1

7–21–04

Vol. 69 No. 139

Wednesday 

July 21, 2004

Pages 43511–43728

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, 

Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office 

of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records 

Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register 

Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative 

Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official 

edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. 

The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making 

available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by 

Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and 

Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general 

applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published 

by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public 

interest. 

Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the 

Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the 

issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents 

currently on file for public inspection, www.archives.gov.

The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration 

authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication 

established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, 

the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. 

The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. 

It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases 

on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. 

The online edition of the Federal Register www.gpoaccess.gov/

nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority 

of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the 

official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 

U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day 

the Federal Register is published and includes both text and 

graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. 

For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access 

User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202-

512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via email at gpoaccess@gpo.gov.

The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. 

The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper 

edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined 

Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections 

Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal 

Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, 

plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half 

the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to 

orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of 

a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, 

is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing 

less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; 

and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues 

of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, 

including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable 

to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO 

Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or 

Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. 

Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or call toll free 1-866-

512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government 

Online Bookstore site, bookstore@gpo.gov.

There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing 

in the Federal Register.

How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the 

page number. Example: 69 FR 12345. 

Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of 

Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from 

the last issue received. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES 

PUBLIC 

Subscriptions: 

Paper or fiche 202–512–1800

Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806

General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498

Single copies/back copies: 

Paper or fiche 202–512–1800

Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 

(Toll-Free)

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Subscriptions: 

Paper or fiche 202–741–6005

Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005

What’s NEW!

Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail

Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of 

Contents in your e-mail every day.

If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document 

in the issue.

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select:

Online mailing list archives 

FEDREGTOC-L 

Join or leave the list

Then follow the instructions. 

What’s NEW!

Regulations.gov, the award-winning Federal eRulemaking Portal

Regulations.gov is the one-stop U.S. Government web site that makes 

it easy to participate in the regulatory process.

Try this fast and reliable resource to find all rules published in the 

Federal Register that are currently open for public comment. Submit 

comments to agencies by filling out a simple web form, or use available email addresses and web sites.

The Regulations.gov e-democracy initiative is brought to you by 

NARA, GPO, EPA and their eRulemaking partners.

Visit the web site at: http://www.regulations.gov

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

NOTICES

Meetings:

Healthcare Research and Quality National Advisory 

Council, 43593

Technical Review Committee, 43593–43594

Agricultural Marketing Service

PROPOSED RULES

Milk marketing orders:

Upper Midwest, 43538

NOTICES

Canned pears; grade standards, 43559

Soybean promotion, research, and consumer information:

Referendum request results, 43559–43560

Agriculture Department

See Agricultural Marketing Service

See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See Forest Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

RULES

Plant related quarantine; domestic:

Mexican fruit fly, 43511

PROPOSED RULES

Animal welfare:

Birds, rats, and mice; regulations and standards, 43538–

43539

Army Department

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43567

Arts and Humanities, National Foundation

See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43594–43595

Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Addis Ababa University, 43595

Comprehensive STD Prevention Systems Program,

43595–43607

Coast Guard

RULES

Regattas and marine parades:

Kennewick, WA, Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races,

43516–43518

NOTICES

Deepwater ports; license applications:

Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal LLC, 43618–43619

Commerce Department

See International Trade Administration

See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

NOTICES

Cotton, wool, and man-made textiles:

China, 43563–43566

Indonesia, 43566

Macedonia, 43567

Customs and Border Protection Bureau

NOTICES

Antidumping and countervailing duties:

Continued dumping and subsidy offset; distribution to 

affected domestic producers; correction, 43661

Defense Department

See Army Department

PROPOSED RULES

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Performance-based service acquisition, 43711–43714

Education Department

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43567–43568

Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Regional advisory committees, 43568–43569

Employment and Training Administration

RULES

Aliens:

Labor certification for permanent employment in U.S.; 

backlog reduction, 43715–43719

Employment Standards Administration

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43627

Energy Department

See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See Southwestern Power Administration

NOTICES

Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially 

exclusive:

General Atomics, Inc., 43569–43570

Environmental Protection Agency

RULES

Air quality implementation plans; approval and 

promulgation; various States; air quality planning 

purposes; designation of areas:

Pennsylvania, 43522–43525

Air quality implementation plans; approval and 

promulgation; various States:

California, 43518–43520

District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, 43520–

43522

Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw 

agricultural commodities:

Acequinocyl, etc., 43525–43533

PROPOSED RULES

Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw 

agricultural commodities:

Casein et al., 43548–43552

IV Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Contents 

NOTICES

Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.:

Bayer CropScience et al., 43581–43583

Ziram, 43583–43586

Executive Office of the President

See Presidential Documents

See Trade Representative, Office of United States

Farm Credit Administration

RULES

Farm credit system:

Loan policies and operations, etc.—

General provisions; credit and related services; 

eligibility and scope of financing, 43511–43515

Federal Aviation Administration

PROPOSED RULES

Airspace:

Brookville, KS; restricted areas 3601A and 3601B; 

modification, 43539–43540

NOTICES

Advisory circulars; availability, etc.:

Safety analysis; 14 CFR 33.75 guidance material, 43657

Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:

Greater Binghamton Airport, NY, 43657–43658

Sheridan County Airport, WY, 43658

Federal Communications Commission

RULES

Radio stations; table of assignments:

California, 43533–43534

Washington and Oregon, 43534

PROPOSED RULES

Radio stations; table of assignments:

Arizona, 43553–43554

Florida, 43552–43553

Mississippi, 43552

Oregon, 43553

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43586

Practice and procedure:

Communications Act; access by persons with 

disabilities—

Telecommunications equipment manufacturers and 

service providers; complaints obligation, 43586–

43587

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES

Electric rate and corporate regulation filings, 43574–43578

Environmental statements; notice of intent:

El Paso Pipeline Group, Western Pipelines, 43578–43580

Meetings:

Energy Northwest; site visit, 43580

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Chandeleur Pipe Line Co., 43570

Dominion Transmission, Inc., 43570

Duke Energy Corp., 43570–43571

Great Lakes Gas Transmission LP, 43571

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C., 43571–43572

Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 43572

Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co., 43572

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 43572–43573

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 43573

TransColorado Gas Transmission Co., 43573–43574

Federal Maritime Commission

NOTICES

Agreements filed, 43587

Ocean transportation intermediary licenses:

Starlink Consolidation Service (New York), Inc., et al.,

43587

Federal Trade Commission

PROPOSED RULES

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act; implementation:

Affiliate marketing, 43546

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43587–43592

Prohibited trade practices:

Barash, Jonathan, 43592–43593

Fish and Wildlife Service

PROPOSED RULES

Endangered and threatened species:

Findings on petitions, etc.—

Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker; 5-year status 

review, 43554–43558

Gray wolf, 43663–43692

Migratory bird hunting:

Early-season regulations (2004-2005); frameworks; 

meetings, 43693–43710

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43619–43621

Endangered and threatened species:

Holy Ghost Ipomopsis and Kuenzler hedgehog cactus; 5-

year review, 43621–43622

Forest Service

NOTICES

Appealable decisions; legal notice:

Pacific Northwest Region, 43560–43561

General Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Performance-based service acquisition, 43711–43714

Health and Human Services Department

See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See National Institutes of Health

See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration

Homeland Security Department

See Coast Guard

See Customs and Border Protection Bureau

Indian Affairs Bureau

PROPOSED RULES

No Child Left Behind Act; implementation:

No Child Left Behind Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee—

Bureau-funded school system, 43547–43548

Meetings, 43546–43547

NOTICES

Meetings:

Indian education topics; tribal consultation, 43622–43623

Interior Department

See Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Contents V

See Indian Affairs Bureau

See Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES

Meetings:

Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 43660

International Trade Administration

NOTICES

Antidumping:

Magnesium metal from—

China and Russian Federation, 43561

International Trade Commission

NOTICES

Import investigations:

Absorbent garments, 43624

Labor Department

See Employment and Training Administration

See Employment Standards Administration

See Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43624–43627

Land Management Bureau

NOTICES

Meetings:

Resource Advisory Councils—

Arizona, 43623–43624

Southeast Oregon, 43623

Maritime Administration

NOTICES

Deepwater ports; license applications:

Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal LLC, 43618–43619

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES

Safety standard petitions:

Consolidation Coal Co. et al., 43627–43629

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

PROPOSED RULES

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Performance-based service acquisition, 43711–43714

NOTICES

Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, 43629

National Council on Disability

NOTICES

Meetings:

Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee, 43629–43630

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43630–43631

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43607

Meetings:

National Cancer Institute, 43607–43609

National Center for Research Resources, 43609–43610

National Center on Minority Health and Health 

Disparities, 43610

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 43610

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,

43611–43612

National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development, 43610, 43613–43614

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research,

43611

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

43610–43614

National Institute of Mental Health, 43614

National Institute on Aging, 43612

Scientific Review Center, 43615–43617

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RULES

Fishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone—

Pacific Ocean perch, 43536–43537

Atlantic highly migratory species—

Atlantic bluefin tuna, 43535

Northeastern United States fisheries—

Northeast multispecies, 43535–43536

NOTICES

Meetings:

New England Fishery Management Council, 43561–43562

Permits:

Exempted fishing, 43562–43563

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NOTICES

Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, 43635

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Constellation Energy Group, 43631–43633

Tennessee Valley Authority, 43633–43635

Office of United States Trade Representative

See Trade Representative, Office of United States

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

NOTICES

Meetings; Sunshine Act, 43635

Presidential Documents

PROCLAMATIONS

Special observances:

Captive Nations Week (Proc. 7802), 43727–43728

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

Government agencies and employees:

State, Department of, delegation of certain reporting 

authority to the Secretary (Memorandum of July 2, 

2004), 43721–43723

State, Department of, delegation of responsibility 

(Memorandum of July 8, 2004), 43725

Securities and Exchange Commission

NOTICES

Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

American Stock Exchange LLC, 43635–43644

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 43644–43646

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 43646–43648

Depository Trust Co., 43648–43649

International Securities Exchange, Inc., 43649–43650

National Securities Clearing Corp., 43650–43653

New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 43653–43655

VI Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Contents 

Small Business Administration

NOTICES

Disaster loan areas:

Indiana, 43655

Social Security Administration

NOTICES

Meetings:

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel,

43655

Southwestern Power Administration

NOTICES

Power rates:

Sam Rayburn Dam rate schedule, 43580–43581

State Department

RULES

Visas; nonimmigrant documentation:

Crew list visas; elimination, 43515–43516

NOTICES

International Traffic in Arms regulations; statutory 

debarment, 43656

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43617–43618

Textile Agreements Implementation Committee

See Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements

Trade Representative, Office of United States

NOTICES

Andean Trade Preference Act:

2003 annual review, 43656–43657

Transportation Department

See Federal Aviation Administration

See Maritime Administration

PROPOSED RULES

Economic regulations:

Domestic passenger manifest information; withdrawn,

43540–43546

Treasury Department

See Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES

Agency information collection activities; proposals, 

submissions, and approvals, 43658–43660

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part II

Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 43663–

43692

Part III

Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 43693–

43710

Part IV

Defense Department; General Services Administration; 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

43711–43714

Part V

Labor Department, Employment and Training 

Administration, 43715–43719

Part VI

Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents,

43721–43728

Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for 

phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 

and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents 

LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://

listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list 

archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change 

settings); then follow the instructions.

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the

Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Contents VII

3 CFR 

Proclamations: 

7802.................................43727

Administrative Orders: 

Memorandums: 

Memorandum of July 

2, 2004.........................43723

Memorandum of July 

8, 2004.........................43725

7 CFR 

301...................................43511

Proposed Rules: 

1030.................................43538

9 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

2.......................................43538

3.......................................43538

12 CFR 

613...................................43511

614...................................43511

618...................................43511

14 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

73.....................................43539

243...................................43540

16 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

680...................................43546

20 CFR 

656...................................43716

22 CFR 

41.....................................43515

25 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

Ch. I.................................43546

30.....................................43547

37.....................................43547

39.....................................43547

42.....................................43547

44.....................................43547

47.....................................43547

33 CFR 

100...................................43516

40 CFR 

52 (3 documents) ...........43518, 

43520, 43522

81.....................................43522

180...................................43525

Proposed Rules: 

180...................................43548

47 CFR 

73 (2 documents) ...........43533, 

43534

Proposed Rules: 

73 (4 documents) ...........43552, 

43553

48 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

2.......................................43712

7.......................................43712

11.....................................43712

16.....................................43712

37.....................................43712

39.....................................43712

50 CFR 

635...................................43535

648...................................43535

679 (3 documents) .........43536, 

43537

Proposed Rules: 

17 (2 documents) ...........43554, 

43664

20.....................................43694

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

43511

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 02–121–4] 

Mexican Fruit Fly; Removal of 

Regulated Area

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, an interim rule 

that amended the Mexican fruit fly 

regulations by removing a portion of Los 

Angeles County, CA, from the list of 

regulated areas and removing 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of regulated articles from that area. That 

action was necessary to relieve 

restrictions that were no longer 

necessary to prevent the spread of the 

Mexican fruit fly into noninfested areas 

of the United States.

DATES: The interim rule became 

effective on August 26, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wayne Burnett, Operations Officer, 

Invasive Species and Pest Management, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mexican fruit fly regulations, 

contained in 7 CFR 301.64 through 

301.64–10 (referred to below as the 

regulations), were established to prevent 

the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to 

noninfested areas of the United States. 

The regulations impose restrictions on 

the interstate movement of regulated 

articles from the regulated areas. 

In an interim rule effective on August 

26, 2003, and published in the Federal 

Register on August 29, 2003 (68 FR 

51876–51877, Docket No. 02–121–3), we 

amended the regulations in § 301.64–4 

by removing a portion of Los Angeles 

County, CA, from the list of regulated 

areas based on our determination that 

the Mexican fruit fly had been 

eradicated from those areas. Upon the 

effective date of our August 2003 

interim rule, there were no longer any 

areas in California designated as 

regulated areas because of the Mexican 

fruit fly. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

October 28, 2003. We did not receive 

any comments. Therefore, for the 

reasons given in the interim rule, we are 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule. 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rule concerning Executive Order 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Further, for this action, the Office of 

Management and Budget has waived its 

review under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, the interim rule 

that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that 

was published at 68 FR 51876–51877 on 

August 29, 2003.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3.

Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec. 

204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–

16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. 

L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 

note).

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

July 2004. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16542 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Parts 613, 614, and 618

RIN 3052–AC06

Eligibility and Scope of Financing; 

Loan Policies and Operations; General 

Provisions; Credit and Related 

Services

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA, we, our) issues 

this final rule amending regulations 

governing domestic and international 

lending, certain intra-Farm Credit 

System (FCS or System) consent 

requirements concerning similar entity 

participation transactions, provisions of 

general financing agreements (GFAs), 

and related services.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation 

will be effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register

during which time either or both Houses 

of Congress are in session. We will 

publish a notice of the effective date in 

the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale Aultman, Policy Analyst, Office of 

Policy and Analysis, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, 

(703) 883–4498; TTY (703) 883–4434; 

or 

James Morris, Senior Counsel, Office of the 

General Counsel, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, 

(703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Objectives 

The primary objectives of the final 

rule are to conform our regulations to 

statutory amendments to the Farm 

Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), 

and to reduce regulatory burden 

imposed on System institutions, while 

helping ensure compliance with the Act 

and FCA regulations. We expect the rule 

to improve the flow of credit to System 

customers, make similar entity 

participation transactions less 

burdensome, and help ensure 

compliance with the Act and FCA 

regulations. 

II. Background 

On May 21, 2003, we published a 

proposed regulation for public 

comment. (See 68 FR 27757.) As 

discussed in the proposed rule’s 

43512 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1On August 18, 1998, we published a document 

in the Federal Register inviting the public to 

identify existing FCA regulations and policies that 

impose unnecessary burdens on the System. See 63 

FR 44176.

2 ‘‘Non act’’ purpose means a purpose that is 

ineligible for financing by the RUS or the RTB as 

described in § 613.3100(c)(1)(ii).

3 ‘‘Similar entity’’ means a party that is ineligible 

for a loan from a Farm Credit bank or association, 

but has operations that are functionally similar to 

the activities of eligible borrowers in that a majority 

of its income is derived from, or a majority of its 

assets are invested in, the conduct of activities that 

are performed by eligible borrowers.

preamble, we are amending our rules to 

conform our regulations to the Act, as 

amended by the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act (Pub. L. 107–171) 

(2002 Farm Bill or FSRIA); address 

public comments concerning regulatory 

burden; 1 and help ensure that FCS 

association lending complies with the 

Act and our regulations.

III. Comments 

We received comments on the 

proposed rule from the Farm Credit 

Council (Council), four Farm Credit 

Banks (FCBs), and an agricultural credit 

bank. In general, commenters expressed 

support for our efforts to reduce 

regulatory burden and conform our 

regulations to the Act. However, the 

Council and some FCBs asked for 

clarification or expressed concern about 

our proposal to help ensure that FCS 

association lending complies with the 

Act and our regulations. Another FCB 

requested that we eliminate the 

proposal. 

After carefully considering the 

comments, we adopt the final rule as 

proposed with clarification of 

§ 614.4125(a), regarding the compliance 

of FCS association lending with the Act 

and our regulations. 

IV. FCA’s Section-by-Section Response 

to Comments 

A. Domestic Title III Lending 

In response to our earlier regulatory 

burden solicitation, CoBank, ACB 

(CoBank) requested that we amend 

§ 613.3100 concerning financing for 

domestic borrowers and asked that we 

amend § 613.3100(c)(2) concerning 

financing certain activities for which 

financing might not be available under 

the Rural Electrification Act. In 

commenting on our proposed rule, 

CoBank acknowledged our efforts to 

reduce regulatory burden by providing 

the clarifications sought. In addition, 

the Council stated that the System 

commends the FCA for responding to 

CoBank’s request for clarification of 

authorities and reducing regulatory 

burden. No other comments were 

received on these proposed 

amendments. Accordingly, we adopt the 

proposed amendments at 

§§ 613.3100(b)(2)(ii), 613.3100(c)(1)(v), 

and 613.3100(c)(2) as final.

Subpart B—Financing for Banks 

Operating Under Title III of the Farm 

Credit Act 

Sections 613.3100(b)(2)(ii) and 

613.3100(c)(1)(v)—Domestic Lending 

In our final rule we clarify that a bank 

operating under title III may finance a 

subsidiary or other entity in which 

eligible cooperatives or certain eligible 

utilities have an ownership interest. As 

amended, § 613.3100(b)(2)(ii) clarifies 

that a title III bank may provide limited 

financing to a subsidiary or other entity 

in which an eligible cooperative has an 

ownership interest. As amended, 

§ 613.3100(c)(1)(v) clarifies that a title III 

bank may provide limited financing to 

a subsidiary or other entity in which 

certain eligible utilities have an 

ownership interest. If the eligible 

cooperative or eligible utility owns less 

than 50 percent of the entity, then the 

financing provided may not exceed the 

percentage of ownership attributable to 

the eligible cooperative or utility, 

multiplied by the value of the total 

assets of such entity. 

Section 613.3100(c)(2)—Purposes for 

Financing Electric and 

Telecommunication Utilities 

In our final rule we clarify that a bank 

for cooperatives (BC) or agricultural 

credit bank (ACB) may provide 

financing for subsidiaries of 

cooperatives or other entities that are 

eligible to borrow under 

§ 613.3100(c)(1)(ii) for energy-related or 

public utility-related purposes even if 

such purposes would be ineligible for 

financing by the Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) or the Rural Telephone Bank 

(RTB). The legislative history of the Act 

clearly demonstrates that Congress 

intended for BCs and ACBs to provide 

financing for certain limited ‘‘non act’’

purposes.2 We amend this section to 

clarify that a subsidiary that is eligible 

to borrow under § 613.3100(c)(1)(iii) 

may also obtain financing for energyrelated or public utility-related purposes 

that cannot be financed by the lenders 

referred to in § 613.3100(c)(1)(ii). 

Operation of a licensed cable television 

utility is one example of such purpose.

B. Conforming FCA Regulations To 

Reflect Recent Amendments to the Act 

FSRIA amended section 3.7 of the Act 

to authorize a bank operating under title 

III of the Act to finance certain 

international transactions involving 

‘‘agricultural supplies,’’ and amended 

sections 3.1(11)(B) and 4.18A of the Act 

so that one type of FCS institution no 

longer needs approval from another type 

of FCS institution when it participates 

with a non-FCS lender in certain loans 

to a similar entity. We proposed 

amendments to §§ 613.3200 and 

613.3300(d) to reflect these statutory 

changes. In its comment on the 

proposed rule, the Council stated that 

the System supports the action taken by 

FCA to amend its regulations to reflect 

the changes to the Act made by the 

FSRIA and urged their enactment. No 

other comments were received on these 

proposed amendments. Accordingly, we 

adopt the proposed amendments to 

§§ 613.3200 and 613.3300(d) as final. 

Section 613.3200(a)—International 

Lending 

In our final rule we conform our 

regulations to changes in section 3.7 of 

the Act made by FSRIA that authorize 

a bank operating under title III of the 

Act to finance certain international 

transactions involving ‘‘agricultural 

supplies.’’ We amend § 613.3200(a) by 

adding a definition of ‘‘agricultural 

supply.’’ The definition of ‘‘agricultural 

supply’’ in § 613.3200(a)(1) includes a 

farm supply, agriculture-related 

processing equipment, agriculturerelated machinery, and other capital 

goods related to the storage or handling 

of agricultural commodities or products. 

The term ‘‘farm supply,’’ which is 

included in the new definition of 

‘‘agricultural supply,’’ is defined in 

§ 613.3200(a)(2). 

Subpart C—Similar Entity Authority 

Under Sections 3.1(11)(B) and 4.18A of 

the Act 

Section 613.3300(d)—Participations and 

Other Interests in Loans to Similar 

Entities 

In our final rule we amend our 

regulations to conform them to changes 

FSRIA made in the Act regarding 

similar entity transactions.3 FCS 

institutions are no longer required to 

obtain the approvals required by former 

§ 613.3300(d). Although the FSRIA 

removed the statutory provisions that 

were the basis of the § 613.3300(d) 

approval requirements, it did not 

remove the statutory requirement that a 

bank operating under title III not 

participate in a loan to a similar entity 

under section 3.1 if the similar entity 

has a loan or loan commitment 

outstanding with an FCB or association, 

unless agreed to by the FCB or

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43513

4Examples cited included minor effective interest 

rate disclosure errors or borrowers that did not 

receive timely interest rate change notices.

5The proposed regulation did not affect our 

authorized related services list discussed at part 

618, subpart A, of our regulations.

association. Therefore, while we delete 

former § 613.3300(d) to reflect the 

elimination of other statutory approval 

requirements, we add a new section to 

reflect this statutory requirement. New 

§ 613.3300(d) requires a bank operating 

under title III to obtain the agreement of 

an FCB or association in order to 

participate in a loan to a similar entity 

under title III if the similar entity has a 

loan or a loan commitment outstanding 

with the FCB or association. Because all 

FCBs have transferred their direct 

lending authority to their associations, 

this provision currently requires 

consent from associations only.

C. Ensure Loan Making Complies With 

the Act and FCA Regulations 

During examinations of some System 

institutions, we have identified loans 

that fail to comply with various 

requirements of the Act and our 

regulations. The Act provides FCA 

broad authorities and remedies with 

respect to such ‘‘ineligible’’ loans. For 

example, FCA may require a direct 

lender association to divest itself of the 

loan. In appropriate cases, FCA may use 

its cease and desist or civil money 

penalty authorities. However, a review 

of GFAs between FCBs and the ACB and 

their direct lender associations has 

revealed that, while most GFAs address 

ineligible loans in some fashion, they do 

not all expressly prohibit funding 

ineligible loans. We proposed an amendment to 

§ 614.4125(a) that, without in any way 

limiting our other authorities or 

remedies under the Act, would mandate 

that the GFA between the funding bank 

and the direct lender association require 

that the amount of financing available 

be based solely on loans that comply 

with the Act and FCA regulations. We received several comments on the 

proposal. The Council and three FCBs 

asked for clarification of the word 

‘‘solely’’ in our proposal and noted that 

GFAs calculate available funding on the 

basis of other assets such as farmer 

notes, purchase money mortgages, 

acquired property, and leases in 

addition to loans. In the final rule, we 

rephrase the regulation to clarify that 

the regulatory requirement concerning 

GFA provisions was not meant to imply 

that the GFA cannot include certain 

assets other than loans in calculating 

available financing. The Council and an FCB noted that 

some GFAs do not provide 100-percent 

credit for all loans, and asked us to 

clarify that any reduction to the 

borrowing base for an eligible loan 

should not exceed the amount of credit 

given. We clarify in the final rule that 

if FCA determines that a loan is 

ineligible, then the amount of financing 

available must be recalculated without 

that ineligible loan. The Council and an FCB asked for 

clarification and expressed concern 

whether ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘technical’’ 4 credit 

administration errors could be 

interpreted by FCA as not complying 

with the Act or FCA regulations, 

necessitating recalculation of the GFA. 

For those reasons, another FCB 

requested that we eliminate this 

proposal. The intent of this rule is not 

to eliminate loans with credit 

administration errors from the amount 

of financing available to an association. 

Our final rule clarifies our intent to 

address ineligible loans. For example, a 

loan would be ineligible if it violated 

the requirements in part 613 of our 

regulations or the first lien, loan-tovalue, or lending and leasing limit 

requirements of part 614 of our 

regulations.

Subpart C—Bank/Association Lending 

Relationship 

Section 614.4125(a)—Funding and 

Discount Relationships Between Farm 

Credit Banks or Agricultural Credit 

Banks and Direct Lender Associations 

The final rule modifies the language 

proposed in order to provide 

appropriate clarification. The final rule 

amends § 614.4125(a) so that each GFA 

must require that the amount of 

financing available to a direct lender 

association not be based on loans that 

are ineligible under the Act and our 

regulations. Furthermore, if financing 

under a GFA is based on a loan that we 

determine is ineligible under the Act 

and our regulations, then the amount of 

financing available must be recalculated 

without that ineligible loan. We reiterate that the new regulatory 

requirements with respect to GFAs’

treatment of ineligible loans do not limit 

in any way FCA’s remedies or actions 

with respect to loans that do not comply 

with FCA regulations or with the Act in 

any other respect. Nor does the addition 

of new regulatory requirements with 

respect to GFAs’ treatment of ineligible 

loans limit, in any way, FCA’s remedies 

or actions with respect to other types of 

assets held by FCS institutions that fail 

to comply with FCA regulations or with 

the Act. 

D. Related Services 

In response to our earlier regulatory 

burden solicitation discussed in Section 

III above, CoBank requested clarification 

that it has the same authority to provide 

related services under title I of the Act 

as FCBs and the same authority to 

provide related services under title III of 

the Act as BCs. We proposed regulations 

in §§ 618.8000(b) and 618.8005(c) to 

provide that clarification.5 In 

commenting on our proposed rule, 

CoBank acknowledged our efforts to 

reduce regulatory burden by providing 

the clarifications sought. In addition, 

the Council stated that the System 

commends the FCA for responding to 

CoBank’s request for clarification of 

authorities and reducing regulatory 

burden. No other comments were 

received on these proposed 

amendments. Accordingly, we adopt the 

proposed amendments to §§ 618.8000(b) 

and 618.8005(a) and (c) as final.

Subpart A—Related Services 

Section 618.8000(b)—Definitions and 

Sections 618.8005(a) and (c)—Eligibility 

In our final rule we revise 

§§ 618.8000(b) and 618.8005(c) to clarify 

that ACBs have the same authority to 

offer related services under title III of 

the Act as BCs, and the same authority 

to offer related services under title I of 

the Act as FCBs. In § 618.8000(b) we 

delete the phrase, ‘‘on-farm, aquatic, or 

cooperative operations’’ in order to 

eliminate any possible confusion about 

limitations on related services offerings 

under title III. Similarly, in 

§ 618.8005(c) we delete the phrase, 

‘‘appropriate to cooperative operations 

of.’’ In § 618.8005(a) we add the phrase 

‘‘appropriate to on-farm and aquatic 

operations’’ to the existing paragraph, in 

order to reflect the statutory limitation 

on related services offered under title I. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), the FCA hereby certifies that the 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Each of the 

banks in the System, considered 

together with its affiliated associations, 

has assets and annual income in excess 

of the amounts that would qualify them 

as small entities. Therefore, System 

institutions are not ‘‘small entities’’ as 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act.

List of Subjects 

12 CFR Part 613

Advertising, Aged, Agriculture, 

Banks, banking, Civil rights, Credit, Fair 

housing, Marital status discrimination, 

Religious discrimination, Rural areas, 

Sex discrimination, Signs and symbols.

43514 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

12 CFR Part 614

Agriculture, Banks, banking, Flood 

insurance, Foreign trade, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rural 

areas. 

12 CFR Part 618

Agriculture, Archives and records, 

Banks, banking, Insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Rural 

areas, Technical assistance.

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

parts 613, 614, and 618 of chapter VI, 

title 12 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 613—ELIGIBILITY AND SCOPE 

OF FINANCING

■ 1. The authority citation for part 613 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 

2.2, 2.4, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.8, 3.22, 4.18A, 4.25, 

4.26, 4.27, 5.9, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act 

(12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 

2073, 2075, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2129, 2143, 

2206a, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2243, 2252).

