5272 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

42 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

exclusions are rules that are clarifying, 

corrective, or procedural or that do not 

substantively change the effect of the 

regulations being amended. This rule is 

clarifying and procedural in nature and 

therefore falls under the exceptions. 

Consequently, no environmental 

consideration is necessary.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

35. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 42 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Commission is not 

required to make such an analysis if a 

rule would not have such an effect. The 

Commission certifies that this rule does 

not have such an impact on small 

entities.

VI. Document Availability 

36. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

37. From FERC’s home page on the 

Internet, this information is available in 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available in eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

38. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s website during 

normal business hours from our Help 

line at (202) 502–8222 or the Public 

Reference Room at (202) 502–8371 Press 

0, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-Mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VII. Effective Date 

39. This order makes no changes to 

the final rule, which became effective 

on October 23, 2003. Because no 

changes were made, the provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional 

review of final rules do not apply to this 

order.

By the Commission. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–2223 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1271

[Docket No. 97N–484R]

Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and 

Tissue-Based Products; Establishment 

Registration and Listing; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; correction

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is correcting an 

interim final rule that published in the 

Federal Register on January 27, 2004 

(69 FR 3823). The interim final rule 

excepted human dura mater and human 

heart valve allografts, currently subject 

to application or notification 

requirements under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act from the scope 

of the definition of ‘‘human cells, 

tissues, or cellular or tissue-based 

products (HCT/P’s)’’ subject to the 

registration and listing requirements 

contained in 21 CFR Part 1271. That 

definition became effective on January 

21, 2004. The interim final rule 

published with some errors. This 

document corrects those errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula S. McKeever, Center for Biologics 

Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), 

Food and Drug Administration, 1401 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–

1448, 301–827–6210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the FR 

Doc. 04–1733, appearing on page 3824 

in the Federal Register of Tuesday, 

January 27, 2004, the following 

corrections are made:

1. On page 3824, in the DATES section, 

by removing the sentence ‘‘The 

compliance date is March 29, 2004.’’

2. On page 3824, under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in the I. 

Background section, the phrase ‘‘FDA 

understands that many establishments 

may have reasonably expected FDA to 

delay the effective date of this provision 

again, since the donor suitability and 

GTP rules are not yet finalized’’ is 

revised to read:

‘‘FDA understands that many 

establishments may have reasonably 

expected FDA to delay the effective date 

of this provision again, since the donor 

suitability and GTP rules are not yet 

finalized. Accordingly, FDA expects 

that affected firms will be in compliance 

with these requirements by March 29, 

2004, and not on January 21, 2004, the 

effective date of the definition 

regulation.’’

Dated: January 29, 2004.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning.

[FR Doc. 04–2312 Filed 1–30–04; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9105] 

RIN 1545–BC17

Changes in Computing Depreciation; 

Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final and 

temporary regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects final 

and temporary regulations (TD 9105) 

that were published in the Federal 

Register on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 5). 

The document contains regulations 

relating to a change in computing 

depreciation or amortization as well as 

a change from a nondepreciable or 

nonamortizable asset to a depreciable or 

amortizable asset (or vice versa).

DATES: This correction is effective 

January 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Logan, (202) 622–3110 (not a toll-free 

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final and temporary regulations 

(TD 9105) that is the subject of this 

correction is under section 446(e) of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final and temporary 

regulations (TD 9105) contain errors that 

may prove to be misleading and are in 

need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the 

final and temporary regulations (TD 

9105) that was the subject of FR. Doc. 

03–31820, are corrected as follows: 

1. On page 6, column 1, in the 

preamble, paragraph 3, line 3, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5273

language ‘‘T.C.Memo. 2003–75, the Tax 

Court’’ is corrected to read ‘‘T.C. Memo. 

2003–75, the Tax Court’’.

§ 1.167(e)–1T [Corrected]

■ 2. On page 8, column 1, § 1.167(e)–1T, 

paragraph (e), last line in the paragraph, 

the language ‘‘expires on or before 

January 2, 2007’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘expires on or before December 29, 

2006’’.

§ 1.446–1T [Corrected]

■ 3. On page 12, column 2, § 1.446–1T, 

paragraph (e)(4)(iii), line 3, the language 

‘‘January 2, 2007.’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘December 29, 2006.’’.

