[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2002)]
[Pages 69769-69774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29472]



Performance of Commercial Activities

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the 

ACTION: Proposed revision to Office of Management and Budget Circular 
No. A-76, ``Performance of Commercial Activities.''


[[Page 69770]]

SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes major 
revisions to Circular No. A-76 to improve the management of commercial 
activities that are needed to conduct the business of government. The 
revisions would expand the use of public-private competitions to all 
activities performed in-house and through commercial inter-service 
support agreements (ISSAs). The revisions would also incorporate 
principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) into the 
competitive sourcing process, including the ability to conduct an 
expanded best value cost-technical trade-off source selection process. 
In addition, the revisions would provide guidance for the development 
of inventories identifying the commercial and inherently governmental 
activities agencies perform, and prescribe limitations regarding the 
reimbursable services federal agencies may provide to state and local 
    To accomplish these changes, OMB is proposing to revise and 
incorporate the following documents into the revised Circular A-76: the 
``Revised Supplemental Handbook to OMB Circular A-76'' (March 1999); 
OMB Circular A-76 Transmittal Memoranda Nos. 1-24; Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 92-1, ``Inherently Governmental 
Functions''; and OMB Circular A-97, ``Provision of Specialized or 
Technical Services to State and Local Units of Government by Federal 
Agencies Under Title III of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 
1968.'' The Revised Supplemental Handbook to Circular A-76 (hereafter 
``Supplemental Handbook''), OFPP Policy Letter 92-1 and OMB Circular A-
97 would be rescinded.

DATES: Interested parties should submit comments to OFPP, Office of 
Management and Budget, at the address shown below on or before December 
19, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of 
mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments 
electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that 
comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date. 
Electronic comments may be submitted to: A-76comments@omb.eop.gov. 
Please put the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic 
message and as an attachment. Please include your name, title, 
organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address in 
the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile 
to 202-395-5105. Comments may be mailed to Mr. David C. Childs, Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, 725 
17th Street NW., New Executive Office Building, Room 9013, Washington, 
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David C. Childs, Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy, NEOB Room 9013, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 (tel: (202) 395-6104).
    Availability: Copies of the proposed revision to OMB Circular A-76 
may be obtained at the OMB home page at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/
circulars/index.htmlnumerical. Copies of the current OMB 
Circular A-76, the Revised Supplemental Handbook, applicable 
Transmittal Memoranda, OFPP Policy Letter 92-1, and OMB Circular A-97 
are also available on the OMB home page. Paper copies of any of the 
documents identified above may be obtained by calling OFPP (tel: (202) 


A. Overview

    To lower costs for taxpayers and improve program performance to 
citizens, OMB has undertaken major revisions to the processes and 
practices in OMB Circular A-76 that govern how federal agencies 
determine whether commercial activities will be performed by public or 
private sources. The proposed revisions would:
    [sbull] Significantly expand the use of public-private competition 
by (i) eliminating exceptions that have permitted federal agencies to 
provide services to one another on a sole-source basis under 
reimbursable fee-for-service agreements (i.e., commercial ISSAs) and 
(ii) requiring periodic recompetitions of commercial activities 
performed for the government;
    [sbull] Make processes simpler and easier to understand, including 
greater reliance on concepts and practices set forth in the FAR that 
are familiar to, and well tested by, the acquisition community;
    [sbull] Improve the effectiveness of competitions by giving 
agencies greater flexibility to consider quality in source selections, 
including the use of cost-technical tradeoffs for information 
technology (IT) and certain other activities;
    [sbull] Improve public trust in public-private competitions by 
avoiding any appearance of conflicts of interest;
    [sbull] Increase visibility into the management of government by 
requiring agencies to develop lists of their commercial and inherently 
governmental activities and make them available to the public; and
    [sbull] Strengthen accountability for achieving results by 
centralizing agency oversight for the management of commercial 
activities and increasing the focus on post-award administration of 
agreements with public providers to be more consistent with practices 
applied to contracts with private sector providers.

