Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70211

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. The rule 

fits within paragraph (32)(e) because it 

promulgates operating regulations or 

procedures for a drawbridge. Under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the 

Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under 

the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 

5039.

2. In § 117.353, paragraph (c) is added 

to read as follows:

§ 117.353 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Savannah River to St. Marys River.

* * * * *

(c) Skidaway Bridge, SR 204, mile 

592.9 near Savannah. The draw shall 

open on signal, except that from 6:30 

a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, the draw 

need not open. The draw shall open on 

signal on Federal holidays.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

David B. Peterman, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–26587 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05–04–210] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Security Zone; Potomac and Anacosta 

Rivers, Washington, DC and Arlington 

and Fairfax Counties, Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary security zone from 

January 14 through January 25, 2005, 

encompassing certain waters of the 

Potomac and Anacosta Rivers in order 

to safeguard a large number of highranking officials and spectators from 

terrorist acts and incidents. This action 

is necessary to provide for the security 

of persons and property, and prevent 

terrorist acts or incidents during the 

2005 Presidential Inauguration activities 

in Washington, DC. This rule would 

prohibit vessels and persons from 

entering the security zone and require 

vessels and persons in the security zone 

to depart the security zone, unless 

specifically exempt under the 

provisions in this rule or granted 

specific permission from the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 

Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, 

Waterways Management Branch, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast 

Guard Activities Baltimore, Waterways 

Management Branch, maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Comments and material received from 

the public, as well as documents 

indicated in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, will become part 

of this docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying at Coast Guard 

Activities Baltimore, Waterways 

Management Branch, between 8 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Activities 

Baltimore, Waterways Management 

Branch, at telephone number (410) 576–

2674 or (410) 576–2693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD05–04–210), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them. If, as we anticipate, we 

make this temporary final rule effective 

less than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register, we will explain in that 

publication, as required by 5 U.S.C. 

(d)(3), our good cause for doing so. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

70212 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard 

Activities Baltimore, Waterways 

Management Branch, at the address 

under ADDRESSES explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The U.S. Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) in Advisory 02–07 advised 

U.S. shipping interests to maintain a 

heightened state of alert against possible 

terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently 

issued Advisory 03–06 informing 

operators of maritime interests of 

increased threat possibilities to vessels 

and facilities and a higher risk of 

terrorist attack to the transportation 

community in the United States. The 

ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and 

Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports 

and waterways to be on a higher state 

of alert because the al Qaeda 

organization and other similar 

organizations have declared an ongoing 

intention to conduct armed attacks on 

U.S. interests worldwide. 

Due to increased awareness that 

future terrorist attacks are possible, the 

Coast Guard as lead Federal agency for 

maritime homeland security, has 

determined that the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port must have the means 

to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, 

and respond to asymmetric threats, acts 

of aggression, and attacks by terrorists 

on the American homeland while still 

maintaining our freedoms and 

sustaining the flow of commerce. This 

security zone is part of a comprehensive 

port security regime designed to 

safeguard human life, vessels, and 

waterfront facilities against sabotage or 

terrorist attacks.

The Captain of the Port Baltimore 

proposes to establish a security zone for 

the 2005 Presidential Inauguration 

activities in Washington, DC to address 

the aforementioned security concerns 

and to take steps to prevent the 

catastrophic impact that a terrorist 

attack against a large gathering of highranking officials and spectators in 

Washington, DC, would have. This 

security zone applies to all waters of the 

Potomac River from shoreline to 

shoreline bounded by the Woodrow 

Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to 

the Key Bridge, including the waters of 

the Anacostia River downstream from 

the Highway 50 Bridge to the 

confluence with the Potomac River, 

including the waters of the Georgetown 

Channel Tidal Basin, from January 14 

through January 25, 2005. Vessels 

underway at the time this security zone 

is implemented will immediately 

proceed out of the zone. We will issue 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further 

publicize the security zone. This 

security zone is issued under authority 

contained in 50 U.S.C. 191 and 33 

U.S.C. 1226. 

Except for Public vessels and vessels 

at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule 

temporarily requires all vessels in the 

designated security zone as defined by 

this rule to depart the security zone. 

However, the Captain of the Port may, 

in his discretion grant waivers or 

exemptions to this rule, either on a caseby-case basis or categorically to a 

particular class of vessel that otherwise 

is subject to adequate control measures. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

On Thursday, January 20, 2005, the 

U.S. Presidential Inauguration will take 

place at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, 

DC. The 2005 Presidential Inauguration 

activities will include several Inaugural 

balls, parades and receptions. The 

security zone will be in effect from 

January 14 through January 25, 2005. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

The operational restrictions of the 

security zone are tailored to provide the 

minimal interruption of vessel 

operations necessary to provide 

immediate, improved security for 

persons, vessels, and the waters of the 

Potomac River in Washington, DC. 

