accreditation organizations represent almost all registered blood establishments.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In the Federal Register of September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61142), FDA announced that a meeting of the Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee would be held on October 10, 2002. This amendment is to update information provided earlier pertaining to the meeting. On page 61142, beginning in the last column, the Date and Time, Location, Agenda, Procedure, and Closed Committee Deliberations portions of the meeting are amended to read as follows:

Date and Time : The meeting will be held on October 10, 2002, from 8 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.

Location : Hilton DC North—Gaithersburg, Grand Ballrooms A, B, C, and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.

Agenda : On October 10, 2002, the committee will discuss safety issues recently identified related to retrovirus vectors in gene therapies for the treatment of patients with severe combined immune deficiency disease and receive updates on individual research programs in the Division of Cell and Gene Therapies and the Division of Therapeutic Proteins.

Procedure : On October 10, 2002, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person by October 9. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person before October 9, 2002, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation.

Closed Committee Deliberatons : On October 10, 2002, between approximately 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The committee will discuss reports of individual research programs in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) 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; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

This Notice also Lists the following Information:

Title of Proposal: Housing Choice Voucher Program: Application, Utilities, Inspection, Financial Reports, Request for Lease Approval, Certificate of Family Participation, Housing Voucher, Portability Information, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts—Tenant-Based.

OMB Control Number: 2577-0169.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: Housing Agencies (HAS) will prepare an application for funding which specifies the number of units requested, as well as the HA's objectives and plans for administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The application is reviewed by the HUD Field Office and ranked according to the HA's administrative capability, the need for housing assistance, and other factors specified in the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The HAs must establish a utility allowance schedule for all utilities and other services. Units must be inspected, using HUD-prescribed forms to determine if the units meet the housing quality standards (HQS) of the Program. HAs are also required to maintain financial reports in accordance with accepted accounting standards. The required financial statements are similar to those prepared by any responsible business or organization at the end of the fiscal year. The family must complete and submit to the HA a Request for Lease Approval when it finds a unit which is suitable for its needs, a Certificate of Family Participation, and Housing Voucher. Initial HAs will use a standardized form to submit portability information to the receiving HA who will also use the form for monthly portability billing. HAs and Owners will enter into HAP Contacts each providing information on rents, payments, certifications, notifications, and Owner agreement in a form acceptable to the HA.

Agency form numbers: HU-52515, HUD-52517, HUD-52580, HUD-52580-A, HUD-52646, HUD-52665, HUD-52667, HUD-52672, HUD-52673, HUD-52581, HUD-52641, HUD-52641-A, HUD-52642, HUD-52642-A (Forms HUD-52595 and HUD-52663 are canceled.)

Members of the Affected Public: State and Local Governments, businesses or other for profits.

Estimation of the Total Number of Hours Needed to Prepare the Information Collection including the Number of Respondents, Frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents (2500 HAs + 410,000 families + 100,000 tenant-based owners + 100 project-based owners) = 512,600 total respondents, hours per response varies for each form, frequency, annually and on-occasion, total annual burden hours 650,975. 1

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: Extension with change only adding the HAP Contracts.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0226.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) must submit 5-year plans and annual plans for tenant-based assistance and public housing operating subsidies.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually, Other (Every five years).

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 85,800.

Status: Reinstatement, with change.

This notice is published in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is submitting the admission forms for Haskell Indian Nations University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute for review by OMB. These admission forms are useful in determining program eligibility of American Indian and Alaska Native students for educational services. The forms have been changed to include a Paperwork Reduction Act and Public Burden statements, a Privacy Act statement, and an Effects of Non Disclosure statement.

These forms are utilized pursuant to Blood Quantum Act, Public Law 99-228; the Snyder Act, Chapter 115, Public Law 67-85; and, the Indian Appropriations of the 48th Congress, Chapter 180, page 91, For Support of Schools, July 4, 1884.

A notice announcing the emergency clearance and requesting comments was published on April 23, 2002 (67 FR 19770). There were no comments received regarding that notice, however, the Department of the Interior invites comments on:

(a) Whether the 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 (including the hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption used;

(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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They also will become a matter of public record.

All written comments will be available for public inspection in Room 3512 of the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. If you wish to have your name or address withheld from public view, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your request to the extent allowed by law.

We will not request nor sponsor a collection of information, and you need not respond to such a request, if there is no valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number.

Title: Applications for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.

OMB approval number: 1076-0114.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Description: These eligibility application forms are mandatory in determining a student's eligibility for educational services. This collection is at no cost to the public.

Total Number of Respondents: 2,281.

Total Number of Annual responses: 3,943.

Total Annual Burden hours: 15 minutes per response × 3,943 annual responses = 986 hours.

If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). You may also comment via the internet to “ victoria_davis@fws.gov. ” Please submit comments over the internet as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the Service that we have received your internet message, contact us directly at either telephone number listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Finally, you may hand deliver comments to the Service office listed below (see ADDRESSES ). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Applicant : Jeff S. Glitzenstein, South Carolina Native Plant Society, Tallahassee, Florida, TE059092-0

The applicant requests authorization to remove and reduce to possession cuttings and seeds of Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) for the purposes of initiating colonies in the Francis Marion National Forest. The proposed activities will take place in the Francis Marion National Forest, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina.

Applicant : United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Dr. Andrew C. Miller, Vicksburg, Mississippi, TE060818-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, and translocate) approximately 3,000 endangered fat pocketbook mussels ( Potamilus capax ) from Stateline Outlet Ditch, Mississippi County, Arkansas. The applicant has requested to relocate mussels from the dredge site to other suitable sites in the river.

Applicant: United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Dr. Andrew C. Miller, Vicksburg, Mississippi, TE060835-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, and translocate) by clamshell dredging the endangered orangefoot (pearlymussel) pimpleback ( Pletobasus cooperianus ) and the pink (pearlymussel) mucket ( Lampsilis abrupta ). Clamshell dredging is proposed as an experimental technique to minimize mussel mortality. The proposed activity will occur in the Tennessee River navigation channel near Diamond Island, Hardin County, Tennessee.

Applicant: Arkansas Tech University, Joseph N. Stoeckel, Russellville, Arkansas, TE060875-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, handle, identify, examine, release, and collect voucher specimens and relics) the fat pocketbook mussel ( Potamilus capax ) while conducting presence and absence surveys. The surveys will be conducted at Old Frenchman's Bayou and ditch number 1 in Mississippi and Critendon counties, Arkansas.

Applicant: Natural Resources Conservation Service, James David Ellis, Little Rock, Arkansas, TE059043-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, tag, mark, and release) the American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ) while conducting presence and absence surveys to determine if the species is present in the South Logan Counties Water Supply project area. The proposed activities will occur in Logan and Scott Counties, Arkansas.

Applicant: Ichauway, Inc. d.b.a. Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, TE059033-0.

The applicant requests authorization to remove and reduce to possession seeds of Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) to determine the role of seed predation, longevity of seeds, and the effects of leaf litter on seed germination in order to promote sexual reproduction. The proposed activities will take place in the Francis Marion National Forest, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina and the Delta National Forest, Sharkey County, Mississippi.

Applicant: Dr. William D. Pearson, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, TE059028-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, and release) the Kentucky cave shrimp ( Palaemonias ganteri ) to determine presence and absence and to gather population data while conducting long term monitoring of the aquatic fauna in subterranean streams of Mammoth Cave National Park. The proposed activities will take place in Roaring River, Echo/Styx River, Mystic River, Owl cave, Eyeless Fish Trail, and Golden Triangle streams within the Mammoth Cave National Park, Edmonson County, Kentucky.

