Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34489

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–338, 339, 280, and 281]

Virginia Electric Power Company,

North Anna, Units 1 and 2, and Surry,

Units 1 and 2; Notice of Receipt of

Application for Renewal of Facility

Operating License Nos. NPF–4, NPF–7,

DPR–32, AND DPR–37 for an

Additional 20-Year Period

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has received applications from Virginia

Electric Power Company, dated May 29,

2001, filed pursuant to Section 104b of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and 10 CFR Part 54 for

renewal of Operating License Nos. NPF–

4, NPF–7, DPR–32, and DPR–37, which

authorize the applicant to operate North

Anna Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,

and Surry Nuclear Station, Units 1 and

2, respectively. The North Anna nuclear

facility is located 40 miles northwest of

Richmond, VA, in Louisa County. The

current operating licenses for North

Anna, Units 1 and 2, expire on April 1,

2018, and August 21, 2020, respectively.

The Surry nuclear facility is located 17

miles northwest of Newport News, VA,

in Surry County. The operating licenses

for Surry, Units 1 and 2, expire on May

25, 2012, and January 29, 2013,

respectively. All four Virginia Electric

Power Company nuclear units are threeloop pressurized-water reactors

designed by Westinghouse. The

acceptability of the tendered

applications for docketing and other

matters, including an opportunity to

request a hearing will be the subject of

a subsequent Federal Register notice.

A copy of the applications are

available electronically for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, or from the

Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of the NRC’s Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public

Electronic Reading Room is accessible

from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/

index.html. In addition, the applications

are available on the NRC web page at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/

index.html. If you do not have access to

ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or

by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

The staff has verified that a copy of

the license renewal application for the

North Anna nuclear station has been

provided to the Alderman Library at the

University of Virginia, and that a copy

of the license renewal application for

the Surry nuclear station has been

provided to the Swem Library at the

College of William and Mary.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 22nd day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Christopher I. Grimes,

Chief, License Renewal and Standardization

Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement

Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–16265 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Proposed Guidelines for Ensuring and

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,

Utility, and Integrity of Information

Disseminated by Federal Agencies

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Proposed guidelines.

SUMMARY: This notice requests comment

on proposed guidelines for

implementing Section 515 of the

Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Pub. L. 106–554). Section 515 directs

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to issue government-wide

guidelines that ‘‘provide policy and

procedural guidance to Federal agencies

for ensuring and maximizing the

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity

of information (including statistical

information) disseminated by Federal

agencies.’’ Within one year after OMB

issues these guidelines, agencies must

issue their own implementing

guidelines that include ‘‘administrative

mechanisms allowing affected persons

to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and

disseminated by the agency’’ that does

not comply with the OMB guidelines.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

guidelines should be addressed to

Brooke Dickson of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brooke Dickson at phone: (202) 395–

3191; fax: (202) 395–5167; e-mail:

informationquality@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Section

515(a) of the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act for

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.

5658), Congress directed the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to

issue, by September 30, 2001,

government-wide guidelines that

‘‘provide policy and procedural

guidance to Federal agencies for

ensuring and maximizing the quality,

objectivity, utility, and integrity of

information (including statistical

information) disseminated by Federal

agencies.’’ Section 515(b) goes on to

state that the OMB guidelines shall:

(1) Apply to the sharing by Federal

agencies of, and access to, information

disseminated by Federal agencies; and

(2) Require that each Federal agency to

which the guidelines apply—

(A) Issue guidelines ensuring and

maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility,

and integrity of information (including

statistical information) disseminated by the

agency, by not later than 1 year after the date

of issuance of the guidelines under

subsection (a);

(B) Establish administrative mechanisms

allowing affected persons to seek and obtain

correction of information maintained and

disseminated by the agency that does not

comply with the guidelines issued under

subsection (a); and

(C) Report periodically to the Director—

(i) The number and nature of complaints

received by the agency regarding the

accuracy of information disseminated by the

agency; and

(ii) How such complaints were handled by

the agency.

Background

The focus of Section 515 is on the

Federal Government’s information

dissemination activities. Indeed, Federal

agencies have disseminated information

to the public for decades. Until recently,

agencies have disseminated information

principally by making paper copies of

documents available to the public. In

recent years, however, Federal

information dissemination has grown

due to the advent of the Internet, which

has ushered in a revolution in

communications. The Internet has

enabled Federal agencies to disseminate

an ever increasing amount of

information. Congress has strongly

encouraged the Executive Branch’s

dissemination efforts in statutes that

include particular dissemination

activities and in the government-wide

dissemination provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. chapter 35) (the PRA). In

addition, the Executive Branch’s strong

support for information dissemination is

reflected in the dissemination

provisions of OMB Circular A–130,

‘‘Management of Federal Information

Resources.’’