Subpart B—Financing for Banks 

Operating Under Title III of the Farm 

Credit Act

■ 2. Amend § 613.3100 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(v), and (c)(2) 

to read as follows:

§ 613.3100 Domestic lending.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Any legal entity in which an 

eligible cooperative (or a subsidiary or 

other entity in which an eligible 

cooperative has an ownership interest) 

has an ownership interest, provided that

if the percentage of ownership 

attributable to the eligible cooperative is 

less than 50 percent, financing may not 

exceed the percentage of ownership 

attributable to the eligible cooperative 

multiplied by the value of the total 

assets of such entity; or

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(v) Any legal entity in which an 

eligible utility under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) 

of this section (or a subsidiary or other 

entity in which an eligible utility under 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) has an ownership 

interest) has an ownership interest, 

provided that if the percentage of 

ownership attributable to the eligible 

utility is less than 50 percent, financing 

may not exceed the percentage of 

ownership attributable to the eligible 

utility multiplied by the value of the 

total assets of such entity. 

(2) Purposes for financing. A bank for 

cooperatives or agricultural credit bank 

may extend credit to entities that are 

eligible to borrow under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section in order to provide 

electric or telecommunication services 

in a rural area. A subsidiary that is 

eligible to borrow under paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section may also obtain 

financing from a bank for cooperatives 

or agricultural credit bank for energyrelated or public utility-related purposes 

that cannot be financed by the lenders 

referred to in paragraph (c)(1)(ii), 

including, without limitation, financing 

to operate a licensed cable television 

utility.

* * * * *

■ 3. Amend § 613.3200 as follows:

■ a. Revise paragraph (a); and

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘farm supplies’’

and add in their place, the words 

‘‘agricultural supplies’’ each place they 

appear in paragraphs (b) introductory 

text, (c) introductory text, and (c)(1).

§ 613.3200 International lending. 

(a) Definitions. For the purpose of this 

section only, the following definitions 

apply: 

(1) Agricultural supply includes: 

(i) A farm supply; and

(ii) Agriculture-related processing 

equipment, agriculture-related 

machinery, and other capital goods 

related to the storage or handling of 

agricultural commodities or products. 

(2) Farm supply refers to an input that 

is used in a farming or ranching 

operation.

* * * * *

Subpart C—Similar Entity Authority 

Under Sections 3.1(11)(B) and 4.18A of 

the Act

■ 4. Revise § 613.3300(d) to read as 

follows:

§ 613.3300 Participations and other 

interests in loans to similar entities.

* * * * *

(d) Approval by other Farm Credit 

System institutions. A bank for 

cooperatives or agricultural credit bank 

may not participate in a loan to a similar 

entity under title III of the Act if the 

similar entity has a loan or loan 

commitment outstanding with a Farm 

Credit Bank or an association chartered 

under the Act, unless agreed to by the 

Farm Credit Bank or association.

PART 614—LOAN POLICIES AND 

OPERATIONS

■ 5. The authority citation for part 614 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 

4106, and 4128; secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 

1.10, 1.11, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 

2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 

4.12, 4.12A, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 

4.14E, 4.18, 4.18A, 4.19, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 

4.28, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 

7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of the Farm Credit Act 

(12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 

2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 

2093, 2094, 2097, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 

2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2201, 

2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 

2206a, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2219a, 

2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a–2, 

2279b, 2279c–1, 2279f, 2279f–1, 2279aa, 

2279aa–5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 

Stat. 1568, 1639.

Subpart C—Bank/Association Lending 

Relationship

■ 6. Amend § 614.4125(a) by adding a 

second and third sentence to read as 

follows:

§ 614.4125 Funding and discount 

relationships between Farm Credit Banks or 

agricultural credit banks and direct lender 

associations. 

(a) * * * Each general financing 

agreement must require that the amount 

of financing available to a direct lender 

association not be based on loans that 

are ineligible under the Act and the 

regulations in this chapter. If financing 

under a general financing agreement is 

based on a loan that FCA determines is 

ineligible under the Act and the 

regulations in this chapter, then the 

amount of financing available must be 

recalculated without that ineligible 

loan.

* * * * *

PART 618—GENERAL PROVISIONS

■ 7. The authority citation for part 618 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1.5, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.4, 

2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 4.12, 4.13A, 4.25, 4.29, 5.9, 

5.10, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 

2013, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2075, 2076, 2093, 

2122, 2128, 2183, 2200, 2211, 2218, 2243, 

2244, 2252).

Subpart A—Related Services

■ 8. Amend § 618.8000(b) by revising the 

first sentence to read as follows:

§ 618.8000 Definitions.

* * * * *

(b) Related service means any service 

or type of activity provided by a System 

bank or association that is appropriate 

to the recipient’s operations, including 

control of related financial matters. 

***

* * * * *

§ 618.8005 [Amended]

■ 9. Amend § 618.8005 by:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43515

■ a. Adding the phrase ‘‘appropriate to 

on-farm and aquatic operations’’ after the 

word ‘‘services’’ in paragraph (a); and

■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘appropriate 

to cooperative operations of’’ and adding 

in its place, the word ‘‘to’’ in paragraph 

(c).

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Jeanette C. Brinkley, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 04–16553 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Part 41 

[Public Notice: 4767] 

RIN 1400–AB49 

Documentation of Nonimmigrants 

Under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, as Amended—Elimination of Crew 

List Visas

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final the 

Department’s interim final regulations 

regarding the elimination of crew list 

visas.

DATES: The interim final rule became 

effective June 16, 2004. This rule is 

adopted as a final rule as of July 21, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: You may view this rule 

online at http://

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html

&log=linklog&to=http://

www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Acker, Legislation and Regulations 

Division, Visa Services, Department of 

State, Washington, DC 20520–0106, 

(202) 663–1205 or e-mail 

ackerrl@state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 13, 2002, the Department 

published a rule (67 FR 76711) 

proposing to eliminate crew list visas. 

After review of comments to the 

proposed rule, on March 18, 2004, the 

Department published an interim final 

rule which allowed a final comment 

period until May 17, 2004, followed by 

a 30 day period for further Department 

review of comments. The Department is 

now making final the interim final rule. 

DHS has authorized this regulation 

pursuant to the Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the Secretaries 

of State and Homeland Security 

Concerning Implementation of Section 

428 of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002. The requirements of 22 CFR 41.42 

are being removed in coordination with 

the removal of similar requirements by 

DHS in its corresponding regulations. 

What Are the Statutory Authorities 

Pertaining to the Crew List Visa? 

Authority for the issuance of a crew 

list visa is derived from sections 

101(a)(15)(D) and 221(f) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(D) and 1201(f), 

respectively. Section 101(a)(15)(D) 

exempts aliens serving in good faith as 

crewmen on board a vessel (other than 

a fishing vessel having its home port or 

an operating base in the United States, 

unless temporarily landing in Guam), or 

aircraft from being deemed immigrants. 

Section 221(f), permits an alien to enter 

the United States on the basis of a crew 

manifest that has been visaed by a 

consular officer. However, the latter 

section does not require a consular 

officer to visa a crew manifest and it 

authorizes the officer to deny admission 

to any individual alien whose name 

appears on a visaed crew manifest. 

Further, according to the wording of 

section 221(f) the use of the visaed crew 

list appears to have been intended 

principally as a temporary or emergency 

measure to be used only until such time 

as it becomes practicable to issue 

individual documents to each member 

of a vessel’s or aircraft’s crew. 

Why Has the Department Eliminated 

the Crew List Visa? 

The Department has eliminated the 

crew list visa for security reasons. Since 

the September 11, 2001 attacks, the 

Department has reviewed its regulations 

to ensure that every effort is being made 

to screen out undesirable aliens. By 

eliminating the crew list visa, the 

Department will ensure that each 

crewmember entering the United States 

is be required to complete the 

nonimmigrant visa application forms, 

submit a valid passport and undergo an 

interview and background checks. 

Additionally, the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 

2002 (Pub. L. 107–173) requires that all 

visas issued after October 26, 2004 have 

a biometric indicator. This means crew 

list visas would necessarily be 

eliminated by that date. 

Did the Department Solicit Comments 

to the Interim Final Rule? 

The Department did solicit comments, 

and 18 were received. This is in 

addition to the 82 comments received 

earlier to the proposed rule. The text of 

most of the comments was identical. 

Other letters expressed the same views. 

The substance of the comments was 

similar to comments made previously to 

the proposed rule. A summary of the 

comments received and the 

Department’s responses follows. 

Most of the commenters expressed 

disappointment that the United States 

issued the interim final rule despite 

opposition from the majority of 

commenters. They referred to the 

special circumstances of seafarers, 

which often made it difficult for them 

to know an exact itinerary in advance. 

The also mentioned the hardship for 

seafarers of the waiting time to receive 

a U.S. visa. Most commenters referred to 

proposed ILO Convention No. 185 and 

expressed the hope that the U.S. would 

have encouraged widespread ratification 

of this convention by providing more 

favorable treatment to holders of the 

seafarers identity document proposed 

by this convention. Previous 

commenters have remarked that the 

proposed ID could serve as a substitute 

for a passport and that its security 

features would make crew list visas 

more secure, even in the absence of 

consular interviews of all crew 

members, which is typical when crew 

list visas are issued. While the 

Department recognizes that a seafarer’s 

ID containing biometrics could be 

useful, it is likely to take years for such 

a document to be developed and 

adopted widely. Further, one of the 

principal reasons for requiring 

individual visas is the need, for security 

purposes, for a consular officer to 

personally interview each applicant. 

Adoption of the new ID card will not 

address the need for interviews. 

Regarding difficulties for crewmen 

obtaining individual visas caused by 

last-minute scheduling, the Department 

recognizes the problem, but continues to 

believe that the security of the U.S. 

demands individual crew visas despite 

the dislocations that the requirement 

may cause initially. Nevertheless, the 

Department hopes that shipping 

companies and unions will encourage 

their employees and members to obtain 

visas where there is a reasonable 

possibility that a crewman may be 

required to enter the U. S. at any time. 

The visa, once obtained, and depending 

upon bilateral reciprocity for like 

documents held by U.S. seamen, will 

generally be valid for up to five years. 

Therefore, once individual crew visas 

are obtained and used generally by 

seamen working for companies that ship 

to the U.S., there should be reasonable 

certainty that most of the crew will be 

able to enter the U.S. on short notice.

43516 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

How Did This Rule Amend the 

Department’s Regulations? 

This rule removed the Department’s 

regulations at 22 CFR 41.42 that 

establish the crew list visa. By doing so, 

all crewmembers seeking to enter the 

United States in that capacity are 

required to apply for individual crew 

visas. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department is publishing this 

rule as a final rule, after a 60-day 

provision for post-promulgation public 

comments and review, based on the 

‘‘good cause’’ exceptions set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3). It is 

dictated by the necessity to ensure that 

every effort is being made to screen out 

undesirable aliens; additionally, the 

Enhanced Border Security and Visa 

Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–

173) requires that all visas issued after 

October 26, 2004 have a biometric 

indicator, which means crew list visas 

would necessarily be eliminated by that 

date. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

These changes to the regulations are 

hereby certified as not expected to have 

a significant effect on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of 

congressional review of agency 

rulemaking under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, Public Law 104–121. This rule 

will not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of United 

States-based companies to compete with 

foreign based companies in domestic 

and import markets. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), 

Public Law 104–4; 109 Stat. 48; 2 U.S.C. 

1532, generally requires agencies to 

prepare a statement before proposing 

any rule that may result in an annual 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

State, local, or tribal governments, or by 

the private sector. This rule does not 

result in any such expenditure nor will 

it significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The Department finds that this 

regulation will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nor does the rule 

have federalism implications warranting 

the application of Executive Orders No. 

12372 and No. 13132. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

The Department of State considers 

this rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and 

Review. The Department submitted the 

interim rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its review 

and there is no change in the final rule. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department has reviewed the 

proposed regulations in light of sections 

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 

12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not impose information 

collection requirements under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41 

Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Passports, 

Visas.

In view of the foregoing, the interim 

final rule that amended 22 CFR Part 41 

published on March 18, 2004 (69 FR 

12797) is adopted as final.

Dated: June 10, 2004. 

Maura Harty, 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, 

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–16468 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[CGD13–04–034] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Annual 

Kennewick, WA, Columbia Unlimited 

Hydroplane Races

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is restricting 

general navigation and anchorage on the 

Columbia River by establishing a special 

local regulation. The Captain of the Port, 

Portland, is taking this action to 

safeguard individuals from safety 

hazards associated with hydroplanes 

operating at a high rate of speed. Entry 

into the area established is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. 

on July 23, 2004, until 9 p.m. (P.d.t.) on 

July 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [CGD 13–04–

034] and are available for inspection or 

copying at the U.S. Coast Guard MSO/

Group Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, 

Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG Belen Audirsch, c/o Captain of the 

Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, 

Portland, OR 97217 at 503–240–9320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 

that good cause exists for not publishing 

an NPRM and for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Publishing a NPRM would be contrary 

to public interest since immediate 

action is necessary to ensure the safety 

of vessels and spectators gathering in 

the vicinity of the hydroplane races. If 

normal notice and comment procedures 

were followed, this rule would not 

become effective until after the dates of 

the event. For this reason, following 

normal rulemaking procedures in this 

case would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. A final 

rule was published establishing this 

special local regulation in 1985 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43517

(CGD13–85–06, 50 FR 25071). A direct 

final rule was published in 1996 

amending the rule published in 1985 to 

clarify the effective dates of the event 

and to revise the boundaries of the 

regulated area. This temporary final rule 

is required to again revise the size of the 

regulated area and to increase the length 

of time affected by the regulation. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is restricting general 

navigation and anchorage to allow for 

safe execution of the hydroplane races. 

This regulation will be enforced from 6 

a.m. (P.d.t.) until 9 p.m. (P.d.t.) on July 

23, 24, and 25, 2004. The restriction on 

general navigation and anchorage is 

necessary to protect spectators from 

hazards associated with hydroplanes 

operating at high rates of speed. This 

special local regulation will be enforced 

by representatives of the Captain of the 

Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of 

the Port may be assisted by other federal 

and local agencies. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule, for safety concerns, will 

control personnel and individual 

movements in a regulated area 

surrounding the Columbia Cup 

Unlimited Hydroplane Races. Entry into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Portland or his designated 

representative. Coast Guard personnel 

will enforce this special local 

regulation. The Captain of the Port may 

be assisted by other federal and local 

agencies. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This 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. 

The Coast Guard expects the economic 

impact of this rule to be so minimal that 

a full regulatory evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered 

whether this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ include 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 rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the 

designated area at the corresponding 

time as drafted in this rule. This special 

local regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. Traffic will be 

allowed to pass through the zone 

between race heats with the permission 

of the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representatives on scene, if 

safe to do so. Because the impacts of 

this rule are expected to be so minimal, 

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

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 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. If 

the rule will affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Small businesses may 

send comments on the actions of 

Federal employees who enforce, or 

otherwise determine compliance with 

Federal regulations to the Small 

Business and Agriculture Regulatory 

Enforcement Ombudsman and the 

Regional Small Business Regulatory 

Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman 

evaluates these actions annually and 

rates each agency’s responsiveness to 

small business. If you wish to comment 

on actions by employees of the Coast 

Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–

734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information requirements 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 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 regulatory actions not specifically 

required by law. 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. Although this rule does 

not result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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 rule meets applicable standards 

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

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this 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 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 

43518 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this 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. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 

environmental impact of this rule and 

concluded that, under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(h) of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. From 6 a.m. on July 23, 2004, until 

9 p.m. on July 25, 2004, temporarily 

suspend 33 CFR 100.1303 and add 

temporary § 100.T13–001 to read as 

follows:

§ 100.T13–001 Special Local Regulations; 

Annual Kennewick, Washington, Columbia 

Unlimited Hydroplane Races.

(a) This section is effective from 6 

a.m. on July 23, until 9 p.m. on July 25, 

2004. 

(b) This section will be enforced from 

6 a.m. until 9 p.m. each day it is 

effective, unless sooner cancelled by the 

Patrol Commander. 

(c) This section restricts general 

navigation and anchorage during the 

hours it is enforced, on all waters of the 

Columbia River bounded by two lines 

drawn shore to shore; the first line 

running between position 46°14′50′′ N, 

119°10′23′′ W and position 46°13′39′′ N, 

119°10′34′′ W; and the second line 

running between position 46°13′36′′ N, 

119°07′38′′ W and position 46°13′10′′ N, 

119°07′49′′ W. [Datum: NAD 83]. Entry 

into this zone is a violation of 

regulations and may result in penalty 

action under the provisions of 33 CFR 

100.35. 

(d) When deemed appropriate, the 

Coast Guard may establish a patrol 

consisting of active and auxiliary Coast 

Guard personnel and vessels in the area 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The patrol shall be under the 

direction of a Coast Guard officer or 

petty officer designated as Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander. The Patrol 

Commander is empowered to forbid and 

control the movement of vessels in the 

area described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(e) The Patrol Commander may 

authorize vessels to be underway in the 

area described in paragraph (c) of this 

section during the hours this regulation 

is enforced. All vessels permitted to be 

underway in the controlled area (other 

than racing or official vessels) shall do 

so only at speeds which will create 

minimum wake consistent with 

maintaining steerageway, and not to 

exceed seven (7) miles per hour. This 

speed limit may be adjusted at the 

discretion of the Patrol Commander to 

enhance the level of safety. 

(f) A succession of sharp, short signals 

by whistle, siren, or horn from vessels 

patrolling the area under the direction 

of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander shall serve as a signal to 

stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and 

shall comply with the orders of the 

patrol vessel personnel; failure to do so 

may result in expulsion from the area, 

citation for failure to comply, or both.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Jeffrey M. Garrett, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard District 

Thirteen Commander.

[FR Doc. 04–16645 Filed 7–19–04; 10:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA287–0458; FRL–7781–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions were 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2004 and concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and ammonia 

(NH3) emissions from composting and 

related activities. We are approving 

local rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours by appointment. You 

can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revisions by appointment at the 

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room B–102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 

Washington, DC 20460. 

California Air Resources Board, Stationary 

Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 

1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond 

Bar, CA 91765–4182.

A copy of the rule may also be 

available via the Internet at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.

Please be advised that this is not an EPA 

Web site and may not contain the same 

version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43519

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On March 22, 2004 (69 FR 13272 and 

69 FR 13225), EPA proposed to approve 

the following rules into the California 

SIP.

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133 Composting and Related Operations—General Administrative 

Requirements.

01/10/03 06/05/03 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133.1 Chipping and Grinding Activities ............................................... 01/10/03 06/05/03 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133.2 Emission Reductions From Co-Composting Operations .......... 01/10/03 06/05/03 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received a comment from the 

following party. 

1. Bob Engel; electronic mail dated 

April 14, 2004. The comment is 

summarized below. 

Comment: Mr. Engel opposed our 

approval action because the SCAQMD 

rules did not consider the cumulative 

good composting does for the 

environment. He then cited several of 

EPA’s internet Web sites related to 

waste reduction, recycling, and their 

relationship to greenhouse gases. 

Finally, Mr. Engel suggested that EPA 

did not consider the effect of no action 

by SCAQMD. 

EPA Response: To review, SCAQMD 

1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2 are concerned 

with reducing VOC and NH3 emissions 

from composting that contribute to 

ground-level ozone and secondary 

particulate matter. Mr. Engel’s 

comments do not address directly these 

primary objectives of Rules 1133, 

1133.1, and 1133.2. Instead, the 

comments ask EPA to consider not 

approving the rules because of their 

supposed detrimental effect on the 

composting industry. In the discussion 

that follows, we review briefly 

SCAQMD supporting documents 

concerning these issues. 

As part of their rule development 

effort, SCAQMD did a technology 

review of the composting industry and 

assessed the cost-effectiveness of Rules 

1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2. Depending on 

the compliance scenario chosen, the 

combined cost-effectiveness per ton of 

VOC and NH3 reduced ranged from 

$6487 to $15,373; figures relatively 

consistent with other SCAQMD 

regulations. SCAQMD estimated that 

these compliance costs ranged from 

$0.004 to $0.25 per month when passed 

on to air basin households. 

In December 2002, SCAQMD did a 

Final Environmental Assessment (EA) 

as part of their compliance with the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). SCAQMD’s determined that 

Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2 had no 

significant environmental impacts 

requiring mitigation. The EA reviewed 

potential impacts on air quality, energy, 

water quality, geology, and solid/

hazardous waste, as well as, other 

required topics. Regarding impacts on 

solid waste disposal, SCAQMD found 

that composting facilities are neither 

expected to close, nor to divert 

composting feedstock to landfills due to 

Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2. 

In sum, the rules’ compliance costs 

are consistent with other SCAQMD 

regulations and the rules are predicted 

to have no negative environmental 

impacts across multiple issue areas 

including solid waste disposal. Given 

these conclusions and the air quality 

improvement expected due to VOC and 

NH3 emission reductions, we assert that 

that the rules most likely result in a net 

benefit to the environment beyond that 

suggested by a no action alternative.

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

43520 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 20, 

2004. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: June 17, 2004. 

Nancy Lindsay, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(316)(i)(D) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(316) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1133 adopted on January 10, 

2003; Rule 1133.1 adopted on January 

10, 2003; and, Rule 1133.2 adopted on 

January 10, 2003.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–16570 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[DC–2025, MD–3064, VA–5052; DC052–7007, 

MD143–3102, VA129–5065; FRC–7790–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Maryland; Virginia; 

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

remove codification of certain State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) approvals 

vacated by United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit and remanded to EPA. EPA is 

also concurrently vacating an indefinite 

stay, which EPA had issued pending 

completion of judicial review, of a 

conditional approval promulgated on 

April 17, 2003. These revisions relate to 

the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration and the 1996–1999 rateof-progress (ROP) plans for the 

Metropolitan Washington DC ozone 

nonattainment area (the Washington 

area) submitted by the District of 

Columbia’s Department of Health (DoH), 

by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) and by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ), including enforceable 

commitments submitted by the District 

of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland as 

part of the 1-hour attainment 

demonstration. EPA is correcting the 

codification of the approval of these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

20, 2004. 

In addition, EPA is vacating the stay 

on 40 CFR 52.473, 52.1072(e) and 

52.2450(b), effective August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Previous Action Had Been 

Taken on These SIP Revisions? 

A. January 3, 2001 Approval 

On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 586), the 

EPA approved the 1996–1999 ROP 

plans, an attainment date extension and 

the attainment demonstrations for the 

Washington, DC area. On July 2, 2002, 

the United States Courts of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

Circuit Court) vacated our January 3, 

2001, approval of the attainment 

demonstration, 1996–1999 ROP plan 

and extension of the attainment date. 

See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 294 F.3d 

155, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

B. April 17, 2003 Conditional Approval 

In response to the Circuit Court’s July 

2002 ruling, on January 24, 2003, the 

EPA published a final action (68 FR 

3410) determining that the Washington 

area failed to attain the serious ozone 

nonattainment deadline of November 

15, 1999, and reclassified the 

Washington area to severe ozone 

nonattainment by operation of law. 

On February 3, 2003, the EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (68 FR 5246) regarding the 

SIP revisions covered by the vacated 

January 3, 2001, final rule. On April 17, 

2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA conditionally 

approved these same SIP revisions. On 

February 3, 2004, the Circuit Court 

issued an opinion to vacate our 

conditional approval of the attainment 

demonstration, and ROP plan. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d at 302–04 

(D.C. Cir. 2004). 

On March 19, 2004, the Sierra Club 

filed a ‘‘Petition for Panel Rehearing’’

requesting the Circuit Court to 

reconsider one issue addressed in a 

footnote of the opinion. This issue was 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43521

not related to vacatur of the conditional 

approval. 

On April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19937), EPA 

indefinitely stayed, pending completion 

of judicial review, a conditional 

approval promulgated on April 17, 2003 

in response to the March 19, 2004, 

petition for rehearing. In the preamble 

to that rule, EPA stated that EPA would 

lift the stay and/or vacate the 

conditional approval after the issuance 

of the mandate by the Circuit Court in 

a manner consistent with any order the 

Court may issue in Sierra Club v. EPA. 

See 69 FR at 19138, April 15, 2004. 

On April 16, 2004, Circuit Court 

issued an order slightly revising the 

February 3, 2004, opinion to address the 

petition for rehearing and leaving its 

decision to vacate and remand the 

conditional approval to EPA intact. On 

April 23, 2004, the Circuit Court issued 

its mandate thereby relinquishing 

jurisdiction over this matter and 

remanding it to EPA. 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

A. Actions Regarding the January 3, 

2001, Final Rule (66 FR 586) 

EPA is vacating the January 3, 2001 

final rule (66 FR 586) by amending 40 

CFR part 52 to remove codification of 

certain plan approvals that the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit vacated and 

remanded to EPA. The intended effect 

of this action would be to remove and 

reserve the following in 40 CFR part 52: 

(1) In subpart J—District of Columbia: 

§ 52.475 ‘‘Extensions,’’ and paragraphs 

(b) and (c) in § 52.476 ‘‘Control strategy 

and rate-of-progress plan: ozone;’’

(2) In subpart V—Maryland: 

paragraph (a) in § 52.1078 ‘‘Extensions,’’

and paragraphs (e ) and (g) in § 52.1076 

‘‘Control strategy plans for attainment 

and rate-of-progress: Ozone;’’ and, 

(3) In subpart VV,—Virginia: 

§ 52.2429 ‘‘Extensions,’’ and paragraphs 

(c) and (d) in § 52.2428 ‘‘Control 

Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone.’’

B. Actions Regarding the April 17, 2003, 

Final Rule (68 FR 19106) 

EPA is vacating the April 17, 2003 

final rule (68 FR 19106) by amending 40 

CFR part 52 to remove codification of 

certain plan approvals for which the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated our 

final action. The intended effect of this 

action would be to: remove and reserve 

in 40 CFR part 52: 

(1) Remove and reserve § 52.473 

‘‘Conditional approval’’ in 40 CFR part 

52, subpart J; 

(2) Remove and reserve paragraph (e) 

in § 52.1072 ‘‘Conditional approval’’ in 

40 CFR part 52, subpart V; and, 

(3) Remove and reserve paragraph (b) 

in § 52.2450 ‘‘Conditional approval’’ in 

40 CFR part 52, subpart VV. 

C. Stay of the Conditional Approval 

Because EPA is vacating the actions 

which EPA stayed on April 15, 2004 (69 

FR 19937), the need for the stay has 

become moot. Concurrently with 

vacating the April 17, 2003 final rule, 

EPA is vacating this April 15, 2004 final 

rule that imposed the stay on 40 CFR 

52.473, 40 CFR 52.1072(e) and 40 CFR 

52.2450(b). Because EPA is vacating the 

underlying rules—40 CFR 52.473, 40 

CFR 52.1072(e) and 40 CFR 

52.2450(b)—that were stayed 

indefinitely on April 15, 2004, EPA 

must vacate the April 15, 2004 stay 

rather than lift this stay. 

III. Final Action 

A. District of Columbia 

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 to 

remove the codification of certain plan 

approvals that the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA. 

EPA is removing and reserving the 

following sections or paragraphs in 40 

CFR part 52, subpart J: 

(1) § 52.475 Extensions; 

(2) Paragraphs (b) and (c) in § 52.476 

Control strategy and rate-of-progress 

plan: ozone; and, 

(3) § 52.473 Conditional Approval; 

B. State of Maryland 

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 to 

remove the codification of certain plan 

approvals that the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA. 

EPA is removing and reserving the 

following paragraphs in 40 CFR part 52, 

subpart V: 

(1) Paragraph (a) in § 52.1078 

Extensions; 

(2) Paragraphs (e) and (g) in § 52.1076 

Control strategy plans for attainment 

and rate-of-progress: Ozone; and, 

(3) Paragraph (e) in § 52.1073 

Approval Status. 

C. Commonwealth of Virginia 

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 to 

remove the codification of certain plan 

approvals that the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA. 

EPA is removing and reserving the 

following sections or paragraphs in 40 

CFR part 52, subpart VV: 

(1) § 52.2429 Extensions; 

(2) Paragraphs (c) and (d) in § 52.2428 

Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and 

ozone; and, 

(3) Paragraph (b) in § 52.2450 

Conditional Approval. 

D. Vacating of the Stay on 40 CFR 

52.473, 40 CFR 52.1072(e) and 40 CFR 

52.2450(b) 

Because EPA is vacating 40 CFR 

52.473, 40 CFR 52.1072(e) and 40 CFR 

52.2450(b) EPA is vacating the stay, 

which was promulgated on April 15, 

2004 on 40 CFR 52.473, 40 CFR 

52.1072(e) and 40 CFR 52.2450(b).

IV. Basis for Exception From Notice 

and Comment Rulemaking 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), provides that, when an 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting those portions of 40 CFR part 

52 that were stricken when the Circuit 

Court vacated our January 3, 2001 

approvals and our April 17, 2003 

conditional approvals and mooted the 

need to continue the April 15, 2004 stay 

of the April 17, 2003 conditional 

approvals. EPA believes that notice and 

comment procedures would serve no 

purpose because this action is a 

nondiscretionary ministerial action 

necessitated by the Circuit Court orders 

vacating the January 3, 2001 approvals 

and our April 17, 2003 conditional 

approvals and by the subsequent 

mooting the need to continue the April 

15, 2004 stay of the April 17, 2003 

conditional approvals. We find that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action is taken pursuant 

to a decision of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit and merely reflects the Circuit 

Court’s action in vacating EPA’s rules 

approving pre-existing state 

requirements. The vacated final rules 

merely approved state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposed no 

43522 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. The Circuit 

Court’s action does not change or negate 

the pre-existing state requirements, 

impose any new requirements on 

sources, including small entities, nor 

impose any additional enforceable duty 

beyond that previously required and it 

does not contain any unfunded mandate 

or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Under these 

circumstances, correcting the approval 

status in 40 CFR part 532 of these State 

implementation plans does not impose 

any new requirements on sources, 

including small entities. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule merely implements the Circuit 

Court’s order vacating EPA’s approvals 

and conditional approvals, it does not 

impose any additional enforceable duty 

beyond that previously required and it 

does not contain any unfunded mandate 

or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

merely reflects the Circuit Court’s 

decision, removing EPA’s approval or 

conditional approval, it does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

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, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule merely 

implements the Circuit Court’s orders 

vacating EPA’s approvals and 

conditional approvals of a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

B. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 20, 

2004. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action to vacate certain 

approvals of SIP revisions submitted by 

the District of Columbia, Maryland and 

Virginia may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J—District of Columbia

§ 52.475 [Removed]

■ 2. Section 52.475 is removed and 

reserved.