Applicant: CCR Environmental, Inc., Mr. Christian M. Crow, Atlanta, Georgia, TE059008-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, and release) the fat threeridge mussel ( Amblema neislerii ), shinyrayed pocketbook ( Lampsilis subangulata ), gulf moccasinshell ( Medionidus penicillatus ), oval pigtoe ( Pleurobema pyriforme ), and purple bankclimber ( Elliptoideus sloatianus ) to determine the absence or presence in various streams, including bridge and roadway crossings throughout Georgia.

Applicant: Kenneth Neil Medlin, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Clayton, North Carolina, TE061055.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, capture, and release) the Cape Fear shiner ( Notropis mekistocholas ) and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella monacha ) while conducting presence and absence surveys when potential transportation projects occur. The proposed activities will occur in the Cape Fear River Basin and the Tennessee River Basin, North Carolina.

Applicant: International Carnivorus Plant Society, Barry Rice, Fullerton, California, TE060992-0.

The applicant requests authorization to remove and reduce to possession seeds of Sarracenia jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher plant), Sarracenia oreophila (green pitcher plant), Sarracenia alabamensis (Alabama canebrake pitcher plant), and Pinguilcula ionantha (Godfrey's butterwort) for interstate commerce distribution in the United States.

Applicant: International Carnivorus Plant Society, Barry Rice, Fullerton, California, TE061005-0.

The applicant requests authorization to remove and reduce to possession seeds of Sarracenia jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher plant), Sarracenia oreophila (green pitcher plant), Sarracenia alabamensis (Alabama canebrake pitcher plant), and Pinguilcula ionantha (Godfrey's butterwort) interstate commerce distribution in the United States. The seeds would be germinated and grown under the expert care and when they are approximately two years old, the vigorous individuals would be sold.

Applicant: United States Army Corps of Engineers-Memphis District, David L. Reece, Memphis, Tennessee, TE061069-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, collect, and replace at point of collection) the endangered orangefoot (pearlymussel) pimpleback ( Pletobasus cooperianus ), pink (pearlymussel) mucket ( Lampsilis abrupta ), fat pocketbook mussel ( Potamilus capax ), Turgid-blossom pearly mussel ( Epioblasma turgidula ), and ring pink mussel ( Obovaria retusa ) while conducting presence and absence surveys. The proposed activities will occur within the boundaries of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Memphis District in the following states: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

Applicant: Dennis R. DeVries, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, TE061284-0.

The applicant requests authorization to take (survey, collect, measure, count, and replace at point of collection) the endangered Tulotoma snail ( Tulotoma magnifica ) while conducting presence and absence surveys. The proposed activities will occur in the Coosa River drainage, Alabama.

The proposed residential/recreational condominium developments will be located on approximately 196 acres in south Baldwin County, Alabama, between State Highway 180 and the Gulf of Mexico (Section 28, Township 9 South, Range 2 East) about twelve miles west of Highway 59 in Gulf Shores, Alabama, on the Fort Morgan Peninsula.

Some of the Applicants' future activities have the potential to impact species subject to protection under the Act, including the Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) . Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits non-Federal landowners to take endangered and threatened species, provided the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood for the survival and recovery of the species in the wild, among other permit issuance criteria. An applicant for a permit under section 10 of the Act must prepare and submit to the Service for approval a plan containing, among other things, a strategy for minimizing and mitigating all take associated with the proposed activities to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant must also ensure that adequate funding for implementation of the plan will be provided.

The Applicants have initiated and continued discussions with the Service regarding the possibility of Permits and an associated HCP for their activities on lands to be covered by the Permits. General activities proposed for permit coverage include residential, commercial and industrial development, construction, and maintenance activities.

The Service previously considered the Applicants' HCP in an Environmental Assessment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact. 67 FR 17089 (Apr. 9, 2002). That environmental analysis was challenged in an action for judicial review brought by Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted a preliminary injunction against any take of the Alabama beach mouse pursuant to the permits previously issued to Applicants. Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth v. Norton, 207 F. Supp. 2d. 1310 (S.D. Ala. 2002).

Subsequently, in light of the court's preliminary injunction, the Service determined to revisit the earlier NEPA analysis for this HCP and the issued permits. See Defendant's Motion for Voluntary Remand, Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth v. Norton, No. CV-02-0258-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 8, 2002). The Service has decided, and announces through this notice, its intent to review the proposed HCP and the environmental effects of issuing the permits through preparation of an EIS.

The environmental review will analyze the Applicants' proposed HCP as well as a full range of reasonable alternatives and the associated impacts of each. The Service is currently in the process of developing alternatives for analysis. The alternatives identified to date are as follows:

Alternative 1—No Action: The Service would not re-affirm the ITPs.

Alternative 2—Development According to Original Gulf Highlands Subdivision Plat: A portion of the Applicants' properties were originally platted and zoned for single family residential development by the Baldwin County Planning Commission. This development alternative involves development according to the original plat or by additional platting and subdivision of the lands.

Alternative 3—Development With Primary Features Occupying Full Width of the Escarpment: Alternative 3 consists of the residential high-rise building complexes placed atop the escarpment.

Alternative 4—Development Entirely North of the Escarpment: This alternative would involve development of residential condominium buildings and infrastructure approximately 300 feet north of the escarpment for both projects.

Alternative 5—Development of Portions of the Escarpment with a 325 ft. Habitat Corridor Between the Projects: Alternative 5 consists of the development of the same number of units, but placed on different portions of the escarpment and adjacent areas. This development configuration would result in the preservation of an undeveloped corridor of ABM habitat approximately 325 feet wide separating the individual developments and connecting the interior scrub areas with the designated critical habitat to the south of the developments.

Alternative 6-Development of Onsite Mitigation including a 909-foot Corridor Connecting Adjacent Primary/Secondary Dunes and Escarpment to the Interior: This alternative increases the width of the undeveloped corridor described above and repositions the corridor to the west side of the property. This alternative provides for dedication of 105.5 acres of Applicant-owned lands into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that might be issued.

Persons wishing to provide relevant information and comments regarding this activity should submit these to the above address. For information, please contact the individual identified above in the section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and with other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, policies, and procedures of the Service for compliance with those regulations. It is estimated that the draft EIS will be available for public review in early 2003.

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. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

In 1944, the U.S. Congress passed the Flood Control Act (the Missouri-Basin Pick Sloan Act), which authorized the construction of dams on the Missouri River and its tributaries. The Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) was authorized in 1965, and construction began in 1967. The project was designed to divert Missouri River water to central and eastern ND for irrigation; fish and wildlife enhancement; municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water supply; and recreation development. Most of the currently authorized principal supply works have been completed, except for about a 20-mile reach between the end of the Mccluskey Canal and beginning of the New Rockford Canal.

The project was reformulated in 1986 to reduce the emphasis on irrigation and increase the emphasis on meeting the MR&I water needs throughout ND. The 1986 Reformulation Act authorized a Sheyenne River water supply and release feature and water treatment plant capable of delivering 100 cubic feet per second of water to eastern ND.

The authorization for the GDU was amended again in December 2000 by DWRA. The DWRA requires that an EIS and feasibility-level study be prepared to aid decision-making on a preferred alternative for meeting water needs in the Red River Valley in North Dakota.

Development of a reliable water supply for the Red River Valley has been a subject of great interest to local residents, along with government agencies and entities concerned with water management and development. Although rivers in eastern ND such as the Red and Sheyenne rivers are prone to flooding and excessive runoff, they also experience low flow and drought conditions such as those that occurred in the 1930's and 1980's.

