Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 6195

§ 73.202 [Amended]

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Virginia, is amended 

by adding Channel 229A at Lynchburg.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–2836 Filed 2–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 176, and 177 

[Docket No. RSPA–03–14982 (HM–232C)] 

RIN 2137–AD79 

Hazardous Materials: Enhancing 

Hazardous Materials Transportation 

Security

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs 

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

procedures for applying for an 

exemption from the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations, adopted in an 

interim final rule published May 5, 

2003, to require certain applicants to 

certify compliance with provisions of 

the Safe Explosives Act. In addition, 

this final rule adopts without change 

provisions in the interim final rule that 

require motor carriers and vessel 

operators to comply with applicable 

licensing requirements for drivers and 

crewmen, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective March 11, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Gorsky, (202) 366–8553, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Standards, 

Research and Special Programs 

Administration.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On May 5, 2003, the Research and 

Special Programs Administration 

(RSPA, we) published an interim final 

rule (IFR) to enhance hazardous 

materials transportation security (68 FR 

23832). The IFR described the current 

system of regulations applicable to the 

transportation of hazardous materials in 

commerce, and reviewed Department of 

Transportation (DOT) activities to 

enhance the security of hazardous 

materials shipments. In addition, the 

rule summarized the requirements of 

the Uniting and Strengthening America 

by Providing Appropriate Tools 

Required to Intercept and Obstruct 

Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act; Pub. 

L. 107–56, October 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 

272) and regulations adopted by the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) to 

implement the background check 

provisions of the Act. Further, the IFR 

described actions taken by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), TSA, 

and the U.S. Coast Guard to address 

security issues associated with the 

transportation of hazardous materials by 

air and vessel. The IFR also 

incorporated into the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 

parts 171–180) a requirement that 

shippers and transporters of hazardous 

materials comply with applicable 

Federal security regulations and revised 

the procedures for applying for an 

exemption from the HMR to require 

applicants to certify compliance with 

applicable Federal transportation 

security laws and regulations. Finally, 

DOT, in consultation with TSA, 

determined that these regulations 

adequately address the security risks 

posed by persons engaged in the 

transportation of explosives in 

commerce, and, accordingly, the 

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 842(i), which 

address categories of persons who are 

prohibited from possessing explosives, 

do not apply to persons while they are 

engaged in the transportation of 

explosives in commerce by motor 

carrier, aircraft, or vessel. 

II. Response to Comments Received on 

IFR 

We received six comments on the 

IFR—from the Institute of Makers of 

Explosives (IME), the Dangerous Goods 

Advisory Council (DGAC), the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (Pennsylvania DOT), the 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

(Texas), Transportation Trades 

Department (TTD), and a joint comment 

from the Wisconsin Federation of 

Cooperatives and the Minnesota 

Association of Cooperatives (WisconsinMinnesota Cooperatives). These 

comments are summarized below. 

In response to the comments 

submitted, we are revising the 

procedures adopted in the IFR for 

persons applying for an exemption to 

transport certain explosives in 

commerce by aircraft. The revisions are 

minor and do not affect the security 

risks posed by such transportation. 

Therefore, the determinations made in 

the IFR concerning the applicability of 

18 U.S.C. 842(i) to the transportation of 

explosives in commerce continue in 

effect. 

A. Comments Beyond the Scope of the 

HM–232C Rulemaking 

The May 5, 2003 IFR amended Part 

177 of the HMR to require motor carriers 

who transport hazardous materials in 

commerce to comply with Part 383 of 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs). Part 383 

establishes commercial driver license 

requirements. On May 5, 2003, TSA 

published regulations to establish 

procedures for making determinations 

as to whether an individual poses a 

security threat warranting denial of a 

hazardous materials endorsement for a 

commercial driver’s license (interim 

final rule; 68 FR 23851). Also on May 

5, 2003, FMCSA amended Part 383 to 

prohibit states from issuing a 

commercial driver’s license with a 

hazardous materials endorsement unless 

the Attorney General has conducted a 

background records check of the 

applicant and TSA has determined that 

the applicant does not pose a security 

threat warranting denial of the 

hazardous materials endorsement 

(interim final rule; 68 FR 23843). 