Additionally, this security zone is 

temporary in nature and vessels and 

facilities can the Captain of the Port for 

a waiver of the requirements of the 

security zone. Any hardships 

experienced by persons or vessels are 

outweighed by the national interest in 

protecting high ranking officials and the 

public at large from the devastating 

consequences of acts of terrorism, and 

from sabotage or other subversive acts, 

accidents, or other causes of a similar 

nature. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to operate 

or transit on a portion of the Potomac 

River, from the surface to the bottom, 

from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial 

Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, 

including the waters of the Anacostia 

River downstream from the Highway 50 

Bridge to the confluence with the 

Potomac River, including the waters of 

the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. 

This security zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because vessels with compelling 

interests that outweigh the port’s 

security needs may be granted waivers 

from the requirements of the security 

zone. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

rule or any policy or action of the Coast 

Guard. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70213

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

We invite your comments on how this 

proposed rule might impact tribal 

governments, even if that impact may 

not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’

under the Order. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision on whether to 

categorically exclude this rule from 

further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. 

191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 

and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T05–210 to read as 

follows:

§ 165.T05–210 Security Zone; Potomac 

River, Washington, DC and Arlington and 

Fairfax Counties, Virginia. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section, Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 

Maryland and any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard 

Activities Baltimore, Maryland to act as 

a designated representative on his or her 

behalf. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters of the Potomac 

River, from shoreline to shoreline, 

bounded by the Woodrow Wilson 

Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key 

Bridge, and all waters of the Anacostia 

River, from shoreline to shoreline, 

downstream from the Highway 50 

Bridge to the confluence with the 

Potomac River, including the waters of 

the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing safety zones 

found in § 165.33 of this part apply to 

the security zone described in paragraph 

(b). 

(2) Entry into or remaining in this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

Baltimore. Except for Public vessels and 

vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, 

all vessels in this zone are to depart the 

security zone. However, the Captain of 

the Port may, in his discretion grant 

70214 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

waivers or exemptions to this rule, 

either on a case-by-case basis or 

categorically to a particular class of 

vessel that otherwise is subject to 

adequate control measures. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the security zone must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore can be contacted at telephone 

number (410) 576–2693. The Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this section can 

be contacted on VHF Marine Band 

Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light, or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore and proceed at the minimum 

speed necessary to maintain a safe 

course while within the zone. 

(4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

(d) Effective period. This section will 

be effective from 4 a.m. local time on 

January 14, 2005, through 10 p.m. local 

time on January 25, 2005.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

Curtis A. Springer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

[FR Doc. 04–26669 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

41 CFR Parts 51–2, 51–3, and 51–4

[Docket No. 2004–01–02] 

RIN 3037–AA00

Governance Standards for Central 

Nonprofit Agencies and Nonprofit 

Agencies Participating in the JavitsWagner-O’Day Program

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled (The Committee), which is 

responsible for administering and 

overseeing the implementation of the 

Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act, is 

extending the comment period for the 

proposed rule to require nonprofit 

agencies awarded Government contracts 

under the authority of the JWOD Act, as 

well as central nonprofit agencies 

designated by the Committee and 

nonprofit agencies that would like to 

qualify for participation in the JWOD 

Program, to comply with new 

governance standards. This action will 

allow interested persons more time to 

prepare and submit comments.

DATES: Submit your written comments 

on the proposed rule on or before 

February 10, 2005. No public meeting 

will be held.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the 

proposed rule in one of the following 

ways: 

• By electronic mail (preferred 

method) to rulecomments@jwod.gov;

• By fax, to the attention of G. John 

Heyer, to (703) 603–0655; 

• By postal mail to Committee for 

Purchase From People Who Are Blind 

or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 

10800, Arlington, VA, 22202–3259; or 

• Through the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions on the site for 

submitting comments. 

For more information on how to 

submit your comments, please refer to 

the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’

section in the proposed rule. 

Comments will be made available for 

public inspection, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

on weekdays, at the Committee for 

Purchase From People Who Are Blind 

or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 

10800, Arlington, VA, 22202–3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. 

John Heyer, by telephone at (703) 603–

0665, by fax at (703) 603–0655, by email at jheyer@jwod.gov, or by postal 

mail at Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

Arlington, VA, 22202–3259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 12, 2004, the Committee 

published in the Federal Register (69 

FR 65395–65401, Docket No. 2004–01–

01) a proposed rule to require nonprofit 

agencies awarded Government contracts 

under the authority of the JWOD Act, as 

well as central nonprofit agencies 

designated by the Committee and 

nonprofit agencies that would like to 

qualify for participation in the JWOD 

Program, to comply with new 

governance standards, including 

standards concerning the practices of 

boards of directors and the 

reasonableness of executive and other 

employee compensation. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before 

January 11, 2005. The Committee is 

extending the comment period on 

Docket No. 2004–01–01 for an 

additional 30 days, ending February 10, 

2005. This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. Comments already 

submitted on the proposed rule need 

not be resubmitted as they will be fully 

considered in the final determination.

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 46–48c.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

Leon A. Wilson, Jr., 

Executive Director, Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled.

[FR Doc. 04–26651 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P