§ 1.1016–3T [Corrected]

■ 4. On page 12, column 3, § 1.1016–3T, 

paragraph (j)(3), line 2, the language 

‘‘expires on or before January 2, 2007.’’

is corrected to read ‘‘expires on or before 

December 29, 2006.’’.

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel (Procedures and 

Administration).

[FR Doc. 04–2296 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission 

28 CFR Part 2 

Paroling, Recommitting, and 

Supervising Federal Prisoners: 

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under 

the United States and District of 

Columbia Codes

AGENCY: United States Parole 

Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: During 2004 the Parole 

Commission will carry out a pilot 

project to study the feasibility of 

conducting parole release hearings 

through video conferences between an 

examiner at the Commission’s office and 

prisoners at selected Bureau of Prisons’s 

institutions. In order to provide notice 

of this project, the Commission is 

promulgating an interim rule that 

provides that a parole release hearing 

may be conducted through a video 

conference with the prisoner. The 

Commission is also promulgating 

several conforming rule changes, 

including an amendment to the rule at 

28 CFR 2.72 that eliminates the 

provision that an initial hearing for a 

District of Columbia offender is 

conducted ‘‘in person’’ before a 

Commission hearing examiner.

DATES: Effective date: March 5, 2004. 

Comments must be received by May 4, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. Parole 

Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., 

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole 

Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., 

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, 

telephone (301) 492–5959. Questions 

about this publication are welcome, but 

inquiries concerning individual cases 

cannot be answered over the telephone.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Parole 

Commission’s hearing examiners travel 

to more than 60 locations of Federal 

correctional facilities to conduct parole 

release and revocation hearings. As the 

number of parole-eligible prisoners 

drops in the Federal prison system, the 

Commission is expending considerable 

resources in conducting hearings for a 

small number of prisoners at facilities 

that are difficult to reach. Therefore, the 

Commission is looking for ways to 

reduce travel costs and conserve the 

time of its hearing examiners. 

Conducting some parole release 

hearings through video conferences may 

be one procedure that will enhance the 

Commission’s ability to make the most 

efficient use of limited financial and 

staff resources without detracting from 

the prisoner’s opportunity for a fair 

parole hearing. Video conference 

technology has improved considerably 

since the Commission last considered 

holding hearings by video conference, 

and the Commission expects that the 

prisoner’s ability to effectively 

participate in the hearing will not be 

diminished by the use of this procedure. 

The Commission is undertaking a 

pilot project with the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons to conduct some parole release 

hearings through a video conference 

between a hearing examiner at the 

Commission’s office in Chevy Chase, 

Maryland and the prisoner incarcerated 

in a Bureau facility. During 2004 the 

Commission intends to use 12 

institutions for the project and expects 

that the number of hearings conducted 

under the project will not exceed 180 

hearings, less than 10% of the parole 

release hearing caseload. The pilot 

project will only extend to parole 

release hearings (including rescission 

hearings) conducted in Bureau facilities. 

Under the project, the Commission will 

not use video conferencing for 

revocation hearings. 

The Commission is promulgating an 

interim rule on this subject to give 

notice of the pilot project and the 

variance from the agency’s traditional 

hearing practice, and is providing an 

extended opportunity for the public to 

comment on the use of video 

conferencing for parole hearings. The 

interim rule is added at 28 CFR 2.25. 

For most cases under the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, the Commission could 

proceed with the project without raising 

any question concerning compliance 

with the agency’s current rules. But the 

present rule at 28 CFR 2.72(a), which 

states that the prisoner appear ‘‘in 

person’’ before a Commission hearing 

examiner, could be interpreted to 

require the physical presence of the 

prisoner before the hearing examiner in 

order to conduct an initial hearing for a 

D.C. Code offender. Therefore, the 

Commission is amending this rule to 

eliminate the provision for an ‘‘in 

person’’ appearance. A corresponding 

change is made to the rule at 2.75(d). 

The Commission is also amending a list 

of rules for U.S. Code offenders that are 

implemented for D.C. Code offenders to 

include the interim rule at § 2.25. 

Implementation 

The amended rule will take effect 

March 5, 2004, and will apply to parole 

determination hearings for Federal and 

District of Columbia offenders. 

Executive Order 12866 

The U.S. Parole Commission has 

determined that this interim rule does 

not constitute a significant rule within 

the meaning of Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications 

requiring a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The interim rule will not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), and is 

deemed by the Commission to be a rule 

of agency practice that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties 

pursuant to section 804 (3) (c) of the 

Congressional Review Act.