5702 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

shall pay the cost of the procedure, 

unless it is finally determined that there 

was an underpayment of 10% or more, 

in which case the Designated Agent 

shall, in addition to paying the amount 

of any underpayment, bear the 

reasonable costs of the verification 

procedure.

§ 262.8 Unclaimed funds. 

If a Designated Agent is unable to 

identify or locate a Copyright Owner or 

Performer who is entitled to receive a 

royalty payment under this part, the 

Designated Agent shall retain the 

required payment in a segregated trust 

account for a period of 3 years from the 

date of payment. No claim to such 

payment shall be valid after the 

expiration of the 3-year period. After the 

expiration of this period, the Designated 

Agent may apply the unclaimed funds 

to offset any costs deductible under 17 

U.S.C. 114(g)(3). The foregoing shall 

apply notwithstanding the common law 

or statutes of any State.

PART 263—RATES AND TERMS FOR 

CERTAIN TRANSMISSIONS AND THE 

MAKING OF EPHEMERAL 

REPRODUCTIONS BY 

NONCOMMERCIAL LICENSEES

Sec. 

263.1 General. 

263.2 Definitions. 

263.3 Royalty rates and terms.

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114, 801(b)(1).

§ 263.1 General. 

This part 263 establishes rates and 

terms of royalty payments for the public 

performance of sound recordings in 

certain digital transmissions by certain 

Noncommercial Licensees in 

accordance with the provisions of 17 

U.S.C. 114, and the making of 

ephemeral recordings by certain 

Noncommercial Licensees in 

accordance with the provisions of 17 

U.S.C. 112(e), during the period 2003–

2004.

§ 263.2 Definitions. 

For purposes of this part, the 

following definition shall apply: 

A Noncommercial Licensee is a 

person or entity that has obtained a 

compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 114 

and the implementing regulations 

therefor, or that has obtained a 

compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 

112(e) and the implementing regulations 

therefor to make ephemeral recordings 

for use in facilitating such 

transmissions, and—

(a) Is exempt from taxation under 

section 501 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501); 

(b) Has applied in good faith to the 

Internal Revenue Service for exemption 

from taxation under section 501 of the 

Internal Revenue Code and has a 

commercially reasonable expectation 

that such exemption shall be granted; or 

(c) Is a State or possession or any 

governmental entity or subordinate 

thereof, or the United States or District 

of Columbia, making transmissions for 

exclusively public purposes.

§ 263.3 Royalty rates and terms. 

A Noncommercial Licensee shall in 

every respect be treated as a ‘‘Licensee’’

under part 262 of this chapter, and all 

terms applicable to Licensees and their 

payments under part 262 of this chapter 

shall apply to Noncommercial Licensees 

and their payment, except that a 

Noncommercial Licensee shall pay 

royalties at the rates applicable to such 

a ‘‘Licensee,’’ as currently provided in 

§ 261.3(a), (c), (d) and (e) of this chapter, 

rather than at the rates set forth in 

§ 262.3(a) through (d) of this chapter.

Dated: January 22, 2004. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

Approved by: 

James H. Billington, 

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 04–2535 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 2930 

[WO–250–1220–PA–24 1A] 

RIN 1004–AD45 

Permits for Recreation on Public 

Lands

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is amending its 

regulations on Special Recreation 

Permits by changing the maximum term 

for these permits to 10 years instead of 

5 years. The reason for this change is to 

add a reasonable expectation of 

continuity for outfitters, guides, and 

other small businesses that provide 

services to recreationists on public 

lands. 