Wisconsin-Minnesota Cooperatives, 

Texas, and TTD express concern about 

various aspects of the background check 

requirements in the TSA and FMCSA 

regulations. These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

We have placed the comments in the 

appropriate TSA and FMCSA dockets to 

be addressed as those agencies finalize 

the interim final rules they adopted on 

May 5, 2003. 

The FMCSA IFR amended Part 383 of 

the FMCSRs to require commercial 

drivers of motor vehicles used to 

transport select agents regulated by the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention under 42 CFR part 73 to 

obtain a commercial driver’s license 

with a hazardous materials 

endorsement. Pennsylvania DOT 

suggests that motor vehicles used to 

transport select agents should be 

placarded. Again, this comment is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

We considered whether placarding for 

certain infectious substances should be 

required under Docket HM–226 

(ANPRM published September 2, 1998, 

63 FR 46843; NPRM published January 

22, 2001, 66 FR 6941; final rule 

published August 14, 2002, 67 FR 

53118). For the reasons outlined in the 

HM–226 NPRM (66 FR 6946), we 

determined that current hazard 

communication requirements for 

infectious substances shipments are 

sufficient to enable transportation 

workers and emergency response 

6196 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

personnel to identity and address any 

potential hazards and, thus, decided 

against a placarding requirement. 

IME offers a number of comments 

concerning the application of 

regulations promulgated by the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) to the transportation 

of explosives. These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 

are appropriately addressed by ATF.

B. Procedures for Adopting IFRs 

DGAC suggests that RSPA has no 

procedures for adopting interim final 

rules and asks if the requirements 

adopted in the IFR are intended to be 

temporary. DGAC is not correct that 

there are no procedures for adopting 

IFRs. Section 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

500 et seq.) permits an agency to issue 

a rule without prior notice and 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that notice and comment are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Section 106.35 of 

49 CFR part 106 sets forth the 

procedures for issuing an interim final 

rule that were adopted by RSPA in a 

final rule published July 25, 2002 (67 FR 

42947). Section 106.35 explains that, 

consistent with section 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, RSPA 

may issue an IFR without first 

publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and accepting public 

comments if the agency finds for good 

cause that notice and public comment 

are impracticable, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest. After 

considering comments received on an 

IFR, § 106.35 provides that the agency 

may revise the interim final rule and 

issue a final rule. In this rulemaking, we 

are doing precisely that. 

C. Determinations Made in the IFR 

IME is the only commenter that 

addressed the determinations made in 

the preamble to the May 5 IFR and is 

generally supportive of those 

determinations. The IFR provides an 

exception, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

845(a)(1), to the prohibited persons 

provisions in 18 U.S.C. 842(i) for ‘‘any 

aspect of the transportation of explosive 

materials via railroad, water, highway, 

or air, which are regulated by the United 

States Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and agencies thereof, and which 

pertain to safety.’’

IME requests that we clarify the effect 

of the transportation exception in 18 

U.S.C. 842(i) on motor private carriers 

and their personnel. The TSA and 

FMCSA regulations implementing the 

USA PATRIOT Act and incorporated 

into the HMR in the May 5, 2003 IFR 

apply to the transport of placarded and 

non-placarded amounts of explosives by 

common, contract, or private motor 

carriers within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 

845(a)(1), and the provisions of 18 

U.S.C. 842(i), accordingly, do not apply 

to persons engaged in such 

transportation in commerce. 

IME also requests that we clarify the 

effect of the transportation exception in 

18 U.S.C. 842(i) on non-driver/crew 

employees of companies that offer for 

transportation or transport explosives in 

commerce. As explained in the 

preamble to the May 5, 2003 IFR, DOT 

has determined that non-placarded 

shipments of explosives do not present 

a sufficient security risk to justify 

detailed background check or other 

security requirements at this time; in 

light of this determination, the 

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 842(i) do not 

apply to persons engaged in such 

transportation in commerce. For 

placarded shipments of explosives, the 

determinations explained in the 

preamble to the May 5, 2003 IFR with 

regard to the transportation by common/

contract motor carriers, vessel, and air 

and the determinations concerning rail 

transportation of explosives explained 

in a notice published jointly by FRA, 

RSPA, and TSA on June 9, 2003 (68 FR 

34470) apply to drivers employed by 

motor carriers and crews employed by 

vessel, air, and rail carriers. 