34490 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

Section 515 builds upon the existing

agency responsibility to assure

information quality. According to the

PRA, agency Chief Information Officers

(CIOs) must manage information

resources to ‘‘improve the integrity,

quality, and utility of information to all

users within and outside the agency,

including capabilities for ensuring

dissemination of public information,

public access to government

information, and protections for privacy

and security.’’ Before an agency collects

information from 10 or more persons,

the agency must seek public comment

‘‘to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected.’’ The agency then must obtain

OMB approval that is based upon an

evaluation of the agency’s need for the

information, the ‘‘practical utility’’ of

the information to be collected, and the

burden that would be imposed on the

public in responding to the collection.

The CIO must certify to OMB that the

agency, ‘‘to the maximum extent

practicable, uses information technology

to reduce burden and improve data

quality.’’

In developing the proposed guidelines

to implement Section 515, OMB

recognizes that Federal agencies

disseminate many types of information

in many different ways. Even numerous

examples can only begin to describe the

breadth of information disseminated by

the Federal government. Agencies

disseminate statistical information, such

as the aggregated information from the

2000 Census and the monthly and

quarterly economic reports issued by

the Bureau of Economic Analysis and

the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Agencies

disseminate information that aids

members of the public in their daily

activities, such as the National Weather

Service’s weather reports and the FAA’s

air travel advisories. Agencies

disseminate information that they

collect from regulated entities, such as

EPA’s dissemination of Toxic Release

Inventory information. Agencies

disseminate information that they create

or obtain in the course of developing

regulations, often involving scientific

research and economic analysis.

Agencies disseminate information when

they issue reports and studies.

Moreover, agencies provide the public

with basic descriptions of agency

authorities, activities and programs,

along with the contact information for

the public to interact with and access

that information or those services.

Underlying Principles

In accordance with Section 515, OMB

has designed the proposed guidelines to

help agencies ensure and maximize the

quality, utility, objectivity and integrity

of the information that they

disseminate. It is crucial that Federal

agencies disseminate information that

meets these standards. In this respect,

the fact that the Internet enables persons

to communicate information quickly

and easily to a wide audience not only

offers great benefits to society, but also

increases the potential harm that can

result from the dissemination of

information that does not meet OMB

and agency information quality

standards. Recognizing the wide variety

of information Federal agencies

disseminate and the wide variety of

dissemination practices that agencies

have, OMB has developed the proposed

guidelines with several principles in

mind.

First, OMB has designed the proposed

guidelines to apply to a wide variety of

government-wide dissemination

activities, ranging in importance and

scope, through each agency’s issuance

of guidelines tailored to that agency’s

programs, dissemination activities, and

information resources management and

administrative practices. OMB has also

designed the proposed guidelines to be

generic enough to fit all media, be they

in printed, electronic, or other form.

OMB has sought to avoid the problems

that would be inherent in attempting to

develop detailed, prescriptive, ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ government-wide

guidelines that would artificially require

different types of dissemination

activities to be treated in the same

manner.

Second, OMB has designed the

guidelines so that agencies will meet

basic information quality standards.

Given the administrative mechanisms

required by Section 515 as well as the

standards set forth in the PRA, it is clear

that agencies should not disseminate

information that does not meet some

basic level of quality. We recognize that

some government information may need

to meet higher or more specific

information quality standards than

those that would apply to other types of

government information. The more

important the information, the higher

the quality standards to which it should

be held. The guidelines recognize,

however, that information quality comes

at a cost. Accordingly, the agencies

should weigh the costs (for example,

including costs attributable to agency

processing effort, respondent burden,

maintenance of needed privacy, and

assurances of suitable confidentiality)

and the benefits of higher information

quality in the development of such

information, and the level of quality to

which the information disseminated

will be held.