BLM is also amending its regulations 

on Recreation Use Permits for fee areas 

by adding a section on prohibited acts 

and penalties. This new provision is 

necessary to give BLM law enforcement 

personnel authority to cite persons who 

do not pay fees or otherwise do not 

follow the regulations on Recreation Use 

Permits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

suggestions or inquiries to the following 

addresses: Mail: Director (250), Bureau 

of Land Management, Eastern States 

Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, 

VA 22153. Personal or messenger 

delivery: Room 301, 1620 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Larson at (202) 452–5168 as to the 

substance of the final rule, or Ted 

Hudson at (202) 452–5042 as to 

procedural matters. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may contact either individual by 

calling the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339, 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

II. Discussion of Public Comments 

III. Discussion of Final Rule 

IV. Procedural Matters

I. Background 

BLM published a final rule on Permits 

for Recreation on Public Lands in the 

Federal Register on October 1, 2002 (67 

FR 61732). That final rule included a 

new subpart containing regulations on 

recreation use permits. These permits 

are for use of BLM fee areas. Fee areas 

are sites that provide specialized 

facilities, equipment, or services related 

to outdoor recreation. These include 

areas that are developed by BLM, 

receive regular maintenance, may have 

on-site staffing, and are supported by 

Federal funding. Not all fee areas 

necessarily have all of these attributes. 

Examples of fee areas are campgrounds 

that include improvements such as 

picnic tables, toilet facilities, tent or 

trailer sites, and drinking water; and 

specialized sites such as swimming 

pools, boat launch facilities, places with 

guided tours, hunting blinds, and so 

forth. 

The October 1, 2002, final rule did not 

include a section on prohibited acts for 

such fee areas. We later determined that 

such a provision was necessary to give 

BLM law enforcement personnel 

authority to cite persons who use these 

areas without proper authorization, 

without paying required fees, without 

properly displaying their authorizations, 

or with falsified documentation. The 

proposed rule published on October 1, 

2002 (67 FR 61746), listed these acts as 

those that would be prohibited. 

The October 1, 2002, final rule left 

substantially intact the existing

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5703

regulations on the length of terms for 

commercial Special Recreation Permits. 

Those regulations provide for a 

maximum term of 5 years, allowing 

applicants to request permit terms up to 

that length of time and authorizing BLM 

to issue them for no more than 5 years. 

One comment on the May 16, 2000 

(65 FR 31234), proposed rule from an 

association representing commercial 

outfitters and guides recommended that 

the maximum term for Special 

Recreation Permits should be 10 years, 

unless BLM finds that special 

circumstances require a shorter period. 

The comment stated that outfitters need 

a 10-year term because they must make 

substantial investments that are not 

economically viable with a 5-year 

permit. 

We recognize that the 5-year 

maximum term for permits is a matter 

of concern for the outfitting and guiding 

community, and that a 10-year term may 

be more desirable from both a business 

and a land management perspective. For 

this reason, BLM published a proposed 

rule on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61746), 

to allow our field managers to grant up 

to a 10-year term for Special Recreation 

Permits on a case-by-case basis.

II. Discussion of Public Comments 

BLM received about 97 comments on 

the proposed rule. Of these, 4 opposed 

the provision in the rule that extended 

the maximum term for Special 

Recreation Permits to 10 years, and 88 

supported it without reservation. The 

remainder expressed support for the 

change if BLM would base its 

determination of the permit term on the 

performance of the permittee. 

Several comments expressed concern 

about the effect of a 10-year permit on 

competition and the availability of 

permits for new businesses. The 

proposed rule would have little impact 

in most cases on the ability of new 

outfitters to obtain a permit. Special 

Recreation Permits are not exclusive. 

The majority of public lands do not 

have use allocations limiting the 

number of commercial Special 

Recreation Permits issued. In areas 

where there is resource sensitivity or 

high demand for limited recreation 

resources, BLM may impose limits on 

recreation use allowed and the number 

of permits available. We determine such 

limitations through the land use 

planning process under 43 CFR subpart 

1610, and not through the permit 

administration process. 

Limited permit availability is 

therefore a function of resource 

allocation through a land use plan 

rather than the length of the term. 

