Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 46109

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When 

requested and authorized by the 

candidate, the Director General of the 

Foreign Service, or the Director 

General’s delegatee, will review the case 

of any Department of State Foreign 

Service candidate who has been denied 

an unlimited medical clearance for 

assignment worldwide and will 

determine whether or not it is in the 

best interest of the Service to appoint 

the candidate despite the medical 

disqualification. This decision, as to 

whether or not to grant a waiver of the 

Foreign Service worldwide availability 

requirement, was previously made by a 

committee established solely for that 

purpose. The shifting of responsibility 

for this decision to the Director General, 

or the Director General’s delegatee, is 

being made in appreciation of the 

magnitude of such decisions for the 

Service and as part of a general effort to 

increase the efficiency and transparency 

of the Foreign Service appointment 

process. This change in no way alters 

the rights or interests of any parties nor 

does it alter the substantive criteria by 

which a decision whether or not to 

waive the worldwide availability 

requirement will be made. As with the 

committee’s decisions, the decisions of 

the Director General, or the Director 

General’s delegatee, are final and are not 

subject to further appeal. 

In addition, while candidates must 

still be medically cleared for full 

overseas duty, the Department of State 

no longer considers the medical 

condition of eligible family members for 

pre-employment purposes. References 

in 22 CFR § 11.1 (e)(4) to previous 

practices in this regard are hereby 

removed and the citation to the Foreign 

Affairs Manual has been updated. It 

should be noted, however, that the 

Department still requires medical 

clearances for family members before 

they can travel overseas to accompany 

an employee on assignment at US 

Government expense. Finally, 

references in 22 CFR Part § 11.1(e)(5) to 

the procedures of the former United 

States Information Agency are hereby 

removed pursuant to the Foreign Affairs 

Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 11

Foreign Service.

As stated in the preamble, the 

Department of State amends 22 CFR part 

11 as follows:

PART 11—APPOINTMENT OF 

FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS 

1. The authority citation for part 11 is 

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 3926, 3941.

2. Amend § 11.1 to revise paragraphs 

(e)(4) and (5) and the second sentence 

in paragraph (f) as follows:

§ 11.1 Junior Foreign Service officer 

career candidate appointments.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(4) Determination. The Medical 

Director of the Department of State will 

determine, on the basis of the report of 

the physician(s) who conducted the 

medical examination, whether the 

candidate has met the required medical 

standards for appointment (see section 

1930, Volume 3, Foreign Affairs 

Manual). 

(5) Waiver of worldwide availability 

requirement. When authorized and 

requested by the candidate, the Director 

General of the Foreign Service, or the 

Director General’s delegatee, will review 

the case of any Department of State 

Foreign Service candidate who has been 

denied an unlimited medical clearance 

for assignment worldwide, and 

determine whether or not the candidate 

should be appointed despite the 

medical disqualification. Decisions of 

the Director General of the Foreign 

Service, or the Director General’s 

delegatee, are final and are not subject 

to further appeal by the candidate. 

(f) * * * Candidates who have 

completed the examination process; 

have passed their medical examination, 

or have obtained a waiver from the 

Director General of the Foreign Service, 

or his or her delegatee, or the equivalent 

in accordance with the procedures of 

the other participating agencies; and on 

the basis of their background 

investigation, have been found suitable 

to represent the United States abroad, 

will have their names placed on the 

functional rank-order register(s), or a 

special register, for the agency or 

agencies for which they have been 

found qualified. * * *

* * * * *

Grant S. Green, Jr., 

Under Secretary for Management, 

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 02–17585 Filed 7–11–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–35–P

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION 

25 CFR Part 580 

RIN 3141–AA04 

Environment, Public Health and Safety

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission.

ACTION: Interpretive rule.

SUMMARY: The Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act established the National 

Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or 

Commission) as an independent federal 

regulatory agency responsible for federal 

oversight of Indian gaming. This 

interpretive rule explains the 

Commission’s understanding of its 

oversight authority in the area of 

environment, public health and safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective 

August 12, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Nagle at 202–632–7003; fax 

202-632–7066 (these are not toll-free 

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 17, 1988, Congress 

enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701–21 (IGRA or Act), 

creating the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC or Commission) and 

developing a comprehensive framework 

for the regulation of gaming on Indian 

lands to shield Indian tribes from 

organized crime and other corrupting 

influences; ensure that Indian tribes are 

the primary beneficiaries of gaming 

revenues; and assure that gaming is 

conducted fairly and honestly by both 

operators and players. To effect these 

goals, the Commission was granted, 

among other things, oversight and 

enforcement authority, including the 

authority to monitor tribal compliance 

with the Act, the Commission’s 

regulations, and tribal gaming 

ordinances, 25 U.S.C. 2713. 