In 1994, Reclamation initiated an appraisal-level (preliminary) assessment of MR&I water needs in the Red River Valley as an outcome of the ND Water Management Collaborative Process. That study was completed in two phases. The first phase was further subdivided into parts A & B. Phase IA compared the existing and projected future MR&I water needs in the Red River Valley with the surface water flows and groundwater resources available to meet those needs. That report, completed in April 1998, concluded that significant shortages could occur during droughts if no action is taken.

The Phase IB report provided an evaluation of seasonal instream flow needs for water quality and maintenance of aquatic life in the Sheyenne and Red rivers. That report was finalized in August 1999.

The Phase II report presented a range of preliminary alternatives to meet the shortages identified in the Phase IA report. These alternatives included both in-basin and out-of-basin water supplies along with water conservation and a variety of management and operational techniques.

The Red River Valley Water Supply Project EIS will evaluate alternative ways to meet the comprehensive “water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota” [DWRA Section 8(b)(1)]. The needs are defined as municipal, rural, and industrial supplies; water quality; aquatic environment; recreation; and water conservation measures [Section 8(b)(2)].

As required by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1502.2[e]), a full range of reasonable alternatives will be evaluated in the EIS. These alternatives will include No Action and development of in-basin and out-of-basin water sources. The EIS will evaluate potential environmental impacts of specific alternatives together with engineering and socioeconomic considerations. A preferred alternative has not been identified at this time.

Eight preliminary alternatives, including No Action, were described in the Phase II Needs Assessment. These alternatives were:

• No Action. This alternative represents the reasonably foreseeable future condition if a Red River Valley Water Supply Project is not constructed.

• Construction of a new water supply reservoir on the Sheyenne River near Kindred.

• Raising the height of Baldhill Dam on the Sheyenne River near Valley City to increase water storage.

• Development of groundwater resources including purchase of existing rights, new well fields, desalinization, and aquifer storage and recovery.

• Importation of Missouri River water via a pipeline from Bismarck to Fargo.

• Importation of Missouri River water via a pipeline from Lake Oahe south of Bismarck to the vicinity of Wahpeton.

• Importation of Missouri River water to the upper Sheyenne River utilizing existing GDU principal supply works.

• Importation of Missouri River water via a system of closed pipelines from the GDU principal supply works to cities, industries, and rural water systems.

• Other potential water sources including Minnesota sub-basins and Devils Lake may be evaluated in detail in the EIS. Comments or suggestions on these alternatives or suggestions of other alternatives that should be considered are welcome.

The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS. This list is preliminary and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive nor does it imply any predetermination of potential impacts. Reclamation and the GDCD invite comments on this list:

• Impacts on streams and lakes, groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, and on water uses and quality.

• Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals and their habitats including species that are federally or State-listed as threatened or endangered, proposed, candidate, or of special concern and/or critical habitat.

• Potential impacts from the transfer of biota, including parasites and pathogens, between the Missouri River basin and the Hudson Bay basin.

• Potential impacts to Canadian waters due to transfer of harmful iota or changes in water quality or quantity.

• Potential cumulative environmental impacts to the Missouri River from past, present, and foreseeable future withdrawals.

• Potential cumulative environmental impacts to the Sheyenne and Red rivers, including effects of the proposed Devils Lake outlet as well as other reasonably foreseeable discharges or withdrawals.

• Impacts on cultural resources such as historic, archaeological, architectural, or traditional properties.

• Socioeconomic impacts on affected communities related to long-term water supply and management.

• Environmental justice, particularly whether or not water management activities have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations.

• Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations and with international agreements and required Federal and State environmental permits, consultations, and notifications.

• Compliance with all applicable Executive Orders.

Reclamation and the GDCD plan to issue the draft EIS by December 2005. Reclamation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will separately publish notices of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. Reclamation and GDCD will publicize the availability of the draft EIS in other media and will provide opportunities for Federal, State, local and tribal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, the general public, and the international community to participate in additional information forums and to submit comments.

Issues raised at the scoping meetings will be documented in the Scope of Statement (SOS) for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project EIS. The objectives of this report are to summarize the essence of the comments in a clear and concise manner and to accurately portray the scope of the EIS. The SOS will be distributed to public libraries near the meeting locations, posted on Reclamation's Red River Valley Water Supply Project EIS web page, and mailed upon request.

Comments received in response to this notice will become part of the administrative record for this project and are subject to public inspection. 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. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

The Coalition of Juvenile Justice, established pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. App. II), is meeting to carry out its advisory functions under section 5601 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C., as amended.

This meeting will be open to the public.

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.

If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of ERISA and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply, to certain lines of credit (the Line of Credit or Lines of Credit), and the Loan and repayment of funds, including accrued interest, thereunder (the Loan or Loans), involving certain employee benefit plans (the Plan or Plans) with respect to which Fidelity acts as directed trustee, investment manager or other administrative service provider.

(a) Each Loan is made to the Plan in connection with the administration of a unitized fund (Unitized Fund) as defined in section III (e) in order to facilitate redemptions from the Unitized Fund.

(b) Each Line of Credit will be negotiated by Fidelity on behalf of the Plan with a bank, as defined under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, having total assets of at least $5 billion (the Lender or Lenders);

(c) Each Loan is initiated, accounted for and administered by Fidelity, which will monitor the transactions on behalf of the Plans to ensure that the terms and conditions of the exemption are met at all times;

(d) The Line of Credit provides that each Loan thereunder, including accrued interest thereon, will be repaid by the Unitized Fund promptly in the ordinary course of business upon settlement of the transaction that triggered the need for the Loan;

(e) The maximum amount loaned with respect to a Unitized Fund on any business day that a Loan is initiated does not, after the Loan is made, exceed 25% of the total fair market value of the Unitized Fund (such value determined as of the most recent close of the New York Stock Exchange or as otherwise provided in the applicable Line of Credit, provided such determination is substantially contemporaneous with the Loan);

(f) The fair market value of the assets in the Unitized Fund is determined by an objective method specified in the Line of Credit;

(g) The Lender's recourse with respect to any Loan from a Unitized Fund is limited to the assets of such Unitized Fund. No commitment fees, or commissions are paid by the Plan and no compensating balance is required by the Lenders in connection with these loans. Any set-off will be limited to the assets of the Unitized Fund borrowing the funds;

(h) Interest payable by the Plan on each Loan is based on rates quoted to Fidelity by the Lenders under the Lines of Credit and accepted by Fidelity on behalf of the Plan in accordance with the Lines of Credit;

(i) The Plan enters into a written agreement with Fidelity pursuant to which Fidelity is authorized to borrow on behalf of the Plan. Prior to borrowing on behalf of a Plan pursuant to this exemption, Fidelity provides the Plan with written notice explaining the Line of Credit program. The notice shall state that Fidelity agrees to act as a fiduciary on behalf of the Plan in connection with the following activities involving the Line of Credit agreements with the Lenders: the negotiation of the Plan's participation in the Line of Credit agreements; the negotiation of interest rates; the terms of the Loans, and the terms of repayment under the Lines of Credit agreements. The notice shall set forth Fidelity's objective methodology for allocating favorable interest rates or credit availability equitably among those Unitized Funds seeking to borrow under the Line of Credit agreements on any given day, i.e. , “the applicable ordering rules and limitations.” Each notice shall also address under what circumstances Fidelity may exclude the Plan from participation in the program, either temporarily or permanently;