Non-driver employees of motor 

carriers were not specifically addressed 

in the May 5, 2003 IFR. DOT and TSA 

have assessed the security risks posed 

by these individuals and have 

determined that no further regulation is 

needed at this time. Accordingly, the 

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 842(i) do not 

apply to non-driver employees of motor 

carriers when they are performing 

transportation functions regulated under 

the HMR. As defined in a final rule 

published October 30, 2003 (68 FR 

61906)), transportation functions are 

functions performed as part of the actual 

movement of a hazardous material in 

commerce and include certain loading, 

unloading, and storage operations. (See 

the October 30, 2003 final rule for a 

complete discussion of the applicability 

of the HMR to specific transportation 

functions.) 

The exemption under 18 U.S.C. 

845(a)(1) does not apply to non-driver 

employees of Federal explosives 

licensees and permittees regulated by 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). In fact, 

all persons who are employed by 

Federal explosives licensees and 

permittees and who possess explosives 

in the course of their employment are 

subject to 18 U.S.C. 842(i) prohibitions 

(with the limited exception of employee 

drivers). 

D. Procedures for Applying for an 

Exemption 

The May 5, 2003 IFR adopted two 

new requirements for applicants seeking 

an exemption from the HMR. First, the 

IFR requires an applicant for an 

exemption to certify compliance with 

transportation security laws and 

regulations. Second, the IFR requires an 

applicant for an exemption to transport 

otherwise prohibited explosives on 

passenger or cargo-only aircraft to 

certify that no person within the 

prohibited persons categories listed in 

18 U.S.C. 842(i) will participate in the 

transportation of the material. 

In their comments, DGAC and IME 

express concern about the first 

requirement. DGAC notes that the text 

in § 107.105(c)(10) is inconsistent with 

the summary and preamble of the IFR in 

that it does not limit the certification 

requirement to Federal transportation 

security laws and regulations. Both 

DGAC and IME note that the 

requirement is quite broad and could be 

read to include state or local 

transportation security laws and 

regulations; DGAC makes the additional 

point that the IFR could be interpreted 

to apply to packaging manufacturers in 

addition to persons who offer or 

transport hazardous materials for 

transportation.

Our intention in adopting the general 

certification requirement for exemption 

applicants was to assure that they were 

aware of and in compliance with 

applicable Federal security 

requirements, including security 

requirements promulgated by agencies 

outside DOT. We agree with 

commenters that the requirement in the 

IFR is not clear as to its applicability. 

Upon further consideration, moreover, 

we have determined that the 

requirement is not necessary to assure 

that exemption holders comply with 

applicable security regulations. Instead 

of requiring applicants to certify 

compliance with applicable Federal 

security laws and regulations, we will 

include in the actual exemption 

document, where applicable, an 

indication that the exemption does not 

exempt the holder from compliance 

with the security plan requirements in 

Subpart I of Part 172 of the HMR, the 

security training requirements in 

§ 172.704 of the HMR, and other specific 

Federal requirements that may apply to 

the exemption holder’s operations. 

Therefore, in this final rule, the 

requirement for an applicant for an 

exemption to certify compliance with 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 6197

transportation security laws and 

regulations is deleted. 

IME also expresses concern that the 

IFR requires applicants seeking an 

exemption for the transportation of 

explosives that are otherwise prohibited 

for air transportation to certify that no 

person within the prohibited persons 

categories listed in 18 U.S.C. 842(i) will 

participate in the transportation of the 

material. IME notes that exemption 

applicants must demonstrate an 

equivalent level of safety, including 

security, and suggests that this should 

be sufficient to assure the security of 

explosives shipped under exemption. 