B. The Purpose and Procedures of OMB Circular A-76

    Federal agencies rely on a mix of public and private sector sources 
to perform a wide variety of recurring commercial activities that are 
needed to conduct the business of government. These activities range 
all the way from custodial services to data collection, computer 
services and research, testing, and maintenance of equipment used by 
our nation's war fighters. OMB Circular A-76 establishes the policies 
and procedures for identifying commercial activities and determining 
whether these activities should be provided through contract with 
commercial service providers, by in-house government personnel, or 
through reimbursable fee-for-service providers under ISSAs with other 
government agencies.
    Before an agency shifts commercial work from one sector to another 
(e.g., from in-house performance to contract, or vice versa), Circular 
A-76 generally requires the agency to conduct a public-private 
competition in which the cost of performance is compared between and 
among the public and private sectors. To perform a ``cost comparison'' 
under the current Circular, agencies must:
    [sbull] Develop a performance work statement (PWS);
    [sbull] Create a management plan to determine the government's 
``most efficient organization'' (MEO);
    [sbull] Establish an in-house government cost estimate for the in-
house plan that is then certified by an independent reviewing official 
(IRO) for compliance with the PWS and costing policies set forth in the 
    [sbull] Issue a solicitation in accordance with the FAR seeking 
offers from private and public sector sources, except for the in-house 
source, whose cost estimate is submitted and evaluated independently;
    [sbull] Identify the best offer submitted in response to the 
solicitation and compare it to the in-house estimate; and
    [sbull] Make award to the lower cost alternative (which is subject 
to review under an administrative appeals process).
    The Circular also recognizes a variety of circumstances in which 
agencies are

[[Page 69771]]

not required to conduct cost comparisons.
    No shifting of work contemplated. Cost comparisons are not required 
where work is not presently being performed in-house and the agency 
seeks to award a contract for a new or expanded service requirement or 
for a service that is currently being obtained through a competitively 
awarded contract.
    Direct conversions. The Circular allows agencies to directly 
convert work to or from the private sector without cost comparison 
under certain circumstances. For example, work may be directly 
converted where an activity is or will be performed by an aggregate of 
10 or fewer ``full-time-equivalent'' employees (FTEs), or where 
conversion will result in no employee impact (e.g., because they are 
reassigned to comparable federal positions or voluntarily retire).
    Ongoing agency performance. Commercial services activities that 
have been continuously performed by an in-house provider or another 
agency through an ISSA are not subject to recurring cost comparisons. 
In March 1996, OMB amended the Supplemental Handbook to require cost 
comparisons before new or expanded work is performed in-house or 
through an ISSA. However, there is no limitation on the length of the 
new agency performance agreements, thus allowing indefinite deferral of 
further competitions.
    Exercise of agency waivers. Agency heads are authorized to waive 
cost comparisons under certain conditions. For instance, an agency may 
waive the cost comparison requirement where a conversion will result in 
a significant financial or service quality improvement and the proposed 
conversion will not serve to reduce significantly the level or quality 
of competition in the future award or performance of work.