Permit tenure has minimal affect on 

availability. An expiring permit has 

preference for renewal, so long as—

(1) The permit is in good standing, 

(2) The permit is consistent with BLM 

plans, and 

(3) The permittee has a satisfactory 

record of performance (see § 2932.51). 

Where the number of permits is 

limited, a new business can—

(1) Apply for a new permit if and 

when BLM determines through a 

comprehensive study and evaluation of 

the site or locale that we can justify an 

increase in allowable use with 

negligible impact on the existing 

permittees and environment, 

(2) Purchase a business that is already 

permitted in the area and apply for a 

transfer of that permit. The tenure or 

length of term of the permit has no 

effect on its transferability (see subpart 

2932.54), or 

(3) Participate in the planning process 

and advocate expanded opportunities. 

This is true regardless of the length of 

the permit term. Since land use 

planning is a public process, businesses 

interested in operating in the area 

subject to a plan should become 

involved and may be able to present 

information to justify expanding permit 

opportunities in the area. 

We received several comments which 

were supportive of the proposed rule if 

the 10 year maximum term for special 

recreation permits is discretionary 

rather than mandatory, and if BLM 

grants it only to permits whose holders 

have successfully complied with all 

permit terms and conditions on 

previous permits for the same activity. 

Generally, BLM issues a first-time 

permit for a one year term, treating that 

year as a probationary period. In 

subsequent years, we might issue 

longer-term permits up to the 10-year 

maximum based on the factors 

discussed in this rule. 

The comments suggested that BLM 

automatically revoke multi-year permits 

and change them to an annual 

probationary authorization if the 

operator violates any permit term or 

condition. We have not adopted this 

comment in the final rule, although 

BLM policy provides for such an annual 

probationary authorization for 

permittees with substantial violations. 

BLM has the authority to pursue 

measures such as this on a case-by-case 

basis. We prefer to retain permit 

management flexibility in the 

regulations and to consider violations 

on a case-by-case basis. We would not 

generally impose such sanctions for 

minor infractions that the operator 

remedies during the operating season. 

The comments also suggested that the 

onus of demonstrating compliance with 

the terms of the previous permit fall on 

the applicant rather than BLM. This is 

correct. Once BLM monitoring and 

annual evaluations determine that an 

operator is or has been in 

noncompliance, the burden is on the 

operator to prove that he or she has 

remedied the problem. 

Most of the concerns raised in the 

comments have already been addressed 

in the proposed rule and the existing 

regulations in 43 CFR part 2930. The 

proposed rule stated that an applicant 

may request a permit for a period of up 

to 10 years, and specifically stated that 

BLM will determine the appropriate 

term on a case-by-case basis. The BLM 

Manual/Handbook for Special 

Recreation Permits gives field office 

managers guidance for determining the 

length of a permit. It directs them to 

consider—

(1) Performance and compliance with 

the terms and conditions of previous 

permits; 

(2) Conformance to land use plans; 

and 

(3) Evolving resource conditions and 

technologies.

Other sections of the existing 

regulations on recreation authorizations 

(see § 2932.56) provide for the 

amendment, suspension, or revocation 

of the permit if an operator violates 

permit stipulations. These provisions 

apply to all permits, regardless of term 

length. 

Finally, one comment expressed 

concern about the penalty provision 

included in the section on prohibited 

acts in fee areas, stating it was too vague 

and might allow disproportionate fines 

for minor violations. The comment gave 

an example, stating it appeared that a 

person who failed to pay a $10 camping 

fee could be fined up to $5,000, 

depending on the class of violation 

involved. 

We did not include specific penalties 

for violations. There are too many 

possible variations in citable offenses 

and degrees of culpability. To list all 

possible associated penalties is beyond 

the scope of this rule. 

BLM relies on two authorities for the 

imposition of penalties for violation of 

these regulations. The first of these is 

section 303 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 

(43 U.S.C. 1733). Section 303 authorizes 

a maximum penalty of $1,000 or 12 

months imprisonment, or both. 