§ 52.476 [Amended]

■ 3. Section 52.476 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (b) 

and (c).

Subpart V—Maryland

§ 52.1076 [Amended]

■ 4. Section 52.1076 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (e) 

and (g).

§ 52.1078 [Amended]

■ 5. Section 52.1078 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a).

Subpart VV—Virginia

§ 52.2428 [Amended]

■ 6. Section 52.2428 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (c) 

and (d).

§ 52.2429 [Removed]

■ 7. Section 52.2429 is removed and 

reserved.

[FR Doc. 04–16569 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[PA209–4302; FRL–7781–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Hazelwood SO2 Nonattainment and the 

Monongahela River Valley 

Unclassifiable Areas to Attainment and 

Approval of the Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. These revisions include a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43523

regulation change to the allowable 

sulfur oxide emission limits for fuel 

burning equipment, and a modeled 

demonstration of attainment of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the 

Hazelwood nonattainment area and the 

Monongahela River Valley 

unclassifiable area, located in the 

Allegheny Air Basin in Allegheny 

County, Pennsylvania. In addition, EPA 

is redesignating these areas to 

attainment of the NAAQS for SO2, and 

approving a combined maintenance 

plan for both areas as a SIP revision. 

These SIP revisions were submitted by 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) on 

behalf of the Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD). This action is 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, 

DC 20460, the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105, 

and the Allegheny County Health 

Department, Bureau of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 

39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by 

e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17374), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 

behalf of the ACHD. The NPR proposed 

approval of a regulation change to the 

allowable sulfur oxide emission limits 

for fuel burning equipment, and a 

modeled demonstration of attainment of 

the NAAQS for SO2 in the Hazelwood 

nonattainment area and the 

Monongahela River Valley 

unclassifiable area, located in the 

Allegheny Air Basin in Allegheny 

County. In addition the NPR also 

proposed to redesignate these areas to 

attainment of the NAAQS for SO2, and 

to approve a combined maintenance 

plan for both areas as a SIP revision. 

The formal SIP revision was submitted 

by PADEP on behalf of the ACHD on 

August 15, 2003. The specific details of 

the regulatory change to the allowable 

sulfur oxide emission for limits for fuel 

burning equipment, the modeled 

demonstration of attainment of the 

NAAQS for SO2 for the Hazelwood and 

Monongahela River Valley areas in 

Allegheny County, and the 

redesignation and maintenance plan for 

these areas, as well as EPA’s rationale 

for its proposed action were all 

provided in the April 2, 2004 NPR and 

will not be restated here. No comments 

were submitted to EPA on that NPR. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is approving SIP revisions 

submitted on August 15, 2003 by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 

behalf of the ACHD. These SIP revisions 

include a regulation change to the 

allowable sulfur oxide emission limits 

for fuel burning equipment, and a 

modeled demonstration of attainment of 

the NAAQS for SO2 in the Hazelwood 

nonattainment and the Monongahela 

River Valley unclassifiable areas located 

in the Allegheny Air Basin, in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 

addition, EPA is approving the 

redesignation of these areas to 

attainment of the NAAQS for SO2, and 

approving a combined maintenance 

plan for both areas as a SIP revision. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

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, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

43524 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 20, 

2004. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule, which approves a 

regulation change to the allowable 

sulfur oxide emission limits for fuel 

burning equipment, a modeled 

demonstration of attainment, and the 

redesignation and associated 

maintenance plan for the Hazelwood 

and Monongahela River Valley areas in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: June 24, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

■ 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(216) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(216) Revisions to the Allegheny 

portion of the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 

August 15, 2003 by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

consisting of a regulatory change to 

Article XXI, section 2104.03, Sulfur 

Oxide Emissions, a modeled 

demonstration of attainment of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for SO2 in the Hazelwood and 

Monongahela River Valley areas of 

Allegheny County, and the SO2

Maintenance Plan for these areas 

associated with their redesignation to 

attainment: 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Letter of August 15, 2003 from the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection transmitting a 

regulatory change to the allowable 

sulfur oxide emission limits for fuel 

burning equipment, a modeled 

demonstration of attainment, and the 

maintenance plan for the Hazelwood 

and Monongahela River Valley areas of 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

(B) Maintenance Plan for Sulfur 

Dioxide for Southwestern Pennsylvania, 

Parts I through V, and Appendices A 

and B, dated August 2001, and effective 

July 10, 2003. 

(C) Revisions to section 2104.03 of 

Article XXI, Rules and Regulations of 

the Allegheny County Health, effective 

July 10, 2003. 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) Remainder of the August 15, 2003 

State submittal pertaining to the 

revisions listed in paragraph (c)(216)(i) 

of this section. 

(B) Additional material submitted by 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection on February 

12, 2004, which consists of minor 

clarifications to the Summary and 

Responses document from the public 

hearing, and a letter dated February 6, 

1992 which was referenced but not 

included in the August 15, 2003 SIP 

revision submittal.

■ 3. Section 52.2033 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 52.2033 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides

* * * * *

(c) EPA approves the attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan for the Hazelwood and 

Monongahela River Valley areas of the 

Allegheny County Air Basin in 

Allegheny County, submitted by the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection on August 15, 

2003.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 81 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations

■ 2. In § 81.339, the table for 

‘‘Pennsylvania—SO2’’ is amended by 

revising the entry for the Allegheny 

County Air Basin to read as follows:

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania

PENNSYLVANIA—SO2

Designated area 

Does not meet 

primary standards 

Does not meet 

secondary 

standards 

Cannot be 

classified 

Better than 

national standards 

*******

V. Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate AQCR: 

*******

(B) Allegheny County Air Basin: 

(1) The areas within a two-mile radius of the Hazelwood monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

(2) That portion of Allegheny County within an eight-mile radius of 

the Duquesne Golf Association Club House in West Mifflin excluding the nonattainment area (#1) .............................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

*******

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43525

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–16568 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0141; FRL–7364–1]

Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for combined residues of 

acequinocyl, 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl1,4-naphthalenedione, and its 

metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-

naphthoquinone, expressed as 

acequinocyl equivalents in or on 

almond; almond, hulls; apple, wet 

pomace; citrus, oil; fat and liver of 

cattle, goat, horse, and sheep; fruit, 

citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; 

pistachio; and strawberry. Arvesta 

Corporation requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

21, 2004. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

number OPP–2004–0141. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the EDOCKET index at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 South Bell 

St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Mautz, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6785; e-mail 

address:mautz.marilyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers.

• Animal production (NAICS 112), 

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy 

cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), 

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users.

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document and Other Related 

Information?

In addition to using EDOCKET

(http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 

access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available on E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of February 

25, 2004 (69 FR 8645) (FRL–7344–7), 

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of 

pesticide petitions (PP 2F6440 and 

3F6596) by Arvesta Corporation, 100 

First St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 

94105. That notice included a summary 

of the petitions prepared by Arvesta 

Corporation, the registrant. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing.

The petitions requested that 40 CFR 

part 180 be amended by establishing 

tolerances for combined residues of the 

insecticide acequinocyl, 3-dodecyl-1,4-

dihydro-1,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate, 

and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-

hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone 

(acequinocyl-OH), expressed as 

acequinocyl equivalents, in or on the 

listed commodities as follows:

PP 2F6440: Fruit, pome group at 0.4 

parts per million (ppm); apple, wet 

pomace at1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group at 

0.3 ppm; orange, oil at 30 ppm; almond 

and pistachio at 0.01 ppm; almond, 

hulls at 1.5 ppm; cattle, meat and 

kidney at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver and fat 

at 0.02 ppm; and milk at 0.01 ppm.

PP 3F6595: Strawberries at 0.4 ppm

The petition, PP 2F6440, was 

subsequently amended to: Increase the 

tolerances for almond and pistachio 

from 0.01 ppm to 0.02 ppm; increase the 

tolerance for almond hulls from 1.5 ppm 

to 2.0 ppm; to decrease the tolerance for 

citrus fruit group from 0.3 ppm to 0.20 

ppm; add separate tolerances for fat and 

liver of goat, horse and sheep; withdraw 

the proposed tolerances for milk, and 

meat and kidney of cattle; and to correct 

the terms for certain commodities as 

summarized in the Table 1 of this unit.

The almond and pistachio tolerances 

were increased to account for the 

combined limit of quantification (LOQ) 

of the residue analytical method for the 

parent and its metabolite. The LOQ for 

each one is 0.01 ppm in/on each plant 

and livestock commodity, with the 

exception of citrus oil, where the LOQ 

for each one is 0.5 ppm. The withdrawal 

of the proposed milk, kidney and meat 

commodities and the addition of other 

livestock commodities are based on the 

results of the submitted cattle feeding 

study.

In addition, the chemical name is 

corrected from 3-dodecyl-1,4-dihydro1,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate to 2-

(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-

naphthalenedione to be consistent with 

the nomenclature used in the Chemical 

Abstracts Chemical Substance Index, 

published by the American Chemical 

Society.

43526 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—TOLERANCE SUMMARY

Commodity Proposed tolerance (in ppm) Amended (in ppm) Correct commodity term 

Almond 0.01 0.02

Almond, hulls 1.5 2.0

Apple, wet pomace 1.0

Cattle, fat 0.02

Cattle, kidney 0.01 Withdrawn

Cattle, liver 0.02

Cattle, meat 0.01 Withdrawn

Fruit, citrus, group 0.3 0.20 Fruit, citrus, group 10

Fruit, pome group 0.4 0.40 Fruit, pome, group 11

Goat, fat 0.02

Goat, liver 0.02

Horse, fat 0.02

Horse, liver 0.02

Milk 0.01 Withdrawn

Orange, oil 30 Citrus, oil

Pistachio 0.01 0.02

Sheep, fat 0.02

Sheep, liver 0.02

Strawberries 0.4 0.40 Strawberry

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue....’’

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of section 408 of FFDCA 

and a complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see the final rule on 

Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 

62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754–

7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of and to make a 

determination on aggregate exposure, 

consistent with section 408(b)(2) of 

FFDCA, for tolerances for combined 

residues of acequinocyl and its 

metabolite, acequincyl-OH, on almond, 

pistachio, and the liver and fat of cattle, 

horse, goat, and sheep at 0.02 ppm; 

almond hulls at 2.0 ppm; wet apple 

pomace at 1.0 ppm; citrus fruit crop 

group 10 at 0.20 ppm; citrus oil at 30 

ppm; and pome fruit crop group 11 and 

strawberry at 0.40 ppm. EPA’s 

assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with establishing the 

tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. The nature of the 

toxic effects caused by acequinocyl are 

discussed in Table 2 of this unit as well 

as the no observed adverse effect level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest observed 

adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies reviewed.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43527

TABLE 2.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY

Guideline 

No. Study type Results 

870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity—rodents; mouse NOAEL = Male/Female (M/F); 16/21 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) 

LOAEL = M/F; 81/100 mg/kg/day based on hepatocyte vacuolation

870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity—rodents; rat NOAEL = M/F; 30.4/32.2 mg/kg/day 

LOAEL = M/F; 119.5/129.2 mg/kg/day based on increased prothrombin times in 

males and increased activated partial thromboplastin times in both sexes

870.3150 90-Day oral toxicity—nonrodents NOAEL = M/F; 40/40 mg/kg/day 

LOAEL = M/F; 160/160 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gains and reduced food efficiencies in males and for female beagle dogs based on increased 

platelet counts

870.3200 21/28-Day dermal toxicity Systemic NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day 

Systemic LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on increased clotting factor times

Dermal NOAEL= 1,000 mg/kg/day

Dermal LOAEL not established

870.3700 Prenatal developmental—rodents Maternal NOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day 

Maternal LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on signs of internal hemorrhage and increased incidence of clinical signs (pale eyes, piloerection, red vaginal discharge)

Developmental NOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day

Developmental LOAEL = 750 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions

870.3700 Prenatal developmental—nonrodents Maternal NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day 

Maternal LOAEL = 120 mg/kg/day based on treatment-related clinical signs leading 

to premature sacrifice (hematuria, reduced fecal output, body weight loss, and reduced food consumption) and gross necropsy findings (pale lungs and liver, hemorrhaging uterus, fluid in the cecum, fur in the stomach, blood stained vaginal 

opening, blood-stained urinary bladder contents/urine, and hair loss)

Developmental NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day

Developmental LOAEL =120 mg/kg/day based on increased number of complete 

resorptions

870.3800 Reproduction and fertility effects Parental/Systemic NOAEL = M/F; 7.3/134 mg/kg/day 

Parental/Systemic LOAEL = Males; 58.9 mg/kg/day based on increased incidences 

of hemorrhagic effects in F1 males.

Parental/Systemic LOAEL was not established for females

Reproductive NOAEL = M/F; 124/136 mg/kg/day

Reproductive LOAEL = was not established

Offspring NOAEL = M/F; 7.3/8.7 mg/kg/day

Offspring LOAEL = M/F; 58.9/69.2 mg/kg/day based on hemorrhagic effects, swollen body parts, protruding eyes, clinical signs, delay in pupil development, and increased mortality post weaning

870.4100 Chronic toxicity—dogs NOAEL = M/F; 80/80 mg/kg/day 

LOAEL = M/F; 320/320 mg/kg/day based on premature sacrifice (inappetence, body 

weight loss)

870.4300 Combined chronic/carcinogenicity—rats NOAEL = M/F; 2.25/46.20 mg/kg/day 

LOAEL = M/F; 9.02/93.56 mg/kg/day based on enlarged eyeballs in male and female rats (coagulopathy)

No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.4300 Combined chronic/carcinogenicity—

mouse

NOAEL = M/F; 2.7/3.5 mg/kg/day 

LOAEL = M/F; 7.0/8.7 mg/kg/day based on clinical chemistry and microscopic nonneoplastic lesions (brown pigmented cells and perivascular inflammatory cells in 

liver)

No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.5100 Gene mutation There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background

870.5300 Gene mutation There was no clear evidence of biologically significant induction of mutant colonies 

over background

870.5375 Chromosome aberration There was no evidence of chromosome aberrations induced over background

870.5395 Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test 

in mice

There was no statistically significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated 

polychromatic erythrocytes in mouse bone marrow at any dose or harvest time

43528 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY—Continued

Guideline 

No. Study type Results 

870.7485 Metabolism and pharmacokinetics Acequinocyl exhibits marginal absorption, relatively rapid and complete excretion 

primarily via the bile and feces, and undergoes nearly complete metabolism to 

hydrolysis products and a glucuronide conjugate. There was no evidence for selective tissue accumulation or sequestration of acequinocyl or its metabolites in 

rats

870.7600 Dermal penetration Percent of dose absorbed decreased with exposure concentration indicating that 

saturation of absorption at/or about the high dose. Absorption at 168 hours was 

12.23%, 19.75%, and 14.77% for the 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 mg/centimeter squared 

(cm2 dose groups, respectively

B. Toxicological Endpoints

The dose at which no adverse effects 

are observed (the NOAEL) from the 

toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment is 

used to estimate the toxicological level 

of concern (LOC). However, the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes 

used for risk assessment if no NOAEL 

was achieved in the toxicology study 

selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is 

applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 

in the extrapolation from laboratory 

animal data to humans and in the 

variations in sensitivity among members 

of the human population as well as 

other unknowns. An UF of 100 is 

routinely used, 10X to account for 

interspecies differences and 10X for 

intraspecies differences.

Three other types of safety or 

uncertainty factors may be used: 

‘‘Traditional uncertainty factors;’’ the 

‘‘special FQPA safety factor;’’ and the 

‘‘default FQPA safety factor.’’ By the 

term ‘‘traditional uncertainty factor,’’

EPA is referring to those additional 

uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA 

passage to account for database 

deficiencies. These traditional 

uncertainty factors have been 

incorporated by the FQPA into the 

additional safety factor for the 

protection of infants and children. The 

term ‘‘special FQPA safety factor’’ refers 

to those safety factors that are deemed 

necessary for the protection of infants 

and children primarily as a result of the 

FQPA. The ‘‘default FQPA safety factor’’

is the additional 10X safety factor that 

is mandated by the statute unless it is 

decided that there are reliable data to 

choose a different additional factor 

(potentially a traditional uncertainty 

factor or a special FQPA safety factor).

For dietary risk assessment (other 

than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to 

calculate an acute or chronic reference 

dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where 

the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided 

by an UF of 100 to account for 

interspecies and intraspecies differences 

and any traditional uncertainty factors 

deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF). 

Where a special FQPA safety factor or 

the default FQPA safety factor is used, 

this additional factor is applied to the 

RfD by dividing the RfD by such 

additional factor. The acute or chronic 

Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or 

cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to 

accommodate this type of safety factor.

For non-dietary risk assessments 

(other than cancer) the UF is used to 

determine the LOC. For example, when 

100 is the appropriate UF (10X to 

account for interspecies differences and 

10X for intraspecies differences) the 

LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of 

the NOAEL to exposures (margin of 

exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is 

calculated and compared to the LOC.

The linear default risk methodology 

(Q*) is the primary method currently 

used by the Agency to quantify 

carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach 

assumes that any amount of exposure 

will lead to some degree of cancer risk. 

A Q* is calculated and used to estimate 

risk which represents a probability of 

occurrence of additional cancer cases 

(e.g., risk). An example of how such a 

probability risk is expressed would be to 

describe the risk as one in one hundred 

thousand (1 X 10-5), one in a million (1 

X 10-6), or 1 in 10 million (1 X 10-7). 

Under certain specific circumstances, 

MOE calculations will be used for the 

carcinogenic risk assessment. In this 

non-linear approach, a ‘‘point of 

departure’’ is identified below which 

carcinogenic effects are not expected. 

The point of departure is typically a 

NOAEL based on an endpoint related to 

cancer effects though it may be a 

different value derived from the dose 

response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio 

of the point of departure to exposure 

(MOEcancer = point of departure/

exposures) is calculated.

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for acequinocyl used for 

human risk assessment is shown in 

Table 3 of this unit:

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR ACEQUINOCYL FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK

ASSESSMENT

Exposure scenario 

Dose used in risk assessment, interspecies and 

intraspecies and any 

iraditional UF 

Special FQPA SF and 

level of concern for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Acute dietary Not applicable None An endpoint of concern attributable to a single 

dose was not identified. An aRfD was not 

established

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43529

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR ACEQUINOCYL FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK

ASSESSMENT—Continued

Exposure scenario 

Dose used in risk assessment, interspecies and 

intraspecies and any 

iraditional UF 

Special FQPA SF and 

level of concern for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Chronic dietary 

(all populations)

NOAEL = 2.7

UF = 100X

cRfD = 0.027

FQPA SF = 1X 

1 cPAD = 0.027

18-month carcinogenicity study in mice; 

LOAEL = 7.0 mg/kg/day based on clinical 

chemistry and microscopic nonneoplastic lesions (brown pigmented cells and 

perivascular inflammatory cells in liver)

NOTE: UF = uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = special FQPA safety factor; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed 

adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (c = chronic) RfD = reference dose. 1 cPAD = cRfD÷FQPA SF.

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. There are no tolerances 

established for residues of acequinocyl. 

Risk assessments were conducted by 

EPA to assess dietary exposures from 

acequinocyl in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk 

assessments are performed for a fooduse pesticide if a toxicological study has 

indicated the possibility of an effect of 

concern occurring as a result of a oneday or single exposure.

An acute exposure assessment is 

unnecessary because no such effect was 

seen in the submitted studies.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary risk assessment EPA 

used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation 

Model software with the Food 

Commodity Intake Database (DEEMFCIDTM), which incorporates food 

consumption data as reported by 

respondents in the USDA 1994–1996 

and 1998 Nationwide Continuing 

Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals 

(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to 

the chemical for each commodity. The 

following assumptions were made for 

the chronic exposure assessments: 

Tolerance-level residues, DEEMTM ver. 

7.76 default processing factors, and 100 

percent crop treated (%CT) data were 

used in the chronic dietary assessment. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency lacks sufficient 

monitoring exposure data to complete a 

comprehensive dietary exposure 

analysis and risk assessment for 

acequinocyl in drinking water. Because 

the Agency does not have 

comprehensive monitoring data, 

drinking water concentration estimates 

are made by reliance on simulation or 

modeling taking into account data on 

the physical characteristics of 

acequinocyl.

The Agency uses the FQPA Index 

Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the 

Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure 

Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/

EXAMS) to produce estimates of 

pesticide concentrations in an index 

reservoir. The Screening Ground Water 

(SCI-GROW) model is used to predict 

pesticide concentrations in shallow 

ground water. For a screening-level 

assessment for surface water EPA will 

use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using 

PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The 

FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/

EXAMS model that uses a specific highend runoff scenario for pesticides. Both 

FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate 

an index reservoir environment, and 

both models include a percent crop area 

factor as an adjustment to account for 

the maximum percent crop coverage 

within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include 

consideration of the impact processing 

(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw 

water for distribution as drinking water 

would likely have on the removal of 

pesticides from the source water. The 

primary use of these models by the 

Agency at this stage is to provide a 

screen for sorting out pesticides for 

which it is unlikely that drinking water 

concentrations would exceed human 

health levels of concern.

Since the models used are considered 

to be screening tools in the risk 

assessment process, the Agency does 

not use estimated environmental 

concentrations (EECs), which are the 

model estimates of a pesticide’s 

concentration in water. EECs derived 

from these models are used to quantify 

drinking water exposure and risk as a 

%RfD or %PAD. Instead, drinking water 

levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are 

calculated and used as a point of 

comparison against the model estimates 

of a pesticide’s concentration in water. 

DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on 

a pesticide’s concentration in drinking 

water in light of total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide in food and from 

residential uses. Since DWLOCs address 

total aggregate exposure to acequinocyl 

they are further discussed on the 

aggregate risk in Unit III.E.

Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCIGROW models, the EECs of acequinocyl 

for chronic exposures are estimated to 

be 0.24 parts per billion (ppb) for 

surface water and 0.003 ppb for ground 

water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets).

Acequinocyl is not registered for use 

on any sites that would result in 

residential exposure.

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

acequinocyl and any other substances 

and acequinocyl does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

not assumed that acequinocyl has a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see the policy statements 

released by EPA’s OPP concerning 

common mechanism determinations 

and procedures for cumulating effects 

from substances found to have a 

common mechanism on EPA’s web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

cumulative/.

43530 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children

1.In general. Section 408 of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for 

infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. Margins of safety are 

incorporated into EPA risk assessments 

either directly through use of a MOE 

analysis or through using uncertainty 

(safety) factors in calculating a dose 

level that poses no appreciable risk to 

humans. In applying this provision, 

EPA either retains the default value of 

10X when reliable data do not support 

the choice of a different factor, or, if 

reliable data are available, EPA uses a 

different additional safety factor value 

based on the use of traditional 

uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA 

safety factors, as appropriate.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There is no evidence of increased 

susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to 

in utero exposure to acequinocyl. And, 

there is no qualitative and/or 

quantitative evidence of increased 

susceptibility to acequinocyl following 

pre/postnatal exposure in a 2-generation 

reproduction study in rats. There is no 

concern for developmental 

neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to 

acequinocyl; a DNT study is not 

required.

There is an apparent qualitative 

increase in susceptibility in the rat and 

rabbit developmental studies as 

indicated by increases in resorptions 

that occurred at the same or higher dose 

that caused maternal toxicity, but the 

concern is low since:

• The fetal effects were noted in the 

presence of maternal toxicity.

• There are no residual uncertainties 

for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity since 

the database is complete.

Effects that could be indicative of 

neurotoxicity were shown in two 

studies, the 2-generation reproduction 

study and the subchronic rat oral 

toxicity study. In the 2-generation 

reproduction study, significant 

reduction in startle response in F2 pups 

was observed in high-dose groups (58.9/

69.2 mg/kg/day and 111.2/133.5 mg/kg/

day). In the subchronic rat oral toxicity 

study, neurotoxicity signs such as 

decreased motor activity, piloerection, 

and hunched posture were noted at the 

high dose 252.7/286.0 mg/kg/day.The 

concern is low since:

• EPA considered these effects as 

secondary as they were observed at very 

high doses.

• Other functional development tests 

(such as pupillary reflex test at 21 days 

post partum, an open field exploration 

test at 35–48 days post partum and a 

water-maze test with a learning phase 

and a memory phase at 35–48 days post 

partum) that were performed on pups 

did not show significant differences as 

compared to control values even at the 

highest dosage level.

• Acequinocyl is a known Vitamin K 

antagonist; neurotoxic compounds of 

similar structure were not identified.

3. Conclusion. There is a complete 

toxicity database for acequinocyl and 

exposure data are complete or are 

estimated based on data that reasonably 

accounts for potential exposures.

In evaluating whether to retain the 

10X SF to protect infants and children 

or to select a different safety factor, EPA 

considered the following factors:

i. There are no special concerns 

regarding pre- or postnatal toxicity 

exposure.

ii. The exposure databases (food and 

drinking water) are complete and/or 

employ conservative assumptions.

iii. There is no residential exposure.

iv. The risk assessments cover or 

approximate all the metabolites and 

degradates of concern.

v. The assessments do not 

underestimate the potential risk for 

infants and children.

vi. The toxicity database is complete.

Therefore, it is concluded that 1X is 

adequate to protect infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety

To estimate total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide from food, drinking water, 

and residential uses, the Agency 

calculates DWLOCs which are used as a 

point of comparison against EECs. 

DWLOC values are not regulatory 

standards for drinking water. DWLOCs 

are theoretical upper limits on a 

pesticide’s concentration in drinking 

water in light of total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide in food and residential 

uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the 

Agency determines how much of the 

acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is 

available for exposure through drinking 

water [e.g., allowable chronic water 

exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average 

food + residential exposure)]. This 

allowable exposure through drinking 

water is used to calculate a DWLOC.

A DWLOC will vary depending on the 

toxic endpoint, drinking water 

consumption, and body weights. Default 

body weights and consumption values 

as used by the EPA’s Office of Water are 

used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/

70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult 

female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default 

body weights and drinking water 

consumption values vary on an 

individual basis. This variation will be 

taken into account in more refined 

screening-level and quantitative 

drinking water exposure assessments. 

Different populations will have different 

DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is 

calculated for each type of risk 

assessment used: acute, short-term, 

intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.

When EECs for surface water and 

ground water are less than the 

calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes 

with reasonable certainty that exposures 

to the pesticide in drinking water (when 

considered along with other sources of 

exposure for which OPP has reliable 

data) would not result in unacceptable 

levels of aggregate human health risk at 

this time. Because OPP considers the 

aggregate risk resulting from multiple 

exposure pathways associated with a 

pesticide’s uses, levels of comparison in 

drinking water may vary as those uses 

change. If new uses are added in the 

future, OPP will reassess the potential 

impacts of residues of the pesticide in 

drinking water as a part of the aggregate 

risk assessment process.

1. Acute risk. Acequinocyl is not 

expected to pose an acute risk because 

no acute effects were observed in the 

submitted studies.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that exposure to acequinocyl from food 

will utilize 4.2% of the cPAD for the 

U.S. population, 14% of the cPAD for 

all infants less than 1 year old, and 23 

% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years 

old. There are no residential uses for 

acequinocyl that result in chronic 

residential exposure to acequinocyl. In 

addition, there is potential for chronic 

dietary exposure to acequinocyl in 

drinking water. After calculating 

DWLOCs and comparing them to the 

EECs for surface and ground water, EPA 

does not expect the aggregate exposure 

to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown 

in Table 4 of this unit:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43531

TABLE 4.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER) EXPOSURE TO ACEQUINOCYL

Population subgroup cPAD mg/

kg/day 

%cPAD 

(Food) 

Surface 

Water EEC 

(ppb) 

Ground 

Water EEC 

(ppb) 

Chronic 

DWLOC 

(ppb) 

U.S. Population 0.027 4.2 0.24 0.003 910

All infants ≤1year old 0.027 14 0.24 0.003 230

Children 1–2 years old 0.027 23 0.24 0.003 210

Children 3–5 years old 0.027 15 0.24 0.003 230

Children 6– 12 years old 0.027 6.5 0.24 0.003 250

Youth 13–19 years old 0.027 3.2 0.24 0.003 780

Adults 20–49 years old 0.027 2.1 0.24 0.003 920

Females 13–19 years old 0.027 2.3 0.24 0.003 790

Adults 50+ yeas old 0.027 2.4 0.24 0.003 920

3. Short-term risk. Short-term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background-exposure level).

Acequinocyl is not registered for use 

on any sites that would result in 

residential exposure. Therefore, the 

aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from 

food and water, which do not exceed 

the Agency’s level of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level).