A tribal government, as a condition 

precedent to the lawful operation of 

gaming activities on Indian lands, must 

adopt an ordinance governing gaming 

activities on its Indian lands, 25 U.S.C. 

2710. The Act specifies a number of 

mandatory provisions to be contained in 

each tribal gaming ordinance and 

subjects such ordinances to agency 

review and the Chairman’s approval. 

Approval by the Chairman is predicated 

on the inclusion of each of the specified 

mandatory provisions in the tribal 

gaming ordinance. Among these is a 

requirement that the ordinance must 

contain a provision ensuring that ‘‘the 

construction and maintenance of the 

gaming operation, and the operation of 

that gaming is conducted in a manner 

that adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety,’’ 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(2)(E). 

The Act further extends authority to 

the Commission to impose sanctions, 

including civil fines and closure orders, 

if the Commission finds that gaming on 

Indian lands is being conducted in 

violation of the provisions contained in

46110 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

the authorizing tribal gaming ordinance, 

25 U.S.C. 2713. Thus, it is clear that 

Congress intended the Commission to 

exercise at least some degree of general 

oversight authority with respect to 

whether or not a gaming facility is being 

operated in compliance with the 

Congressionally mandated provisions in 

tribal gaming ordinances. Otherwise, 

Congress would not have extended the 

Commission enforcement authority in 

relation to compliance matters arising 

under ‘‘tribal’’ gaming ordinances. 

Since 1993, when the Commission 

became operational, the Chairman has 

required each tribal gaming ordinance to 

include an express statement that 

gaming facilities under the control of 

the tribal government submitting the 

ordinance would be constructed, 

operated and maintained in a manner 

that adequately protects the 

environment, public health and safety. 

In 1999, the Commission undertook the 

development of regulations governing 

the method of oversight it will use in 

determining tribal compliance with this 

provision of IGRA. 

The Commission recognizes that tribal 

governments, as an incident of inherent 

tribal sovereignty, have broad autonomy 

and authority over internal tribal affairs, 

including, in particular, matters 

pertaining to tribal lands and the health 

and welfare of the people and the 

community. Moreover, the Commission 

is aware that the principle of tribal selfdetermination is a cornerstone of federal 

Indian law and policy and has remained 

so for more than a quarter century. 

Accordingly, federal or other incursions 

upon tribal authority in such matters 

receive careful scrutiny by the courts. 

Cognizant of these facts, and bound by 

such federal laws and policies, the 

Commission approached this 

rulemaking effort with no small degree 

of caution and concern. Given the 

primacy of tribal regulation over the 

environment, public health and safety 

as well as federal policies regarding 

tribal consultation in matters directly 

affecting tribes, the Commission 

established a tribal advisory committee 

to assist in the development of an 

appropriate process through which the 

Commission could carry out its 

oversight responsibility under IGRA 

without improperly encroaching upon 

the authority of tribal government. 

Tribal Advisory Committee 

In November 1999, a TribalCommission Advisory Committee was 

formed to consult on the project and 

develop recommendations to the 

Commission. The Advisory Committee, 

was comprised of representatives of 

tribal governments and the Commission. 

It began its work in November 1999, 

producing a recommendation for the 

full Commission’s consideration in May 

2000. The Advisory Committee met four 

times to develop a regulatory proposal; 

an additional meeting was held after the 

close of the public comment period to 

discuss the comments that had been 

submitted. Upon consideration of the 

comments submitted, and discussions 

with the Tribal-Commission Advisory 

Committee, the Commission decided to 

revise and republish the proposal for 

additional comment. 

The Advisory Committee through a 

consensus process produced a 

recommended rule for submission to the 

Commission. The recommendation was 

approved by the Commission for 

publication in the Federal Register as a 

proposed rule. Essentially, the 

regulation established a process for 

oversight based on tribal submissions of 

‘‘Environment, Public Health & Safety 

Plans’’ (Plan) for review by the 

Commission. The Plans would then 

form the basis for the Commission’s 

oversight activities. Each Plan was to 

contain a narrative specific to five 

distinct areas of concern: (1) Emergency 

preparedness; (2) food & water; (3) 

construction & maintenance; (4) 

hazardous and other materials; and (5) 

sanitation. 