Violation of some of the prohibited acts 

in this rule, those governing personal 

conduct, would trigger a penalty under 

section 303. Under the United States 

Criminal Code and the Sentencing 

Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3571), the level 

of penalty in section 303 translates to a

5704 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Class A misdemeanor. Section 3571 

raises the maximum fine to $100,000 for 

individuals and $200,000 for 

corporations. 

The authority for imposing monetary 

penalties for infraction of permit 

requirements is the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act. This Act 

imposes a penalty of $500 for permit 

infractions. Under the Sentencing 

Reform Act, these infractions may be 

penalized up to $5,000 for an individual 

or $10,000 for a corporation. 

In enacting the Sentencing Reform 

Act, Congress concluded that a $1,000 

fine such as that provided for by 

FLPMA was an insufficient deterrent for 

some illegal activities. In some cases, 

such activities may be very profitable, as 

well as extremely harmful to society or 

the environment. Establishing the 

higher maximum punishment provides 

flexibility for the agencies and the 

courts to address the extremely wide 

variety of offenses covered under agency 

regulations. By establishing these 

maximum penalties, however, Congress 

clearly did not intend that persons 

convicted of minor offenses should be 

subject to maximum levels of 

punishment in every case. 

Federal rules authorize each Federal 

Judicial District to establish a bail 

forfeiture schedule for all offenses. 

Agencies use the bail forfeiture schedule 

to issue citations. This allows local 

courts to establish appropriate fines for 

each offense in their area of jurisdiction. 

It is also the fine the officer or BLM 

ranger enters on a citation. The violator 

may mail it in with a check to dispose 

of the citation and avoid further judicial 

action. The fine, in effect, becomes the 

bail forfeiture amount. 

If a defendant chooses to appear in 

court to challenge the citation, and is 

convicted, he or she may face a fine 

and/or imprisonment for a misdemeanor 

offense. In such a case, the Magistrate 

Judge carefully tailors the sentence to 

the offense and is guided by clear rules 

of Federal criminal procedure. 

We amended the table in the penalties 

section of the regulations to make it 

clear what penalty provisions pertain to 

which violations. We decided to 

provide only the cross-references to the 

statutory provisions rather than dollar 

figures for the penalties.

At present, bails for nonpayment are 

estimated to range from $25-$100 with 

most being around $50. Barring extreme 

aggravating circumstances, there is no 

reasonable likelihood of a defaulting 

camper being subjected to such an 

extreme fine as the comment postulated. 

III. Discussion of Final Rule 

Section 2932.42 How Long Is My 

Special Recreation Permit Valid? 

We did not make changes in this 

section in the final rule. We are 

amending this section solely by 

changing the maximum Special 

Recreation Permit term from 5 years in 

the previous regulations to 10 years. 

BLM will consider each application 

separately and may issue a permit for 

any period of time from the 10-year 

maximum term to a season or even a 

single day. We consider the purpose of 

the permit, the needs of the permittee, 

and the public interest in determining 

the appropriate term. 

Permittees are subject to rigorous 

monitoring and may lose their permits 

for poor performance under other 

provisions of the regulations (see 43 

CFR 2932.56). This final rule will have 

no impact on our ability to ensure that 

permittees are well-qualified and carry 

out their activities in a manner that 

protects the health of the public lands 

and serves the recreating public. It will, 

on the other hand, allow outfitters, 

guides, and river-running enterprises to 

avoid the expense and inconvenience of 

more frequent permit renewal, secure 

financing more easily (based on lenders 

knowing that permit terms are longer), 

and engage in long-term business 

planning. 

This change should benefit existing 

permit holders. However, it may reduce 

the ability of outfitters who currently do 

not hold a permit to obtain one, but only 

in areas where resource sensitivity or 

high demand for a limited recreational 

resource requires BLM to impose limits 

on use allocations. BLM does not expect 

this rule to present a substantial 

departure from current commercial 

outfitter operations on BLM lands or 

diminish the ability of BLM staff to 

monitor and enforce permit compliance. 