Third, OMB has designed the

proposed guidelines so that agencies

can apply them in a common-sense and

workable manner. It is important that

these guidelines do not impose

unnecessary administrative burdens that

would inhibit agencies from continuing

to take advantage of the Internet and

other technologies to disseminate

information that can be of great benefit

and value to the public. In this regard,

OMB encourages agencies to rely, to the

extent possible, upon existing agency

processes for evaluating information

dissemination activities rather than

require the creation of new and

potentially duplicative or contradictory

processes. The primary example of this

is that the proposed guidelines

recognize that, in accordance with OMB

Circular A–130, agencies already have

in place well-established information

quality standards and administrative

mechanisms that allow persons to seek

and obtain correction of information

that is maintained and disseminated by

the agency. Under the proposed

guidelines, agencies may continue to

rely on such administrative mechanisms

if they satisfy the standards in the

guidelines. Similarly, agencies may rely

on their implementation of the Federal

Government’s computer security laws

(formerly, the Computer Security Act,

and now the computer security

provisions of the PRA) to establish

appropriate security safeguards for

ensuring the ‘‘integrity’’ of the

information that the agencies

disseminate.

Summary of Proposed Guidelines

These proposed guidelines direct

agencies to develop information

resources management procedures for

reviewing and documenting for users

the quality (including the objectivity,

utility, and integrity) of information

before it is disseminated. In addition,

agencies are to establish administrative

mechanisms allowing affected persons

to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and

disseminated by the agency that does

not comply with the OMB guidelines.

Consistent with the underlying

principles we describe above, these

guidelines stress the importance of

having agencies apply these standards

and develop their administrative

mechanisms so they can be

implemented in a common sense and

workable manner. Moreover, agencies

must apply these standards flexibly,

consonant with existing agency

information resources management and

administrative practices, and

appropriate to the nature of the

information to be disseminated.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34491

Section 515 denotes four substantive

terms regarding information

disseminated by Federal agencies:

quality, utility, objectivity, and

integrity. It is not always clear how each

substantive term relates—or how the

four terms in aggregate relate—to the

widely divergent types of information

that agencies disseminate. We have

proposed a definition that attempts to

establish a clear meaning so that both

the agency and the public can readily

judge whether a particular type of

information to be disseminated does or

does not meet these attributes. We

specifically request comment on this

definition and how it can be made

clearer and less ambiguous for the

agency and the public.

In the proposed guidelines, OMB

points out that ‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘utility,’’

‘‘objectivity,’’ and ‘‘integrity’’ are closely

interrelated concepts. Collectively, these

terms address the following three

aspects of the information that is to be

disseminated: whether the information

is useful to all users of the information,

including the public; whether the

disseminated information is being

presented in an accurate, clear,

complete, and unbiased manner; and

whether the information has been

protected from unauthorized access or

revision. OMB modeled the draft

definitions of ‘‘information,’’

‘‘government information,’’

‘‘information dissemination product,’’

and ‘‘dissemination’’ on the

longstanding definitions of those terms

in OMB Circular A–130, but tailored

them to fit into the context of these

guidelines.

In addition, agencies have two

reporting requirements. The first report,

drafted no later than one year after the

issuance of these OMB guidelines, must

provide the agency’s information quality

guidelines that describe administrative

mechanisms allowing affected persons

to seek and obtain the correction of

disseminated information that does not

comply with these OMB guidelines. The

second report is an annual report

(starting a year after the issuance of the

first report) detailing the number,

nature, and resolution of complaints

received by the agency regarding its

perceived or confirmed failure to

comply with these OMB guidelines.

Request for Comments

OMB has sought to craft standards

and information resources management

and administrative practices for

ensuring information quality, utility,

objectivity, and integrity that are

rigorous, but that do not impose undue

administrative burdens or hurdles that

would inhibit or deter agencies from

disseminating information that can be of

great benefit to the public. The purpose

of Section 515 is not to stifle

information dissemination but to ensure

that the public can justifiably have

confidence in the information that

Federal agencies disseminate and that

affected persons will have

administrative mechanisms for

identifying problems and having the

agencies take corrective action. OMB

invites comments on whether the

proposed guidelines have struck the

appropriate balance, and suggestions for

how the guidelines can be improved in

this regard.

In addition, OMB specifically requests

comments on the following questions:

• Federal agencies disseminate many

types of information for many types of

programs and functions. Should the

OMB guidelines devote particular

attention to specific types of

information or information

dissemination products? If so, please

identify the areas where specific focus

should be directed, explain why the

focus is needed or is desirable, and

describe any guidelines that you

recommend for those areas.