C. Shortcomings of Current Circular A-76 Processes

    Since its original issuance in 1966, Circular A-76 has been revised 
three times--in 1967, 1979, and 1983. The Supplemental Handbook, first 
issued in 1979, has been revised three times--in 1983, 1996 and 1999. 
Despite the revisions, including the development of streamlined cost 
comparisons for activities with 65 or fewer FTEs, the policies and 
processes of Circular A-76 have not been widely applied. While the 
Department of Defense has undertaken some noteworthy efforts, most of 
the 850,000 FTEs that agencies have identified as performing commercial 
activities (nearly half of all federal employees) remain insulated from 
the dynamics of competition.
    A variety of factors have limited the Circular's use and 
    The Circular's exceptions allow for significant amounts of agency 
work to be performed without competition. As described above, ISSAs 
between federal agencies for commercial support services in place 
before 1996 enjoy a special exemption from the Circular's competition 
requirements. Simply put, there is no requirement to subject these 
reimbursable agreements to competition unless an agency voluntarily 
decides to consider changing its current provider. As a result, 
billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be spent on federal operations 
that have never been exposed to the innovation and efficiency that 
competition generates. Even where competitions are conducted, there are 
no requirements to limit the period of performance if a public provider 
wins the competition. Consequently, many public providers continue to 
escape the competitive pressures that would likely motivate optimal 
    The competition process is complicated and not well understood. 
Conducting a cost comparison can be time consuming and complex. In-
house providers often lack the training and technical support needed to 
develop management plans, solicitations, or fully allocated cost 
estimates. In addition, the Circular includes numerous procedures that 
are different from the established acquisition processes set forth in 
the FAR for conducting competitions among private sector sources. These 
differences serve as necessary safeguards for public-private 
competitions, especially when in-house performance is contemplated. 
However, many believe the process for carrying out public-private 
competitions under Circular A-76 could be made more understandable by 
using basic FAR principles.
    Current processes do not give agencies sufficient flexibility to 
make best value decisions. Historically, Circular A-76 has focused 
agency sourcing decisions on cost. Cost must always be a factor and 
often should be the most important factor. At the same time, securing 
good performance often hinges on quality considerations that may 
require agencies to make tradeoffs between cost and quality when 
evaluating sources. The 1996 Supplemental Handbook introduced the 
concept of best value to public-private competitions. However, it 
places significant limitations on an agency's ability to use cost-
technical tradeoffs in a public-private source selection process.
    Many believe the process is susceptible to gaming. Despite various 
safeguards, including costing principles that allow federal managers to 
make cost comparisons between sectors that have vastly divergent 
approaches to cost accounting, there remains a general sense that 
public-private competitions are not always fair. This perception is 
driven, in part, by the fact that agencies have considerable control 
over the timing of competitions. Managers often delay the start of, or 
unnecessarily draw out, competitions without consequence, hurting 
morale and reducing the number of private sector firms willing to 
compete. In addition, federal employees historically have been allowed 
to participate both in defining performance requirements and developing 
the in-house offer--causing some to question if conflicts of interest 
could exist. These concerns serve to discourage participation in 
public-private competitions and weaken taxpayer confidence in the 
overall process.
    Accountability for results is limited. When public employees 
compete and win work, government managers are often not held fully 
accountable for making good on the projected savings and improved 
performance identified in the agency's offer. Current guidance requires 
post-competition reviews, but only for 20 percent of the functions 
performed by the government following a cost comparison. As a result, 
even where competition is used to transform a public provider into a 
high-value service provider, few steps are routinely taken to ensure 
this potential translates into positive results.

D. Proposed Revisions to Circular A-76

    OMB is committed to improving significantly the processes and 
practices federal agencies use to determine whether commercial 
activities will be performed by public or private sector sources. These 
decisions have a direct and substantial effect on the government's 
ability to deliver quality service to our citizens in a cost-effective, 
timely, and responsible manner. Therefore, OMB is proposing major 
revisions to Circular A-76 to: (1) Improve and expand the use of 
competition in public-private sourcing decisions, (2) better ensure 
fairness, integrity, and transparency in the decision-making process, 
and (3) strengthen accountability for achieving results.
    In addition to making significant substantive changes, OMB is 
modifying the organization of the Circular to improve clarity and ease 
of use. The main body of the Circular (now a two-page document) lays 
out the basic

[[Page 69772]]

policy tenants and responsibilities that agencies must undertake. 
Guidance for carrying out these responsibilities, and a detailed 
glossary of acronyms and definition of key terms, are set forth in six 

Attachment A--Inventory Process
Attachment B--Public-Private Competition
Attachment C--Direct Conversion Process
Attachment D--Inter-Service Support Agreements
Attachment E--Calculating Public-Private Competition Costs
Attachment F--Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions of Terms

    The key substantive changes in the proposed revision to Circular A-
76 are as follows:

1. Improving and Expanding the Use of Competition

    This Administration's general policy is to rely on competition to 
select the providers of commercial activities that agencies perform in 
carrying out their missions. The benefits of competition are well 
documented. The General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Center for 
Naval Analysis repeatedly have concluded that subjecting larger in-
house operations to competition has consistently generated cost savings 
exceeding 30 percent. See, e.g., Future Years Defense Program: Funding 
Increase and Planned Savings in Fiscal Year 2000 Program Are at Risk, 
GAO/NSIAD-00-11 (November 1999); Evidence on Savings from DOD A-76 
Competitions, Center for Naval Analysis, CRM 98-125 (November 1998); 
Long-Run Costs and Performance Effects of Competitive Sourcing, Center 
for Naval Analysis, CRM D0002765.A2 (February 2001).
    The President has identified competitive sourcing--i.e., the 
process of opening the government's commercial activities to the 
discipline of competition--as one the five main initiatives of his 
Management Agenda for improving the performance of government. Changes 
set forth in the proposed revisions to Circular A-76 are designed to 
facilitate broader and more strategic use of competitive sourcing as a 
management tool for improving agency performance.
a. Competition as the Norm
    i. Presumption that an activity is commercial. The revised Circular 
will require agencies to presume that all activities are commercial in 
nature unless an activity is justified as inherently governmental. See 
Sec.  4.b. of the Circular and ] D.1 of Attachment A. To reinforce this 
presumption, agencies will be required to submit annual inventories of 
their inherently governmental positions. See ] C.3. of Attachment A. 
The Circular offers a more concise definition of ``inherently 
governmental'' and rescinds the more complex description contained in 
OFPP Letter 92-1 to achieve greater consistency in the identification 
of inherently governmental positions. The responsibility to develop an 
inherently governmental activities inventory will be in addition to the 
general obligation for agencies to prepare comprehensive annual 
inventories of their commercial activities performed by Federal 
activities, a requirement derived from the Federal Activities Inventory 
Reform (FAIR) Act (Pub. L. 105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note). See ] C.1. of 
Attachment A. With limited exception, the list of inherently 
governmental activities will be made available for public review. These 
additional steps should help to improve the accuracy of inventories and 
cast greater transparency on the government's commercial activities 
    ii. Elimination of anti-competitive agency-to-agency arrangements. 
The revised Circular will eliminate the ``grandfather clause'' that 
currently permits public reimbursable service providers working under 
commercial ISSAs in existence prior to March 1996 to perform work 
indefinitely without being subject to competition. Agencies relying on 
public reimbursable providers will be required to develop plans for 
competing these commercial ISSAs within five years. All commercial 
ISSAs that are not competed or directly converted within this timeframe 
will be terminated, unless specific approval is granted by OMB's Deputy 
Director for Management, based on a report submitted by the head of the 
customer agency demonstrating why competition is not yet feasible. See 
] B.3.of Attachment D.
    In addition, customer agencies will be required to periodically 
test the marketplace by recompeting requirements performed by public 
reimbursable providers, just as they would with private sector 
contractors. This will help to ensure that all sources, public and 
private, are appropriately incentivized to perform at their best. 
Generally, agencies will be required to recompete commercial ISSAs 
every five years. The exact performance period will be identified in 
the ISSA or in a letter of obligation when the work is performed in 
house directly by the agency employees. See ]] C.2.a.(5). and 
C.5.a.(4). and b.(2). of Attachment B.
    There will be limited exceptions to the recompetition requirement. 
For example, commercial ISSAs will not be subject to competition if the 
revenue generated to the public reimbursable service provider 
performing under the ISSA does not exceed $1 million on an annual 
basis. An exemption will also be provided for inherently governmental 
ISSAs that, among other things, establish contracts for inter-agency 
use e.g., such as a government-wide acquisition contract or multi-
agency contract), and where the public reimbursable provider bears no 
responsibility to the customer agency for performance of the work and 
the customer agency is responsible for making all payments directly to 
the contractor. See ] A of Attachment D.
    Finally, the revised Circular will incorporate long-standing 
limitations imposed on federal agencies regarding the reimbursable 
services they provide to state and local governments. See ] H of 
Attachment D. These requirements, which are based on section 302 of the 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (31 U.S.C. 6505), are 
currently implemented in OMB Circular A-97. Circular A-97 states that 
federal agencies may provide only specialized or technical commercial 
services to a state or local government if, among other things: (1) The 
requesting state or local government entity demonstrates that it has 
sought but has been unable to identify a satisfactory private sector 
source, (2) the provision of such specialized and technical services 
shall not require additional resources, beyond those necessary to meet 
federal requirements, and (3) the service is currently provided by the 
agency for its own use and, if commercial in nature, has been competed 
in accordance with Circular A-76. By rescinding Circular A-97 and 
incorporating its requirements in Circular A-76, the key policies 
addressing the appropriate parameters of federal performance of 
commercial activities will be set forth in one document.
b. Expanded Reliance on Well-Established FAR Practices
    The revised Circular requires that agencies generally comply with 
the FAR in conducting competitions. See Sec.  4.d. of the Circular and 
] C.2. of Attachment B. The general principles of the FAR are well 
established and enjoy widespread familiarity within the procurement 
community. Greater application of FAR-type principles and practices 
throughout the Circular is intended to bring public-private 
competitions closer to mainstream source selection and reduce confusion 
that may currently