(j) Fidelity, on behalf of the Plan, enters into a written agreement with each of the Lenders offering these Line of Credit Agreements to the Plan. The agreement shall address, among other things, the maximum Line of Credit available, the terms for the Loan and repayment, the formula or method for determining the interest rate payable with respect to each Loan, and the conditions for terminating the agreement;

(k) The Plan may elect to terminate participation in the Lines of Credit at any time, without penalty and subject to the Plan's repayment of any outstanding Loan;

(l) No later than 15 business days after month end, Fidelity shall provide the Plan Sponsor of each Plan that has any outstanding Loan during a calendar month with a written report showing the Plan's outstanding Loans on each day during such month, the amount repaid on each such day, the interest rate and the amount of interest paid on each such day, the aggregate balance of all Loans outstanding on the last business day of such month and the aggregate amount of interest paid during such month;

(m) The Loans are made on terms at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party;

(n) Each Lender is not related to Fidelity and is a party in interest (including a fiduciary), solely by reason of providing services to the Plan, or solely by reason of a relationship to a service provider to the Plan described in section 3(14)(F), (G), (H) or (I) of the Act;

(o) The agreements and the any loans contemplated thereunder are not a part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit any party in interest with respect to any plan;

(p) No fees, or other compensation are paid to Fidelity in connection with the Loans by either the Plan or the Lenders;

(q) Where a Unitized Fund covered by this exemption invests in employer securities, such securities constitute “qualifying employer securities” as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the Act (QES) for which market quotations are readily available from independent sources within the meaning of Rule 17a-7, of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 17 CFR 270.17a-7. The exemption shall also apply to convertible preferred stock that qualifies as QES and is convertible, under an objective formulation, into securities for which market quotations are readily available as described above.

(r) Where a Unitized Fund, other than an employer securities fund or a stable value fund, invests directly or indirectly in securities, no less than 75 percent of such securities are securities for which market quotations are readily available from independent sources, within the meaning of Rule 17a-7, of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 17 CFR 270.17a-7;

(s) Fidelity maintains for a period of six years, in a manner that is accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (t) to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that—

(1) A prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of Fidelity, such records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of such six year period; and

(2) No party in interest, other than Fidelity, shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act, or the taxes imposed by sections 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if the records are not maintained, or are not available for examination as required by paragraph (t);

(t)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (t)(2) and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 504(a)(2) and (b) of the Act, the records referred to in paragraph (s) are unconditionally available for examination during normal business hours by—

(A) Any duly authorized employees or representatives of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service;

(B) Any fiduciary of the Plan or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary;

(C) Any employer of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan and any employee organization whose members are covered by the Plan, or any authorized employee or representative of these entities; and

(D) Any participant or beneficiary of the Plan or any duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary;

(2) None of the persons described above in paragraph (t)(1)(B), (C) or (D) shall be authorized to examine the trade secrets of Fidelity or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential;

(3) Should Fidelity refuse to disclose information on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to paragraph (t)(2) above, Fidelity shall, by the close of the thirtieth (30th) day following the request, provide a written or electronic notice advising that person (i) of the reasons for the refusal and (ii) that the Department may request such information.

(a) “Fidelity” refers to Fidelity Management Trust Company and its affiliates.

(b) “Affiliate” means (i) any person, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such other person; (ii) any officer, director, or partner, employee or relative (as defined in section 3(15) of the Act) of such other person; and (iii) any corporation or partnership of which such other person is an officer, director or partner.

(c) “Control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

(d) Fidelity is “related” to a Lender if the Lender (or a person controlling, or controlled by, the Lender) owns a five percent or more interest in Fidelity or if Fidelity (or a person controlling, or controlled by, Fidelity) owns a five percent or more interest in the Lender. For purposes of this definition:

(1) The term “interest” means with respect to ownership of an entity (A) the combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote or the total value of the shares of all classes of stock of the entity if the entity is a corporation, (B) the capital interest or the profits interest of the entity if the entity is a partnership, or (C) the beneficial interest of the entity if the entity is a trust or unincorporated enterprise; and

(2) A person is considered to own an interest held in any capacity if the person has or shares the authority (A) to exercise any voting rights or to direct some other person to exercise the voting rights relating to such interest, or (B) to dispose or to direct the disposition of such interest.

(e) A “Unitized Fund” is a fund that, to facilitate trading and/or accounting, has established “units” representing undivided interests in all of the assets of such fund.

1. Fidelity Management Trust Company, a Massachusetts trust company, is a subsidiary of FMR Corp., the parent of a group of companies known as Fidelity Investments®. Fidelity Investments is one of the nation's largest mutual fund companies and a leading provider of financial services. It provides a wide range of investment management, brokerage, administrative and other financial services and products to both retail and institutional customers. Fidelity Investments manages in the United States and Canada approximately 322 mutual funds with aggregate assets, as of December 31, 2001, in excess of $815 billion. In addition, it manages more than $68 billion of assets other than mutual funds, including separate accounts and collective investment funds. Fidelity provides trustee, custodial, investment management, participant recordkeeping and/or other related services to employee benefit plans, including the Plans.

2. The Plans are qualified plans under section 401(a) of the Code and are employee benefit plans within the meaning of section 3(3) of ERISA. Substantially all of the Plans are defined contribution plans that permit each Plan participant to allocate his or her account balance among a number of investment options available under the Plan. These options may include mutual funds, separately-managed accounts, bank-maintained collective investment funds (including so-called stable value funds) and/or company stock funds. Moreover, many of the Plans operate in a so-called “daily environment”; i.e. , each Plan participant can elect to make investment transfers on any business day and the transfer will generally be effected at the close of business on that day.

3. The Applicant represents that from time to time, the Plans find themselves in the position where, incidental to their ordinary operation, there is a cash shortfall that creates a short-term liquidity problem. Most frequently this occurs when amounts are to be withdrawn from a unitized investment option ( e.g. , to facilitate benefit distributions, participant loans and/or participant-directed transfers to other investment options) at a time when such investment option does not hold sufficient cash to meet the withdrawal need (each such investment option, a “Unitized Fund” and collectively, the “Unitized Funds”). In such circumstances, the Plan must either borrow the requisite cash on a short-term basis until securities can be liquidated and cash proceeds obtained (this will typically take three business days) or delay the withdrawal from the particular Unitized Fund until the needed cash is available. The Applicant represents that, since this latter alternative is at odds with the participants' expectation that the Plan will operate in a “daily environment,” the former alternative ( i.e. , short-term Loan) is the preferred choice for dealing with this type of situation.

4. It would be possible for a Unitized Fund to hold a larger percentage of its assets in “cash” in order to minimize the likelihood that there will be such a cash shortfall; however, such an approach will undermine the achievement of the investment objective of the investment option, especially those that are equity based. Moreover, according to the Applicant, it is simply not feasible, as a practical matter, to maintain enough “cash” in a Unitized Fund at all times to be certain that the Unitized Fund will always be in a position to meet the maximum potential need, especially during volatile market situations. Hence, it is inevitable that at least some liquidity shortfalls will occur from time to time.

5. Fidelity has negotiated the Lines of Credit with several banks that are not related to Fidelity, and anticipates that it may from time to time negotiate additional Lines of Credit. These Lines of Credit allow Fidelity to borrow, on the Plans' behalf, cash in order to meet the Unitized Funds' short-term cash shortfalls. Fidelity anticipates that there will be approximately three or four Lenders at any given time. It is also anticipated that the Lenders will be very large financial institutions with many affiliated companies and worldwide operations. In view of the size of such institutions and the number of Plans involved, Fidelity represents that it is very difficult for such institutions to determine whether they are parties in interest with respect to any of the Plans. Moreover, even if it were to be established that the Lenders are not parties in interest with respect to the Plans, that could change over time while a Loan is outstanding or as new Loans are affected.