• Should OMB develop specific

guidelines to address information that

Federal agencies disseminate from a

web page? Is there any need to adapt

these guidelines to the agency use of a

web page? If so, what guidelines are

needed?

OMB appreciates any comments on

these and any other aspects of the

proposed guidelines. After considering

the comments that are received, OMB

will develop and issue the final

guidelines by September 30, 2001.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Donald R. Arbuckle,

Deputy Administrator, Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs.

Proposed Guidelines for Ensuring and

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,

Utility, and Integrity of Information

Disseminated by Federal Agencies

I. OMB Responsibilities

Section 515 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act for FY2001 (Pub. L. 106–554)

directs the Office of Management and

Budget to issue government-wide

guidelines that provide policy and

procedural guidance to Federal agencies

for ensuring and maximizing the

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity

of information, including statistical

information, disseminated by Federal

agencies.

II. Agency Responsibilities

Section 515 directs agencies to—

1. Issue their own information quality

guidelines ensuring and maximizing the

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity

of information, including statistical

information, disseminated by the agency

no later than one year after the date of

issuance of the OMB guidelines;

2. Establish administrative

mechanisms allowing affected persons

to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and

disseminated by the agency that does

not comply with these OMB guidelines;

and

3. Report to the Director of OMB the

number and nature of complaints

received by the agency regarding agency

compliance with these OMB guidelines

concerning the quality (including the

objectivity, utility, and integrity) of

information and how such complaints

were resolved.

III. Guidelines for Ensuring and

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,

Utility, and Integrity of Information

Disseminated by Federal Agencies

1. Overall, agencies should adopt a

high standard of quality (including

objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a

performance goal and should take

appropriate steps to incorporate

information quality criteria into agency

information dissemination practices.

Quality is to be ensured and established

at levels appropriate to the nature of the

information to be disseminated.

2. As a matter of good and effective

agency information resources

management, agencies should develop a

process for reviewing and documenting

for users the quality (including the

objectivity, utility, and integrity) of

information before it is disseminated.

Agencies should treat information

quality as integral to every step of an

agency’s use of information, including

creation, collection, maintenance, and

dissemination. This process should

enable the agency to attest to the quality

of the information it has disseminated.

Discussion. Agencies may want to

consider developing different processes

to address different types of

information. Many statistical and

research organizations already possess a

wealth of quality standards and

evaluative processes that agencies may

want to draw from. For example, OMB

has issued ‘‘Guidelines to Standardize

Measures of Costs and Benefits and the

Format of Accounting Statements’’

(OMB Memorandum M–00–08, March

22, 2000) to standardize the way

agencies should measure the benefits

and costs of Federal regulatory actions.

In a larger information management

context, agencies should consider using

their Enterprise Architecture (EA) (as

34492 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

required by the Information Technology

Management Reform Act (Public Law

104–106) also known as ‘‘ClingerCohen’’) to help determine how existing

resources can best fill needs for quality

data.

3. As a matter of citizen review,

agencies should establish administrative

mechanisms allowing affected persons

to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and

disseminated by the agency that does

not comply with these OMB guidelines.

These administrative mechanisms

should be consonant with established

agency practice, flexible, and

appropriate to the nature of the

disseminated information.

IV. Agency Reporting Requirements

Discussion. The reporting

requirements imposed on agencies by

Section 515 build upon Section 9(a)(4)

of OMB Circular A–130, ‘‘Management

of Federal Information Resources.’’

Under that provision, agency Chief

Information Officers must:

‘‘Monitor agency compliance with the

policies, procedures, and guidance in

this Circular. Acting as an ombudsman,

the Chief Information Officer must

consider alleged instances of agency

failure to comply with this Circular, and

recommend or take appropriate action.

The Chief Information Officer will

report instances of alleged failure and

their resolution annually to the Director

of OMB, by February 1st of each year.’’

(65 FR 77684, December 12, 2000).

1. The Chief Information Officer (CIO)

of each agency serves as an ombudsman

in resolving complaints about the

agency’s compliance with Circular A–

130, and, consistent with agency

practice and existing organizational

responsibilities, with these guidelines.

2. The agency should respond in

written form to the complainant.

3. The agency must draft a report, no

later than one year after the issuance of

these OMB guidelines, providing the

agency information quality guidelines

ensuring and maximizing the quality,

objectivity, utility, and integrity of

information, including statistical

information, disseminated by the

agency. This report also must detail the

administrative mechanisms developed

by that agency to allow affected persons

to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and

disseminated by the agency that does

not comply with these OMB guidelines.