From the business perspective, the 

change will improve the ability of 

outfitters and guides to justify financing 

from lenders. Also, the business climate 

should improve for larger scale 

commercial permits and operations as a 

result of this change, in turn improving 

business stability within local 

economies. 

In the proposed rule, we asked 

specific questions relating to the likely 

effects of the proposed increase of 

maximum permit terms. We also asked 

for anecdotal evidence of problems 

caused for small businesses by the 5-

year maximum term. Most comments 

offered general support for the proposed 

change. A trade association for outfitters 

and other commercial recreation 

enterprises replied that a longer term for 

permits would make financing more 

readily obtainable and business 

planning more feasible. Without offering 

data or anecdotal history, the comment 

went on to quote outfitters saying that 

getting financing has been difficult with 

the 5-year maximum term. This 

commentary did nothing to negate our 

expectations as to the likely effects of 

this rule. 

From the perspective of the land 

manager, extending the maximum 

permit term from 5 to 10 years allows 

BLM greater range and flexibility to set 

a term for the permit appropriate for the 

activity in light of, and commensurate 

with—

• The level of permittee investment; 

• The geographic location and 

resource considerations; 

• Anticipated changes or time frames 

in land use allocations or planning 

decisions; 

• Our experience in managing and 

monitoring the type of permitted use; 

and 

• The type, complexity, and extent of 

the proposed activity. 

The rule does not automatically set 

the term of all permits at 10 years. 

Rather, it simply allows the field 

manager to select an appropriate term 

for up to 10 years. 

Finally, the amendment should lead 

to a small reduction in administrative 

costs by reducing the analysis and 

paperwork required for more frequent 

permit renewal. 

Subpart 2933—Recreation Use Permits 

for Fee Areas 

We have amended this subpart on 

Recreation Use Permits by adding a new 

section on prohibited acts and penalties. 

Under this new section 2933.33, BLM 

will cite and penalize persons using 

campgrounds and other fee areas if they 

do not—

• Obtain a permit, 

• Pay necessary fees, or 

• Display proof of payment as BLM 

requires and posts at the site. 

BLM may also cite and penalize them 

if they—

• Use forged permits, or 

• Use another person’s permit. 

This new section also states that 

failure to display proof of payment on 

a vehicle parked in a fee area is 

evidence of non-payment. This is 

important. It strengthens BLM’s 

enforcement capability and reduces 

costs by establishing an evidentiary 

threshold that the defendant must 

overcome or be found guilty. Once BLM 

establishes that the defendant did not 

display a permit, the defendant has the 

burden of overcoming the presumption 

of non-payment by proving that he or 

she paid the fee.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5705

Finally, the new section lists the 

penalties that may be imposed upon 

conviction. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

The principal author of this final rule 

is Lee Larson of the Recreation Group, 

Washington Office, BLM, assisted by 

Ted Hudson of the Regulatory Affairs 

Group, Washington Office, BLM. 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866)

The Office of Management and Budget 

has asked to review this rule as possibly 

a significant rule under Executive Order 

12866. However, BLM has made the 

following determinations: 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

It will not adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. It will make BLM’s 

regulatory approach to maximum 

special recreation permit terms identical 

to that of the National Park Service, 

whose regulations also allow a 

maximum permit term of 10 years. 

(3) This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. 

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal 

issues, but raises a novel policy issue by 

making a substantive change in the 

maximum term length for Special 

Recreation Permits, increasing it from 5 

to 10 years. Four comments opposed 

this change, 88 supported it without 

reservation, and several others 

supported it conditionally, as discussed 

above in the Discussion of Comments. 