The approach taken by the Committee 

reflects an effort to balance the need for 

a uniform system of oversight with the 

need for flexibility given the widely 

varying circumstances and geographic 

dispersion of Indian gaming operations. 

The proposal also reflects an effort to 

appropriately narrow and define the 

Commission’s role given the fact that 

the Commission lacks the technical 

expertise and the capacity to review and 

evaluate tribal standards or programs or 

to itself establish and promulgate 

specific technical standards appropriate 

to the industry. It was the view of the 

Committee that Congress intended a 

narrow role for the Commission, 

particularly since the Act contains no 

other provisions pertinent to this issue, 

nor does the legislative history suggest 

that the Commission has the 

responsibility to develop expansive 

programs relative to the environment, 

public health and safety. Accordingly, 

the Committee concluded that the 

Commission’s role is properly confined 

to ensuring that tribal standards are in 

place in each of the five key areas 

identified by the Committee and ensure 

that such standards are enforced 

through an on-going process of 

monitoring and oversight by qualified 

personnel. 

The purpose of the Plan was to 

provide the Commission with a tribespecific description of the systems in 

place in order that the Commission 

would have a means of understanding 

the mechanisms specific to each tribe 

and tailor its oversight activities 

accordingly. Since tribal law and 

governmental structures may vary 

substantially as well as climate and 

geography, it was felt that the only way 

the Commission could fairly and 

appropriately conduct oversight is to 

ensure that it is based on a sound 

understanding of the circumstances, 

systems, and standards applicable to 

each gaming tribe.

Initial Comment Period 

At the close of the initial comment 

period the Commission had received 

127 comments, all suggesting 

substantial changes to the proposed rule 

and many challenging the Commission’s 

authority to promulgate the rule in the 

first instance. The comments reflected a 

widespread view that the proposed rule 

was both burdensome and intrusive, 

and questioned the need for it. State and 

local governments requested that they 

be given a role in deciding what was to 

be included in tribal Plans. 

The general thrust of the comments 

led the Commission to conclude that in 

order to reflect the general purpose and 

intent of the rule, revision was 

warranted. The Commission also 

perceived the need for greater clarity 

with regard to its view that regulatory 

primacy and primary responsibility for 

ensuring compliance with the 

environment, public health and safety 

provision rests with tribal government. 

The Committee was re-convened to 

assist the Commission to revise the 

proposal in such a way to make clear 

that the purpose of the rule is to 

establish an appropriate process through 

which the Commission may carry out its 

discrete and limited oversight 

responsibility. 

Second Comment Period 

Upon reviewing the comments, the 

Advisory Committee recommended a 

number of revisions to the proposed 

rule, but left largely intact the 

provisions utilizing the Plan process. 

The revised proposal was published in 

the fall of 2000, allowing for a thirty-day 

comment period, which was later 

extended through December 29, 2001. In 

response, the Commission again 

received well over a hundred 

comments, largely raising the same 

objections, with the same polarization 

between tribal and state governments. A 

number of comments, however, further 

developed some of the issues that had 

been referenced in the first round of

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 46111

comments, drawing the Commission’s 

interest. 

The Commission’s Oversight Role 

The overwhelming majority of tribal 

commenters reasserted the view that the 

proposal was unduly burdensome and 

constituted an unwarranted intrusion 

into the governmental prerogatives of 

tribes so as to exceed the statutory 

authority delegated by the Congress in 

IGRA. Many commenters asserted that 

Congress could not have intended an 

extensive role for the Commission given 

the very limited reference to the 

environment, public health & safety 

within the Act. Moreover, the 

commenters pointed out, the 

Commission lacks appropriate expertise 

to properly evaluate tribal environment, 

public health and safety standards and 

practices as well as the capacity to do 

so. These Commenters also asserted that 

matters pertaining to the environment, 

public health and safety are more 

properly within the purview of other 

governmental agencies, both tribal and 

federal. It was also asserted that there 

was no explicit Congressional authority 

to impose additional enforceable 

burdens on tribal governments and that 

in doing so the Commission had run 

afoul of federal policies restricting the 

imposition of unfunded mandates in 

agency rulemaking. 

The foregoing arguments are not 

without a degree of merit. In fact, these 

points were at the forefront of the 

Advisory Committee’s concerns in 

developing its recommendation and by 

the Commission in its deliberations as 

well. While the Commission does not 

agree that it is without authority or 

responsibility altogether, it does accept 

Congress intended the Commission to 

play a limited, rather than expansive 

role. IGRA explicitly accords the 

Commission a role in ensuring 

compliance with the environment, 

public health and safety provision of 

IGRA. The question, therefore, is not 

whether the Commission has a 

responsibility in this regard, but rather 

the nature and extent of its 

responsibility. 