As explained in the May 5 IFR, we 

have issued a limited number of 

exemptions that permit the 

transportation of explosives that would 

be placarded if transported by highway 

or rail, including Division 1.1 and 1.2 

explosives. All but one of these 

exemptions were issued to operators 

that are subject to TSA security 

requirements, including finger-print 

based background checks for all 

flightcrew members. The exception is an 

exemption that was issued for the 

transportation of explosives on aircraft 

with a maximum certificated takeoff 

weight of less than 12,500 pounds; 

aircraft with a certificated takeoff weight 

under 12,500 pounds are not subject to 

the TSA security requirements. IME is 

correct that exemption applicants who 

are subject to TSA security requirements 

should not also need to certify that no 

person within the prohibited persons 

categories listed in 18 U.S.C. 842(i) will 

participate in the transportation of the 

material. However, for applicants for 

exemptions to transport explosives who 

are not subject to TSA security 

requirements, the certification 

requirement will help to assure that 

prohibited persons under 18 U.S.C. 

842(i) are not involved in the 

transportation of the explosives. In this 

final rule, we are modifying the 

certification requirement to clarify that 

it applies only to applicants for 

exemptions to transport explosives in 

amounts that would otherwise be 

prohibited for air transportation using 

aircraft with a maximum certificated 

weight of less than 12,500 pounds. The 

certification requirement is not 

necessary for flight crews on aircraft 

with a maximum certificated takeoff of 

12,500 pounds or more because all such 

individuals are subject to the TSA 

security requirements. 

The May 5, 2003 IFR inadvertently 

omitted adding the new certification 

requirement for applicants for party 

status to existing exemptions. Therefore, 

in this final rule we are amending 49 

CFR 107.107 to require applicants 

seeking to be parties to existing 

exemptions to transport explosives in 

amounts that would otherwise be 

prohibited for air transportation using 

aircraft with a maximum certificated 

weight of less than 12,500 pounds to 

certify that no person within the 

prohibited persons categories listed in 

18 U.S.C. 842(i) will participate in the 

transportation of the material. 

III. IFR Provisions Adopted Without 

Change 

The May 5, 2003 IFR adopted several 

provisions designed to assure that 

shippers and carriers comply with 

security requirements promulgated by 

other Federal agencies, as appropriate. 

First, the IFR amended § 171.12a to 

require rail and motor carriers 

transporting Class 1 materials from 

Canada into the United States to comply 

with TSA regulations applicable to such 

transportation. Second, the IFR added a 

new § 176.7 to require vessel owners 

and operators to assure that vessel 

personnel are licensed or documented 

as required under U.S. Coast Guard 

regulations. Third, the IFR amended 

§ 177.804 to require motor carriers to 

comply with driver licensing 

requirements in the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations. No persons 

commented on these provisions. They 

are adopted without change in this final 

rule. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 and the regulatory policies or 

procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11034). This final 

rule imposes minimal new compliance 

costs on the regulated industry. The 

self-certification requirement for certain 

applicants for exemptions from the 

HMR will apply to one or two 

applicants each year. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule imposes minimal new 

compliance costs on the regulated 

industry. I hereby certify that the 

requirements of this final rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule has been developed in 

accordance with Executive Order 13272 

(‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

procedures and policies to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to ensure that potential 

impacts of draft rules on small entities 

are properly considered. 

C. Executive Order 13132

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule 

preempts State, local, and Indian tribe 

requirements but does not impose any 

regulation with substantial direct effects 

on the States, the relationship between 

the National government and the States, 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this final rule does not have 

tribal implications, does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and does not 

preempt tribal law, the funding and 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply and a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule does not impose 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It does not result in annual costs 

of $100 million or more, in the 

aggregate, to any of the following: State, 

local, or Indian tribal governments, or 

the private sector. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, no person is required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. RSPA has a current 

information collection approval under 

OMB No. 2137–0051, ‘‘Rulemaking, 

Exemption, and Preemption 

Requirements’’ with 4,219 burden 

hours, which includes information 

collection estimates for the exemptions 

application process. The Office of 

Management and Budget approved the 

extension of this information collection 

on May 16, 2003, with an expiration 

date of May 31, 2006. 