The increase in the maximum term for 

Special Recreation Permits from 5 to 10 

years should have no significant 

economic effect. It is not expected to 

have a significant effect on the number 

of firms operating on BLM lands. The 

operating costs of such firms may be 

slightly reduced as a result of this rule 

due to better financing terms. During 

fiscal year 2001, BLM issued about 

34,500 Special Recreation Permits and 

collected about $4 million in fees. 

Special Recreation Permits are generally 

obtained by commercial outfitters and 

guides, including river-running 

companies (about 3,000), sponsors of 

competitive events (about 1,000), ‘‘snow 

bird’’ seasonal mobile home campers 

who use BLM’s long term visitor areas 

(about 14,000), and private individuals 

and groups using certain special areas. 

The increase of the maximum term for 

Special Recreation Permits will affect 

primarily the first of these categories: 

Commercial outfitters and guides, 

which include river-running companies. 

The rule does not change the fee 

structure at all, but benefits these 

businesses by giving them a more secure 

permit tenure. This will help them 

justify financing from lenders. 

The second change in the rule affects 

Recreation Use Permits. During fiscal 

year 2001, BLM issued about 670,000 

Recreation Use Permits for use of fee 

sites, with revenues totaling about $3.9 

million. The cost of such a permit 

averaged a little under $6.00. 

This final rule does not affect fees, 

and should have no effect on the 

number of Recreation Use Permits BLM 

will issue. It merely adds a section—

• Prohibiting the following acts: 

Failure to obtain a permit, failure to pay 

for one, and fraudulent use of permits 

or other documents to avoid paying a 

fee; 

• Making failure to display a permit, 

where local rules require it, evidence of 

failure to pay; and 

• Stating the standard statutory 

maximum penalties for violation that a 

magistrate could impose. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). According to the 

president of the American Recreation 

Coalition, outdoor recreation is a $350 

billion industry made up of small 

businesses. None of these small 

businesses will be affected more than 

incidentally by making failure to pay for 

or obtain a fee area Recreation Use 

Permit a prohibited act. There is no way 

to quantify how many of these permits 

BLM issues to small entities; it must be 

a minuscule share of the campground 

and similar permits BLM issues to the 

general recreating public. 

Changing the maximum term for 

Special Recreation Permits from 5 to 10 

years will benefit small businesses as 

explained in the previous section of this 

part of the Preamble. We cannot 

quantify the benefits accruing from 

increased permit tenure. The rule will 

benefit about 3,000 commercial 

outfitters and guides and river-running 

outfitters. All of them operate small 

businesses and some hold multiple 

Special Recreation Permits. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

• Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

See the discussion under Regulatory 

Planning and Review, above. 

• Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. The rule does not 

change fees. It merely provides a 

mechanism for enforcing their 

collection. See the discussion above 

under Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

• Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Recreationists are not likely to resort to 

foreign recreation markets because 

failure to pay a campground fee 

becomes a punishable offense. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

rule has no effect on governmental or 

tribal entities. A statement containing 

the information required by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. The enforcement 

provision does not include any language 

requiring or authorizing forfeiture of 

personal property or any property 

rights. A takings implications 

assessment is not required. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. The rule does 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. The rule does not 

preempt State law.

5706 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, we 

find that this final rule does not include 

policies with tribal implications. The 

rule does not affect lands held for the 

benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

The rule applies only to BLM 

campgrounds and other fee areas on 

BLM lands, and to commercial outfitters 

and guides who may apply for longer 

term permits to use the public lands. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

must approve under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act 

This final rule does not constitute a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. A detailed statement 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 is not required. We 

base this finding on an environmental 

assessment of the rule dated August 22, 

2002, which you can find in the 

administrative record for the rule. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are easy 

to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this rule 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

(1) Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

(2) Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

its clarity? 

(3) Does the format of the rule 

(grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce its clarity? 

(4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’

appears in bold type and is preceded by 

the symbol ‘‘§’’ and a numbered heading; 

for example, § 2932.42 How long is my 

Special Recreation Permit valid?) 