The Commission does not agree that 

its responsibility is merely to ensure 

that each tribal gaming ordinance 

contains a rote recitation of the language 

set forth in 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(2)(E). 

Such interpretation would render this 

provision of the Act superfluous and 

constitute a breach of an agency’s a 

fundamental duty to give full effect to 

the plain language of the Act in 

determining Congressional intent 

related thereto. Moreover, because IGRA 

authorizes the Commission to enforce 

compliance with tribal gaming 

ordinances and to sanction incidents of 

non-compliance through civil fine 

assessment and orders of temporary 

closure, it is impossible to conclude that 

Congress intended the Commission’s 

role to be constrained to the degree 

suggested in some comments. 

At the same time, the Commission 

recognizes that as a fundamental 

principle of federal law and policy, 

tribal governments have the right and 

authority to make their own choices in 

exercising their governmental powers. 

Tribal governmental powers are 

inherent and not derived from the 

federal government. As such, when a 

federal agency seeks to exert itself into 

an arena routinely controlled by tribal 

authority, the relevant inquiry is 

whether a statute, treaty or judicial 

decision authorizes federal activity in 

the particular area. Federal statutes 

affecting Indian affairs require broad 

construction when the rights of Indians 

are established or preserved and narrow 

construction when the rights of Indians 

are limited or abrogated. 

In balancing the Commission’s 

responsibility against the inherent rights 

of tribal governments the Commission 

has endeavored to find an objective 

method for meeting its oversight 

responsibility in a non-intrusive, nonburdensome manner respectful of tribal 

primacy in the environmental, public 

health and safety arenas. Having now 

had the benefit of the views and 

thoughts contained in nearly 300 

comments, as well as opportunity for indepth study of the issues and related 

federal law and policy, the Commission 

is of the view that the Plan process is 

more burdensome and intrusive than 

originally projected. It is further 

concerned that the estimation of the 

costs associated with the preparation of 

a Plan may have been underestimated. 

In considering the burden and financial 

impact the proposed rule may have had 

on tribal governments, the Commission 

recognizes that existing federal policy 

discourages the imposition of unfunded 

mandates on tribal, state, and local 

governments. 

In the final analysis, the Commission 

has concluded that a simpler, less 

programmatic approach is warranted. 

This final rule represents the 

Commission’s interpretation of its 

responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(2)(E) and provides guidance to 

tribal governments as to the oversight 

standard the Commission will apply in 

determining tribal compliance with this 

provision of the Act. 

What Is the Commission’s 

Responsibility Under Section 2710 

(b)(2)(E) in the Area of Environment, 

Public Health and Safety? 

The Commission interprets section 

2710 (b)(2)(E) of IGRA to mean that the 

Commission has a limited and discrete 

responsibility to provide regulatory 

oversight in relation to tribal 

compliance with this provision. The 

Commission discerns nothing within 

the Act or the legislative history to 

suggest that Congress intended a more 

extensive role for the Commission or 

manifesting any intent to relieve tribal 

government of any measure of authority 

or regulatory primacy over issues 

concerning the environment, public 

health and safety in any area within the 

authority of the tribe or to shift, alter, or 

otherwise effect any transfer of 

responsibility from tribal government to 

the National Indian Gaming 

Commission.

What Is the Commission’s Interpretation 

With Regard to the Duties and 

Responsibilities of Tribal Governments 

Under Section 2710(b)(2)(E) of the Act? 

It is the Commission’s view that 

section 2710 (b)(2)(E) requires tribal 

governments electing to conduct gaming 

on tribal lands to apply, adopt or issue 

standards designed to ensure that 

gaming operations on Indian lands are 

constructed, operated and maintained in 

a manner that adequately protects the 

environment, public health and safety, 

and, furthermore, to enforce compliance 

with such standards through an ongoing 

system of monitoring, conducted by 

qualified personnel. At a minimum, 

such standards must address: (1) 

Emergency preparedness; (2) food & 

water; (3) construction & maintenance; 

(4) hazardous and other materials; and 

(5) sanitation. 

How Would a Tribal Government 

Satisfactorily Assert Its Compliance 

With Section 2710 (b)(2)(E) of IGRA? 

The Commission recognizes that tribal 

governments vary dramatically in terms 

of size, structure, and organization. 