Acequinocyl is not registered for use 

on any sites that would result in 

residential exposure. Therefore, the 

aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from 

food and water, which do not exceed 

the Agency’s level of concern.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Acequinocyl is classified as 

not likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

and thus is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk.

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, and to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to acequinocyl 

residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Method validation data support the 

following two plant methods and a 

livestock method: A high-performance 

liquid chromatography (HPLC)/mass 

spectrometry (MS)/MS method (Morse 

Laboratories Method #Meth–133, 

revision #3) for determining residues of 

acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on 

fruit commodities; an HPLC/MS/MS 

method (Morse Laboratories Method 

#Meth–135) for determining residues of 

acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on 

almonds hulls and nut meats; and an 

HPLC/MS/MS method (Morse 

Laboratories Method #Meth–139, 

Revision #2) for determining residues of 

acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in fat, 

milk, meat, and meat-by-products.

Methods #Meth–135 and #Meth–133, 

Revision #3 have each undergone 

successful independent laboratory 

validation (ILV) trials. An ILV is not 

required for Method #Meth–139, 

Revision#2 because the aforementioned 

ILV’s should be sufficient to cover this 

method based on the similarity of all 

three methods.

Based on the available method 

validation data, these methods are 

adequate for collecting residue data in/

on livestock commodities, milk, pome 

and citrus fruit commodities, 

strawberries, and tree nuts. Additional 

confirmatory methods for plants and 

livestock and specificity testing of the 

analytical enforcement methods for 

plants and livestock are required as 

conditions of registration. The validated 

LOQ for both acequinocyl and 

acequinocyl-OH is 0.01 ppm in/on each 

plant and livestock commodity, with the 

exception of citrus oil. The LOQ for 

each analyte in citrus oil is 0.5 ppm.

The methods may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

There are no established or proposed 

Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum 

residue limits (MRLs) for acequinocyl.

C. Conditions

The following information must be 

submitted as conditions for product 

registration related to these tolerances: 

the registrant will be required to submit 

additional confirmatory enforcement 

analytical methods and specificity 

testing for plants and livestock; a 

confined rotational crop study; and a 

new livestock storage stability study.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the tolerances are 

established for combined residues of 

acequinocyl and its metabolite 2-

dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone 

expressed as acequinocyl equivalents, in 

or on almond, pistachio, and fat and 

liver of cattle, goat, horse and sheep at 

0.02 ppm; on almond hulls at 2.0 ppm; 

wet apple pomace at 1.0 ppm; fruit, 

citrus, group 10 at 0.2 ppm; citrus oil at 

30 ppm; and fruit, pome, group 11 and 

strawberry at 0.40 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as 

amended by FQPA, any person may file 

an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

Although the procedures in those 

regulations require some modification to 

reflect the amendments made to FFDCA 

by FQPA, EPA will continue to use 

those procedures, with appropriate 

adjustments, until the necessary 

modifications can be made. The new 

section 408(g) of FFDCA provides 

essentially the same process for persons 

to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance issued by EPA under new 

43532 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was 

provided in the old sections 408 and 

409 of FFDCA. However, the period for 

filing objections is now 60 days, rather 

than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an 

Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or 

request a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 

178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

you must identify docket ID number 

OPP–2004–0141in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

on or before September 20, 2004.

1. Filing the request. Your objection 

must specify the specific provisions in 

the regulation that you object to, and the 

grounds for the objections (40 CFR 

178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 

objections must include a statement of 

the factual issues(s) on which a hearing 

is requested, the requestor’s contentions 

on such issues, and a summary of any 

evidence relied upon by the objector (40 

CFR 178.27). Information submitted in 

connection with an objection or hearing 

request may be claimed confidential by 

marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the 

information that does not contain CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public record. Information not marked 

confidential may be disclosed publicly 

by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of 

the Hearing Clerk (1900L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver 

your request to the Office of the Hearing 

Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th Street NW, 

Washington, DC. The Office of the 

Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is 

(202) 5646255–.

2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file 

an objection or request a hearing, you 

must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 

CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that 

fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You 

must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters 

Accounting Operations Branch, Office 

of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please 

identify the fee submission by labeling 

it ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’

EPA is authorized to waive any fee 

requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of 

the Administrator such a waiver or 

refund is equitable and not contrary to 

the purpose of this subsection.’’ For 

additional information regarding the 

waiver of these fees, you may contact 

James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305–

5697, by e-mail at 

tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a 

request for information to Mr. Tompkins 

at Registration Division (7505C), Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001.

If you would like to request a waiver 

of the tolerance objection fees, you must 

mail your request for such a waiver to: 

James Hollins, Information Resources 

and Services Division (7502C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001.

3. Copies for the Docket. In addition 

to filing an objection or hearing request 

with the Hearing Clerk as described in 

Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy 

of your request to PIRIB for its inclusion 

in the official record that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Mail your copies, identified 

by docket ID number OPP–2004–0141, 

to: Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch, Information Resources 

and Services Division (7502C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001. In person or by courier, bring a 

copy to the location of PIRIB described 

in ADDRESSES. You may also send an 

electronic copy of your request via email to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use 

an ASCII file format and avoid the use 

of special characters and any form of 

encryption. Copies of electronic 

objections and hearing requests will also 

be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 

6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not 

include any CBI in your electronic copy. 

You may also submit an electronic copy 

of your request at many Federal 

Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a 

Request for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be granted 

if the Administrator determines that the 

material submitted shows the following: 

There is a genuine and substantial issue 

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility 

that available evidence identified by the 

requestor would, if established resolve 

one or more of such issues in favor of 

the requestor, taking into account 

uncontested claims or facts to the 

contrary; and resolution of the factual 

issues(s) in the manner sought by the 

requestor would be adequate to justify 

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this rule has 

been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 

significance, this rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since 

tolerances and exemptions that are 

established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. In addition, the 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43533

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that 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.’’ This final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this rule 

does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’

as described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule.

VIII. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: July 1, 2004. 

James Jones,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

■ 2. Section 180.599 is added to subpart 

C to read as follows:

§ 180.599 Acequinocyl; tolerances for 

residues.

(a) General. Tolerances for combined 

residues of the insecticide acequinocyl, 

2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-

naphthalenedione, and its metabolite, 2-

dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, 

expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in 

or on the following commodities:

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond ...................................... 0.02

Almond, hulls ............................ 2.0

Apple, wet pomace ................... 1.0

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.02

Cattle, liver ................................ 0.02

Citrus, oil ................................... 30

Fruit, citrus, group 10 ............... 0.20

Fruit, pome, group 11 ............... 0.40

Goat, fat .................................... 0.02

Goat, liver ................................. 0.02

Horse, fat .................................. 0.02

Horse, liver ............................... 0.02

Pistachio ................................... 0.02

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.02

Sheep, liver ............................... 0.02

Strawberry ................................ 0.40

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved]

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved]

[FR Doc. 04–16213 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04–2059; MB Docket No. 02–124; RM–

10446] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Amboy, 

CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of KHWY, Inc., allots Channel 

237A at Amboy, California, as the 

community’s first local FM service. 

Channel 237A can be allotted to Amboy, 

California, in compliance with the 

Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 7.4 km (4.6 miles) 

northeast of Amboy. The coordinates for 

Channel 237A at Amboy, California, are 

34–26–00 North Latitude and 115–40–

52 West Longitude. The Mexican 

government has concurred in this 

allotment. A filing window for Channel 

237A at Amboy, California, will not be 

opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 

opening this allotment for auction will 

be addressed by the Commission in a 

subsequent Order.

DATES: Effective August 23, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 02–124, 

adopted June 30, 2004, and released July 

8, 2004. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Information 

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

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text of this decision may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s Web site, 

www.bcpiweb.com.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

■ Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

43534 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 73.202 [Amended]

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

Allotments under California, is amended 

by adding Amboy, Channel 237A.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16612 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–2054; MM Docket No. 02–136; RM–

10458, RM–10663, RM–10667, RM–10668] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Aberdeen, WA, Arlington, OR, Astoria, 

OR, Bellingham, WA, College Place, 

WA, Coos Bay, OR, Covington, WA, 

Forks, WA, Fossil, OR, Gladstone, OR, 

Hermiston, OR, Hoquiam, WA, Ilwaco, 

WA, Kent, WA, Long Beach, WA, 

Manzanita, OR, Moro, OR, Portland, 

OR, Shoreline, WA, SpringfieldEugene, OR, Tillamook, OR, The 

Dalles, OR, Trout Lake, WA, Walla 

Walla, WA

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In response to 

Counterproposals in this proceeding 

filed by New Northwest Broadcasters 

LLC and jointly filed by Triple Bogey, 

this document grants multiple channel 

substitutions, channel allotments and 

changes of community of license in 

Oregon and Washington. Specifically, 

this document substitutes Channel 

226C3 for Channel 225C1 at Astoria, 

Oregon, reallots Channel 226C3 to 

Gladstone, Oregon, and modifies the 

Station KAST–FM license to specify 

operation on Channel 226C3 at 

Gladstone. See 67 FR 42216, June 21, 

2002. In order to accommodate the 

Channel 226C3 allotment at Gladstone, 

this document substitutes Channel 

230C2 for Channel 229C at Portland, 

Oregon, and modifies the Station KPDQ 

license to specify operation on Channel 

230C2. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

DATES: Effective August 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Media Bureau (202) 418–

2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Report and Order in MM 

Docket No.02–136 adopted July 7, 2004, 

and released July 9, 2004. The full text 

of this decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY–

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–

800–378–3160, or www.BCPIWEB.com.

The Commission will send either a copy 

or abstract of this Report and Order in 

a report to be sent to Congress and the 

General Accounting Office pursuant to 

the Congressional Review Act, see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

This document also substitutes 

Channel 227C for Channel 226C at 

Springfield-Eugene, Oregon, and 

modifies the license of Station KKNU to 

specify operation on Channel 227C. In 

order to accommodate Channel 230C2 at 

Portland, it substitutes Channel 232C3 

for Channel 231C3 at Tillamook, 

Oregon, and modifies the Station KTIL 

license to specify operation on Channel 

232C3. In order to accommodate 

Channel 232C3 at Tillamook, this 

document substitutes Channel 224A for 

Channel 232A at Long Beach, 

Washington, and modifies the Station 

KAQX license to specify operation on 

Channel 224A. This document allots 

Channel 228C3 to Manzanita, Oregon, 

and Channel 259A to Ilwaco, 

Washington. This document also 

substitutes Channel 283C3 for Channel 

283C at The Dalles, Oregon, reallotts 

Channel 283C3 to Covington, Oregon, 

and modifies the Station KMCQ license 

to specify Covington as the community 

of license. This document allots 

Channel 261C2 to Arlington, Oregon, 

Channel 283C2 to Moro, Oregon, and 

Channel 236A to Trout Lake, 

Washington. Finally, this document 

denies proposals filed by Two Hearts 

Communications, LLC and Triple 

Bogey, LLC. The reference coordinates 

for the Channel 230C2 allotment at 

Portland, Oregon, are 45–30–58 and 

122–43–59. The reference coordinates 

for the Channel 227C allotment at 

Springfield-Eugene, Oregon, are 44–00–

04 and 123–06–45. The reference 

coordinates for the Channel 225A 

allotment at Coos Bay, Oregon, are 43–

21–15 and 124–14–34. The reference 

coordinates for the Channel 232C3 

allotment at Tillamook, Oregon, are 45–

27–59 and 123–55–11. The reference 

coordinates for the Channel 224A 

allotment at Long Beach, Washington, 

are 46–18–51 and 124–03–07. The 

reference coordinates for the Channel 

228C3 allotment at Manzanita, Oregon, 

are 45–41–05 and 123–54–38. The 

reference coordinates for the Channel 

259A allotment at Ilwaco, Washington, 

are 46–18–32 and 124–02–31. The 

reference coordinates for the Channel 

283C3 allotment at Covington, 

Washington, are 47–12–02 and 112–00–

27. The reference coordinates for the 

Channel 261C2 allotment at Arlington, 

Oregon, are 45–43–01 and 120–11–59. 

The reference coordinates for the 

Channel 283C2 allotment at Moro, 

Oregon, are 45–29–03 and 120–43–48. 

The reference coordinates for Channel 

236A at Trout Lake, Washington, are 

46–03–10 and 121–33–47.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

■ Part 73 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

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

Allotments under Oregon, is amended by 

adding Arlington, Channel 261C2, by 

removing Astoria, Channel 225C1, by 

removing Channel 228A and adding 

Channel 225A at Coos Bay, by adding 

Covington, Channel 283C3, by adding 

Gladstone, Channel 226C3, by adding 

Manzanita, Channel 228C3, by adding 

Moro, Channel 283C1, by removing 

Channel 229C and adding Channel 

230C2 at Portland, by removing Channel 

226C and adding Channel 227C at 

Springfield-Eugene, by removing 

Channel 283C at The Dalles, by removing 

Channel 231C3 and adding Channel 

232C3 at Tillamook.

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

Allotments, under Washington, is 

amended by adding Channel 259A at 

Ilwaco, by removing Channel 232A and 

adding Channel 224A at Long Beach, by 

adding Trout Lake, Channel 236A.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16603 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43535

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[I.D. 071504A]

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Atlantic bluefin tuna retention 

limit adjustment.

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that 

the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General 

category daily retention limit should be 

adjusted in order to allow for maximum 

utilization of the General category June 

through August time-period subquota. 

Therefore, NMFS increases the daily 

retention limit to two large medium or 

giant BFT through August 31, 2004. 

This action is being taken to provide 

increased opportunities to harvest the 

time-period General category quota.

DATES: Effective July 19, 2004 through 

August 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad 

McHale, 978–281–9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by 

persons and vessels subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 

635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. 

BFT quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

among the various domestic fishing 

categories, and General category effort 

controls (including time-period 

subquotas and restricted fishing days 

(RFDs)) are specified annually under the 

procedures identified at 50 CFR 

635.23(a) and 635.27(a). NMFS is in the 

process of establishing the 2004 annual 

BFT quota specifications. Consistent 

with the requirements of the fishery 

management plan and implementing 

regulations, it is anticipated that time 

period subquotas will be established for 

the General category at levels similar to 

past years.

Adjustment of Daily Retention Limit

Under § 635.23 (a)(4), NMFS may 

increase or decrease the General 

category daily retention limit of large 

medium and giant BFT over a range 

from zero (on RFDs) to a maximum of 

three per vessel to allow for maximum 

utilization of the quota for BFT. Based 

on a review of dealer reports, daily 

landing trends, available quota, and the 

availability of BFT on the fishing 

grounds, NMFS has determined that an 

increase of the daily retention limit for 

the remainder of the June through 

August time-period is appropriate and 

necessary. Current catch rates in the 

General category amount to 

approximately 0.5 metric tons (mt) or 

two fish per day. Based on this current 

General category landings rate the June 

through August subquota will not be 

filled in the remaining fishing days 

prior to the end of August, thus 

resulting in an excessive quota rollover 

to the September time-period subquota. 

This data is similar to low landings rates 

at this time last year when it was also 

determined that the daily retention 

should be increased. Experience in prior 

years has shown that the retention limit 

increase had positive impacts on the 

fishery and favorable public response, if 

done expeditiously. Therefore, NMFS 

adjusts the General category daily 

retention limit through August 31 to two 

large medium or giant BFT per vessel.

The intent of this adjustment is to 

allow for maximum utilization by 

General category participants of the 

subquota for the June through August 

time-period (specified under 50 CFR 

635.27(a)), to help achieve optimum 

yield in the General category fishery, to 

collect a broad range of data for stock 

monitoring purposes, and to be 

consistent with the objectives of the 

HMS FMP.

Closures or subsequent adjustments to 

the daily retention limit, if any, will be 

published in the Federal Register. In 

addition, owners/operators may call the 

Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (888) 

872–8862 or (978) 281–9305 for updates 

on quota monitoring and retention limit 

adjustments.

Classification

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that it is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest to provide prior notice of, and 

an opportunity for public comment on, 

this action. Catch rates for the 2004 BFT 

season have been extremely low to date 

and at the current rate of landings it is 

not possible that the available quota will 

be harvested by August 31, 2004. NMFS 

has recently become aware of a slight 

increase of BFT available on the fishing 

grounds. This slight increase in 

abundance provides the potential to 

increase landings rates if General 

category participants are authorized to 

harvest two BFT. Delay in increasing the 

retention limits would adversely affect 

those General category vessels that 

would otherwise have an opportunity to 

harvest more than one BFT per day and 

would further exacerbate the problem of 

excessive quota rollovers. Large 

amounts of unharvested quota may have 

negative social and economic impacts to 

U.S. fishermen that depend upon 

catching the available quota within the 

time periods designated in the HMS 

FMP. Therefore, the AA finds good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive 

prior notice and the opportunity for 

public comment. For all of the above 

reasons, and because this action relieves 

a restriction (i.e., allows the retention of 

more fish), there is also good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the delay 

in effectiveness normally required for 

this action.

This action is being taken under 50 

CFR 635.23(a)(4) and is exempt from 

review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 

et seq.

Dated: July 15, 2004.

John H. Dunnigan,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16578 Filed 7–16–04; 2:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 040112010–4114–02; I.D. 

061004C]

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

(NE) Multispecies Fishery; Georges 

Bank (GB) Cod Hook Sector (Sector) 

Operations Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of Approval of 

Sector Operations Plan and Allocation 

of GB Cod Total Allowable Catch (TAC).

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval of 

an Operations Plan and Sector Contract 

titled ‘‘Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector 

Operations Plan and Agreement’’

(Sector Agreement), and the associated 

allocation of GB cod, consistent with 

regulations implementing Amendment 

13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery 

43536 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Management Plan (FMP). The intent is 

to allow regulated harvest of groundfish 

by the Sector, consistent with the 

objectives of the FMP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9347, fax (978) 281–9135, email Thomas.Warren@NOAA.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final 

rule implementing Amendment 13 to 

the FMP authorized the allocation of up 

to 20 percent of the annual GB cod TAC 

to the GB Cod Hook Sector. NMFS 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed Sector Agreement through 

notification published in the Federal 

Register on June 21, 2004 (69 FR 34335); 

additional background and details of the 

Sector Agreement are contained in that 

notification and are not repeated here. 

One comment was received, which 

urged conservative fishery management, 

but which was not specifically directed 

to the proposed Sector Agreement.

After consideration of the proposed 

Sector Agreement and the comment 

received, NMFS has concluded that the 

Sector Agreement, which contains the 

Sector Contract and Operations Plan, is 

consistent with the goals of the FMP 

and other applicable law and is in 

compliance with the regulations 

governing the development and 

operation of a sector as specified under 

50 CFR 648.87.

There are 58 members of the approved 

Sector. As specified in Amendment 13, 

the Sector’s allocation of GB cod has 

been determined by dividing the sum of 

the total landings of GB cod by the 

Sector members for the fishing years 

1996 through 2001 (when fishing with 

jigs, demersal longline, or handgear), by 

the sum of the total accumulated 

landings of GB cod harvested by all NE 

multispecies vessels for the same time 

period. Based on the landings history of 

the 58 Sector members, the approved 

Sector TAC of GB cod is 371 mt, which 

is 12.587 percent of the total GB cod 

TAC. Letters of Authorization will be 

issued to each member of the Sector 

exempting them, conditional upon their 

compliance with the Sector Agreement, 

from the GB cod possession restrictions 

and the requirements of the Gulf of 

Maine trip limit exemption program, 

limits on the number of hooks, and the 

GB Seasonal Closure Area, as specified 

in §§ 648.86(b), 648.80(a)(4)(v), and 

648.81(g), respectively.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part 

648 and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 15, 2004.

Alan D. Risenhoover,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16586 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 031125292–4061–02; I.D. 

071604A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch 

in the Western Regulatory Area of the 

Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the 

Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to prevent exceeding the 2004 total 

allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean 

perch in this area.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), July 17, 2004, through 2400 

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–2778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2004 TAC specified for Pacific 

ocean perch in the Western Regulatory 

Area of the GOA is 2,520 metric tons 

(mt) as established by the 2004 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(69 FR 9261, February 27, 2004).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has 

determined that the 2004 TAC for 

Pacific ocean perch in the Western 

Regulatory Area will soon be reached. 

Therefore, the Regional Administrator is 

establishing a directed fishing 

allowance of 2,170 mt, and is setting 

aside the remaining 350 mt as bycatch 

to support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch 

in the Western Regulatory Area of the 

GOA.

Classification

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement 

is impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the closure of the directed fishery 

for Pacific ocean perch in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the GOA.

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30–day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 16, 2004.

John H. Dunnigan,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16581 Filed 7–16–04; 2:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 031125292–4061–02; I.D. 

071604B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch 

in the West Yakutat District of the Gulf 

of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43537

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the 

West Yakutat District of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to prevent exceeding the 2004 total 

allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean 

perch in this area.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), July 16, 2004, through 2400 

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–2778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2004 TAC specified for Pacific 

ocean perch in the West Yakutat District 

of the GOA is 830 metric tons (mt) as 

established by the 2004 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(69 FR 9261, February 27, 2004).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has 

determined that the 2004 TAC for 

Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat 

District will soon be reached. Therefore, 

the Regional Administrator is 

establishing a directed fishing 

allowance of 780 mt, and is setting aside 

the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to 

support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch 

in the West Yakutat District of the GOA.

Classification

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement 

is impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the closure of the directed fishery 

for Pacific ocean perch in the West 

Yakutat District of the GOA.

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30–day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 16, 2004.

John H. Dunnigan,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16580 Filed 7–16–04; 2:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 031124287–4060–02; I.D. 

071604C]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch 

in the Western Aleutian District of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the 

Western Aleutian District of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands management 

area (BSAI). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the 2004 total 

allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean 

perch in this area.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), July 16, 2004, through 2400 

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Regulations governing fishing by 

U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2004 TAC specified for Pacific 

ocean perch in the Western Aleutian 

District of the BSAI is 4,798 metric tons 

(mt) as established by the 2004 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the 

BSAI (69 FR 9242, February 27, 2004).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has 

determined that the 2004 TAC for 

Pacific ocean perch in the Western 

Aleutian District will soon be reached. 

Therefore, the Regional Administrator is 

establishing a directed fishing 

allowance of 4,000 mt, and is setting 

aside the remaining 798 mt as bycatch 

to support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch 

in the Western Aleutian District of the 

BSAI.

Classification

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement 

is impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the closure of the directed fishery 

for Pacific ocean perch in the Western 

Aleutian District of the BSAI.

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30–day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 16, 2004.

John H. Dunnigan,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16579 Filed 7–16–04; 2:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

43538

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1030 

[Docket No. AO–361–A39; DA–04–03] 

Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing 

Area; Delay of Hearing Date

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing 

delay. 

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service is delaying the hearing date for 

the proposed rule that appeared in the 

Federal Register of June 23, 2004 (69 FR 

34963), which gave notice of a public 

hearing being held to consider proposals 

that would amend certain provisions of 

the Upper Midwest milk marketing 

order. The hearing scheduled to begin 

July 19, 2004, has been delayed until 

Monday, August 16, 2004. The hearing 

must be completed by or adjourned by 

noon on Friday, August 20, 2004. To 

expedite the hearing process, the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

requests that the statements of all 

witnesses be exchanged with known 

participants on or before August 13, 

2004.

DATES: The hearing will convene at 1 

p.m. on Monday, August 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the Sofitel Minneapolis Hotel (I–494 

and Highway 100), 5601 West 78th 

Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55439; 

(952) 835–1900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gino Tosi, Marketing Specialist, Order 

Formulation and Enforcement, USDA/

AMS/Dairy Programs, Room 2971-Stop 

0231, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–

1366, e-mail address: 

Gino.Tosi@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

proposed rule beginning on page 34963 

of the Federal Register for Wednesday, 

June 23, 2004, the hearing date in the 

first and second column on page 34963 

is changed in both the DATES and 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections to 

read as follows:

DATES: The hearing will convene at 1 

p.m. on Monday, August 16, 2004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This administrative action is governed 

by the provisions of sections 556 and 

557 of Title 5 of the United States Code 

and, therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Notice is hereby given of a public 

hearing to be held at the Sofitel 

Minneapolis Hotel (I–494 and Highway 

100), 5601 West 78th Street, 

Bloomington, Minnesota 55439; (952) 

835–1900, beginning at 1 p.m., on 

Monday, August 16, 2004, with respect 

to proposed amendments to the 

tentative marketing agreement and to 

the order regulating the handling of 

milk in the Upper Midwest milk 

marketing area. The hearing is delayed 

at the request of some of the proponents 

of the proposed amendments to allow 

for more time to prepare for the hearing.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16485 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 2 and 3

[Docket No. 98–106–5] 

RIN 0579–AB69

Animal Welfare; Regulations and 

Standards for Birds, Rats, and Mice

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We are extending the 

comment period for our advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking regarding 

several changes we are considering to 

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 

regulations to help promote the humane 

handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of birds, rats, and mice 

not specifically excluded from coverage 

under the AWA. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments.

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Webform: The preferred method is 

to use the webform located at http://

comments.aphis.usda.gov. This 

webform is designed to allow 

commenters to associate each of their 

comments with the issues identified in 

the advance notice, and to allow APHIS 

to more easily analyze the comments 

received regarding each issue. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 98–106–4, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 98–106–4. 

• E-mail: Address your comment to 

regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your 

comment must be contained in the body 

of your message; do not send attached 

files. Please include your name and 

address in your message and ‘‘Docket 

No. 98–106–4’’ on the subject line. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on Docket 

No. 98–106–4 in our reading room. The 

reading room is located in room 1141 of 

the USDA South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information, including the names of 

groups and individuals who have 

commented on APHIS dockets, on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary 

Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS,

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43539

4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1234; (301) 734–7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 4, 

2004, we published in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 31537–31541, Docket 

No. 98–106–4) an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking regarding several 

changes we are considering to the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations 

in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3 to help promote 

the humane handling, care, treatment, 

and transportation of birds, rats, and 

mice not specifically excluded from 

coverage under the AWA. 

Comments on the advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking were required to 

be received on or before August 3, 2004. 

We are extending the comment period 

on Docket No. 98–106–4 for an 

additional 90 days. This action will 

allow interested persons additional time 

to prepare and submit comments.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.7.

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

July, 2004. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16541 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–17774; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–ACE–32] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of Restricted 

Areas 3601A and 3601B; Brookville, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise 

Restricted Areas 3601A (R–3601A) and 

3601B (R–3601B), at Brookville, KS. 

Currently, R–3601 A and B are laterally 

adjacent to each other and have 

different ceilings. This action proposes 

to combine their lateral boundaries, 

divide the combined area vertically 

instead of laterally, and expand the 

vertical limits to flight level 230 

(FL230). The lower portion of the 

combined area (surface to FL180) would 

be re-designated as R–3601A and the 

upper portion (FL180 to FL230) as R–

3601B. Additionally, this action 

proposes to change the using agency 

from ‘‘Commander, Kansas ANG, 

McConnell AFB, KS’’ to ‘‘Air National 

Guard, 184th Air Refueling Wing, 

Detachment 1, Smoky Hill ANG Range, 

Salina, KS.’’ These modifications are 

proposed to fulfill new United States 

Air Force (USAF) requirements for high 

altitude release bomb training for fighter 

aircraft and medium-to-high altitude 

release bomb training for bombers.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 7, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify ‘‘FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2004–17774 and 

Airspace Docket No. 04–ACE–32,’’ at 

the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit comments on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules, 

Office of System Operations and Safety, 

ATO–R, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–

2004–17774 and Airspace Docket No. 

04–ACE–32) and be submitted in 

triplicate to the Docket Management 

System (see ADDRESSES section for 

address and phone number). You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2004–17774 and 

Airspace Docket No. 04–ACE–32.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket.

Availability of NPRM’s 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently 

published rulemaking documents can 

also be accessed through the FAA’s Web 

page at http://www.faa.gov or the 

Federal Register’s webpage at http://

www.gpo.access.gov/fr/index.html.

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person at the Dockets Office (see

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Central Region 

Headquarters, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

MO 64106–2641. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

call the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

History 

On May 21, 2003, the USAF requested 

that the FAA take action to revise R–

3601A and R–3601B. R–3601A and R–

3601B are currently located adjacent to 

each other laterally and have different 

ceilings (FL180 and 6,500 feet above 

mean sea level (MSL), respectively). 

Specifically, the requested action would 

combine the current lateral boundaries 

of R–3601A and B, divide the combined 

area vertically instead of laterally, and 

expand the vertical limits to FL230. The 

lower portion of the combined area 

(surface to FL180) would be redesignated as R–3601A and the upper 

portion (FL180 to FL230) as R–3601B. 

The net result of the requested action 

would be to expand the vertical limits 

of the restricted area airspace from 

FL180 to FL230 over the area currently 

designated as R–3601A and from 6,500 

feet MSL to FL230 over the area 

currently designated as R–3601B. The 

USAF indicated that the modifications 

are needed to fulfill new USAF 

requirements for high altitude release 

bomb training for fighter aircraft and

43540 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

medium-to-high altitude release bomb 

training for bombers. The current 

altitude structure is not sufficient to 

meet these new training requirements. 

Additionally, the USAF requested that 

the FAA take action to change the using 

agency of the modified R–3601A and R–

3601B from ‘‘Commander, Kansas ANG, 

McConnell AFB, KS’’ to ‘‘Air National 

Guard, 184th Air Refueling Wing, 

Detachment 1, Smoky Hill ANG Range, 

Salina, KS.’’