6198 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

We estimate that an application for an 

exemption requires 5 hours to complete. 

An application to renew an exemption 

requires one hour to complete. The 

addition of a security certification as 

part of an exemption application will 

not add any appreciable time to this 

process. 

Requests for a copy of the information 

collection should be directed to Deborah 

Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM–

10), Research and Special Programs 

Administration, Room 8102, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001, telephone (202) 366–8553. 

G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN contained in the heading 

of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda. 

H. Environmental Assessment 

There are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

this final rule. It imposes a selfcertification requirement for certain 

applicants for exemptions from the 

HMR. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http://

dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 107 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous materials 

transportation, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 171 

Exports, Hazardous materials 

transportation, Hazardous waste, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 176 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Maritime carriers, Radioactive materials, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 177 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Motor carriers, Radioactive materials, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 49 CFR parts 107, 171, 176, 

and 177 that was published at 68 FR 

23832 on May 5, 2003, is adopted as a 

final rule with the following changes:

PART 107—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

PROGRAM PROCEDURES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 107 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127, 44701; 

Section 212–213, Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 

857; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

■ 2. In § 107.105, revise paragraph (c)(10) 

to read as follows:

§ 107.105 Application for exemption.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(10) When a Class 1 material is 

forbidden for transportation by aircraft 

except under an exemption (see 

Columns 9A and 9B in the table in 49 

CFR 172.101), an applicant for an 

exemption to transport such Class 1 

material on passenger-carrying or cargoonly aircraft with a maximum 

certificated takeoff weight of less than 

12,500 pounds must certify that no 

person within the categories listed in 18 

U.S.C. 842(i) will participate in the 

transportation of the Class 1 material.

* * * * *

■ 3. In § 107.107, revise paragraphs (b)(3) 

and (b)(4) and add paragraph (b)(5), to 

read as follows:

§ 107.107 Application for party status.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(3) State the name, street and mailing 

addresses, e-mail address (optional), 

and telephone number of the applicant; 

if the applicant is not an individual, 

state the name, street and mailing 

addresses, e-mail address (optional), 

and telephone number of an individual 

designated as the applicant’s agent for 

all purposes related to the application; 

(4) If the applicant is not a resident of 

the United States, provide a designation 

of agent for service in accordance with 

§ 105.40 of this subchapter; and 

(5) For a Class 1 material that is 

forbidden for transportation by aircraft 

except under an exemption (see 

Columns 9A and 9B in the table in 49 

CFR 172.101), an applicant for party 

status to an exemption to transport such 

Class 1 material on passenger-carrying 

or cargo-only aircraft with a maximum 

certificated takeoff weight of less than 

12,500 pounds must certify that no 

person within the categories listed in 18 

U.S.C. 842(i) will participate in the 

transportation of the Class 1 material.

* * * * *

■ 4. In § 107.109, revise paragraph (a)(6) 

to read as follows:

§ 107.109 Application for renewal. 

(a) * * * 

(6) When a Class 1 material is 

forbidden for transportation by aircraft 

except under an exemption (see 

Columns 9A and 9B in the table in 49 

CFR 172.101), an applicant to renew an 

exemption to transport such Class 1 

material on passenger-carrying or cargoonly aircraft with a maximum 

certificated takeoff weight of less than 

12,500 pounds must certify that no 

person within the categories listed in 18 

U.S.C. 842(i) will participate in the 

transportation of the Class 1 material.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington DC on February 3, 

2004, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

Part 1. 

Samuel G. Bonasso, 

Deputy Administrator, Research and Special 

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2751 Filed 2–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 030808196–4036–03; I. D. 

062403C]

RIN 0648–AR13

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska; Provisions of 

the American Fisheries Act (AFA)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; removal of expiration 

date.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

remove the expiration date of 

regulations published in the Federal 

Register on December 30, 2002, 

implementing the AFA. The AFA final 

rule inadvertently specified a period of 

effectiveness that will expire December 

31, 2007. This rule will make the 

amendments to the AFA rule 

permanent, as originally intended. This