[[Page 69773]]

make it more difficult for parties to compete. Examples of FAR-type 
principles that have been incorporated into the revised Circular 
    [sbull] Greater uniformity in the application of basic requirements 
to private and in-house providers. For instance, in-house offers 
(referred to in the proposed Circular as ``agency tenders'') will be 
required to respond to a solicitation within the same timeframes 
required of private sector offerors or public reimbursable tenders or 
risk elimination from the competition. See ] C.3.a.(2), (8) and (9) of 
Attachment B. Furthermore, instead of having an IRO review the agency 
tender, while all other offerors are reviewed by the source selection 
evaluation board (SSEB), the SSEB will simultaneously evaluate all 
tenders simultaneously with all offers. See ]] C.4.a.(1).a, a.(2)., and 
a.(3).a. of Attachment B;
    [sbull] Ability to conduct cost-technical tradeoffs in certain 
circumstances, largely in accordance with FAR Part 15, including the 
ability to eliminate an agency tender from the competitive range (see 
further discussion below);
    [sbull] Exchanges between public tenders and the government in 
accordance with the general principles set forth in the FAR for 
exchanges between the government and the private sector. See ] 
C.4.a(3)(a). of Attachment B;
    [sbull] Post award accountability for in-house performance similar 
to that expected of private sector contractors. Agencies relying on an 
in-house provider or a public reimbursable provider will be required to 
document changes to the solicitation, track actual costs, and terminate 
for failure to perform. See ] C.5.a.(4). of Attachment B. As described 
above, agencies will also be required to recompete work being performed 
by in-house or public reimbursable providers in accordance with the 
same time limitations imposed by the FAR on contracts with the private 
    The revised Circular recognizes the talents and conditions under 
which the federal workforce operates and the importance of providing 
them with adequate training and technical support during the 
competition process to ensure they are able to comply with the 
requirements of the Circular and compete effectively. In this regard, 
the Circular requires that the agency tender official, the PWS team, 
and the MEO team be assisted by specific experts, including human 
resources, procurement, and management experts. See generally ] B.3.a. 
of Attachment B.
c. Greater Emphasis on Best Value
    Cost comparisons have been the traditional focal point of Circular 
A-76. Reflective of the focus of the Circular for most of its history, 
the term connotes a cost-only sourcing decision. While cost will always 
be an important consideration in sourcing decisions, and often the most 
important consideration, agencies should also have the ability to take 
quality and innovation into account, especially where needs may require 
complex and inter-related services. For this reason, the term ``cost 
comparison'' has been dropped from the proposed Circular and replaced 
with the term competition.
    The new focal point will be on ``standard competitions,'' or direct 
conversions when appropriate. Recognizing that agency needs cannot be 
met through a ``one-size-fits all'' approach, the Circular's guidance 
is broader and more accommodating than that which was developed over 
the years for the conduct of cost comparisons.
    For example, when conducting a standard competition, agencies will 
have three options for considering non-cost factors. First, an agency 
may conduct a low price technically acceptable source selection where 
the performance decision is based on the low cost of offers that have 
been determined to be technically acceptable. See ] C.4.a.(3).b. of 
Attachment B. Second, if an agency wishes to have the flexibility of 
considering alternative performance levels that sources may wish to 
propose, the agency may conduct a ``phased evaluation process.'' During 
the first phase when technical factors are considered, the in-house 
provider, public reimbursable providers and private sector offerors may 
propose performance standards different from those specified in the 
solicitation. If the agency determines that the proposed alternative 
performance standards are appropriate and are within the agency's 
current budget, the agency could issue a formal amendment to the 
solicitation and allow revised submissions. The technically qualified 
offerors and the in-house offeror would then compete based on price 
against the revised performance standard. See ] C.4.a.(c).2. of 
Attachment B.
    Finally, if non-cost factors are likely to play a more dominant 
role, agencies may conduct an ``integrated evaluation process'' with 
cost-technical tradeoffs similar to those authorized by FAR Part 15. 
Like the FAR Part 15 process, private sector offers, public 
reimbursable providers and in-house providers may submit higher 
performance standards than the solicitation. If the in-house offer is 
not among the most highly rated proposals, it could be eliminated from 
the competitive range, as would be envisioned by FAR 15.306(c). The 
source selection authority (SSA) would be required to document its 
rationale for any tradeoffs as required by FAR 15.406. Given the 
special considerations that must be taken into account with a public-
private competition, the Circular recognizes that this integrated 
evaluation technique may not be appropriate for all needs and should be 
tested before wider application is authorized. For this reason, the 
Circular limits usage to (1) IT activities currently performed by 
federal employees, (2) contracted commercial activities, new 
requirements, or segregable expansions where an agency tender will be 
submitted, or (3) any other commercial activities where the agency's 
assistant secretary or equivalent level official with responsibility 
for implementing the Circular (i.e., the ``4.e official'') receives 
approval from OMB prior to issuance of the solicitation. See ] 
C.4.a(c)1. of Attachment B.