The Proposal 

In response to a request from the 

USAF, the FAA is proposing an 

amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to 

revise R–3601A and R–3601B. 

Specifically, this action proposes to 

modify R–3601A and R–3601B by 

combining their lateral boundaries, subdividing the combined area vertically 

(instead of laterally), and expanding the 

vertical limits to FL230. The lower 

portion of the combined area (surface to 

FL180) would be re-designated as R–

3601A and the upper portion (FL180 to 

FL230) as R–3601B. Additionally, this 

action proposes to change the using 

agency of the modified R–3601A and R–

3601B from ‘‘Commander, Kansas ANG, 

McConnell AFB, KS’’ to ‘‘Air National 

Guard, 184th Air Refueling Wing, 

Detachment 1, Smoky Hill ANG Range, 

Salina, KS.’’ The additional airspace is 

required to fulfill new USAF training 

requirements. Specifically, the new 

training requirements call for practicing 

the release of bombs from higher 

altitudes than are currently available 

within the existing restricted areas. 

Section 73.36 of part 73 was 

republished in FAA Order 7400.8L, 

Special Use Airspace, dated October 7, 

2003. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subjected to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, Procedures for 

Handling Environmental Impacts, prior 

to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as 

follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 73.36 [Amended] 

2. § 73.36 is amended as follows:

* * * * *

R–3601A Brookville, KS [Amended] 

By removing the current boundaries, 

designated altitudes, and using agency and 

substituting the following: 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 38°45′20′′ N., 

long. 97°46′01′′ W.; to lat. 38°39′45′′ N., long. 

97°46′01′′ W.; then southwest along the 

Missouri Pacific Railroad Track; to lat. 

38°38′20′′ N., long. 97°47′31′′ W.; to lat. 

38°38′20′′ N., long. 97°50′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°35′00′′ N., long. 97°50′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°35′00′′ N., long. 97°56′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°45′20′′ N., long. 97°56′01′′ W.; to the point 

of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. Surface to but not 

including FL180. 

Using Agency. Air National Guard, 184th 

Air Refueling Wing, Detachment 1, Smoky 

Hill ANG Range, Salina, KS.

* * * * *

R–3601B Brookville, KS [Amended] 

By removing the current boundaries, 

designated altitudes, and using agency and 

substituting the following: 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 38°45′20′′ N., 

long. 97°46′01′′ W.; to lat. 38°39′45′′ N., long. 

97°46′01′′ W.; then southwest along the 

Missouri Pacific Railroad Track; to lat. 

38°38′20′′ N., long. 97°47′31′′ W.; to lat. 

38°38′20′′ N., long. 97°50′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°35′00′′ N., long. 97°50′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°35′00′′ N., long. 97°56′01′′ W.; to lat. 

38°45′20′′ N., long. 97°56′01′′ W.; to the point 

of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. FL180 to FL230. 

Using Agency. Air National Guard, 184th 

Air Refueling Wing, Detachment 1, Smoky 

Hill ANG Range, Salina, KS.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, July 12, 2004. 

Reginald C. Matthews, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules.

[FR Doc. 04–16521 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 243 

[Docket No. OST–1997–2198] 

RIN 2105–AC62 

Withdrawal of Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking; Domestic 

Passenger Manifest Information

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

SUMMARY: The Department withdraws 

the ANPRM published in the Federal 

Register of March 13, 1997, concerning 

operational and cost issues related to 

U.S. air carriers collecting basic 

information (e.g., full name, date of 

birth and/or social security number, 

emergency contact and telephone 

number) from passengers traveling on 

flights within the United States. The 

Department believes that the difficulties 

that originally motivated the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM are now being successfully 

dealt with by air carriers and others in 

the notification process. The 

Department is unaware of continuing 

notification difficulties on domestic 

flights.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Marvich, Office of International 

Transportation and Trade, DOT, (202) 

366–9545; or, for legal questions, Joanne 

Petrie, Office of General Counsel, DOT, 

(202) 366–9306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

13, 1997 (62 FR 11789), the Office of the 

Secretary (OST) published an ANPRM 

requesting public comment concerning 

operational and cost issues related to 

U.S. air carriers collecting basic 

information (e.g., full name, date of 

birth and/or social security number, 

emergency contact and telephone 

number) from passengers traveling on 

flights within the United States. 

Background 

This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) was issued on 

March 13, 1997, in order to collect 

information to determine what, if any, 

regulatory actions might be required by 

the Department to ensure the quick and 

proper notification of the families of 

victims of aviation disasters. The 

request for comments was prompted, in 

part, by a recommendation of the White 

House Commission on Security and 

Safety and, in large measure, by the 

need at that time to remedy past

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43541

1The task force required by the Aviation Disaster 

Family Assistance Act of 1996 was established as 

the Task Force on Assistance to Families of 

Aviation Disasters.

2Although TWA was a major airline at the time 

it filed its comments, American Airlines 

subsequently purchased TWA and its operations 

were merged with those of American.

difficulties in this area, the most 

prominent of which up to then had been 

the difficulties in the aftermath of 

aviation disasters to immediately know 

who was on the flight and respond to 

the inquiries of families of victims that 

telephone airlines to seek information 

on whether or not a family member was 

on the flight. 

In the ANPRM, the Department said 

that having an accurate list of the 

passengers that are on the flight—even 

without collecting data on emergency 

contacts—could allow air carriers to 

respond accurately and compassionately 

to such inquiries. The Department also 

noted that a broad examination of 

providing better treatment of families in 

the aftermath of an aviation disaster was 

the subject of a task force required by 

the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance 

Act of 1996 and that enhanced 

notification to families of victims is one 

aspect of that overall objective.1 Toward 

that end, the Department stated that 

another reason for requesting the 

information sought in the ANPRM was 

to assist the task force in making its 

required recommendations. At the same 

time, the Department recognized that 

developing better procedures for 

accessing the information that air 

carriers and travel agents already 

routinely collect on passengers could be 

a substitute for developing new, 

expensive and overlapping informationcollection systems that would rarely be 

used. Accordingly, it noted the need for 

information about the measurable 

benefits in notification time and 

accuracy to be gained by requiring 

substantial increased investments by 

airlines in obtaining data on those 

traveling by air and on their emergency 

contacts.

Discussion of Comments 

Sixty comments were received in 

response to the ANPRM. Commenters 

included the Air Transport Association 

of America (ATA); Trans World 

Airlines; Hawaiian Airlines; Southwest 

Airlines; the State of Hawaii; the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA); 

ERA Aviation; the National Air Carrier 

Association (NACA); Sun Country 

Airlines (2 comments); North American 

Airlines (3 comments); Harrah’s Atlantic 

City; the National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA); Aspen Aviation; 

Aviation Charter Services; Boise Air 

Service; Byerly Aviation; Charter 

Services; Des Moines Flying Service; 

Direct Flight; Eagle Aviation; Elliot 

Aviation (2 comments); Executive Air 

Fleet; Executive Flight; Flight Services 

Group; Hampton Airways; Hill Aircraft 

and Leasing (2 comments); JA Air 

Center; Lake Mead Air; Marc Fruchter 

Aviation; New World Jet Corporation; 

Phoenix Air; Raytheon Aircraft Services; 

Sky Trek; Southwest Safaris; Spirit 

Aviation; Waukesha Flying Services; 

Wisconsin Aviation; Jennifer Wuertz, 

Chief Pilot of Mac Air; Alaska Air 

Carriers Association; the Air Line Pilots 

Association (ALPA); the Association of 

Flight Attendants (AFA); the American 

Society of Travel Agents (ASTA); 

Worldspan, L.P.; the American 

Automobile Association (AAA); the 

American Association for Families of 

KAL 007 Victims, joined by individual 

families of the TWA 800 and Valujet 

tragedies; Mr. Richard Sobel; Mr. Steven 

Berry; Mr. John Gilmore; Mr. Samuel 

Wieler; Dr. Michael Walsh; the Social 

Security Administration of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services; ARMA International; the 

Electronic Privacy Information Center 

(EPIC); the American Civil Liberties 

Union; and Mr. Robert Ellis Smith, 

publisher of the Privacy Journal. 

The Air Transport Association of 

America (ATA) filed comments on 

behalf of its members (Alaska Airlines, 

Aloha Airlines, America West Airlines, 

American Airlines, American Trans Air, 

Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, 

DHL Airways, Emery Worldwide 

Airlines, Evergreen International 

Airlines, Federal Express, Hawaiian 

Airlines, KIWI International Air Lines, 

Midwest Express, Northwest Airlines, 

Polar Air Cargo, Reeve Aleutian 

Airways, Southwest Airlines, Trans 

World Airlines, United Airlines, United 

Parcel Service, and US Airways). Trans 

World Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and 

Southwest Airlines also filed individual 

comments. ATA stated that its members 

had been working to improve the 

dissemination of passenger manifest 

information in the aftermath of aviation 

disasters with the goal of doing 

everything possible to speed 

notifications, and would re-examine 

their notification procedures. ATA 

stated that the information-collection 

requirements in the APRM, if adopted, 

would erode customer service with 

adverse effects being felt most directly 

in reservations, ticketing, and airport 

check-in. ATA stated that the greatest 

detriment would be substantially 

diminished productivity in the domestic 

airline system, especially aircraft 

utilization rates. ATA stated that 

customers would be forced to part with 

sensitive personal information. ATA 

stated that the estimated time to collect 

information in the ANPRM should be 

increased by 3 to 4 times based on the 

results of an ATA-member airline 

survey. ATA stated that the estimated 

time to collect information in the 

ANPRM was too low also because 

airlines book at least twice as many 

reservations as they board. ATA said 

that the most sensible way to fulfill the 

desire to better assist the families of 

aviation accident victims was to 

concentrate efforts on refining carrier 

procedures and ensuring that public 

messages following an aviation disaster 

emphasized that only those persons 

who have reason to believe they had a 

loved one on the aircraft should call the 

airline.

Trans World Airlines stated that it 

would incur significant start-up training 

costs and capital costs to meet the 

information-collection requirements in 

the APRM.2 TWA stated that while 

these costs are hard to define, they had 

been estimated to be $14.8 million. 

TWA stated further that since it 

accounted for 5.1 percent of domestic 

aviation market revenue passenger 

miles, the total expense for the aviation 

industry for start-up training costs and 

capital costs could be over $300 million. 

TWA noted that these figures were 

many times more than the total 

estimated costs in the ANPRM for U.S. 

air carriers. 

Hawaiian Airlines said that because 

the tourist trade of the State of Hawaii 

is so dependent on interline-air-travel, 

and residents of Hawaii use air 

transportation much as other states 

depend on cars, trucks, and buses, a 

passenger manifest information 

requirement had the potential to result 

in significant disruptions to passengers 

and therefore the commerce and 

economy of the State of Hawaii, as well 

as Hawaiian Airlines. Southwest 

Airlines stated that the harmful effects 

of the information-collection 

requirements contemplated in the 

ANPRM would fall most heavily on the 

patrons of low-cost, high-productivity 

airlines such as Southwest. Southwest 

stated that a relatively high proportion 

of its passengers arrive at the airport 

without reservations, purchase their 

tickets shortly before flight, and depend 

upon Southwest’s frequent departures. 

Southwest stated that the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM 

would add passenger-processing time at 

the airport that would spill over to the 

boarding process at the gate and the 

turnaround time of Southwest’s aircraft.

43542 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Southwest stated that it had studied the 

impact of changes in turnaround time 

on aircraft utilization and found that 

even a 5-minute delay in Southwest’s 

average aircraft turnaround time would 

force the elimination of approximately 

125 daily flight segments. Southwest 

also stated that the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM, 

because they would require passengers 

to transmit personal and sensitive 

information over the Internet and 

Southwest to store this information, 

would likely jeopardize Southwest’s 

cost-efficient electronic ticketing and 

Internet booking programs.

The State of Hawaii stated that it 

occupies one of the most geographically 

isolated land masses in the world and 

is uniquely dependent on air 

transportation to permit residents and 

tourists to fly from one island to 

another, and to link the islands 

comprising the State of Hawaii to the 

rest of the Nation. The State of Hawaii 

joined in the comments filed by 

Hawaiian Airlines. The State of Hawaii 

stated that the burdens imposed by the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM would translate into 

increased costs and fares and noted that 

Hawaii’s local air carriers, Hawaiian and 

Aloha, both rely extensively on interline 

passengers. The State of Hawaii urged 

DOT to consider other, less intrusive 

and more cost-effective mechanisms 

that would permit prompt notification 

to family members in the unfortunate 

event of an aviation disaster and not 

place additional burdens on interline 

passengers. 

The Regional Airline Association 

(RAA), which is comprised of 75 

member airlines that provide service at 

733 airports in the United States (500 of 

which depend exclusively on regional 

air carriers for access to the U.S. 

transportation system), stated that 

passengers fly on its member airlines to 

save time, and the imposition of the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM would result in passenger 

delays, as well as intrude into the 

personal privacy of air travelers. RAA 

said that the resources needed to 

maintain existing airport check-in times 

and collect additional passenger 

information could make it infeasible for 

its member airlines to continue to serve 

some communities either at all or as 

frequently as they now do. RAA noted 

that in light of the Aviation Disaster 

Family Assistance Act of 1996 

(ADFAA), all airlines are investigating 

improvements in their systems of 

verifying passenger manifests and have 

enhanced their systems for 

accommodating telephone calls after an 

aviation accident. RAA stated that it 

believed that actions taken in response 

to the ADFAA would significantly 

improve the process of family 

notification. RAA stated, however, that 

it is very difficult to produce an 

accurate manifest quickly in the 

aftermath of an aviation disaster and the 

absolute accuracy of the manifest must 

be insured before it is released. ERA 

Aviation, a small regional carrier 

located in Anchorage, Alaska, said it did 

not have the database resources needed 

to maintain additional passenger 

manifest information, and did not 

believe that passengers would want 

airlines to keep such information in 

their computers. As an alternative, ERA 

suggested that DOT supply a 

standardized form and make it available 

throughout the airport or gate area in 

display stands. Passengers would 

complete the form on a voluntary basis, 

and the only obligation of the airline 

would be to accept the information 

provided by passengers, if they chose to 

do so. ERA suggested that DOT employ 

such a system for all modes of 

transportation that DOT oversees (rail, 

bus, plane, or boat). 

The National Air Carrier Association 

(NACA), an association of member 

airlines specializing in passenger 

charter services, stated that one member 

airline had provided it with a list of 

recommended implementation methods. 

NACA estimated that, if followed, they 

would double existing one-hour 

domestic check-in times to two hours. 

NACA stated that it was concerned 

about numerous data collection efforts, 

both in effect and proposed, on the part 

of a variety of federal agencies, that 

could result in inefficient data 

collection and dissemination 

requirements. Sun Country Airlines, a 

charter airline, filed a comment and 

later testified before the Task Force on 

Assistance to Families of Aviation 

Disasters. In sum, Sun Country stated 

that it supported information-collection 

requirements, such as in the ANPRM, 

for those involved with air charters to 

deal with difficulties in contacting nextof-kin in the aftermath of an aviation 

disaster. Sun Country recommended 

removing date of birth or social security 

account number, however, because it 

felt that neither was useful to the 

notification process. Sun Country said 

that such a requirement should extend 

to charter operators and travel agents, 

because the additional information 

could be obtained most efficiently at the 

time of reservation, and charter 

operators and travel agents (and not the 

charter airline) had contact with 

passengers at the time of reservation. 

Sun Country said that collecting 

information at the airport would be the 

least efficient way to obtain it. Sun 

Country stated that it could not 

accurately gauge the costs of the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM since, as a charter airline, 

it did not generally make direct 

passenger reservations. North American 

Airlines (NAA), a charter airline, filed a 

comment and later testified before the 

Task Force on Assistance to Families of 

Aviation Disasters. NAA also filed a 

supplemental comment in which it 

addressed single entity charters. NAA 

stated that care must be taken to avoid 

making mistakes in notifying families in 

the aftermath of an aviation disaster and 

the issues involved in notifying families 

are more complicated than they appear. 

NAA said that full name, phone number 

(including area code), and hometown 

were the only elements of passenger 

manifest information that were needed. 

NAA predicted that passengers would 

object to providing social security 

account numbers on privacy grounds, 

and said collecting birth dates could 

lead to age discrimination complaints 

by bumped passengers. NAA said that 

requiring the collection of the same 

information by both scheduled and 

charter airlines would be extremely 

difficult because charter airlines did not 

have computer reservation systems 

(CRSs) or frequent flyer programs where 

the proposed information could be 

stored and accessed. NAA said that the 

DOT analysis of the costs of the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM had ignored the greatest 

cost, the decrease in utilization of 

aircraft that would occur because 

collecting additional passenger manifest 

information would increase boarding 

times and this would eat into aircraft 

utilization. NAA stated that the best 

way (better even than CRS collection) to 

ensure the collection of vital 

information would be along the lines of 

a Pan Am 103 family suggestion: A 

perforated stub on the boarding card 

that could, as each passenger boards, be 

torn off and kept by the airline. NAA 

estimated that it would realistically take 

at least a minute for the passenger to fill 

out the stub, and extra airline 

manpower and time would be required 

to explain the process to passengers and 

assist them in filling out the information 

requested on the stub. In its comment, 

NAA said that it had adopted such a 

procedure on its regular charter flights. 

Later, in its testimony before the Task 

Force on Assistance to Families of 

Aviation Disasters, NAA said that based 

on a few months experience, the 

procedure was working. NAA said that 

one reason it worked was that NAA

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43543

required passengers on its regular 

chartered flight to check-in 11⁄2–2 hours 

before departure, and noted that normal 

scheduled flights did not have this big 

a window for the check-in process. 

NAA’s supplemental comment, as 

mentioned above, dealt with single 

entity charters: A single entity charter is 

a charter where one entity (often a 

company, school, nonprofit 

organization, sports team, or individual) 

both arranges and pays for the charter. 

NAA said it would not be appropriate 

to require additional information from 

passengers on single entity charters 

since the passengers would likely resist 

giving information on privacy grounds 

and often the single chartering entity 

would know the passengers and already 

have information on hand for them.

Harrah’s Atlantic City, an operator of 

a major hotel, casino, resort and 

entertainment complex in Atlantic City, 

New Jersey, stated that it had for the 

past several years conducted public 

charter flights between various eastern 

cities in the United States and Atlantic 

City. Harrah’s said that DOT, before 

proceeding further, should explore 

working with the air carrier industry on 

a voluntary, consensual basis toward 

improved next-of-kin notification. 

Harrah’s said that to the extent that 

accountability for manifest information 

were to rest, actually or potentially, 

with an entity other than the direct air 

carrier, confusion could result that 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM. Thus, Harrah’s urged DOT 

to eliminate charter operators and other 

indirect air carriers (e.g., bulk fare 

contractors) from the potential coverage 

of any passenger manifest information 

requirement ultimately adopted. 

Harrah’s stated that the manifest 

information requirements in the 

ANPRM were unnecessarily broad and 

that passengers should be required only 

to provide their full names, all other 

information should be voluntary. 

The National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA) filed comments on 

behalf of its members, who operate ondemand air charters with small aircraft 

pursuant to 14 CFR part 135 of the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and 

14 CFR part 298 of the Department’s 

economic regulations. The following 25 

FAR Part 135 on-demand air charter 

carriers also filed a total of 27 

individual comments: Aspen Aviation, 

Aviation Charter Services, Boise Air 

Service, Byerly Aviation, Charter 

Services, Des Moines Flying Service, 

Direct Flight, Eagle Aviation, Elliot 

Aviation (2 comments), Executive Air 

Fleet, Executive Flight, Flight Services 

Group, Hampton Airways, Hill Aircraft 

and Leasing (2 comments), JA Air 

Center, Lake Mead Air, Marc Fruchter 

Aviation, New World Jet Corporation, 

Phoenix Air, Raytheon Aircraft Services, 

Sky Trek, Southwest Safaris, Spirit 

Aviation, Waukesha Flying Services, 

and Wisconsin Aviation. In addition, 

Jennifer Wuertz, Chief Pilot of Mac Air, 

filed comments regarding FAR Part 135 

on-demand air charters, as did a state air 

carrier association, the Alaska Air 

Carriers Association. All those 

commenting regarding FAR Part 135 ondemand air charter carriers strongly 

urged DOT not to impose the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM on such carriers. Those 

commenters stated, among other things, 

that FAR Part 135 on-demand air 

carriers have never experienced 

difficulties with notification of families 

in the aftermath of a FAR Part 135 ondemand air charter flight that ended in 

disaster, the characteristics of these 

carriers makes the likelihood of family 

notification difficulties small, and the 

financial burden that they would bear if 

they were subjected to the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM 

would be disproportionately greater 

than for larger carriers. 

The Air Line Pilots Association 

(ALPA), which represents 46,000 pilots 

that fly for 45 airlines, supported 

developing an enhanced domestic 

passenger manifest information 

collection effort for reasons of airline 

safety and security. ALPA stated that 

doing so could increase the accuracy of 

aircraft weight and balance 

computations, would aid security efforts 

geared toward unaccompanied baggage, 

and could provide an additional layer of 

security because passengers with 

nefarious intentions toward airline 

security would be reluctant to divulge 

the information in the ANPRM and 

might not fly. Regarding technology, 

ALPA suggested that the use of the twodimensional bar code be explored. 

The Association of Flight Attendants 

(AFA), which represents 40,000 flight 

attendants at 26 carriers, stated that 

collecting additional information from 

passengers on domestic flights was 

necessary for further enhancing airline 

response to aviation disasters. AFA 

noted that operators of large aircraft are 

already required to collect passenger 

names on each flight and that adding an 

additional question on an emergency 

contact name should be done. AFA said 

that while doing so would add costs, it 

was important for the family to know 

the status of the passenger so that the 

family would be spared heightened 

anxiety and frustration. AFA said that 

no matter what the financial burden, the 

families of victims need to know the 

status of their relatives as soon as 

possible. 

The American Society of Travel 

Agents (ASTA), which represents about 

16,000 domestic agency locations and 

members in about 168 foreign countries, 

said that it was in favor of collecting 

additional passenger manifest 

information through a simple paper 

form that passengers would understand 

and be able to fill out at the airport. 

ASTA said that it would, however, take 

longer to provide passenger manifest 

information than the 40 seconds 

estimated in the ANPRM. ASTA stated 

that it was concerned that a 

‘‘performance standard’’ approach to the 

collection of passenger manifest 

information, where every airline got to 

choose how it would meet the 

requirement, could result in varying 

requirements on travel agents. ASTA 

believed that collecting passenger 

manifest information though 

reservations with missing information 

provided at the airport would result in 

conflict, confusion, and delay at airport 

gate areas. ASTA suggested instead a 

simple cloning of the standard U.S. 

Customs Service form, with each 

passenger completing the form at the 

airport at the time of enplanement. 

ASTA said that since airlines are not 

required to verify the information 

provided to them, the forms could just 

be collected and put into a pile or 

envelope by the gate attendant (who is 

typically compiling other piles of ticket 

coupons and boarding passes), and then 

turned over to a central depository at 

the airport for use in case of an aviation 

disaster. 

Worldspan, L.P., a computer 

reservations system (CRS) at the time 

owned principally by Delta, Northwest, 

and TWA, stated that it stood ready to 

do its part to usefully collect passenger 

manifest information through a CRS, but 

saw practical and policy limits both in 

doing so and assuring that passenger 

manifests are as complete and accurate 

as Congress and DOT might wish. 

Worldspan said that there is no 

guarantee that a reservation made 

results in a passenger boarded, and a 

passenger boarded may do so without 

making a reservation. Worldspan 

concluded that the CRS could not alone 

be depended upon and each airline 

would have to be ultimately responsible 

for satisfying manifest requirements for 

the passengers it actually boards. 

Worldspan stated that while it could 

program its system to require the input 

of additional passenger manifest 

information before allowing a 

reservation to be completed, it would 

have no way of knowing whether the

43544 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

information entered by the user was 

truly responsive or was just being input 

to override such system conventions. 

Worldspan said that if another means of 

confirming identity in addition to full 

name were required, date of birth would 

be preferable to social security account 

number, which, once known, generally 

facilitates access to other sources of 

private information about individuals. 

Worldspan said that no CRS can make 

its passengers records totally secure 

from unauthorized use. Worldspan said 

that it would be better to require two 

emergency contact telephone numbers 

without an emergency contact name 

instead of one emergency contact name 

and number. Worldspan said that in 

cases where an emergency contact did 

not have a telephone number, an 

emergency contact address should be 

accepted. 

The American Automobile 

Association (AAA) stated that it has 

nearly 40 million members, many of 

whom are frequent travelers, and 

operates almost one thousand travel 

agencies, which serve both the general 

public and AAA members. AAA stated 

that an informal survey of some of its 

travel agency managers showed that 

time spent making bookings could 

increase by at least 20 percent if 

information-collection requirements 

along the lines of the ANPRM were 

implemented. AAA stated that these 

travel agency managers also thought that 

collecting social security account 

numbers would raise serious privacy 

concerns, and collecting date of birth 

and emergency contact information 

would be problematic. AAA stated, 

furthermore, that it was concerned with 

the accuracy of information provided by 

passengers who may be reluctant to 

provide it due to privacy concerns. AAA 

said that since the accuracy of the 

information would not be checked, false 

information could be acted on in the 

aftermath of an aviation disaster and 

liability issues could arise. AAA said 

that collecting information at the airport 

could lead to long check-in lines. AAA 

said it agreed with the phrase in the 

ANPRM, ‘‘* * * it may be that 

developing better procedures for 

accessing the information that air 

carriers and travel agents routinely 

collect on passengers could be a 

substitute for developing new, 

overlapping information-collection 

systems that would rarely be used.’’

AAA urged DOT to explore all other 

available alternatives to help families of 

airline crash victims before requiring 

passenger manifest information for 

domestic flights.

The American Association for 

Families of KAL 007 Victims (Families 

Association) was joined in its comment 

by individual families of the TWA 800 

and Valujet tragedies. The Families 

Association stated that accurate 

passenger information needs to be 

maintained for air crashes, because, 

while they occur infrequently, they are 

of a particularly violent nature and all 

aboard are often killed and human 

remains are often not able to be 

accounted for. The Families Association 

said that having prior knowledge of the 

identity of passengers is important and 

cost effective because it (1) allows for 

timely notification of next of kin, (2) 

provides for promptly obtaining 

evidence (DNA, medical records, etc.) 

needed to identify victims, (3) speeds 

the return of remains, (4) speeds the 

return of belongings, (5) saves the air 

carrier(s) money because it (they) know 

immediately the identity of prospective 

victims instead of being pressured (at 

substantial cost) to discover who the 

victims were in the aftermath of a 

disaster, and (6) the information would 

benefit the air carrier’s information 

databases. The Families Association 

said that passenger manifests have been 

a historical tradition and necessity in 

the field of transportation by air (with 

the exception of walk-on flights) and 

thus that passenger information is 

already collected on all transportation 

by air (most by advance reservation) and 

even on over-the-counter transactions 

flight documents are issued in 

passengers’ names. The Families 

Association said, furthermore, that 

Internet bookings, credit card or 

personal check payments provide 

already the passenger’s name, often the 

address, either the home/office/contact 

telephone numbers, and other 

information deemed necessary to issue 

a non-cash ticket. The Families 

Association said that air carriers thus 

have most of the time, and in advance, 

the detailed data actually needed to 

confirm the actual boarding of a 

prospective pre-booked passenger. The 

Families Association stated that the 

DOT should promptly extend the 1996 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between the Department of State and 

U.S. air carriers on manifest information 

and manifest sharing on international 

flights to cover U.S. domestic flights. 

The Families Association also stated 

that all international air carriers that the 

U.S. Government allows to operate 

within U.S. air space (i.e., under ‘‘Open 

Skies’’ agreements, and various other 

alliances or code-sharing agreements) 

should be included under such a 

domestic passenger manifest MOU. 

Several individuals filed comments. 

Mr. Richard Sobel stated that from his 

perspective as a political scientist and 

policy analyst, the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM, 

while perhaps well intentioned, is a 

badly flawed idea subject to abuses, 

including invasion of privacy, is not 

cost-effective, and should not be 

implemented. Mr. Sobel stated that, at 

most, airlines should be authorized to 

collect name, contact phone numbers, 

and identify hometowns, and that this 

information should be automatically 

purged immediately after the flight (to 

avoid invasion of privacy). Mr. Sobel 

stated that for privacy and fraud 

reasons, there was no justification 

whatsoever for asking for dates of birth 

or social security account numbers. Mr. 

Sobel outlined the restrictions in the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–579), 

which identifies the fundamental right 

to personal privacy under the 

Constitution, that are potentially 

involved in the information-requirement 

in the ANPRM. Mr. Steven Berry stated 

that the costs of the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM 

were not fiscally defensible, the time 

estimates for collecting information in 

the ANPRM were not realistic, and the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM needed to be examined in 

light of the 1974 Federal Privacy Act. 

Mr. John Gilmore strongly objected to 

the information-collection requirements 

in the ANPRM and said that they were 

geared toward tracking the movements 

of citizens. Mr. Samuel Weiler stated 

that the information-collection 

requirements in the ANPRM raised 

serious constitutional and fraud 

concerns, and the goals could be better 

accomplished by travelers giving their 

families prior notice of travel plans. Dr. 