6. Since Fidelity may not be able to determine in the ordinary course of business, whether a Lender is a party in interest with respect to each Plan, the Lines of Credit raise potential concerns under section 406(a) of the Act, absent an exemption. In this regard, given the size of the Lenders, the large number of Plans involved and the various conditions of the potentially available class exemptions ( e.g. , the qualified professional asset manager exemption, (QPAM), PTE 84-14, 49 FR 9494(3/13/84), as corrected, 50 FR 41430 (10/10/85), it may be difficult to determine if any of such class exemptions are available. Consequently, the implementation of the Lines of Credit, and the Loans thereunder, even where such Line of Credit is in the best interests of the Plan, may result in a prohibited transaction.

7. The Applicant represents that each Line of Credit provides that (i) each Loan thereunder will be unsecured, (ii) recourse with respect to each Loan thereunder will be limited to the assets of the Unitized Fund that borrowed the funds, (iii) each Loan thereunder, including accrued interest thereon, will be repaid promptly in the ordinary course of business, generally in less than ten days and (iv) with respect to any Unitized Fund, the aggregate amount of Loans outstanding on any business day that a Loan is initiated will not, after such Loan is made, exceed 25% of the total fair market value of the Unitized Fund. 1 The total fair market value of a Unitized Fund (including Employer Stock, cash or cash equivalents and accrued dividends and earnings) will be determined as of the most recent close of the New York Stock Exchange or as otherwise provided in the applicable Line of Credit, provided such determination is substantially contemporaneous with the Loan.

8. Interest rates will be quoted to Fidelity each business day by each Lender in accordance with the terms of the Line of Credit. The quoted interest rate will be based on a Federal funds rate (or other market rate) plus a spread, and will apply to any Loans from the Lender that are outstanding on such day. Because the quoted interest rate may fluctuate daily, the rate of interest being charged on any outstanding loan may also fluctuate daily.

9. In regard to these Lines of Credit, Fidelity will act as a fiduciary pursuant to a written agreement with the Plan. The agreement will provide that Fidelity will act as a fiduciary on behalf of the Plan in connection with the negotiation of the Plan's participation in the Line of Credit agreements, the negotiation of interest rates under the Line of Credit agreements, the Loans under the Line of Credit agreements, the ordering rules and limitations described below, and the terms of repayment of the Line of Credit agreements.

10. Fidelity will establish generally applicable ordering rules and limitations with respect to the use of the Lines of Credit. The need for such rules arises from several factors. For example, although not anticipated to be very likely, it is possible that the aggregate liquidity needs of all eligible Unitized Funds on any given day may exceed the total credit available under all of the credit lines then in place. In addition, and more relevant, the three or four Lenders that will be making advances available under the lines may, and likely will, quote different rates on a given day. If the aggregate demand for liquidity on a particular day exceeds the amount of credit available at the most favorable rate on that day, then it is necessary to allocate the opportunity to borrow at the most favorable rate(s) among the various Unitized Funds requiring liquidity on that day. Accordingly, on those days when the aggregate liquidity demand of the eligible Unitized Funds exceeds the amount available at the most favorable rate, Fidelity will implement a policy pursuant to which it will allocate the available credit among the Unitized Funds pursuant to a pre-established objective allocation methodology.

11. Fidelity will initiate, account for and administer each Loan and will monitor such transactions on behalf of the Plans to ensure that the terms and conditions of the exemption are met at all times.

12. Fidelity will provide the Plan Sponsor of each Plan that has any outstanding Loans during a calendar month with a written report showing the Plan's outstanding Loans on each day during such month, the amount repaid on each such day, the amount of interest paid on each such day, the interest rate and the aggregate balance of all Loans outstanding on the last business day of such month and the aggregate amount of interest paid during such month.

13. The Plan Sponsor of each Plan will be notified of the Lines of Credit that may be available to such Plan in advance of any Loan made pursuant to the exemption. Such notice will include a general description of the Lines of Credit and how they operate. Each Plan Sponsor may elect to “opt-out” of the program, in which event the Plan of such Plan Sponsor will not effect any Loans under the Lines of Credit. Moreover, a Plan Sponsor who has initially determined not to opt-out of the program may at any time thereafter elect to opt-out of the program without penalty, by written notice to Fidelity. Subsequent to its receipt of such a notice, Fidelity will not effect any further Loans on behalf of such Plan under the Lines of Credit. Any Loans outstanding at the time such notice is received will be repaid in accordance with the Lines of Credit.

14. Fidelity will not receive any fees or other compensation from the Plans in connection with the Lines of Credit. In addition, Fidelity will not receive any payment or other consideration from the Lenders in connection with the Loans. Fidelity represents that it will pay the Lender's cost of establishing the Lines of Credit. The Applicant represents that such up-front expenses are required to be paid by the borrower (the Plans on behalf of their Unitized Funds) under virtually all credit agreements. In this case, in order to induce the Lenders to enter into the proposed arrangements, and given the practical difficulty of allocating the up-front cost of establishing the arrangements among the many Unitized Funds that may ultimately participate in the credit arrangement, Fidelity has determined that it will pay these expenses on behalf of the Unitized Funds. Any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a Lender in enforcing the agreement, however, will generally be paid by the applicable Unitized Fund, unless otherwise paid by the Plan Sponsor or Fidelity. The Applicant represents that lender expenses relating to enforcing the terms of the loan are required to be paid by the borrower (here the Plans on behalf of the Unitized Funds) under virtually all credit agreements.

15. As a general matter, Fidelity explains that its intent is that the credit program will be administered such that advances under the program will be used primarily in the context of settlement risk ( i.e. , the risk of broker default prior to settlement) as opposed to being used in the context of market risk. “Settlement risk” is present when a Unitized Fund has entered into the sale transaction whose settlement ( i.e. , receipt of cash proceeds) is pending (thereby triggering the liquidity shortfall to be satisfied by a Loan) prior to the close of business on the day on which the withdrawal that is being funded by such advance occurs. In this situation, the price of the “related” sale transaction is known and will be factored into the Unitized Fund unit value that is utilized for purposes of the withdrawal. By contrast, according to Fidelity, market risk will be present (in addition to settlement risk) in situations where the “related” sale transaction is not able to be effected prior to the determination of the relevant Unitized Fund unit value, with the result that the Unitized Fund (and the remaining participants in the Unitized Fund) bear the risk that the actual sale transaction price will turn out to be lower than the value on which the unit value was based. 2

16. In addition, in order to maintain the integrity of the overall credit arrangement, Fidelity reserves the ability, in its sole discretion, to exclude a particular Plan or Plans from access to the Lines of Credit on a given day or days. Fidelity represents that it does not anticipate that it will exercise its exclusion power very often. The Applicant explains that, if there were circumstances giving rise to a material concern regarding the potential for default by a particular Plan, (such as, for example, an unanticipated bankruptcy of the Plan sponsor that triggers a suspension of trading in the Plan sponsor's stock or some other cause of extreme volatility in the Plan sponsor's stock value) Fidelity believes it is important that it have the power to avoid the risk of such default by excluding the Plan from borrowing under the Line of Credit program during the period of concern.

17. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed Lines of Credit satisfy the criteria contained in section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:

(a) the Loan terms must be at least as favorable to the Plan as a similar third-party arm's-length transaction;

(b) each Loan will be initiated, accounted for and administered by Fidelity which will maintain written records of each Loan and monitor the terms and conditions of the exemption, on behalf of the affected Plan, at all times.