4. The agency must submit this draft

report to the Director of OMB for

review. Upon completion of that review

and completion of this report, agencies

must publish notice of the availability of

this report in the Federal Register, and

post this report on the agency’s web site

(in a way similar to the Freedom of

Information Act citizen handbooks that

each agency maintains in its electronic

reading room).

5. On an annual basis (starting a year

after the issuance of the first report in

the Federal Register), each agency must

submit a report to the Director of OMB

detailing the number and nature of

complaints received by the agency

regarding agency compliance with these

OMB guidelines concerning the quality

(including the objectivity, utility, and

integrity) of information and how such

complaints were resolved. Agencies

should submit these reports under the

reporting requirement for the

Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA).

V. Definitions

1. ‘‘Quality,’’ ‘‘Utility,’’ ‘‘Objectivity,’’

and ‘‘Integrity’’ are closely interrelated

concepts. Collectively, these terms

address the following three aspects of

the information that is to be

disseminated:

A. Whether the information is useful

to all users of the information, including

the public. In assessing the usefulness of

information that the agency

disseminates to the public, the agency

needs to consider the uses of the

information not only from the

perspective of the agency but also from

the perspective of the public. As a

result, when the issues of the

reproducibility and transparency of the

information are relevant for assessing

the information’s usefulness from the

public’s perspective, the agency must

take care to ensure that reproducibility

and transparency have been taken into

account. For disseminated information

to be useful, the presentation should

clearly reflect the quality of the

information.

Discussion. In developing and

reviewing proposed collections of

information under the PRA, OMB and

the agencies have for the past 20 years

evaluated collections under the rubric of

‘‘practical utility.’’ As agencies and

OMB have interpreted the PRA

definition of ‘‘practical utility’’ over the

past 20 years, it is clear that it has

focused not only on usefulness to the

agency, but also—as appropriate—on

usefulness to the public. In the context

of Section 515, with the emphasis on

dissemination to the public, the focus is

expanded explicitly to include a

dimension of the usefulness of the

information to those to whom the

agency disseminates it.

B. Whether the disseminated

information is being presented in an

accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased

manner.

i. This involves whether the

information is presented within a

proper context. Sometimes, in

disseminating certain types of

information to the public, other

information must also be disseminated

in order to ensure an accurate, clear,

complete, and unbiased presentation.

Also, the agency needs to identify the

sources of the disseminated information

(to the extent possible, consistent with

confidentiality protections), so that the

public can assess for itself whether there

may be some reason to question the

objectivity of the sources.

ii. In addition, in the context of

scientific and statistical information,

this also involves a focus on assuring

accurate, reliable, and unbiased

information.

a. With respect to scientific research

information, the results must be

substantially reproducible upon

independent analysis of the underlying

data.

b. In a statistical context, the

information was obtained using sound

statistical methods and error sources

affecting data quality are identified and

disclosed to users.

C. Whether the information has been

protected from unauthorized access or

revision, to ensure that the information

is not compromised through corruption,

or falsification.

(For ease of reference, the Guidelines will

sometimes refer to these four statutory terms,

collectively, as ‘‘quality.’’)

2. ‘‘Information’’ means any

communication or representation of

knowledge such as facts, data, or

opinions in any medium or form,

including textual, numerical, graphic,

cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual

forms. This definition includes

information that an agency disseminates

from a web page, but does not include

the provision of hyperlinks to

information others disseminate.

3. ‘‘Government information’’ means

information created, collected,

processed, disseminated, or disposed of

by or for the Federal Government.

4. ‘‘Information dissemination

product’’ means any book, paper, map,

machine-readable material, audiovisual

production, or other documentary

material, regardless of physical form or

characteristic, an agency disseminates to

the public. This definition includes any

electronic document, CD–ROM, or web

page.

5. ‘‘Dissemination’’ means the

government initiated distribution of

information to the public.

Dissemination does not include

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34493

1Prevention of Certain Unlawful Activities With

Respect To Registered Investment Companies,

Investment Company Act Release No. 11421 (Oct.

31, 1980) [45 FR 73915 (Nov. 7, 1980)].