Michael Walsh viewed requiring social 

security account number or date of birth 

for boarding an airplane to be an 

invasion of basic privacy, and noted that 

because the DOT information-collection 

requirements would not predate January 

1, 1975, they would be unlawful for 

DOT to deny boarding based on a 

refusal to disclose a social security 

account number under Section 

7(a)(2)(B) of the Privacy Act of 1974. 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) of the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services said that it did not 

support the collection of social security 

account numbers because in its 

experience, accurate verification of 

identity usually requires more than just 

a name and social security account 

number. SSA said that in its experience, 

one must collect for positive 

identification name, social security 

account number, and date and place of 

birth, as well as parents’ names,

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43545

including mother’s maiden name. SSA 

went on to say that it would, however, 

discourage collecting these additional 

data elements because doing so would 

expose the social security account 

number to undesirable vulnerabilities 

related to criminal activity. The SSA 

pointed out, furthermore, that under 

section 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act at 5 

U.S.C. 552a, it is illegal for a Federal 

Agency to deny any individual any 

right, benefit, or privilege provided by 

law because that individual refuses to 

reveal his/her social security account 

number. SSA went on to state that this 

applies unless the disclosure is required 

by Federal law or the disclosure of the 

social security account number is made 

to an agency maintaining a system of 

records in existence and operating 

before January 1, 1975, or if the 

disclosure was required by statute or 

regulation adopted prior to that date. 

ARMA International, an educational 

association of more than 10,000 

professional records and information 

managers, strongly objected to the 

inclusion of social security account 

numbers in domestic passenger manifest 

information. ARMA International stated 

that it believe such an information 

collection would be a direct violation of 

the Privacy Act, and unnecessary for 

prompt passenger identification in case 

of a disaster. ARMA International did 

not object to the optional collection of 

other information, such as date of birth 

and emergency contact.

Comments from the Electronic 

Privacy Information Center (EPIC), 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 

and Mr. Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of 

the Privacy Journal, stated that many 

concerns regarding privacy and fraud 

would result from the informationcollection requirements in the ANPRM. 

In its comment, EPIC said that the 

collection and use of the information in 

the ANPRM, including highly sensitive 

information such as social security 

account number, would represent a 

grave threat to personal privacy and 

potentially lead to widespread fraud. In 

its comment, the ACLU stated that: 

passengers have a privacy interest in, 

and the right to control use of, personal 

information about them that is gathered 

by air carriers, including information 

about the places to which they have 

traveled or are traveling; passengers 

have a privacy interest in, and the right 

to control the use of, other personal 

information about them that the 

ANPRM suggests the airlines should 

gather, such as their social security 

account number, date of birth, and name 

and phone number of their ‘‘contact’’ (or 

next of kin); the air transport system 

should not be turned into a citizen 

tracking system in which the movement 

of passengers can be tracked for various 

government or other purposes; and air 

traffic transit points should not be 

turned into government check points 

where government agents conduct 

searches of persons and property for 

generalized law enforcement or 

surveillance purposes. In his comment, 

Mr. Smith, of the Privacy Journal, 

questioned the basic informationcollection approach in the ANPRM and 

stated that devoting the necessary time, 

money, and sacrifice of privacy for 

minimal yield is bad public policy. 

Instead, Mr. Smith stated what the nextof-kin of crash victims need is 

compassionate and responsive 

assistance at the time of the disaster. Mr. 

Smith said that DOT should devise an 

effective baggage-match program 

without the need for gathering any 

identifying information about a 

passenger. 

Discussion of the Continuing Need for 

the Additional Information-Collection 

Requirements in the ANPRM and 

Departmental Decision to Withdraw the 

ANPRM 

Many changes have taken place since 

the events that led to the Aviation 

Disaster Family Assistance Act 

(ADFAA) and, ultimately, to the request 

for comments in this ANPRM on 

improving airlines’ system of 

notification of families of victims in the 

event of an airline disaster. U.S. carriers, 

in particular, have taken steps to ensure 

that passenger manifest information is 

available to the government shortly after 

the occurrence of a crash. This has been 

prompted, at least in part, by the 

requirements in the ADFAA that 

carriers assure that they will, among 

other things, (1) provide to the Director, 

Office of Transportation Disaster 

Assistance, of the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

and to the Red Cross (which has been 

designated by NTSB to assist after 

crashes), immediately upon request, a 

list of the names of the passengers 

aboard the aircraft, and (2) have in place 

a process for notifying the families of 

the passengers as soon as the carrier has 

verified that the passenger was aboard 

the aircraft. Each certificated carrier has 

filed such a plan with the Department 

and the NTSB, which reviewed the 

plans and, as described below, has 

worked with carriers to ensure the 

effectiveness of each carrier’s plan. 

Importantly, the incentive for carriers 

to provide prompt and accurate 

notification is not just a regulatory one. 

Carriers have learned valuable lessons 

about being proactive concerning 

disaster planning and assistance, and 

the need to follow through if a disaster 

occurs. In this regard, since the passage 

of the Family Assistance Act, many 

carriers have created positions within 

their companies for full time emergency 

planners/coordinators. These 

professionals have developed ongoing 

relationships with the NTSB’s Office of 

Transportation Disaster Assistance, 

which, through industry meetings in 

which information is exchanged, as well 

as training sessions, has helped to 

spread to all carriers the lessons learned 

by others. This effort to improve the 

notification system has been aided by 

the fact that positive identification is 

now required of all passengers who 

board a flight, coupled with improved 

technology, such as the use of 

automated devices for the collection of 

boarding passes, which enhances rapid 

manifest reconciliation, where 

necessary. 

As a result of all of these factors, in 

more recent cases involving aviation 

disasters, airlines have provided 

passenger manifest information to the 

NTSB within hours of a disaster and 

have been able to notify family members 

within a short time following a disaster. 

In our view, therefore, domestic carriers 

have developed a system that is 

working, and we do not believe that 

intervening at this time to require 

carriers to focus on a different, 

government-imposed system will be 

productive and enhance the successful 

information-gathering and 

dissemination programs carriers have 

worked so long and hard to put in place. 

We will accordingly terminate this 

rulemaking. In doing so, however, we 

wish to point out that our own Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

which is responsible for ensuring that 

airlines comply with the Aviation 

Disaster Family Assistance Act, works 

closely with the NTSB on family 

assistance matters. The Department will 

through that office continue to monitor 

carrier conduct in providing timely and 

accurate passenger manifests in 

connection with domestic air 

transportation and we will not hesitate 

to act immediately should there appear 

to be a need for an industry-wide 

solution to any problem that occurs. 

Department Decision 

For the reasons explained above, the 

Department concludes that the 

information-collection requirements in 

the ANPRM are no longer necessary. 

Therefore, this rulemaking proceeding is 

terminated and the ANPRM is 

withdrawn.

43546 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 

2004. 

Norman Y. Mineta, 

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 04–16520 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 680 

RIN 3084–AA96 

Affiliate Marketing Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC).

ACTION: Extension of period to submit 

comments in response to notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In a Federal Register

document published June 15, 2004, the 

FTC requested comment on a proposed 

rule that is required by Section 214(b) 

of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), 

with respect to entities subject to its 

jurisdiction under Section 621(a) of the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). 

Section 214(a) of the FACT Act amends 

the FCRA by adding a new section 624, 

which the proposed regulations 

implement by providing for consumer 

notice and an opportunity to prohibit 

affiliates from using certain information 

to make or send marketing solicitations 

to the consumer. The Commission is 

extending its comment period until 

August 16, 2004.

DATES: Comments addressing the 

proposed Affiliate Marketing Rule must 

be submitted on or before August 16, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘FACT Act 

Affiliate Marketing Rule, Matter No. 

R411006’’ to facilitate the organization 

of comments. A comment filed in paper 

form should include this reference both 

in the text and on the envelope, and 

should be mailed or delivered to: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–159 (Annex Q), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and comply with 

Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

Any comment filed in paper form 

should be sent by courier or overnight 

service, because U.S. postal mail in the 

Washington area and at the Commission 

is subject to delay due to heightened 

security precautions. 

An electronic comment can be filed 

by (1) Clicking on http://

www.regulations.gov; (2) selecting 

‘‘Federal Trade Commission’’ at ‘‘Search 

for Open Regulations;’’ (3) locating the 

summary of this Notice; (4) clicking on 

‘‘Submit a Comment on this 

Regulation;’’ and (5) completing the 

form. For a given electronic comment, 

any information placed in the following 

fields—‘‘Title,’’ ‘‘First Name,’’ ‘‘Last 

Name,’’ ‘‘Organization Name,’’ ‘‘State,’’

‘‘Comment,’’ and ‘‘Attachment’’—will 

be publicly available on the FTC Web 

site. The fields marked with an asterisk 

on the form are required in order for the 

FTC to fully consider a particular 

comment. Commenters may choose not 

to fill in one or more of those fields, but 

if they do so, their comments may not 

be considered. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should 

additionally be submitted to: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Attention: Desk Officer for Federal 

Trade Commission. Comments should 

be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395–

6974 because U.S. postal mail at the 

Office of Management and Budget is 

subject to lengthy delays due to 

heightened security precautions. Such 

comments should also be sent to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–159 (Annex Q), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments, whether filed in 

paper or electronic form, will be 

considered by the Commission, and will 

be available to the public on the FTC 

Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to the 

extent practicable. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/

ftc/privacy.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Toby M. Levin and Loretta Garrison, 

Attorneys, (202) 326–3224, Division of 

Financial Practices, Federal Trade 

Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

214 of the FACT Act requires the Office 

of the Comptroller of the Currency, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 

Supervision, National Credit Union 

Administration, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, and FTC 

(collectively, ‘‘the Agencies’’) to issue 

coordinated regulations that implement 

a new section 624 of the FCRA that 

gives consumers the right to restrict 

companies from using certain 

information obtained from an affiliate to 

make marketing solicitations. 

On June 15, 2004 the Commission 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and invited comment on the 

proposed rule, setting July 20, 2004, as 

the deadline for comments. The other 

agencies charged with rulemaking under 

FCRA Section 624 have published their 

notices of proposed rulemaking more 

recently, and have set later deadlines for 

receiving comments. The FTC has 

determined to extend its deadline for 

comments to August 16, 2004. This 

extension may encourage additional 

comment on the various proposals, and 

will facilitate the Agencies’ coordinated 

analysis of comments received on the 

rulemaking.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16619 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Chapter 1

Meeting of the No Child Left Behind 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior.

ACTION: Announcement of negotiated 

rulemaking committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior 

has established an advisory Committee 

to develop recommendations for 

proposed rules for Indian education 

under six sections of the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001. As required by the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, we are 

announcing the date and location of the 

next meeting of the No Child Left 

Behind Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee. The purpose of the meeting 

is the review of public comments that 

we received on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published February 25, 

2004, in the Federal Register.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43547

DATES: The Committee’s next meeting 

will be held August 10–13, 2004, in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. The meeting 

will begin at 8:30 p.m. (m.s.t.) on 

Tuesday, August 10 and end at 5 p.m. 

(m.s.t.) on Friday, August 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Old Town, 800 Rio Grande 

Blvd, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, 

(505) 843–6300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawna Smith, No Child Left Behind 

Negotiated Rulemaking Project 

Management Office, P.O. Box 1430, 

Albuquerque, NM 87103–1430; 

telephone (505) 248–7241/6569; fax 

(505) 248–7242; e-mail ssmith@bia.edu. 

We will post additional information as 

it becomes available on the Office of 

Indian Education Programs Web site 

under ‘‘Negotiated Rulemaking’’ at

http://www.oiep.bia.edu.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more 

information on negotiated rulemaking 

under the No Child Left Behind Act, see 

the Federal Register notices published 

on December 10, 2002 (67 FR 75828) 

and May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23631) or the 

Web site at http://www.oiep.bia.edu

under ‘‘Negotiated Rulemaking.’’

The Committee will meet to review 

public comments on six proposed rules 

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

published on February 25, 2004 at 69 FR 

8752. The six rules cover: (1) Defining 

adequate yearly progress; (2) 

establishing separate geographic 

attendance areas; (3) establishing a 

formula for determining the minimum 

amount necessary to fund Bureaufunded schools; (4) establishing a 

system of direct funding and support of 

all Bureau-funded schools under the 

formula established in the Act; (5) 

establishing guidelines to ensure the 

Constitutional and civil rights of Indian 

students; (6) and establishing a method 

for administering grants to triballycontrolled schools. 

There is no requirement for advance 

registration for members of the public 

who wish to attend and observe the 

Committee meeting. The public 

comment period for the six rules ended 

June 24, 2004, and we cannot accept 

public comments at this meeting. 

The agenda for the meeting is as 

follows: 

No Child Left Behind Negotiated 

Rulemaking 

August 10–13, 2004

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Agenda 

Purpose of Meeting: Review public 

comments on six proposed rules under 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

and develop recommendations for final 

rules. 

(Breaks at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. each day 

and lunch at 12 p.m.–1:30 p.m.) 

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

8:30 a.m.–9:30 a.m. 

Opening Remarks 

Introductions 

Review Protocols 

Review Agenda 

9:45 a.m.–5 p.m. 

Develop working plan for the week. 

Review public comments. 

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

8:30 a.m.–5 p.m. 

Review public comments. 

Thursday, August 12, 2004

8:30 a.m.–5 p.m. 

Review public comments. 

Friday, August 13, 2004

8:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m. 

Review public comments 3:30 p.m.–5 

p.m. 

Closing remarks 

Adjourn

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

David W. Anderson, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–16657 Filed 7–19–04; 10:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Parts 30, 37, 39, 42, 44, 47 

RIN 1076–AE49 

Home-living Programs and School 

Closure and Consolidation

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: As required by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001, the Secretary 

of the Interior has developed proposed 

regulations using negotiated rulemaking 

that address the following issues: 

Defining adequate yearly progress, 

which is the measurement for 

determining that schools are providing 

quality education; establishing separate 

geographic attendance areas for Bureaufunded schools; establishing a formula 

for determining the minimum amount 

necessary to fund Bureau-funded 

schools; establishing a system of direct 

funding and support of all Bureaufunded schools under the formula 

established in the Act; establishing 

guidelines to ensure the Constitutional 

and civil rights of Indian students; and 

establishing a method for administering 

grants to tribally controlled schools. The 

Secretary is reopening the comment 

period for 10 days to allow submission 

of comments by the Department of 

Education and other interested parties.

DATES: Comments are due by the close 

of business on August 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the number 1076–AE51, by 

any of the following methods: 

Direct Internet response: http://

www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/

index.html, or at http://www.blm.gov, or 

at regulations.gov under Indian Affairs 

Bureau. 

Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land 

Management, Eastern States Office, 7450 

Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 

22153, Attention: RIN 1076–AE51. 

Hand delivery: 1620 L Street NW., 

Room 401, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Freels, Designated Federal 

Official, PO Box 1430, Albuquerque, 

NM 87103–1430; Phone: 505–248–7240; 

e-mail: cfreels@bia.edu.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Interior published 

proposed rules on February 25, 2004 (69 

FR 8751), that address the following 

issues: (1) Defining adequate yearly 

progress, which is the measurement for 

determining that schools are providing 

quality education; (2) establishing 

separate geographic attendance areas for 

Bureau-funded schools; (3) establishing 

a formula for determining the minimum 

amount necessary to fund Bureaufunded schools; (4) establishing a 

system of direct funding and support of 

all Bureau-funded schools under the 

formula established in the Act; (5) 

establishing guidelines to ensure the 

Constitutional and civil rights of Indian 

students; and (6) establishing a method 

for administering grants to tribally 

controlled schools. We published these 

rules to implement part of the 

requirements of the No Child Left 

Behind Act (Pub. L. 107–110; enacted 

January 8, 2002). The comment period 

for the proposed rules ended on June 24, 

2004. Since then, we have learned that 

the Department of Education has 

developed comments on the rules. In 

order to allow time for the Department 

of Education and any other interested 

parties to submit comments for 

consideration during development of 

the final rules, we are reopening the 

comment period for 10 days. During this 

period we will accept comments on any 

aspect of the rules from any interested 

parties.

43548 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Although these rules are published by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the 

Bureau of Land Management is 

processing comments under agreement 

with BIA. If you wish to comment on 

these proposed rules, you may submit 

your comments by any one of several 

methods: 

(1) You may mail comments to 

Director (630), Bureau of Land 

Management, Eastern States Office, 7450 

Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 

22153, Attention: RIN 1076–AE51. 

(2) You may submit comments 

electronically by direct Internet 

response to either http://www.blm.gov/

nhp/news/regulatory/index.html, or 

http://www.blm.gov, or at 

regulations.gov under Indian Affairs 

Bureau. 

(3) You may hand-deliver comments 

to 1620 L Street, NW., Room 401, 

Washington, DC 20036. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record. We will honor 

the request to the extent allowable by 

law. There may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

David W. Anderson, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–16658 Filed 7–19–04; 10:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0191; FRL–7365–5]

Pesticides: Tolerance Exemptions for 

Crustacea, Eggs, Fish, Milk, Peanuts, 

Soybeans, Tree Nuts, and Wheat

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

establish an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of peanuts, tree nuts, milk, soybeans, 

eggs, fish, crustacea, and/or wheat when 

used as inert or active ingredients in 

pesticide products, for certain use 

patterns, under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the 

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

ID number OPP–2004–0191, must be 

received on or before September 20, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID number OPP–

2004–0191, by one of the following 

methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments.

Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/

edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.

E-mail: Comments may be sent by email to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: 

Docket ID Number OPP–2004–0191.

Mail: Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office 

of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0191.

Hand delivery: Public Information 

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0191. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number OPP–2004–0191. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the regulations.gov 

websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’

systems, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through EDOCKET or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102) 

(FRL–7181–7).

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket/. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6304; fax number: (703) 305–

0599; e-mail address: 

boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Industry (NAICS 111), e.g., crop 

production.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43549

• Industry (NAICS 32532), e.g., 

pesticide manufacturing. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document and Other Related 

Information?

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:/

/www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 

access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. 

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action?

This proposed rule is issued under 

section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public 

Law 104–170). Section 408(e) of FFDCA 

authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or 

revoke tolerances, or exemptions from 

the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of pesticide chemicals in or on 

raw agricultural commodities and 

processed foods.

III. Background

In the Federal Register of May 24, 

2002 (67 FR 36534) (FRL–6834–8), the 

Agency placed an expiration date of 

May 24, 2005, on the following 

tolerance exemptions for allergencontaining commodities:

40 CFR Tolerance Exemption 

180.910 formerly 

180.1001(c)

Casein

180.910 formerly 

180.1001(c)

Fish meal

180.910 formerly 

180.1001(c)

Soy protein, isolated

180.910 formerly 

180.1001(c)

Soybean flour

180.910 formerly 

180.1001(c)

Wheat, including 

flour, bran, 

and starch

180.920 formerly 

180.1001(d)

Sodium caseinate

180.930 formerly 

180.1001(e)

Soy protein, isolated

180.930 formerly 

180.1001(e)

Wheat shorts

180.1071 Egg solids 

(whole)

The 3–year expiration date was added 

to give the Agency time to examine the 

use patterns of allergens used in 

pesticide products and notify affected 

registrants of any concerns this 

examination disclosed with use of these 

substances. (See the January 15, 2002, 

Federal Register (67 FR 1925) (FRL–

6807–8) for additional information). 

Registrants would also have the same 3 

years to consider their options and then 

carry-out the actions needed to maintain 

their registrations.

IV. What Action is the Agency Taking?

Since placing the May 24, 2005, 

expiration date on the food allergen 

tolerance exemptions, the Agency has 

completed its review of the various 

ways that chemical substances such as 

food allergens are used in pesticide 

products. In this proposed rule, the 

Agency is proposing to establish 

tolerance exemptions for certain 

specified uses of the raw and processed 

forms of crustacea, eggs, fish, milk, 

peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, and wheat. 

The following types of uses are 

proposed: 

• When used in seed treatment 

products. 

• Nursery, potting and container 

uses. 

• Pre-plant and at-transplant 

applications. 

• Incorporation into seedling and 

planting beds. 

• Applications to cuttings and bare 

roots. 

• Applications that occur after the 

harvested crop has been removed. 

• Soil-directed applications around 

and adjacent to all plants. 

• Applications to rangelands, which 

is land, mostly grasslands, whose plants 

can provide food (i.e., forage) for grazing 

or browsing animals. 

• When used in chemigation and 

irrigation via flood, drip, or furrow 

application. 

• Application as part of a dry 

fertilizer on which an active ingredient 

is impregnated. 

• Aerial and ground applications 

that occur when no above-ground 

harvestable food commodities are 

present (usually pre-bloom). 

• Application as part of an animal 

feed-through product. 

• Applications as gel and solid (nonliquid/non-spray) crack and crevice 

treatments that place the gel or bait 

directly into or on top of the cracks and 

crevices via a mechanism such as a 

syringe. 

• Applications to the same crop from 

which the food commodity is derived, 

e.g., applications of peanut meal when 

applied to peanut plants. 

43550 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s intent is to establish 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance for these allergen-containing 

substances only for those uses which are 

unlikely to result in residues of an 

allergen-containing material mixed-in 

with other (different) food commodities 

as a result of a pesticide application. 

With the exception of the last three 

uses, the uses described above are soildirected, or occur at a time that the crop 

is not present. If these allergens are 

placed directly in/on the soil (no matter 

the application method), then it could 

be expected that degradation via 

naturally-occurring mechanisms would 

occur.

Animal feed-through products are 

used to control flies in manure. Most 

animal feed-through products contain 

an active ingredient that is coated on a 

small amount of an animal feed item. 

The animal feed item could be an 

allergen-containing material such as 

wheat. This coated animal feed item is 

then mixed in with the usual animal 

feed items. The animal’s consumption 

of small amounts of allergens as a result 

of this tolerance exemption should not 

impact their production of meat, milk, 

poultry and eggs for human 

consumption, and should not result in 

residues of allergenic-materials in food 

commodities.

Applications of gel and solid (nonliquid/non-spray) crack and crevice 

treatments that contain allergens are 

also not expected to result in residues 

in food. Food commodities can play a 

critical role in certain pesticide 

formulations used in food processing 

areas to control rodent populations. The 

rodents are attracted to and then 

consume the food which is coated with 

or contains within the active pesticide 

ingredient. The Agency believes that 

these solid gel and bait formulations 

that are not sprayed, but directly placed 

in cracks and crevices would not be 

inadvertently mixed-in with the near-by 

food commodities.

The Agency believes that aerial and 

ground applications, that are not soildirected, but take place when no aboveground harvestable food is present are 

unlikely to result in residues in food. It 

is assumed that some of the allergen 

could come in contact with the growing 

plant and in certain cases the 

developing edible crop. EPA generally 

believes that the allergenic material 

would not be taken up by the growing 

plant, due to such factors as the large 

size of the molecules and the difficulty 

of passing through the plant leaf cuticle 

layer, but no definitive information is 

available. While it can be hypothesized 

that the allergenic material would 

simply ‘‘slide off’’ certain developing 

crops that have smooth surfaces and 

semi-spherical exteriors (e.g., apple, 

orange, banana, grape or tomato), the 

allergen might also be enfolded in crops 

that do not have such characteristics 

such as lettuce or spinach. The Agency 

would welcome additional information 

on these issues during the comment 

period.

The intent of these tolerance 

exemptions is to protect those with 

allergies from being unknowingly 

exposed to these most common 

allergens via consumed foods. However, 

there are those who are not allergic and 

willingly consume foods such as 

peanuts or wheat. Application of a 

pesticide product containing wheat to 

stored wheat commodities does not 

create concerns for those who are not 

allergic to wheat. Therefore, 

applications to the same crop from 

which the food commodity is derived, 

are proposed to be exempted because 

any residue from the allergen would not 

present a different allergenic risk than 

the underlying food commodity.

Post-harvest applications of these 

allergen-containing materials to stored 

food commodities are not being 

proposed because those with allergies 

need assurance that the foods that they 

consume do not contain small amounts 

of allergen-containing materials that are 

introduced via the application of a 

registered pesticide product. The 

existing time-limited tolerance 

exemptions in 40 CFR 180.910, 180.920, 

and 180.930 will expire on May 24, 

2005. There is no plan to extend these 

tolerance exemptions. Registrants of 

formulations with post-harvest uses 

containing these eight allergens have 

been notified by certified mail of the 

upcoming expiration date by the 

Agency.

V. What about Chemical Substances 

Whose Names Are Not Readily 

Identified as an Allergen-Containing 

Commodity?

The relationship of the processed food 

commodity to the food commodity from 

which it is derived may not always be 

apparent by the name. For example, 

casein is milk protein. Currently, there 

are time-limited exemptions for casein 

and sodium caseinate.

To improve communication and to 

avoid repeated questions on the 

tolerance exemption status of the certain 

chemical substances, the Agency 

intends to create within 40 CFR 

180.1071, a paragraph (b) to collect 

tolerance exemptions for foodcommodity types of chemical 

substances derived fromcrustacea, eggs, 

fish, milk, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, 

or wheat that must also be avoided by 

those with certain food allergies, and 

present them using commonlyunderstood terms.

As stated above, there are timelimited exemptions for casein and 

sodium caseinate. The tolerance 

exemption for sodium caseinate is easily 

understood to be the following chemical 

substance: Caseins, sodium complexes 

(CAS Reg. No. 9005–46–3). However, 

the tolerance exemption for casein has 

been used as a generalized term to hold 

several casein chemical substances, 

which includes the ammonium and 

potassium salts as well as the 

hydrolyzed form of casein. To provide 

specificity on the food-commodity types 

of chemical substances that could be 

termed casein, tolerance exemptions are 

proposed for: Caseins (CAS Reg. No. 

9000–71–9); caseins, ammonium 

complexes (CAS Reg. No. 9005–42–9); 

caseins, hydrolyzates (CAS Reg. No. 

65072–00–6); and caseins, potassium 

complexes (CAS Reg. No. 68131–54–4).

VI. Cumulative Effects from Substances 

with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’

The raw and processed forms of the 

eight most common food 

allergens:crustacea, eggs, fish, milk, 

peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, and wheat 

do not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not 

assumed that these chemical substances 

have a common mechanism of toxicity 

with other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see the policy statements 

released by EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs concerning common 

mechanism determinations and 

procedures for cumulating effects from 

substances found to have a common 

mechanism on EPA’s website at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/. 

VII. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children

The substances considered in this 

proposed rule are the food commodities 

that most commonly can invoke an 

allergenic response. The intent of these 

tolerance exemptions is to protect those 

with allergies from being unknowingly 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43551

exposed to these most common 

allergens via consumed foods. The 

Agency has selected for this proposal 

only those uses that are unlikely to 

result in residues of an allergencontaining material mixed-in with other 

(different) food commodities as a result 

of a pesticide application. Those who 

are allergic to the eight most common 

food allergens (crustacea, eggs, fish, 

milk, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, and 

wheat) benefit by having greater surety 

that these substances will not be present 

in the foods that they do consume. The 

amendments and revisions to the 

existing tolerance exemptions will be 

beneficial to the regulated community 

by providing detailed information on 

how these allergenic food substances 

can be used in pesticide products. As noted, the Agency is proposing 

only those uses which are unlikely to 

result in residues of an allergencontaining material mixed-in with other 

(different) food commodities as a result 

of a pesticide application. Given this 

fact, EPA believes that the proposed 

tolerance exemption will be safe for 

humans including infants and children. 

Because these exemptions are not 

expected to contribute to allergic 

individuals’ exposure to allergens, EPA 

has not assessed the risk of these 

substances using a safety factor 

approach. Accordingly, application of 

an additional l0X safety factor analysis 

or quantitative risk assessment is not 

necessary to protect infants and 

children.

VIII. Conclusion

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

establish an exemption from the 

requirement for tolerance for peanuts, 

tree nuts, milk (including caseins), 

soybeans, eggs, fish, crustacea, and/or 

wheat when used according to those 

uses (as specified above) which are 

unlikely to result in residues of an 

allergen-containing material mixed-in 

with other (different) food commodities 

as a result of a pesticide application.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews

The Agency is acting on its own 

initiative under FFDCA section 408(e) 

in establishing a tolerance exemption 

for the allergen-containing commodities. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

This proposed rule establishes new 

tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR 

180.1071. Establishing a new tolerance 

exemption permits expanded use of 

pesticide products and thus has a 

positive economic impact. Under 

section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that 

the proposed action to establish a new 

tolerance exemption for allergencontaining materials will not have 

significant negative economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, the Agency has 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that 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.’’ This proposed 

rule directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that 

have tribal implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: July 6, 2004.

Lois Rossi,

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. Section 180.1071 is revised to read 

as follows:

§ 180.1071 Crustacea, Eggs, Fish, Milk, 

Peanuts, Soybeans, Tree Nuts, and Wheat; 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance.

(a) Residues resulting from the 

following uses of the food commodity 

forms of crustacea, eggs, fish, milk,

43552 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, and wheat 

are exempted from the requirement of a 

tolerance under FFDCA section 408 

(when used as either an inert or an 

active ingredient in a pesticide 

formulation), if such use is in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practices: 

(1) Use in pesticide products intended 

to treat seeds. 

(2) Use in nursery and greenhouse 

operations, as defined in 40 CFR 170.3, 

which includes seeding, potting and 

transplanting activities. 

(3) Pre-plant and at-transplant 

applications. 

(4) Incorporation into seedling and 

planting beds. 

(5) Applications to cuttings and bare 

roots. 

(6) Applications to the field that occur 

after the harvested crop has been 

removed. 

(7) Soil-directed applications around 

and adjacent to all plants. 