(c) the same Lines of Credit will generally be available pursuant to their terms for use by all of the Unitized Funds;

(d) the Lenders will not be “related” to Fidelity or “parties in interest” to the Plans other than by reason of being a service provider to the Plans or related to a service provider;

(e) the Plans will benefit from not having to maintain a larger cash buffer that undermines the achievement of the investment objective of the Unitized Funds;

(f) the Plans will further benefit from not having to delay withdrawals from the Unitized Funds in most situations until such time as there is sufficient cash to satisfy the cash shortfall and therefore will be able to better achieve the participants' expectation of a “daily environment;” and

(g) the sponsor of each Plan will be notified of the existence of the Lines of Credit that may be available to such Plan in advance of any Loan made pursuant to the exemption and will make an independent decision whether the Plan should participate in the program. In addition, the Plan Sponsor of a Plan that is participating in the program may elect to opt out at any time, without penalty.

Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided by first-class mail to each known Plan Sponsor within 25 days after the publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register . Such notice will include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, as published in the Federal Register , as well as a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which shall inform interested persons of their right to comment on and/or to request a hearing. Comments and hearing requests with respect to the proposed exemption are due 45 days after the date of publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register .

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 proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a) and 406(b)(1) and (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: (1) The June 5, 2001 payment (the Payment) by Brightpoint of $108,738.85 (the Assessment Amount) to the Millennium Trust Company LLC (Millennium) on behalf of the Brightpoint, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the Plan) for the purpose of satisfying a court-ordered assessment against the assets of the Plan (the Assessment) that arose in connection with the $68,100,000.00 deficiency (the Deficiency) incurred by the Independent Trust Corporation (Intrust); and (2) the transfer by the Plan to Brightpoint (the Repayment) of certain assets recovered by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (the Receiver) in connection with the Deficiency, if the following conditions are met:

(A) In the event the Plan receives an amount of assets from the Receiver (a Recovery Amount) that is greater than the Assessment Amount, the Plan will not be required to pay Brightpoint that portion of the Recovery Amount that is in excess of the Assessment Amount;

(B) In the event the Plan receives a Recovery Amount that is less than the Assessment Amount, the Plan will not be required to pay Brightpoint the difference between the Assessment Amount and the Recovery Amount;

(C) The Plan will not pay any of the costs and/or fees associated with the Payment and the Repayment;

(D) The Deficiency did not arise in connection with any improper act undertaken by a Plan fiduciary (other than Intrust or its principals); and

(E) Upon notification of the Intrust losses, the Brightpoint Plan fiduciaries undertook, and will continue to undertake, any actions necessary to ensure that the assets of the Plan were, and are, adequately protected.

1. Brightpoint is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Brightpoint supports the global wireless telecommunications industry through the provision of, among other things, distribution, management, and business solution services.

2. Brightpoint is the sponsor of the Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution 401(k) plan having 480 participants and $2,648,775.39 in total assets as of March 31, 2001. The applicant represents that the assets of the Plan are comprised solely of shares of certain mutual funds and shares of Brightpoint stock (collectively, the Plan Shares).

The applicant states that from April 1, 1997 until April 13, 2001, Intrust acted as the trustee of the Plan. 3 As such, Intrust forwarded Plan contributions to either American Funds, the custodian for the mutual funds, or McDonald & Company, the custodian for the Brightpoint stock. In addition, Intrust processed Plan distributions by forwarding to Plan participants the cash proceeds it received from various sales of the Plan Shares.

3. On April 14, 2000, the Illinois Office of Banks and Real Estate (the State Regulator) discovered the Deficiency. In this regard, on that date, the State Regulator determined that a substantial cash shortage existed with respect to the amount of assets held in trust by Intrust. According to the applicant, it is presently believed that the Deficiency, the resolution of which is currently under litigation, resulted from the misappropriation by certain Intrust principals of assets held by Intrust. Specifically, the Deficiency involved cash taken from certain Intrust accounts. The applicant states, however, that cash was not misappropriated from the Plan's trust account with Intrust (the Intrust Plan Account). As a result, the applicant states that the amount of assets held in the Intrust Plan Account, being comprised primarily of the Plan Shares, was not affected or reduced by the misappropriation of Intrust assets (the Misappropriation).

The State Regulator initiated receivership proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the Court). The Court appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the receiver of Intrust and, with limited exceptions, the Court froze all of the trust assets held by Intrust, including those of the Plan. 4 On November 29, 2000, the Court approved the purchase of Intrust's assets by Millennium and, thereafter, Millennium became the trustee of the Plan. The applicant represents that currently the Plan Shares are held in trust in a certain Millennium trust account (the Millennium Plan Account).

4. On March 1, 2001, upon determining that the Deficiency totaled $68,100,000.00, the Court issued an order (the First Court Order) that apportioned the Deficiency among certain Intrust accounts (the Allocation). In this regard, after taking judicial notice of, among other things, various hearings, proceedings, testimony, arguments, and pleadings, the Court determined that it was not feasible to trace the Deficiency Amount to specific Intrust accounts. Rather, with certain exceptions not applicable to the Plan, the Court allocated the Deficiency among essentially all of the frozen former Intrust accounts on mostly a pro rata basis.

In this way, the Court allocated the Assessment Amount to the Millennium Plan Account. The applicant represents that such assessment had the effect of a $108,738.85 charge against the assets held in the Millennium Plan Account. 5

5. Each trust account affected by the Allocation, or a party on behalf of such account, was required to pay its allocated portion to Millennium by June 5, 2001. 6 Pursuant to the terms of the First Court Order, upon Millennium's receipt of this payment, the Receiver was required to issue the respective payor a certificate. Such certificate entitled its holder to receive a pro rata portion of the total net amount recovered from certain Intrust principals, insurers, and/or elsewhere. A certificate, however, did not guarantee its holder would receive a recovery amount equal to the amount such holder paid pursuant to the Court's allocation of the Deficiency.

6. Upon monitoring the legal actions associated with the Deficiency, the applicant states, Brightpoint determined that the Recovery Amount would likely be less than the Assessment Amount. 7 To protect the Plan from a potential shortfall, on June 5, 2001, Brightpoint paid the Assessment Amount on behalf of the Plan. The applicant represents that, consistent with the terms of the First Court Order, Brightpoint thereafter anticipated that it would receive a certificate from the Receiver.

7. On September 8, 2001, the Receiver petitioned the court to amend the First Court Order. In this regard, the applicant states that for reasons unrelated to the Plan and the transactions described herein, the Receiver sought a procedural change with respect to the issuance of the certificates. As applied to the payment by Brightpoint of the Assessment Amount on behalf of the Plan, and contrary to the terms of the First Court Order, the requested amendment had the effect of requiring the Receiver to issue a certificate to the Plan, and not Brightpoint. The Court granted the motion on October 12, 2001 and, accordingly, the First Court Order was amended (the Amended Court Order).

Accordingly, the Plan received, and currently continues to hold, a certificate that was issued by the Receiver (the Certificate). The applicant states that, to date, the Plan has not received any amounts pursuant to its holding of the Certificate.

8. The applicant seeks relief for the Payment and the Repayment. In this regard, the applicant represents that as stated above, Brightpoint undertook the Payment in the belief that the Recovery Amount will likely be less than the Assessment Amount. The applicant notes that, in the event that the Recovery Amount does in fact turn out to be less than the Assessment Amount, the Plan will not be required to pay Brightpoint the amount representing the difference between the Assessment Amount and the Recovery Amount. In this way, the Plan will not incur a loss due to the court-ordered allocation of the Deficiency.