(5) Is the description of the rule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble helpful in understanding 

the final rule? What else could we do to 

make the rule easier to understand? 

If you have any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand, in addition to 

sending the original to the address 

shown in ADDRESSES, above, please send 

a copy to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20240. You may also e-mail the 

comments to this address: 

Execsec@ios.doi.gov.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2930 

Penalties; Public lands; Recreation 

and recreation areas; Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements; Surety 

bonds.

For the reasons explained in the 

preamble, and under the authority of 43 

U.S.C. 1740, part 2930, chapter II, 

subtitle B of title 43 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

Dated: October 6, 2003. 

Rebecca W. Watson, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

PART 2930—PERMITS FOR 

RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS 

1. The authority citation for part 2930 

continues to read as follows:

Authority citation: 43 U.S.C. 1740; 16 

U.S.C. 460l–6a.

Subpart 2932—Special Recreation 

Permits for Commercial Use, 

Competitive Events, Organized 

Groups, and Recreation Use in Special 

Areas 

2. Revise section 2932.42 to read as 

follows:

§ 2932.42 How long is my Special 

Recreation Permit valid? 

You may request a permit for a day, 

season of use, or other time period, up 

to a maximum of 10 years. BLM will 

determine the appropriate term on a 

case-by-case basis.

Subpart 2933—Recreation Use Permits 

for Fee Areas 

3. Add section 2933.33 to read as 

follows:

§ 2933.33 Prohibited acts and penalties. 

(a) Prohibited acts. You must not—

(1) Fail to obtain a use permit or pay 

any fees that this subpart or the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act, as 

amended, requires (see paragraph (d)(3) 

of this section); 

(2) Fail to pay any fees, after you first 

occupy a designated use facility, within 

the time set by the local BLM office (see

paragraph (d)(3) of this section); 

(3) Fail to display any required proof 

of payment of fees (see paragraph (d)(3) 

of this section); 

(4) Willfully and knowingly possess, 

use, publish as true, or sell to another, 

any forged, counterfeited, or altered 

document or instrument used as proof 

of or exemption from fee payment (see

paragraph (d)(1) of this section); 

(5) Willfully and knowingly use any 

document or instrument used as proof 

of or exemption from fee payment, that 

BLM issued to or intended another to 

use (see paragraph (d)(1) of this section); 

or 

(6) Falsely represent yourself to be a 

person to whom BLM has issued a 

document or instrument used as proof 

of or exemption from fee payment (see

paragraph (d)(1) of this section). 

(b) Evidence of nonpayment. BLM 

will consider failure to display proof of 

payment on your unattended vehicle 

parked within a fee area, where 

payment is required under paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, to be prima facie

evidence of nonpayment. 

(c) Responsibility for penalties. If 

another driver incurs a penalty under 

this subpart when using a vehicle 

registered in your name, you and the 

driver are jointly responsible for the 

penalty, unless you show that the 

vehicle was used without your 

permission.

(d) Types of penalties. You may be 

subject to the following fines or 

penalties for violating the provisions of 

this subpart.

If you are convicted of . . . then you may be subject to . . . under . . . 

(1) Any act prohibited by paragraph (a)(4), (5), 

or (6) of this section.

a fine under 18 U.S.C. 3571 or other penalties 

in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1733(b)(5) for 

individuals or (c)(5) for organizations.

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)). 

(2) Violating any regulation in this subpart or 

any condition of a Recreation Use Permit.

a fine under 18 U.S.C. 3571 or other penalties 

in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1733(b)(5) for 

individuals or (c)(5) for organizations.

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5707

If you are convicted of . . . then you may be subject to . . . under . . . 

(3) Failing to obtain any permit or to pay any 

fee required in this subpart.

a fine in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 

3571(b)(7) for individuals or (c)(7) for organizations.

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(e). 