2. Ensuring Fairness, Integrity, and Transparency

    The revised Circular will establish new rules to separate the team 
that is formed to write the solicitation from that established to 
develop the agency tender. In addition, the agency MEO team, directly 
affected personnel (and their representatives) and any individual with 
detailed knowledge of the MEO or agency cost estimate in the agency 
tender will not be allowed to be members of the SSEB. See ] D.2. of 
Attachment B. These steps are intended to avoid any appearance of a 
conflict of interest and garner the public's trust in the processes 
used to make critical sourcing decisions.
3. Strengthening Accountability for Results
    The ultimate success of Circular A-76 to deliver results for the 
taxpayer requires that appropriate mechanisms be in place to ensure 
selected public or private sources make good on their promises. To this 
end, the revised Circular will:
    [sbull] Require agencies to centralize oversight responsibility. 
Agencies will be required to establish a program office responsible for 
the daily implementation and enforcement of the Circular. Improved 
oversight will serve to enhance communications, facilitate sharing of 
lessons learned, and significantly improve overall

[[Page 69774]]

compliance with the Circular. See ] C.1.b.(5). of Attachment B.
    [sbull] Impose competition timeframes. The revised Circular states 
that a standard competition shall be completed within one year of the 
public announcement that a competition will be conducted. The 4.e. 
official (i.e., an agency assistant secretary or equivalent level 
official with responsibility for implementing the Circular) may waive 
the one-year completion requirement at announcement of the competition 
and set an alternative completion date if the competition is 
particularly complex and notification is provided to OMB. See ] 
C.1.b.(3). of Attachment B. These timeframes are designed to 
incentivize agencies to complete competitions and will instill greater 
confidence by all participants that agencies are committed to 
competitive sourcing and selecting the best provider. It will also 
ensure that the benefits of competition are realized.
    [sbull] Improve post competition oversight. To ensure public 
providers are subjected to the same oversight that private providers 
routinely face, customer agencies will be required to document changes 
in the solicitation and agency tender and track actual costs. Before 
exercising an option for additional performance, the agency will be 
required to determine that performance by the in-house, public 
reimbursable, or private contract provider meets the requirements of 
the solicitation and that continued performance is advantageous to the 
agency. See ] C.5.b.(2). of Attachment B.

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
[FR Doc. 02-29472 Filed 11-15-02; 12:37 pm]