The applicant states further that the terms of the Repayment are also protective of the Plan. In this regard, the entitlement of Brightpoint to any recovery of the Deficiency pursuant to the holding of the Certificate by the Plan is limited to an amount not in excess of the Assessment Amount. Pursuant to the terms of the Repayment, in the event that the Recovery Amount turns out to be greater than the Assessment Amount, the portion of the Recovery Amount that exceeds the Assessment Amount will be retained by the Plan. In this way, Brightpoint may only receive up to $108,738.85, the amount Brightpoint paid to Millennium on behalf of the Plan, as a result of the Plan's holding of the Certificate.

9. The applicant states that Brightpoint acted in good faith in paying the Assessment Amount on behalf of the Plan. In this regard, the applicant represents that the fiduciaries of the Plan had no reason or opportunity to know in advance of the Deficiency since the Intrust shortage consisted solely of non-Plan assets. In addition, the applicant represents that Plan distributions processed through Intrust were done so properly and in a timely manner. According to the applicant, Brightpoint paid the Assessment Amount solely as a means of responding to an event that was potentially harmful to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.

10. In summary, the applicant represents that the Payment and Repayment satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act since:

(A) In the event the Plan receives a Recovery Amount that is greater than the Assessment Amount, the Plan will not be required to pay Brightpoint that portion of the Recovery Amount that is in excess of the Assessment Amount;

(B) In the event the Plan receives a Recovery Amount that is less than the Assessment Amount, the Plan will not be required to pay Brightpoint the difference between the Assessment Amount and the Recovery Amount;

(C) The Plan will not pay any of the costs and/or fees associated with the Payment and the Repayment;

(D) The Deficiency did not arise in connection with any improper act undertaken by a Plan fiduciary (other than Intrust or its principals); and

(E) Upon notification of the Intrust losses, the Brightpoint Plan fiduciaries undertook, and will continue to undertake, the actions necessary to ensure that the assets of the Plan were, and are, adequately protected.

Notice to Interested Persons: The applicant represents that notice to interested persons will be made within thirty (30) 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 .

Some of the key objectives of the KSC mission are to support development of the ISS and growth in the commercial space industry; promote and facilitate general commercial use and development of space; and continue to develop KSC as a world leader in spaceport and range technology development while maintaining the prominence in launch and landing operations of KSC and CCAFS, collectively known as the Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS). Towards these ends, KSC believes the development and operation of a commercial-based research park would attract and promote broad-based research and technology development activities. In addition, the development and testing activities would increase the availability of intellectual, physical, and financial resources to directly support the use and development of space and its commercial potential. This outcome would enable NASA to more efficiently perform its core research and exploration missions. Therefore, NASA is proposing to allow the State of Florida, through its FSA, to develop up to 160 hectares (400 acres) of land on KSC as a ISRP. This area would be developed and managed by the FSA for the life of the ISRP, which is up to 50 years. The FSA would seek tenants to build and operate commercial and educational facilities within the ISRP, which would be subdivided into about 24 available parcels ranging in size from approximately two to eight hectares (five to 20 acres) each.

Enterprises, both private and public wishing to engage in or support research and technology, space product development, or commercialized space services that are in alignment with the strategic direction and needs of the FSA would be invited to consider locating their laboratories and offices in the ISRP. The proposed ISRP would be unique and as such would be expected to attract a broad, but synergistic range of activities. Such activities may include university-sponsored research and education, commercial space experiment processing services, spaceport and range technology development and support activities, international laboratories and administrative support for NASA's global partners on the space station, technical and scientific support labs, space business assistance activities, space technology brokerage activities, and business support services required by ISRP tenants. NASA envisions the ISRP as a pedestrian-friendly campus, with features to encourage interaction and collaboration among its tenants. The ISRP would manage all utilities and services for the tenants. All tenants would be required to meet strict eligibility requirements to be allowed to build in the ISRP. Heavy manufacturing or large-scale assembly of space hardware, and any operations deemed hazardous or incompatible with other ISRP users, would not be allowed. Full build-out of the ISRP is not expected for 20 to 25 years. At full build-out, the ISRP would contain facilities that represent a combined floor space of more than 185,000 square meters (2 million square feet) of research and development and related facility space and a total estimated population of approximately 10,000 workers.

An initial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between KSC and FSA was signed in December 2001, describing the respective roles of the partners in planning the ISRP and establishing common understandings related to the subsequent implementation and operation of the ISRP. The MOU provides that NASA fund and lead the concept development study with FSA involvement, and FSA fund and manage follow-on engineering, technical, and business studies to prepare for ISRP implementation. The proposed management approach envisioned for the ISRP is that NASA would retain ownership of the property but convey land use and development rights to the FSA for up to 50 years. The FSA would enter into long-term arrangements with ISRP tenants to enable commercially financed space industry firms and academic institutions to build and operate in the ISRP.

NASA is planning to evaluate two locations as reasonable alternatives for the proposed ISRP on KSC: the first alternative site (Alternative 1) is located south of the KSC Visitor Complex and west of Kennedy Parkway, and the second alternative site (Alternative 2) is located east of Kennedy Parkway just to the north of the south gate entrance (Gate 2) to KSC. The EIS will also consider the No Action Alternative ( i.e. , not developing the ISRP). Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, would result in development in an area of approximately 160 hectares (440 acres) that currently is comprised mostly of citrus groves, some of which are no longer in production. Citrus production will cease, in any event, in 2008. Alternative 1 also contains some 32 hectares (79 acres) of wetlands, not all of which would be impacted by ISRP development. Alternative 2 would result in development in an area that contains 134 hectares (332 acres) of pine flatwoods and scrub habitat and some 27 hectares (67 acres) of wetlands, not all of which would be impacted by ISRP development. Both of these locations were selected in part to accommodate the need for the ISRP to be located outside the KSC security zone to allow for 24-hour access by the tenants.

The EIS will consider the full range of potential environmental impacts associated with these alternatives. Environmental issues addressed will include, but not necessarily be limited to: land use, motor vehicle traffic, air and water quality, infrastructure and drainage, hazardous materials and site contamination, pollution prevention, geology, biological resources, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources, socioeconomic impacts (including environmental justice), and other issues identified for emphasis during the scoping process. NASA will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office during the planning process because Alternative 2 may potentially affect archeological and historic sites. NASA will also consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the potential for the ISRP to impact threatened and endangered species and critical habitat.

The membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows:

The membership of the National Science Foundation's Office of Inspector General Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows: Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman, Audit and Oversight Committee, National Science Board, Chairperson Nathaniel Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Activities Bruce Umminger, Senior Scientist, Office of Integrative Activities.

On July 25 United and U.S. Airways submitted code-share and frequent flyer program reciprocity agreements to us for review under 49 U.S.C. 41720. After informally reviewing the agreements, we find that no formal investigation of the agreements is warranted at this time, and we have determined that we should end the waiting period. The two airlines have agreed to restrictions proposed by the Justice Department that are intended to limit the possibility of anti-competitive behavior, and each airline has represented to us that it will continue to compete independently on fares and service levels. To ensure that they abide by those representations, we will monitor closely their conduct in implementing the agreements.

Under 49 U.S.C. 41720, certain kinds of joint venture agreements among major U.S. passenger airlines must be submitted to us at least thirty days before their proposed implementation date. We may extend the waiting period by 150 days with respect to a code-sharing agreement and by sixty days for the other types of agreements covered by the advance-filing requirement. At the end of the waiting period (either the thirty-day period or any extended period implemented by us), the parties may implement their agreement.