[FR Doc. 04–2545 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 25

[IB Docket No. 99–67; RM No. 9165; FCC 

03–283] 

Equipment Authorization for Portable 

Earth-Station Transceivers and Out-ofBand Emission Limits for Mobile Earth 

Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has 

amended its rules to establish a prior 

authorization requirement for 

importation, sale, lease, offering for sale 

or lease, or shipment or distribution for 

sale or lease of portable earth-station 

transceivers. The Commission has also 

revised rule provisions pertaining to 

responsibility for operation of earthstation transceivers and limits on out-ofband emissions from mobile earthstation transceivers.

DATES: Effective March 8, 2004, except 

for § 25.129 and the changes in 

§§ 1.1307, 2.1033, 2.1204, and 25.132, 

which contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The FCC will publish a 

document in the Federal Register

announcing the effective date for those 

rule changes. Written comments by the 

public on the information collection 

requirements must be submitted on or 

before April 6, 2004. Written comments 

must be submitted by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on the 

proposed and/or modified information 

collection requirements on or before 

April 6, 2004. 

Compliance Date: When it becomes 

effective, § 25.129 will require prior 

authorization to be obtained pursuant to 

application procedures specified in 

existing rule provisions in 47 CFR Part 

2 for devices imported, sold, leased, or 

offered, shipped, or distributed for sale 

or lease after November 19, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

information collection requirements 

should be addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy should be submitted to Judith B. 

Herman, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554, or via Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. 

LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, 10234 

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503 or via the 

Internet to 

Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Bell, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, at (202) 418–0741. 

For additional information concerning 

the information collection requirements, 

contact Judith B. Herman at 202–418–

0214, or via the Internet at JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Second Report and 

Order in IB Docket No. 99–67, adopted 

on November 6, 2003, and released on 

November 18, 2003. The full text of the 

Second Report and Order is available 

for public inspection and copying 

during regular business hours at the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Qualex International, Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–

863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or 

via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

In the Second Report and Order the 

Commission adopted a rule that will 

require interested parties to obtain 

equipment authorization for portable 

earth-station transceivers pursuant to 

the previously-established certification 

procedure specified in part 2 of the 

Commission’s rules. The certification 

procedure requires submission of an 

application and exhibits to the 

Commission, including test data 

showing that a representative sample 

unit meets the Commission’s applicable 

technical requirements. Devices subject 

to this requirement may not be 

imported, sold or leased, offered for sale 

or lease, or shipped or distributed for 

sale or lease in the United States after 

November 19, 2004 unless a pertinent 

certification application has been 

granted and the devices are permanently 

marked with an FCC identification 

number. The prohibition against 

importation is modified, however, by an 

exception that permits travelers to carry 

up to three portable earth-station 

transceivers that have not been 

authorized by FCC certification into the 

United States as personal effects for 

purposes other than sale or lease. The 

purposes of the new certification 

requirement for portable GMPCS 

transceivers are to prevent interference, 

reduce radio-frequency radiation 

exposure risk, and make regulatory 

treatment of portable GMPCS 

transceivers consistent with treatment of 

similar terrestrial wireless devices, such 

as cellular phones. The Second Report 

and Order also revises several rule 

provisions to place appropriate legal 

responsibility for unauthorized 

transceiver operation on parties that 

control access to satellite networks and 

to eliminate redundant informationfiling requirements. 

In addition to adopting rules 

pertaining to equipment authorization 

and importation of portable earthstation transceivers, the Second Report 

and Order amended a rule section that 

prescribes limits on emissions from 

Mobile Satellite Service transceivers in 

the 1559–1610 MHz band. In light of 

comments filed in response to a Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released 

in 2002, the Commission prescribed 

several additional limits on such out-ofband emissions, specified measurement 

techniques, and set compliance 

deadlines for Inmarsat maritime 

transceivers. These rule changes 

improve interference protection for 

aeronautical radio-navigation. 

The Second Report and Order

imposes new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It has been submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the new information 

collection requirements. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Second Report and Order

imposes new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general