(8) Applications to rangelands, which 

is land, mostly grasslands, whose plants 

can provide food (i.e., forage) for grazing 

or browsing animals. 

(9) Use in chemigation and irrigation 

via flood, drip, or furrow application. 

(10) Application as part of a dry 

fertilizer on which an active ingredient 

is impregnated. 

(11) Aerial and ground applications 

that occur when no above-ground 

harvestable food commodities are 

present (usually pre-bloom). 

(12) Application as part of an animal 

feed-through product. 

(13) Applications as gel and solid 

(non-liquid/non-spray) crack and 

crevice treatments that place the gel or 

bait directly into or on top of the cracks 

and crevices via a mechanism such as 

a syringe. 

(14) Applications to the same crop 

from which the food commodity is 

derived, e.g., applications of peanut 

meal when applied to peanut plants. 

(b) Specific chemical substances. 

Residues resulting from the use of the 

following substances as either an inert 

or an active ingredient in a pesticide 

formulation are exempted from the 

requirement of a tolerance under 

FFDCA section 408, if such use is in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practices and such use is included in 

paragraph (a) of this section:

Chemical Substance CAS No. 

Caseins ................. 9000–71–9

Caseins, ammonium complexes 9005–42–9

Caseins, 

hydrolyzates ...... 65072–00–6

Caseins, potassium complexes 68131–54–4

Chemical Substance CAS No. 

Caseins, sodium 

complexes ......... 9005–46–3

[FR Doc. 04–16214 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–2048; MB Docket No. 04–249; RM–

10998] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Benton 

and Yazoo City, MS

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by SSR Communications, Inc., 

licensee of Station WYAB(FM), Yazoo 

City, Mississippi, proposing the 

reallotment of Channel 226A from 

Yazoo City, Mississippi to Benton, 

Mississippi, as the community’s first 

local transmission service, and the 

modification of the license for Station 

WYAB(FM) to reflect the changes. The 

coordinates for Channel 226A at Benton 

are 32–50–29 NL and 90–16–28 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before August 30, 2004, and reply 

comments on or before September 14, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve the petitioner as follows: Matthew 

K. Wesolowski, General Manager, SSR 

Communications, Incorporated, 5270 

West Jones Bridge Road, Norcross, 

Georgia 30092–1628.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

04–249, adopted July 7, 2004, and 

released July 9, 2004. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. This document may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractors, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–

800–378–3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

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

Allotments under Mississippi, is 

amended by adding Benton, Channel 

226A, and by removing Channel 226A at 

Yazoo City.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16608 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–2049; MB Docket No. 04–248, RM–

10990] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Pine 

Key, FL

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division requests 

comment on a Petition for Rule Making 

filed by Call Communications Group 

proposing the reservation of vacant 

Channel 239A at Big Pine Key, Florida 

for noncommercial educational use. The 

reference coordinates for Channel 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43553

*239A at Big Pine Key, Florida are 24–

40–0 North Latitude and 81–21–0 West 

Longitude.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before August 30, 2004, and reply 

comments on or before September 14, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

petitioner, as follows: Call 

Communications Group, PO Box 

561532, Miami, Florida 33256–1832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

04–248, adopted July 7, 2004 and 

released July 9, 2004. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

regular business hours at the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this decision may also 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 

www.BCPIWEB.com.

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contact. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

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

Allotments under Flordia, is amended 

by adding Channel *239A and by 

removing Channel 239A at Big Pine 

Key.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16609 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–2053; MM Docket No. 99–275; RM–

9704] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Keno, 

OR

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposal rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a 

petition for rulemaking filed by 

Renaissance Community Improvement 

Association, Inc. proposing the 

allotment of Channel 235A to Keno, 

Oregon. See 64 FR 49135, published 

September 10, 1999. With this action, 

the proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202) 

418–2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in MM Docket No. 99–275, 

adopted July 7, 2004, and released July 

9, 2004. The full text of this decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC’s Reference Information Center at 

Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this decision may also 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–378–3160 or 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is 

not subject to the Congressional Review 

Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not 

required to submit a copy of this Report 

and Order to GAO, pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because this proposed rule 

was dismissed.)

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16610 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04–2068; MB Docket No. 04–252, RM–

10862] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Parker, 

AZ

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b). 

The Commission requests comment on 

a petition filed by Farmworker 

Educational Network, Inc., licensee of 

Station KRIT(FM), Channel 230C3, 

Parker, Arizona. Petitioner proposes the 

substitution of Channel 252B1 for 

Channel 230C3 at Parker, Arizona, and 

the modification of the license of 

Station KRIT(FM) accordingly. Channel 

252B1 can be allotted at Parker in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

minimum distance separation 

requirements with a site restriction of 

12.0 km (7.5 miles) north of Parker. The 

coordinates for Channel 252B1 at Parker 

are 34–14–45 North Latitude and 114–

16–14 West Longitude. The proposed 

allotment is located within 320 

kilometers (199 miles) of the United 

States-Mexico border, so it will be 

necessary to obtain concurrence in the 

allotment from the Government of 

Mexico. Competing expressions of 

interest will not be accepted.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before August 30, 2004, and reply 

comments on or before September 14, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 

418–7072.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

04–252, adopted July 8, 2004, and 

released July 9, 2004. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center (Room 

43554 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s Web site, 

www.bcpiweb.com.

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

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

Allotments under Arizona, is amended 

by removing Channel 230C3 and by 

adding Channel 252B1 at Parker.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16611 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of Revised 90-Day 

Petition Finding and Initiation of a 5-

Year Status Review of the Lost River 

Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a revised 90-day 

petition finding and initiation of a 5-

year status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

revised 90-day finding for a petition to 

remove the Lost River sucker (Deltistes 

luxatus) and shortnose sucker 

(Chasmistes brevirostris) throughout 

their ranges from the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants (List), pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). We find that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

delisting of the Lost River and shortnose 

suckers may be warranted. As a result 

of the 1995, 1996, and 1997 fish die-offs, 

the endangered suckers experienced 

significant losses of thousands of adult 

suckers and have not recovered. 

Although the petition and information 

in our files do not provide new 

information relevant to the status of the 

Lost River and shortnose suckers, we are 

initiating a 5-year review of these 

species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the 

Act to consider any new information 

that has become available as a result of 

recent actions to reduce threats to the 

species, and to provide the States, 

tribes, agencies, university researchers, 

and the public an opportunity to 

provide information on the status of the 

species. We are requesting any new 

information on the Lost River and 

shortnose suckers since their original 

listing as endangered species in 1988 

(53 FR 27130).

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on July 14, 2004. 

To be considered in the 5-year review, 

comments and information should be 

submitted to us by October 31, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, written 

comments and materials, or questions 

concerning this finding and 5-year 

review should be submitted to the Field 

Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 6610 Washburn Way, Klamath 

Falls, Oregon 97603. The petition 

finding, supporting data, and comments 

are available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curt 

Mullis, Field Supervisor, at the above 

address, or at 541–885–8481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that the Service make a finding on 

whether a petition to list, delist, or 

reclassify a species presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we must make the 

finding within 90 days of receipt of the 

petition, and the finding is to be 

published promptly in the Federal 

Register. If we find substantial 

information exists to support the 

petitioned action, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species, if one has not 

already been initiated (50 CFR 424.14). 

‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined as 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

Petitioners need not prove that the 

petitioned action is warranted to 

support a ‘‘substantial’’ finding; instead, 

the key consideration in evaluating a 

petition for substantiality involves 

demonstration of the reliability of the 

information supporting the action 

advocated by the petition (USFWS 

1995). 

The factors for listing, delisting, or 

reclassifying a species are described at 

50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species 

only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available substantiate 

that it is neither endangered nor 

threatened. Delisting may be warranted 

as a result of: (1) Extinction; (2) 

recovery; and/or (3) a determination that 

the original data used for classification 

of the species as endangered or 

threatened were in error. 

A petition to delist the Lost River 

sucker and shortnose sucker, dated 

September 12, 2001, was submitted by 

Mr. Richard A. Gierak, representing 

Interactive Citizens United. Three other 

similar petitions were received and 

treated as comments on Mr. Gierak’s 

petition. On May 14, 2002, the Service 

published its initial finding that the 

petitions to delist the Lost River and 

shortnose suckers did not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that delisting the 

suckers may be warranted (67 FR 

34422). On June 12, 2002, Walt Moden, 

Merle Carpenter, Charles Whitlatch, 

John Bair, Tiffany Baldock, and Dale 

Cross filed a complaint in Federal 

District Court alleging that our initial 

finding on the petition to delist the Lost 

River sucker and shortnose sucker was 

arbitrary and capricious and violated 

the Act (Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service). On September 3, 2003, the 

court ruled that our finding was 

arbitrary and capricious because it 

reached unexplained conclusions not 

supported by the administrative record. 

The court remanded the initial finding, 

and ordered us to either reissue the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43555

initial finding with further explanation 

or proceed to a status review. Consistent 

with the court’s order, the Service has 

rewritten the original finding, clarifying 

our analysis as well as addressing 

additional comments made by the court 

and the petitioners.

Species Information 

The Lost River sucker and shortnose 

sucker are two fishes that naturally 

occur only in the upper Klamath Basin 

of southern Oregon and northern 

California. Both species primarily reside 

in lake habitats and spawn in tributary 

streams or at springs and shoreline areas 

within Upper Klamath Lake. 

Historically, the two species were very 

numerous in shallow lakes that 

occurred in the upper basin and made 

spawning migrations up the rivers of the 

Upper Klamath basin. Concentrations of 

migrating and spawning suckers were 

exploited as a food source by Native 

Americans and white settlers. The 

habitat of the two species has been 

highly modified, owing to water 

development projects, and has 

contributed to their listing (USFWS 

1998). 

The Lost River sucker and shortnose 

sucker are long-lived species, reaching 

ages of over 30 years. Also, both species 

are highly fecund, being capable of 

producing larger numbers of eggs, and 

are more tolerant of poor water quality 

conditions than trout (USFWS 2001). 

These factors should make the suckers 

adaptable to drought and other adverse 

conditions (USFWS 1992). However, 

because current water quality 

conditions in Upper Klamath Lake and 

other areas are so adverse, there is 

considerable mortality. Few young 

suckers are produced during drought 

years and there is a regular order-ofmagnitude decrease in juvenile sucker 

numbers from summer to fall. For 

successful recruitment to occur, young 

fish must survive to spawn, but 

substantial recruitment of subadult fish 

into the spawning population has been 

rare (USFWS 2001). In a 2002 biological 

opinion, the Service examined data 

relevant to recruitment and found: ‘‘The 

available data show evidence for 

relatively substantial recruitment of 

smaller fish into the Williamson River 

population of Lost River sucker and 

shortnose sucker in only a few of the 

last eighteen years.’’ The data also show 

that there is substantial recruitment into 

the shoreline spawning population of 

Lost River suckers for only a few of the 

last fifteen years (USFWS 2002). Also, 

there is apparently low survivorship 

over the first winter, suggesting that fall/

winter survival is low (USFWS 2002). 

Die-offs in 1995, 1996, and 1997 have 

killed many of the older fish, thus 

reducing the ability of the populations 

to reproduce. Over 6,000 dead adult 

suckers were collected following a 1996 

fish die-off, and this figure likely 

represented only a small fraction of the 

total that died (USFWS 2001). 

Following the 1995 through 1997 fish 

die-offs, the Sprague River spawning 

index declined 80 to 90 percent for the 

two suckers (USFWS 2001). Therefore, 

current conditions, including poor 

water quality and low lake levels 

resulting from drought, pose a serious 

risk to even tolerant and adaptive fish 

like suckers. (The spawning index is an 

indicator of the relative number of 

suckers that migrate in the Sprague 

River during the spring spawning 

period. Nets to survey suckers are put in 

the river weekly over the entire 

spawning season. The index is 

calculated by taking the average number 

of suckers caught per day per net and 

summing the averages over the season. 

While the spawning index is not 

necessarily the most accurate measure 

of population size, because individual 

suckers may not spawn every year and 

the capture efficiency of nets can be 

affected by water clarity, currents, 

debris loading, and other factors, it is a 

good indicator of trends when measured 

over a long period of time. Therefore, 

current conditions, including poor 

water quality and low lake levels 

resulting from drought, pose a serious 

risk to even tolerant and adaptive fish 

like suckers.

The two sucker species were federally 

listed as endangered in 1988 (53 FR 

27130). The original listing and status 

assessments conducted in 2001 and 

2002 and included in two biological 

opinions on the operations of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath 

Project (USFWS 2001, 2002) concluded 

that the suckers were still subject to the 

following threats: (1) Drastically 

reduced adult populations and 

reduction in range; (2) extensive habitat 

loss, degradation and fragmentation; (3) 

small or isolated adult populations; (4) 

isolation of existing populations by 

dams (passage); (5) poor water quality 

leading to large fish die-offs and 

reduced fitness; (6) lack of sufficient 

recruitment; (7) entrainment into 

irrigation and hydropower diversions; 

(8) hybridization with the other native 

Klamath sucker species; (9) potential 

competition with introduced exotic 

fishes; and (10) lack of regulatory 

protection from Federal actions that 

might adversely affect or jeopardize the 

species. These status assessments drew 

upon information from all published 

and unpublished reports on the biology, 

distribution, and status of the listed 

sucker species in the Klamath region 

and the ecosystem on which they 

depend. The assessments also included 

and considered new information that 

was available. 

Discussion of Petition 

The petition states that delisting of 

the Lost River and shortnose suckers 

should occur because, either: (1) The 

estimates of the sucker populations in 

the 1980s were in error and did not, in 

fact, demonstrate a precipitous decline 

(i.e., sucker populations in the 1980s 

were much larger than assumed); or (2) 

the estimates of the sucker populations 

in the 1980s were reasonably accurate, 

and the suckers have demonstrated an 

enormous boom in the period since 

listing and no longer exhibit 

‘‘endangered’’ status (i.e., sucker 

populations have increased and are no 

longer endangered). 

The petition’s supporting 

documentation consists of an excerpt 

(four pages and ‘‘Figures 2 & 3’’) from 

testimony by David A. Vogel before the 

U.S. House Committee on Resources 

(Vogel 2001), five bibliographic 

references, and eight footnotes. The 

referenced testimony concerns sucker 

population estimates from the 1950s to 

1997, which are included in the petition 

as a table labeled ‘‘Figure 2.’’ Figure 2 

provides selective information for the 

two sucker species from three time 

periods: pre-1980s (1950s–1976), 1980s, 

and 1990s (see Table 1 below). While 

this table displays population estimates 

that are higher since listing, we find that 

comparisons of population sizes preand post-listing using these data are 

invalid because: (1) Data were obtained 

using different methods and models, 

and assumptions used by those models 

were violated; and (2) the estimates do 

not refer to the same populations. These 

limitations are explained below.

43556 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED LOST RIVER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER POPULATIONS FROM PETITION FIGURE 2 

Species 1950s-early 

1960s 1970 1976 1984 1985 1986 1987 1996 1997 

Lost River Sucker .. Unknown ..... Unknown ..... Unknown ..... 23,123 11,861 6,000 Unknown ..... 94,000 46,000 

Shortnose Sucker .. Extremely 

low (<200).

Very rare ..... 200–1,000 ... 2,650 1,490 500 Only 20 seen 252,000 146,000 

The petitioners state that sucker 

populations in the 1980s were much 

larger than assumed at listing and 

therefore listing was unnecessary. In 

support of this statement, the petitioner 

refers to Mr. Vogel’s testimony 

concerning sucker population estimates, 

which were included in the petition 

(and reproduced as Figure 1) in this 

finding. 

In response to the court’s questions in 

its remand regarding the significance of 

supplementary information concerning 

sucker populations prior to the listing in 

1988, we also considered data contained 

in supplementary references provided 

by the plaintiffs, including a letter from 

Craig Beinz (The Klamath Tribes) (Beinz 

1986); meeting notes of the Sucker 

Working Group (Williams 1986); a 

USFWS memorandum (USFWS 1986); 

and a Service endangered species 

technical bulletin (USFWS 1987). These 

documents emphasize the drastic 

decline in sucker populations in the 

1980s and the need for Federal 

protection, and thus supported the 1988 

listing.

The sucker population information for 

the 1980s provided by the petitioners 

and reproduced above in Table 1 was 

obtained from surveys jointly conducted 

by the Klamath Tribes and Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife from 

1984 through 1986, and was produced 

in a final report by Bienz and Ziller 

(1987) titled ‘‘Status of Three Lacustrine 

Sucker Species (Catostomidae).’’ Sucker 

population information in this report 

was considered by the Service in the 

original listing and in the two status 

assessments (USFWS 1988, 2001, 2002). 

Bienz and Ziller (1987) focused on 

sucker populations that spawned in the 

Sprague River, the major tributary of the 

lake and the primary spawning site for 

Upper Klamath Lake suckers, because it 

was believed that the sport fishery on 

that river was adversely impacting the 

sucker populations. Bienz and Ziller 

(1987) noted significant declines in the 

numbers and sizes of suckers caught 

over the 3 years of their study and 

concluded: ‘‘Lost River and shortnose 

suckers appear headed for extirpation 

from Upper Klamath and Agency lakes 

***’’

Table 1, above, shows evidence that 

suckers spawning in the Sprague River 

very likely experienced a precipitous 

decline between 1984 and 1986, 

consistent with the supporting literature 

provided by the petitioners and 

consistent with the final listing rule 

(USFWS 1988). Therefore, information 

referenced in the petition supports the 

fact that sucker populations prior to 

listing experienced significant declines. 

Consequently, the information cited in 

the petitions corroborates the Service’s 

1988 determination that listing was 

warranted. 

The petition did not provide any 

information about the status of the 

suckers during the period between the 

1950s and 1976 other than what is 

presented above in Table 1. The 2001 

biological opinion reviewed this early 

data and found that creel surveys 

indicated an increase in the Sprague 

River harvest between 1966 and 1969 

and then a sharp decline by 1974 

(USFWS 2001). 

The petitioners state that the suckers 

no longer exhibit ‘‘endangered’’ status 

because their populations have 

dramatically increased since listing, 

citing the referenced testimony, 

including various brief statements 

concerning additional aspects of the 

sucker’s status. These statements are 

reviewed below. 

Table 1, above, provides estimates of 

sucker population sizes for the Upper 

Klamath Lake in 1996 and 1997. 

Although the original source of the 

estimates is not referenced in the 

petitions, the Service believes the data 

are from a draft report entitled 

‘‘Information on the Population 

Dynamics of Shortnose and Lost River 

Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, 

Oregon,’’ written by U. S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) staff in 1998, following 

their spring and summer sampling of 

adult sucker populations in Upper 

Klamath Lake and recovery of dead 

suckers in the 1996 through 1997 fish 

die-offs (Shively 2002, 2003). 

The USGS did not finalize the draft 

report on the population estimates, 

owing to concerns that the implicit 

assumptions in the methods they used 

to estimate population sizes may have 

been violated and due to concerns 

associated with the data’s statistical 

limitations (Shively 2002). As a result, 

the information from this report that 

was referenced in the petition regarding 

population increases is unreliable. With 

regard to the 1997 estimate, the Service 

concluded that a violation had likely 

occurred in both of the assumptions in 

the mark and recapture method (i.e.,

that marked fish are randomly mixed in 

the population, and all fish have equal 

probability of being recaptured) 

(USFWS 2001). Because of inherent 

problems with these data, the Services 

did not include them in the body of its 

2002 biological opinion, but instead 

included the population estimates in an 

appendix, where we carefully and fully 

explained their limitations (USFWS 

2002). 

Others have also concluded that the 

1996 and 1997 population estimates 

based on the fish die-offs are unreliable, 

including Dr. D. Anderson, a specialist 

in the analysis of mark and recapture 

data to estimate fish and wildlife 

population sizes (Anderson 2003); the 

State of Oregon’s Independent 

Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST 

2003); and the National Academy of 

Science’s National Research Council’s 

Committee on Endangered and 

Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River 

Basin (NRC 2003). The IMST concluded 

their review with the statement, ‘‘At this 

time, it is not possible to accurately 

determine the current total abundance 

of suckers in Upper Klamath Lake or the 

trend in abundance over the past 15+ 

years with reliability’’ (IMST 2003). The 

NRC, which had included the 1996 

through 1997 population estimates in 

their 2002 draft interim report (NRC 

2002), removed the population 

estimates from their final report and 

concluded their evaluation of 

population sizes with the statement: 

‘‘For purposes of ESA actions, the 

critical facts, which are known with a 

high degree of certainty, are that the fish 

are much less abundant than they 

originally were and that they are not 

showing an increase in overall 

abundance’’ (NRC 2003).

Additionally, the 1996 through 1997 

population estimates were derived from 

dead suckers collected during extensive 

summer die-offs, and therefore those 

data were applicable to population sizes 

prior to the die-offs. Based on catches of 

migrating suckers in the Williamson 

River, the USGS found that the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43557

spawning index had declined 97 

percent for both species of suckers 

between 1995 and 1999 (USFWS 2002). 

There has been an increase in the 

spawning index for Lost River suckers 

since 1999, but it has not reached the 

1995 levels. Spawning indices for 

shortnose suckers are showing little 

recovery and if a substantial number of 

adults die in the near future, the 

population could plummet. Therefore, 

the information in the petition and in 

our files, rather than showing healthy 

populations in the 1990s, depicts 

populations subject to high adult 

mortality and showing inadequate 

recruitment. Consequently the data 

suggest a downward trend occurred in 

population sizes (USFWS 2002). This 

addresses a concern raised by the court 

on page 19 of the Opinion and Order 

regarding apparent trends in the 

population information. The trend that 

is apparent in the 1990s is one that is 

downward. 

On page 18 of the Opinion and Order, 

the court pointed out that the 2001 

status report does not explore the 

differences in methodology between 

estimates in the 1980s and the 1990s, 

except to say that ‘‘no accurate 

population estimate was available.’’ As 

we noted through the clarification 

above, data collected in the 1980s were 

based on sampling in the Sprague River, 

while those obtained in the 1990s were 

based on dead suckers recovered from 

the Upper Klamath Lake fish die-offs. 

The population estimates, 1980s v.

1990s, are not comparable because the 

1990s estimates are unreliable, as the 

USGS has stated, because those data 

failed to meet necessary model 

assumptions. Also, the estimates from 

the Sprague River are only for suckers 

that spawn in particular reaches of the 

Sprague River, whereas data from the 

die-offs likely represented suckers from 

several populations that might spawn in 

other river reaches or along the 

shoreline of the lake. Therefore the data 

are not comparable, because one data set 

has been invalidated and the data were 

not from the same populations. 

Information in the petitions noted that 

the Upper Klamath Lake sucker 

populations have experienced 

substantial recruitment in recent years 

and also exhibit recruitment every year. 

For recruitment to occur, young suckers 

must survive to spawn. Although the 

Upper Klamath Lake sucker populations 

appear to spawn and produce some 

young every year, significant 

recruitment into the spawning 

population is infrequent (USFWS 2002). 

From 1988 to 2001, only two relatively 

strong cohorts (i.e., those born in 1991 

and 1993) have recruited into the 

spawning populations (USFWS 2002). 

The petitioners referenced testimony 

that populations of both Lost River and 

shortnose sucker in Clear Lake 

Reservoir, and the population of 

shortnose sucker in Gerber Reservoir, 

are more abundant than reported at the 

time of listing and exhibit good 

recruitment. Clear Lake and Gerber 

Reservoir are much smaller than Upper 

Klamath Lake, and therefore have 

smaller sucker populations. The recent 

status assessments of the suckers 

considered this information (USFWS 

2001, 2002). However, available data 

shows that older suckers may be absent 

and the populations are physically and 

genetically isolated by dams from the 

rest of the Upper Klamath Basin. 

Because of the small size of the 

reservoirs and inadequate inflows 

during prolonged droughts, those 

populations may be subject to extinction 

if water levels get so low that the 

reservoirs are dry, if predators consume 

the fish, or if water quality gets too poor 

for survival (USFWS 2001, 2002). 

Following the drought of 1992, Clear 

Lake reached levels so low that it 

contained only 5 percent of its full 

capacity. If that drought would have 

continued, much of the reservoir would 

have been dry the following year 

(USFWS 2002). Droughts also may 

prevent suckers from reaching upstream 

spawning areas because access is 

blocked (USFWS 2002). Following 

droughts, suckers appear to be stressed 

and in poor health (USFWS 2002). 

The petitioners additionally 

referenced testimony that the 

geographic range of the suckers is 

greater than believed at the time of 

listing in 1988. The recent status 

assessments of the suckers reflect that 

the known geographic ranges of the two 

suckers have not changed substantially 

since listing (USFWS 2001, 2002). At 

the time of listing, shortnose and Lost 

River suckers were reported from Upper 

Klamath Lake, its tributaries, Lost River, 

Clear Lake Reservoir, the Klamath River, 

and the three Klamath River reservoirs 

(Copco, Iron Gate, and J.C. Boyle). The 

two additional shortnose sucker and one 

additional Lost River sucker 

populations that have been recognized 

since listing are within the Lost River 

drainage, which was identified as part 

of the species’ range at the time of 

listing. The populations occur in 

isolated sections of the Lost River 

drainage and are separated from other 

populations by dams. They include a 

small population of each species in Tule 

Lake (including the lower Lost River 

below Anderson Rose Dam), which are 

apparently limited to several hundred 

adults for each species, and an isolated 

population of shortnose suckers in 

Gerber Reservoir of unknown size. 

Because the additional sucker 

populations were within the known 

range at the time of listing, we do not 

consider the additional populations as 

representing a substantial increase in 

the geographic range. 

The petitioners referenced testimony 

that the sucker populations in the 

Klamath River reservoirs are more 

abundant and widespread than assumed 

at the time of listing. At the time of 

listing, a ‘‘substantial’’ population of 

shortnose suckers was reported from 

Copco Reservoir, with additional 

collections from Iron Gate and J.C. Boyle 

reservoirs. Lost River suckers were 

reported to have been collected from all 

three reservoirs but have been 

practically eliminated from Copco 

Reservoir. More recent sampling in the 

Klamath River reservoirs indicates these 

populations are not large and there is no 

evidence that these reservoir 

populations are self sustaining (USFWS 

2001, 2002).

The petitioners also referenced 

testimony that hybridization among the 

species of suckers in the Klamath Basin 

was assumed to be a threat in the 1988 

listing, but is now known not to be as 

problematic. The recent status 

assessment of the suckers reflects that 

ongoing genetic and morphological 

studies have confirmed that 

hybridization has resulted in genes from 

one species being transferred to another 

species and has occurred among the 

four species of suckers native to the 

Klamath Basin (USFWS 2001, 2002). 

The 2002 assessment found that some 

hybridization may be natural within 

Klamath suckers. However, the 

biological and conservation 

implications of hybridization, as well as 

the degree to which recent man-made 

changes to the Klamath Basin have 

altered the natural rate of hybridization, 

are still unresolved, and therefore the 

degree of the threat is unknown 

(USFWS 2002). 

All of the issues discussed in the 

petitioner’s referenced testimony, i.e., 

mid-1990s population sizes, 

recruitment, geographic range, and 

hybridization, are addressed in the 

recent biological opinions that assessed 

the species’ status and found that the 

endangered suckers are faced with 

continued threats to their populations 

(USFWS 2001, 2002). The quantitative 

comparisons among population 

estimates pre- and post listing provided 

by the petitioners and reproduced in 

Table 1 above are not informative owing 

to differences in methods and violations 

of model assumptions. Nevertheless, it 

43558 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

appears likely that some population 

increase occurred in the mid-1990s 

following cessation of the sport fishery 

and owing to a large 1991 year class 

recruiting into the adult sucker 

populations in the mid-1990s. However, 

three consecutive years of water-qualityrelated die-offs in 1995 through 1997 

killed a major portion of the adult 

populations (USFWS 2002). Therefore, 

regardless of what the population sizes 

were prior to the fish die-offs, they were 

much smaller afterwards and 

consequently their reproductive 

potential would have been much 

reduced. Following the die-offs, poor 

water quality was realized as a serious 

threat, if not the major threat, to the two 

species’ continued survival. Thus, the 

available scientific or commercial 

information indicates that: (1) The 

increased population numbers 

referenced in the petition are based on 

population estimates that have been 

determined to be unreliable; (2) any 

population increase that may have 

occurred in early 1990s was offset by 

later declines owing to large sucker dieoffs; and (3) poor water quality was 

recognized as being more of a threat 

than was previously considered owing 

to three recent fish-die-off events. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and its 

supporting documentation, as well as 

information in Service files and readily 

available published and unpublished 

studies and reports. On the basis of this 

review, we find that the petitions do not 

present substantial information 

indicating that delisting of the Lost 

River sucker or shortnose sucker may be 

warranted. 

Five-Year Review 

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires 

that we conduct a review of listed 

species at least once every 5 years. We 

are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to 

determine, on the basis of such a 

review, whether or not any species 

should be removed from the List 

(delisted), or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened, or threatened 

to endangered. Our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.21 require that we publish a 

notice in the Federal Register

announcing those species currently 

under active review. Although the 90-

day petition finding precludes the need 

to initiate a 12-month status review, we 

believe that a comprehensive, 5-year 

status review is appropriate in order for 

us to consider new information that has 

become available as a result of recent 

actions, and to provide the States, 

Tribes, agencies, university researchers, 

and the public an opportunity to 

provide information on the status of the 

species. This notice announces our 

active review of the Lost River sucker 

and shortnose sucker. 