The statute does not require the parties to obtain our approval before they implement an agreement. Blocking them from implementing their agreement would normally require our issuance of an order under 49 U.S.C. 41712 (formerly section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act) in a formal enforcement proceeding that determined that the agreement's implementation would be an unfair method of competition and thus a violation of that section. Our review of all agreements submitted under 49 U.S.C. 41720 has been informal. It is analogous to the review of major mergers and acquisitions conducted by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, since we consider whether we should institute a formal proceeding for determining whether an agreement would violate section 41712.

While our review of the United/US Airways agreements has been informal, we established an opportunity for other parties to review redacted copies of the United/US Airways agreements and to submit comments due to the public interest in the agreements. 67 FR 50745 (August 5, 2002). We have carefully considered the comments filed on the agreements as well as the agreements themselves and other information provided to us by the parties. We have also consulted with the Justice Department, which has been reviewing the agreements under its responsibility to enforce the antitrust laws. Of course, our authority under 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair methods of competition is somewhat broader than the Justice Department's authority to enforce the antitrust laws. See, e.g., United Air Lines v. CAB, 766 F.2d 1107 (7th Cir. 1985). We extended the waiting period twice in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the agreements. 67 FR 54525 (August 22, 2002); 67 FR 59328 (September 20, 2002).

We have determined to end the waiting period for the United/US Airways agreements and take no action at this time to prevent the airlines from beginning to implement the agreements. At the present time, the material we have reviewed is not sufficient for us to conclude that an enforcement proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 41712 is warranted. However, we have a number of concerns about the United/US Airways agreements and the relationship being created by them. The two airlines together will have an industry market share of 23 percent, as measured by domestic revenue-passenger-miles (“RPMs”). In contrast, the largest airline, American, has a 17 percent market share. United has a 14 percent share, while U.S. Airways has a 9 percent share. U.S. Airways has also been the primary airline in the Northeast. We have a concern that the joint venture relationship being created by United and U.S. Airways may lead to lessening of competition between the two airlines in some markets. On the other hand, the joint venture will provide service benefits for a number of travellers and may increase competition in other markets, if United and U.S. Airways have strong incentives to compete with each other. While there is considerable overlap between the United and U.S. Airways route networks, the code-share arrangement will enable United and U.S. Airways to offer more integrated connecting services in markets not now served by either airline, which will benefit consumers traveling in those markets.

Legally and practically, the airlines' joint venture relationship will not be the equivalent of a merger, there will not be a significant integration of the airlines' operations, and each airline has represented that it will independently establish its fare levels and capacity levels in its city-pair markets. In addition, the fares paid by passengers on flights operated under the code-share arrangement will go to the airline operating the flight, even if the passenger bought the ticket under the other airline's code (the airline operating the flight is the operating carrier, while the other airline is the marketing carrier). This should give each airline an incentive to compete with its partner by operating its own flights, since it will obtain passenger revenues only when it is the operating carrier.

After examining the United/US Airways agreements, the Justice Department has determined that it will not challenge those agreements under the antitrust laws if United and U.S. Airways accept certain restrictions on their joint venture. The two airlines have accepted those restrictions, as set forth in a letter agreement with the Justice Department. These restrictions primarily bar the airlines from code-sharing on certain nonstop routes and engaging in certain pricing conduct that could provide a vehicle for signaling and collusion. The two airlines have also agreed with the Justice Department that each airline will independently establish the terms and conditions for its frequent flyer program. The terms of the parties' agreements, with restrictions set forth in the airlines' agreement with the Justice Department, appear at this time to address our immediate concerns with competition by United and U.S. Airways. In reaching our conclusion, we are expressly relying on the airlines' representations to us and on their strict compliance with the terms of their agreement with the Department of Justice.

Under the agreement with the Justice Department, United and U.S. Airways will not code-share on local traffic on routes where both offer nonstop service, including their hub-to-hub routes (Philadelphia-Los Angeles, for example). They will not code-share on local traffic on nonstop services operated to the same endpoint from either Dulles International Airport or Reagan Washington National Airport, except for Washington, DC-LaGuardia/Boston flights. On routes served by only one of the two airlines, the marketing carrier's fares must be the same as the operating carrier's fares. On routes served by both airlines where both have comparable service (connecting service, for example), each airline's fares for flights operated by the other airline must be the same as the fares for its own flights or the fares established by the airline operating the flights. The marketing airline thus must charge either the same fares as the operating airline or the fares charged by the marketing airline for its own flights. On routes where one airline offers nonstop service and the other airline offers connecting service, the latter airline's fares for the nonstop service must be the same as the operating carrier's fares. Finally, United and U.S. Airways must continue to act independently in establishing the terms and conditions of their frequent flyer programs and in bidding on corporate contracts, although when consistent with the antitrust laws they may offer customers the option of a joint bid.

As noted, we have considered the comments submitted on the agreements. While many of them support the United/US Airways joint venture, several of the comments argue that the joint venture will be anti-competitive and that we should institute a formal proceeding to investigate its competitive effects. At this time we are not persuaded that the joint venture or the agreements would, on their face, violate 49 U.S.C. 41712. We have not yet seen evidence that the agreements will unreasonably restrict either airline's incentives and ability to compete independently or would be likely to result in collusion on fares or service levels.

Given our strong concern that the agreements not have anti-competitive results, however, we intend to monitor closely their implementation by United and U.S. Airways. If we obtain evidence that the airlines' implementation of their joint venture is having an adverse impact on competition, we may take action under 49 U.S.C. 41712 at that time. Furthermore, if United and U.S. Airways at any future time decide that they will no longer comply with the restrictions agreed upon with the Justice Department, they will have created a new agreement which must be submitted to us under 49 U.S.C. 41720 and which therefore cannot be implemented until the end of a new waiting period. The same will be true if they materially modify the terms of the agreements submitted by them on July 25. Under our established interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 41720, airlines that significantly modify a joint venture agreement must submit the modified agreement to us under that statute.

We are continuing to examine the similar agreements submitted by Delta, Continental, and Northwest, which were filed one month after United and U.S. Airways submitted their agreements. 67 FR 56340 (September 3, 2002).

Title: Aviation Medical Examiner Program.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0604.

Form(s): FAA Form 8520-2.

Affected Public: A total of 450 Aviation Medical Examiner applicants.

Abstract: This collection of information is necessary in order to determine applicants' professional and personel qualifications for certification as an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). The information is used to develop the AME directories used by airmen who must undergo periodic examinations by AMEs.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 225 hours annually.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Title: Procedures for non-federal Navigational Facilities, FAR 171.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0014.

Form(s): FAA Form 6030-1, 6030-17, 6790-4, 6790-5.

Affected Public: A total of 2413 navigation facility operators.

Abstract: The non-Federal navigation facilities are electrical/electronic aids to air navigation which are purchased, installed, operated, and maintained by an entity other than the FAA and are available for use by the flying public. These aids may be located at unattended sites or airport terminals. The information kept is used by the FAA to prove that the facility is maintained within certain specified tolerances.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 33,116 hours annually.

Title: Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and Flight Instructors.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0600.

Form(s): NA.

Affected Public: A total of 3,000 airmen and flight instructors.

Abstract: This rule establishes separate requirements for check airmen who check only in flight simulators and flight instructors who instruct only in flight simulators. The collection of information allows the FAA to determine the compliance to this rule of experienced pilots who would otherwise qualify as flight instructors or check airmen but who are not medically eligible to hold the requisite medical certificates.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 12.5 hours annually.