Accordingly, compliance may be 

effected in any number of ways. For 

example, departments or agencies 

within tribal government may issue 

rules or procedures, conduct 

inspections, and bring enforcement 

actions. Another tribal government may 

enter into intergovernmental compacts 

with state, local or federal government 

to carry out such activities while others 

may contract privately for such 

functions. In the Commission’s view, 

the particular manner in which 

compliance with tribal environment,

46112 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

public health and safety standards is 

enforced is not so important. The key 

objective is to confirm that standards 

and enforcement systems are in place. 

What Action May the Commission Take 

if the Commission Determines That a 

Gaming Operation Is Not Subject to 

Environmental, Public Health and/or 

Safety Standards or That Such 

Standards Are Not Routinely Enforced? 

If the Commission determines that a 

tribal government has failed to apply, 

adopt, issue or enforce environmental, 

public health and/or safety standards 

covering gaming operations on Indian 

lands, the Commission will first notify 

the governing body of the tribe of its 

concern. If the absence of standards or 

failure to enforce does not present 

imminent jeopardy to the environment, 

public health or safety, the Commission 

will refer the matter to the appropriate 

tribal regulatory authority for 

appropriate action. The Commission 

will proceed to enforcement only where 

no corrective action has been 

undertaken within a reasonable time 

and such inaction results in a condition 

of imminent jeopardy to the 

environment, public health and safety. 

What is Imminent Jeopardy? 

A finding of imminent jeopardy 

represents the standard the Commission 

will apply in determining that a 

condition poses a threat of such severity 

to the environment or the public health 

or safety as to warrant the Commission’s 

intervention. For purposes of this 

regulation, imminent jeopardy exists 

where conditions are present that pose 

a real and immediate threat: (1) To the 

environment, which, if uncorrected, 

would result in actual harm to life or 

destruction of property; or (2) to human 

health and well being, which, if 

uncorrected, could result in serious 

illness or death.

Signed this 3rd day of July, 2002. 

Montie R. Deer, 

Chairman. 

Elizabeth L. Homer, 

Vice-Chair. 

Teresa E. Poust, 

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 02–17151 Filed 7–11–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 0

[FCC 02–191] 

Reorganization of the Office of Media 

Relations

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Commission’s rules to reflect the new 

organizational structure of the Office of 

Media Relations of the Federal 

Communications Commission, 

identifying their new functions.

DATES: Effective July 15, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Beth Richards, Office of the 

Chairman, 202/418–1514 or Yvette 

Barrett, Office of the Managing Director, 

202/418–0603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Order adopted June 26, 2002 and 

released July 9, 2002 by the Commission 

amends its rules to reflect the new 

structure of the Office of Media 

Relations to include the management of 

audio and visual support services for 

the Commission. 

Authority for the adoption of the 

foregoing revisions is contained in 

sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(b), 5(c), 201(b) and 

303(r) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 155(b), 201(b) and 303 (r). 

The amendments adopted herein 

pertain to agency organization, 

procedure and practice. Consequently, 

the notice and comment provisions of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is 

inapplicable. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that part 0 

of the Commission rules, set forth in 

Title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, are amended as set forth in 

the rule changes to be effective July 15, 

2002.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 as 

follows:

PART 0—COMMISSION 

ORGANIZATION 

1. The authority citation for part 0 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless 

otherwise noted.

2. Section 0.15 is amended by adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 0.15 Functions of the Office.

* * * * *

(f) Manage the FCC’s audio/visual 

support services and maintain liaison 

with outside parties regarding the 

broadcast of Commission proceedings.

[FR Doc. 02–17574 Filed 7–11–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 204 and 253 

[DFARS Case 2002–D010] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Reporting 

Requirements Update

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to provide contract action 

reporting requirements for Fiscal Year 

2003. The rule makes changes to the 

Individual Contracting Action Report 

and the corresponding reporting 

instructions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Schneider, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DP 

(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Telephone (703) 602–0326; facsimile 

(703) 602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case 

2002–D010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This final rule contains Fiscal Year 

2003 requirements for completion of DD 

Form 350, Individual Contracting 

Action Report. DoD uses this form to 

collect statistical data on its contracting 

actions. The rule includes reporting 

changes related to indefinite-delivery 

contracts; performance-based service 

contracts; the SBA/OFPP pilot program 

for acquisition of services from small 

business concerns; purchases made 

using the Governmentwide purchase 

card; and purchases made by a DoD 

agency on behalf of another DoD or nonVerDate May<23>2002 15:04 Jul 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM pfrm13 PsN: 12JYR1