2Personal Investment Activities of Investment

Company Personnel, Investment Company Act

Release No. 23958 (Aug. 20, 1999) [64 FR 46821–

01 (Aug. 27, 1999)].

3Rule 17j–1(a)(1) defines an ‘‘access person’’ as

‘‘any director, officer, general partner, or advisory

person of a fund or of a fund’s investment adviser’’

and as ‘‘any director, officer, or general partner of

a principal underwriter who, in the ordinary course

of business, makes, participates in or obtains

information regarding, the purchase or sale of

Covered Securities by the Fund for which the

principal underwriter acts, or whose functions or

duties in the ordinary course of business relate to

the making of any recommendation to the Fund

regarding the purchase or sale of Covered

Securities.’’

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

(5 U.S.C. 552) or Privacy Act. This

definition also does not include

distribution limited to replies to

correspondence, and subpoenas or

judicial process.

[FR Doc. 01–16227 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 10 a.m., Monday, July

9, 2001; 9 a.m., Tuesday, July 10, 2001.

PLACE: Evansville, Indiana, at the Aztar

Hotel, 421 Northwest Riverside Drive, in

the Las Vegas and Atlantic City Rooms.

STATUS: July 9 (Closed); July 10 (Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Monday, July 9–10 a.m. (Closed)

1. Financial Performance.

2. Fiscal Year 2002 Establish/Deploy

Report.

3. Fiscal Year 2002 EVA Pay for

Performance Program.

4. Fiscal Year 2002 Financial Outlook.

5. Rate Case Briefing.

6. EEO Feasibility Study.

7. Update on Five-Day Delivery Study.

8. Strategic Planning.

9. Comprehensive Issues.

10. Personnel Matters.

Tuesday, July 10—9 a.m. (Open)

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, June

4–5, 2001.

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General

and CEO.

3. Quarterly Report on Service

Performance.

4. Capital Investments.

a. Bethesda, West Bethesda Branch,

Maryland.

b. Fairfax, Virginia, Main Post Office.

5. Report on the Kentuckiana

Performance Cluster.

6. Tentative Agenda for the August 6,

and September 10–11, 2001,

meetings in Washington, DC.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board,

U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza,

SW., Washington, DC. 20260–1000.

Telephone (202) 268–4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16456 Filed 6–26–01; 2:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted

the following proposal(s) for the

collection of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

(1) Collection title: Employer

Reporting.

(2) Form(s) submitted: AA–12, G–

88A.1, G–88A.2, Ba–6a.

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0005.

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: 11/30/2003.

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

(6) Respondents: Business or other for

profit, individuals or households.

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 2,968.

(8) Total annual responses: 2,968.

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 474.

(10) Collection description: Under the

Railroad Retirement Act and the

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act,

railroad employers are required to

report service and compensation for

employees needed to determine

eligibility to and amount of benefits

paid.

Additional Information or Comments

Copies of the forms and supporting

documents can be obtained from Chuck

Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer

(312–751–3363). Comments regarding

the information collection should be

addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611–2092

and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202–

395–7316), Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10230, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–16275 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Existing Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington,

D.C. 20549.

Extension:

Rule 17j–1, SEC File No. 270–239, OMB

Control No. 3235–0224

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities

and Exchange Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collection of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit this existing collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for

extension and approval.

Rule 17j–1 [17 CFR 270.17j–1] under

the Investment Company Act of 1940

(15 U.S.C. 80a) (the ‘‘Investment

Company Act’’), which the Commission

adopted in 1980 1 and amended in

1999,2 implements section 17(j) of the

Act, which makes it unlawful for

persons affiliated with a registered

investment company or with the

investment company’s investment

adviser or principal underwriter (each,

a ‘‘17j–1 organization’’), in connection

with the purchase or sale of securities

held or to be acquired by the investment

company, to engage in any fraudulent,

deceptive, or manipulative act or

practice in contravention of the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

Section 17(j) also authorizes the

Commission to promulgate rules

requiring the rule 17j–1 organizations to

adopt codes of ethics.

In order to implement section 17(j),

rule 17j–1 imposes certain requirements

on 17j–1 organizations and ‘‘Access

Persons’’ 3 of those organizations. The

rule prohibits fraudulent, deceptive or

manipulative acts by persons affiliated

with a rule 17j–1 organization in

connection with their personal

securities transactions in securities held

or to be acquired by the fund. The rule

requires each 17j–1 organization, unless

it is a money market fund or a fund that