Although we recently completed 

status assessments for these species 

(USFWS 2001, USFWS 2002), new 

information is being acquired and a 

number of actions have been 

implemented or will soon be 

implemented to reduce threats to the 

species, including installing a fish 

screen at A-Canal in 2003, constructing 

a fish ladder at the Link River Dam in 

2004, and improving passage in the near 

future at the Chiloquin Dam. 

Additionally, habitat restoration is 

occurring around Upper Klamath Lake 

and in its tributaries. These actions, 

combined with new information on the 

species, could affect the species’ status 

and we are, therefore, proceeding to an 

updated status review of the species. 

Public Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting any 

additional information, comments, or 

suggestions on the Lost River sucker and 

shortnose sucker from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

tribes, the scientific community, 

industry, environmental entities, or any 

other interested parties. Information 

sought includes any data regarding 

historical and current distribution, 

biology and ecology, ongoing 

conservation measures for the species or 

its habitat, and threats to the species or 

its habitat. We also request information 

regarding the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

The 5-year review considers all new 

information available at the time of the 

review. This review will consider the 

best scientific and commercial data that 

has become available since the current 

listing determination or most recent 

status review, such as: 

A. Species biology including, but not 

limited to, population trends, 

distribution, abundance, demographics, 

and genetics; 

B. Habitat conditions including, but 

not limited to, amount, distribution, and 

suitability; 

C. Conservation measures that have 

been implemented that benefit the 

species; 

D. Threat status and trends; and 

E. Other new information, data, or 

corrections including, but not limited 

to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, 

identification of erroneous information 

contained in the list, and improved 

analytical methods. 

If you wish to provide information for 

the status review, you may submit your 

comments and materials to the Field 

Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Respondents may request that we 

withhold a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name or address, you 

must state this request prominently at 

the beginning of your comment. 

However, we will not consider 

anonymous comments. To the extent 

consistent with applicable law, we will 

make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available, upon 

request, from the Klamath Falls Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Ron Larson, fishery biologist, Klamath 

Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Marshall Jones, Jr., 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16549 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

43559

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

United States Standards For Grades of 

Canned Pears 

[Docket No. FV–04–333]

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) of the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting 

comments on the proposal to revise the 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Canned Pears. AMS received two 

petitions, one from a grower 

cooperative, the other from a processor, 

requesting that USDA change the 

character classification for Grade ‘‘B’’, 

slices, and diced, to read ‘‘the units are 

reasonably tender or tenderness may be 

variable within the unit.’’ This change 

was requested by the industry in order 

to bring the standards for canned pears 

in line with the present quality levels 

being marketed today and provide 

guidance in the effective utilization of 

canned pears.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this notice. Comments 

should reference the date and page of 

this issue of the Federal Register. All 

comments received will be made 

available for public inspection at the 

address listed below during regular 

business hours and on the Internet. 

Please submit comments to Karen L. 

Kaufman, Standardization Section, 

Processed Products Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW.; Room 0709, South Building; STOP 

0247, Washington, DC 20250; Fax (202) 

690–1527, e-mail 

karen.kaufman@usda.gov or http://

www.regulations.gov. The current 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Canned Pears, along with the proposed 

changes, will be available either through 

the address cited above or by accessing 

the AMS Home Page on the Web at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/

frutcan.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Kaufman at (202) 720–5021 or 

e-mail at karen.kaufman@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 

of 1946, as amended, directs and 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

‘‘to develop and improve standards of 

quality, condition, quantity, grade and 

packaging and recommend and 

demonstrate such standards in order to 

encourage uniformity and consistency 

in commercial practices * * *.’’ AMS is 

committed to carrying out this authority 

in a manner that facilitates the 

marketing of agricultural commodities 

and makes copies of official standards 

available upon request. Those United 

States Standards for Grades of Fruits 

and Vegetables no longer appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations but are 

maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs. 

AMS is proposing to revise the U.S. 

Standards for Grades of Canned Pears 

using the procedures that appear in Part 

36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (7 CFR Part 36). 

Proposed by the petitioner 

AMS received two petitions, one from 

a grower cooperative and the other from 

a processor, requesting the revision of 

the United States Standards for Grades 

of Canned Pears. The standards are 

established under the authority of the 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

U.S.C. 1621–1627). The petitioners 

represent growers from Washington 

State, Oregon and parts of California. 

The petitioners are requesting that 

USDA change the character 

classification for Grade ‘‘B’’, slices, and 

diced, canned pears. The petitioners 

believe the change in the standard will 

improve the economic position of 

domestic growers of pears. 

Prior to undertaking research and 

other work associated with revising the 

grade standards, AMS decided to seek 

public comments on the petition. A 

notice requesting comments on the 

petition to revise the United States 

Standards for Grades of Canned Pears 

was published in the January 21, 2004, 

Federal Register (69 FR 2885). 

In response to our request for 

comments, AMS received two 

comments both from pear processors. 

The comments favored the proposed 

revision of the standard. 

Based on the submitted information, 

AMS is proposing to revise the standard 

for canned pears following the standard 

format for U.S. Grade Standards. The 

proposed revision will change the 

character classification for Grade ‘‘B’’, 

slices, and diced, style canned pears by 

including the following: ‘‘the units are 

reasonably tender or the tenderness may 

be variable within the unit.’’ The 

current standard contains this wording 

for character classifications for halves, 

quarters, pieces or irregular pieces and 

whole pears. 

This proposal will provide a common 

language for trade, a means of 

measuring value in the marketing of 

canned pears, and provide guidance in 

the effective utilization of canned pears. 

The official grade of a lot of canned 

pears covered by these standards will be 

determined by the procedures set forth 

in the Regulations Governing Inspection 

and Certification of Processed Products 

Thereof, and Certain Other Processed 

Food Products (§ 52.1 to 52.83). 

This notice provides for a 60 day 

comment period for interested parties to 

comment on changes to the standards.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

A. J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16486 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[No. LS–04–11] 

Results of Soybean Request for 

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service’s (AMS) Request for 

Referendum shows that too few soybean 

producers want a referendum on the 

43560 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Soybean Promotion and Research Order 

(Order) for one to be conducted. The 

Request for Referendum was held from 

May 1, 2004, through May 28, 2004, at 

the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

county Farm Service Agency offices. To 

trigger a referendum 66,388 soybean 

producers must complete a Request for 

Referendum. The number of soybean 

producers requesting a referendum was 

3,206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Payne, Chief; Marketing 

Programs Branch, Room 2638–S; 

Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, 

USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250–

0251, telephone number 202/720–1115, 

or via e-mail at 

Kenneth.Payne@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Soybean Promotion, Research, 

and Consumer Information Act (Act) (7 

U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), every 5 years the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) will 

give soybean producers the opportunity 

to request a referendum on the Order. If 

the Secretary determines that at least 10 

percent of U.S. producers engaged in 

growing soybeans (not in excess of onefifth of which may be producers in any 

one State) support the conduct of a 

referendum, the Secretary must conduct 

a referendum within 1 year of that 

determination. If these requirements are 

not met, a referendum would not be 

conducted. 

A notice of opportunity to Request a 

Soybean Referendum was publicized in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 15289) on 

March 25, 2004. To be eligible to 

participate in the Request for 

Referendum, producers or the producer 

entity that they are authorized to 

represent must have certified and 

provided supporting documentation 

showing that they or the producer entity 

they represent paid on assessment 

sometime during the representative 

period between January 1, 2002, and 

December 31, 2003. 

According to USDA, there are 663,880 

soybean producers in the United States 

(see 69 FR 13458). 

A total of 3,206 valid Requests for 

Referendum were completed by eligible 

soybean producers. This number does 

not meet the requisite number of 66,388. 

Therefore, based on the Request for 

Referendum results, a referendum will 

not be conducted. In accordance with 

the provisions of the Act, soybean 

producers will be provided another 

opportunity to request a referendum in 

5 years. 

The following is the State-by-State 

results of the Request for Referendum:

State 

Number of 

valid requests for 

referendum 

Alabama .................................... 0 

Alaska ....................................... 0 

Arizona ...................................... 0 

Arkansas ................................... 19 

California ................................... 0 

Colorado ................................... 4 

Connecticut ............................... 0 

Delaware ................................... 1 

Florida ....................................... 0 

Georgia ..................................... 6 

Hawaii ....................................... 0 

Idaho ......................................... 0 

Illinois ........................................ 1,145 

Indiana ...................................... 220 

Iowa .......................................... 542 

Kansas ...................................... 92 

Kentucky ................................... 11 

Louisiana .................................. 2 

Maine ........................................ 0 

Maryland ................................... 6 

Massachusetts .......................... 0 

Michigan ................................... 49 

Minnesota ................................. 258 

Mississippi ................................ 4 

Missouri .................................... 182 

Montana .................................... 0 

Nebraska .................................. 92 

Nevada ..................................... 0 

New Hampshire ........................ 0 

New Jersey ............................... 1 

New Mexico .............................. 0 

New York .................................. 1 

North Carolina .......................... 18 

North Dakota ............................ 16 

Ohio .......................................... 331 

Oklahoma ................................. 7 

Oregon ...................................... 0 

Pennsylvania ............................ 20 

Puerto Rico ............................... 0 

Rhode Island ............................ 0 

South Carolina .......................... 4 

South Dakota ............................ 112 

Tennessee ................................ 9 

Texas ........................................ 5 

Utah .......................................... 0 

Vermont .................................... 0 

Virginia ...................................... 10 

Washington ............................... 0 

West Virginia ............................ 11 

Wisconsin ................................. 28 

Wyoming ................................... 0 

Total ...................................... 3,206 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301–6311.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

A. J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16487 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Annual List of Newspapers To Be Used 

by the Alaska Region for Publication of 

Legal Notices of Proposed Actions and 

Legal Notices of Decisions Subject to 

Administrative Appeal Under 36 CFR 

Part 215

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice lists the 

newspapers that Ranger Districts, 

Forests, and the Regional Office of the 

Alaska Region will use to publish legal 

notice of all decisions subject to appeal 

under 36 CFR part 215 and to publish 

legal notices for public comment on 

actions subject to the notice and 

comment provisions of 36 CFR part 215, 

as updated on June 4, 2003. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

inform interested members of the public 

which newspapers will be used to 

publish legal notice of actions subject to 

public comment and decisions subject 

to appeal under 36 CFR part 215, 

thereby allowing them to receive 

constructive notice of a decision or 

proposed action, to provide clear 

evidence of timely notice, and to 

achieve consistency in administering 

the appeals process.

ADDRESSES: Robin Dale, Alaska Region 

Group Leader for Appeals, Litigation 

and FOIA; Forest Service, Alaska 

Region; P.O. Box 21628; Juneau, Alaska 

99802–1628.

DATES: Publication of legal notices in 

the listed newspapers begins on July 1, 

2004. This list of newspapers will 

remain in effect until it is superceded by 

a new list, published in the Federal 

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin Dale; Alaska Region Group 

Leader for Appeals, Litigation and 

FOIA; (907) 586–9344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice provides the list of newspapers 

that Responsible Officials in the Alaska 

Region will use to give notice of 

decisions subject to notice, comment, 

and appeal under 36 CFR part 215. The 

timeframe for comment on a proposed 

action shall be based on the date of 

publication of the legal notice of the 

proposed action in the newspapers of 

record identified in this notice. The 

timeframe for appeal under 36 CFR part 

215 shall be based on the date of 

publication of the legal notice of the 

decision in the newspaper of record 

identified in this notice. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43561

1The petitioners are US Magnesium Corporation 

LLC, United Steelworkers of America, Local 8319, 

and Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied 

Workers International, Local 374.

The newspapers to be used for giving 

notice of Forest Service decisions in the 

Alaska Region are as follows: 

Alaska Regional Office 

Decisions of the Alaska Regional 

Forester: Juneau Empire, published 

daily except Saturday and official 

holidays in Juneau, Alaska; and the 

Anchorage Daily News, published daily 

in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Chugach National Forest 

Decisions of the Forest Supervisor and 

District Rangers: Anchorage Daily News, 

published daily in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Tongass National Forest 

Decisions of the Forest Supervisor:

Juneau Empire, published daily except 

Saturday and official holidays in 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Decisions of the Craig District Ranger, 

the Ketchikan/Misty District Ranger, 

and the Thorne Bay District Ranger:

Ketchikan Daily News, published daily 

except Sundays and official holidays in 

Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Decisions of the Admiralty Island 

National Monument Ranger, the Juneau 

District Ranger, the Hoonah District 

Ranger, and the Yakutat District Ranger:

Juneau Empire, published daily except 

Saturday and official holidays in 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Decisions of the Petersburg District 

Ranger: Petersburg Pilot, published 

weekly in Petersburg, Alaska. 

Decisions of the Sitka District Ranger:

Daily Sitka Sentinel, published daily 

except Saturday, Sunday, and official 

holidays in Sitka, Alaska. 

Decisions of the Wrangell District 

Ranger: Wrangell Sentinel, published 

weekly in Wrangell, Alaska. 

Supplemental notices may be 

published in any newspaper, but the 

timeframes for making comments or 

filing appeals will be calculated based 

upon the date that notices are published 

in the newspapers of record listed in 

this notice.

Dated: June 28, 2004. 

Jacqueline Myers, 

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 04–16563 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–570–896A–821–819

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations of Magnesium Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China 

and the Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is postponing the 

preliminary determinations in the 

antidumping duty investigations of 

magnesium metal from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and the 

Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’) from 

August 5, 2004 until no later than 

September 24, 2004. This postponement 

is made pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita or Sebastian Wright, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4243 or (202) 482–5154, 

respectively.

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations

On March 25, 2004, the Department 

published the initiation of the 

antidumping duty investigations of 

imports of magnesium metal from the 

PRC and Russia. See Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Magnesium Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China and the Russian 

Federation, 69 FR 15293 (March 25, 

2004). The notice of initiation stated 

that we would make our preliminary 

determinations for these antidumping 

duty investigations no later than 140 

days after the date of initiation.

On June 28, 2004, the petitioners1

made a timely request pursuant to 19 

CFR §351.205(e) for a fifty–day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations, or until September 24, 

2004. The petitioners requested 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations because they believe 

additional time is necessary to allow 

them time to analyze and submit 

comments to the Department regarding 

the respondents’ questionnaire 

responses and to allow the Department 

time to analyze the respondents’ data 

thoroughly and to seek additional 

information.

For the reasons identified by the 

petitioners and because there are no 

compelling reasons to deny the request, 

we are postponing the preliminary 

determinations under section 733(c)(1) 

of the Act. Therefore, the preliminary 

determinations in both these cases are 

now due no later than September 24, 

2004. The deadline for the final 

determinations will continue to be 75 

days after the date of the preliminary 

determinations, unless extended.

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act.

Dated: July 13, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–16613 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 071504E] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Groundfish Oversight Committee in 

August, 2004 to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, August 9, 2004, at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, 

Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 

339–2200. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(978) 465–0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Groundfish Committee will meet to 

43562 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

develop the details of the management 

measures that will be included in 

Framework Adjustment 40B to the 

Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). Framework 

40B will include measures that provide 

additional fishing opportunities that 

target healthy stocks and will address 

several other issues identified since the 

approval of Amendment 13. The 

specific measures that will be 

considered in this framework include: 

revisions to the conservation tax for the 

days-at-sea (DAS) leasing and transfer 

programs, eliminating the tonnage 

upgrade restriction from the DAS 

transfer program, allocating a minimum 

number of Category B (reserve) DAS to 

vessels that did not receive any Category 

A or B DAS under Amendment 13, 

creating a haddock Special Access 

Program (SAP) north of Closed Area I, 

developing a mechanism to provide a 

DAS credit for standing by entangled 

whales, making a change to the season 

for the Closed Area II Yellowtail 

Flounder SAP, revising the allocation 

formula for the GB Cod Hook Sector, 

and creating a SAP to target haddock in 

the Western Gulf of Maine Closed Area 

using rod and reel. The Committee will 

identify the specific details for the 

proposed measures, will group the 

measures into distinct alternatives, and 

will develop recommendations for the 

Total Allowable Catches of stocks of 

concern that will be allocated to the 

proposed and existing SAPs. The 

Committee may also provide additional 

guidance to the Plan Development Team 

for the analysis of these measures. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 

days prior to the meeting dates.

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. E4–1626 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 071504B] 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permits (EFPs)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of a proposal for 

EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Assistant Regional Administrator for 

Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, 

NMFS (Assistant Regional 

Administrator), has determined that an 

application for EFPs contains all of the 

required information and warrants 

further consideration. The Assistant 

Regional Administrator is considering 

the impacts of the activities to be 

authorized under the EFPs with respect 

to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). 

However, further review and 

consultation may be necessary before a 

final determination is made to issue 

EFPs. Therefore, NMFS announces that 

the Assistant Regional Administrator 

proposes to issue EFPs in response to an 

application submitted by the Cape Cod 

Commercial Hook Fisherman’s 

Association (CCCHFA), in collaboration 

with Research, Environmental and 

Management Support (REMSA). These 

EFPs would allow up to seven vessels 

to fish for haddock and pollock using 

jigged hand gear in two Northeast (NE) 

multispecies year-round closed areas. 

Fishing would occur in Georges Bank 

(GB) Closed Area I (CA I) during the 

months of July through December 2004, 

and January, February, May and June 

2005 and in Nantucket Lightship Closed 

Area (NLSCA) during the months of 

November and December 2004, and May 

and June 2005. The purpose of this 

study is to test the viability of jigged 

hand gear (handline, rod and reel, and 

jigging machines) to harvest haddock 

and pollock with minimal cod bycatch 

within spatial and temporal parameters 

determined by local historical 

knowledge.

DATES: Comments on this action must be 

received at the appropriate address or 

fax number (see ADDRESSES) on or before 

August 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional 

Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, 

MA 01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope ‘‘Comments on Haddock/

Pollock Jigging EFP Proposal.’’

Comments may also be sent via fax to 

(978) 281–9135, or submitted via e-mail 

to the following address: 

da541@noaa.gov. 

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) are available from the 

NE Regional Office at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Tadema-Wielandt at 978–

281–9218 or catherine.tademawielandt@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Three year-round closed areas were 

established in 1994 under Amendment 

5 to the FMP to provide protection to 

concentrations of regulated NE 

multispecies, particularly Atlantic cod, 

haddock, and yellowtail flounder. These 

closure areas, CA I, CA II, and the 

NLSCA, have proven to be effective in 

improving the stock status of several 

species, including GB haddock. 

In their EFP application, the 

applicants state that cod are less 

available than haddock and pollock 

during certain times and in certain 

portions of CA I and NLSCA, and 

propose to support this observation with 

scientific data, potentially enabling the 

GB haddock and pollock resources to be 

utilized without impacting the 

management program that protects GB 

cod. This proposal builds on an ongoing 

study that began on October 1, 2003, 

and that proposes to continue through 

September 2004. Preliminary results 

from this study demonstrate the 

viability of utilizing hook-and-line gear 

to reduce bycatch of cod in a portion of 

GB CA I. The CCCHFA’s most recent 

study proposal differs in that it proposes 

to test jigged hook-and-line gear 

(handline, rod and reel, and jigging 

machines), as opposed to stationary 

longlines, to target pollock in addition 

to haddock, and to conduct the study in 

all of CA I and in NLSCA. 

Proposed EFP 

The proposed study would occur 

within CA I during the months of July 

through December 2004, and January, 

February, May and June 2005 during 

which eight half-day trips would occur 

monthly, for a total of 80 half-day trips 

in this area. The proposed study would 

occur within NLSCA during the months 

of November and December 2004, and 

May and June 2005 during which four 

1–day trips would occur monthly, for a 

total of 16 1–day trips in this area. In 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43563

total, 96 trips would occur under this 

EFP. 

Participating vessels would be 

required to use A days-at-sea (DAS) and 

would be prohibited from fishing in 

areas outside of CA I or NLSCA during 

an experimental fishing trip. Therefore, 

granting these EFPs should not result in 

an increase in fishing mortality over 

what was analyzed for Amendment 13 

to the FMP. This study would follow 

normal jig fishing practices. A total 

allowable catch (TAC) of 10.0 mt for GB 

cod would be established for the 

experimental fishery. If the GB cod TAC 

is reached, the experimental fishery 

would be terminated. All fish landed 

would be subject to trip limits and 

minimum size restrictions. 

REMSA scientists would collect 

biological and environmental data 

during each trip conducted under this 

experimental fishery. The EFPs would 

contain a provision that the 

Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS 

(Regional Administrator) has the 

authority to discontinue the proposed 

experimental fishery at any time, e.g., 

the Regional Administrator would 

terminate the EFP when the 10.0 mt 

TAC for GB cod is projected to be 

reached. 

A draft EA has been prepared that 

analyzes the impacts of the proposed 

experimental fishery on the human 

environment. This draft EA concludes 

that the activities proposed to be 

conducted under the requested EFPs are 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the FMP, would not be detrimental to 

the well-being of any stocks of fish 

harvested, and would have no 

significant environmental impacts. The 

draft EA also concludes that the 

proposed experimental fishery would 

not be detrimental to Essential Fish 

Habitat, marine mammals, or protected 

species. 

EFPs would be issued to up to seven 

vessels exempting them from the CA I 

and NLSCA restrictions of the FMP. 

NMFS is particularly interested in 

receiving comments about granting the 

applicant access to the portion of CA I 

located within the U.S./Canada 

Management Area due to the hard TACs 

established by Amendment 13 to the 

FMP for GB cod, haddock and 

yellowtail flounder. 

Regulations under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

applications for proposed EFPs.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. E4–1610 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain 

Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk 

Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber 

Textiles and Textile Products 

Produced or Manufactured in the 

People’s Republic of China

July 16, 2004.

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the 

Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection adjusting limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross 

Arnold, International Trade Specialist, 

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota 

status of these limits, refer to the Quota 

Status Reports posted on the bulletin 

boards of each Customs port, call (202) 

927–5850, or refer to the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection website 

at http://www.cbp.gov. For information 

on embargoes and quota re-openings, 

refer to the Office of Textiles and 

Apparel website at http://

otexa.ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); 

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as 

amended.

The current limits for certain 

categories are being adjusted, variously 

for swing, carryover, and the recrediting 

of unused 2003 carryforward.

A description of the textile and 

apparel categories in terms of HTS 

numbers is available in the 

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (see 

Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, 

published on February 2, 2004). Also 

see 68 FR 65445 published on 

November 20, 2003.

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements

July 16, 2004.

Commissioner,

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, DC 20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive 

amends, but does not cancel, the directive 

issued to you on November 14, 2003, by the 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. That directive 

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, 

man-made fiber, silk blend and other 

vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, 

produced or manufactured in China and 

exported during the twelve-month period 

which began on January 1, 2004 and extends 

through December 31, 2004.

Effective on July 21, 2004, you are directed 

to adjust the limits for the following 

categories, as provided for under the Uruguay 

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-month limit 1

Group I

200, 218, 219, 226, 237, 239pt. 2, 300/301, 313–315, 317/326, 331pt. 3, 

333–336, 338/339, 340–342, 345, 347/348, 351, 352, 359–C 4, 359–

V5, 360–363, 410, 433–436, 438, 440, 442–444, 445/446, 447, 448, 

611, 613–615, 617, 631pt. 6, 633–636, 638/639, 640–643, 644, 645/

646, 647, 648, 651, 652, 659–C 7, 659–H 8, 659–S9, 666pt. 10, 845 

and 846, as a group.

1,218,222,098 square meters equivalent.

Sublevels in Group I

200 ............................................................................................................ 939,116 kilograms.

218 ............................................................................................................ 13,035,009 square meters.

219 ............................................................................................................ 3,003,569 square meters.

226 ............................................................................................................ 13,638,390 square meters.

237 ............................................................................................................ 2,571,765 dozen.

300/301 ..................................................................................................... 2,671,428 kilograms.

313 ............................................................................................................ 50,112,726 square meters.

314 ............................................................................................................ 60,274,062 square meters.

43564 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Category Adjusted twelve-month limit 1

315 ............................................................................................................ 148,896,877 square meters.

317/326 ..................................................................................................... 27,452,308 square meters of which not more than 5,012,216 square 

meters shall be in Category 326.

331pt. ........................................................................................................ 2,423,333 dozen pairs.

333 ............................................................................................................ 126,140 dozen.

334 ............................................................................................................ 373,338 dozen.

335 ............................................................................................................ 418,241 dozen.

336 ............................................................................................................ 211,076 dozen.

338/339 ..................................................................................................... 2,523,532 dozen of which not more than 1,915,636 dozen shall be in 

Categories 338–S/339–S11.

340 ............................................................................................................ 870,371 dozen of which not more than 435,186 dozen shall be in Category 340–Z 12.

341 ............................................................................................................ 768,099 dozen of which not more than 461,122 dozen shall be in Category 341–Y13.

342 ............................................................................................................ 299,746 dozen.

345 ............................................................................................................ 137,085 dozen.

347/348 ..................................................................................................... 2,421,922 dozen.

351 ............................................................................................................ 704,081 dozen.

352 ............................................................................................................ 1,779,147 dozen.

359–C ....................................................................................................... 778,198 kilograms.

359–V ....................................................................................................... 1,070,846 kilograms.

360 ............................................................................................................ 9,978,257 numbers of which not more than 6,806,137 numbers shall 

be in Category 360–P14.

361 ............................................................................................................ 5,213,065 numbers.

362 ............................................................................................................ 8,711,256 numbers.

363 ............................................................................................................ 24,773,109 numbers.

410 ............................................................................................................ 1,133,318 square meters of which not more than 908,477 square meters shall be in Category 410–A15 and not more than 908,477 

square meters shall be in Category 410–B16.

433 ............................................................................................................ 21,905 dozen.

434 ............................................................................................................ 14,690 dozen.

435 ............................................................................................................ 26,979 dozen.

436 ............................................................................................................ 16,622 dozen.

438 ............................................................................................................ 29,088 dozen.

440 ............................................................................................................ 41,556 dozen of which not more than 23,746 dozen shall be in Category 440–M 17.

442 ............................................................................................................ 43,693 dozen.

443 ............................................................................................................ 140,015 numbers.

444 ............................................................................................................ 234,726 numbers.

445/446 ..................................................................................................... 301,999 dozen.

447 ............................................................................................................ 76,352 dozen.

448 ............................................................................................................ 24,402 dozen.

611 ............................................................................................................ 6,709,709 square meters.

613 ............................................................................................................ 9,316,769 square meters.

614 ............................................................................................................ 14,640,635 square meters.

615 ............................................................................................................ 31,059,697 square meters.

617 ............................................................................................................ 21,295,470 square meters.

631pt. ........................................................................................................ 363,921 dozen pairs.

633 ............................................................................................................ 68,294 dozen.

634 ............................................................................................................ 742,984 dozen.

635 ............................................................................................................ 783,720 dozen.

636 ............................................................................................................ 599,272 dozen.

638/639 ..................................................................................................... 2,712,680 dozen.

640 ............................................................................................................ 1,475,575 dozen.

641 ............................................................................................................ 1,379,864 dozen.

642 ............................................................................................................ 412,004 dozen.

643 ............................................................................................................ 576,377 numbers.

644 ............................................................................................................ 3,860,023 numbers.

645/646 ..................................................................................................... 893,263 dozen.

647 ............................................................................................................ 1,727,190 dozen.

648 ............................................................................................................ 1,247,048 dozen.

651 ............................................................................................................ 921,695 dozen of which not more than 162,270 dozen shall be in Category 651–B18.

652 ............................................................................................................ 3,497,598 dozen.

659–C ....................................................................................................... 497,249 kilograms.

659–H ....................................................................................................... 3,432,147 kilograms.

659–S ....................................................................................................... 750,959 kilograms.

666pt. ........................................................................................................ 573,372 kilograms.

845 ............................................................................................................ 2,538,315 dozen.

846 ............................................................................................................ 203,178 dozen.

Group II

332, 359–O 19, 459pt. 20 and 659–O 21, as a group ................................. 44,114,716 square meters equivalent.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43565

Category Adjusted twelve-month limit 1

Group III

201, 220, 224–V22, 224–O 23, 225, 227, 369–O 24, 400, 414, 469pt. 25, 

603, 604–O 26, 618–620 and 624–629, as a group.

51,107,974 square meters equivalent.

Sublevels in Group III

224–V ....................................................................................................... 4,434,567 square meters.

225 ............................................................................................................ 7,650,474 square meters.

Group IV

852 ............................................................................................................ 432,102 square meters equivalent.

Levels not in a Group

369–S27 .................................................................................................... 633,499 kilograms.

863–S28 .................................................................................................... 9,097,625 numbers.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2003.

2 Category 239pt.: only HTS number 6209.20.5040 (diapers).

3 Category 331pt.: all HTS numbers except 6116.10.1720, 6116.10.4810, 6116.10.5510, 6116.10.7510, 6116.92.6410, 

6116.92.6420, 6116.92.6430, 6116.92.6440, 6116.92.7450, 6116.92.7460, 6116.92.7470, 6116.92.8800, 6116.92.9400 and 

6116.99.9510. 4 Category 359–C: only HTS numbers 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020, 6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 

6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and 6211.42.0010. 5 Category 359–V: only HTS numbers 6103.19.2030, 6103.19.9030, 6104.12.0040, 6104.19.8040, 6110.20.1022, 

6110.20.1024, 6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035, 6110.90.9044, 6110.90.9046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020, 6203.19.1030, 

6203.19.9030, 6204.12.0040, 6204.19.8040, 6211.32.0070 and 6211.42.0070. 6 Category 631pt.: all HTS numbers except 6116.10.1730, 6116.10.4820, 6116.10.5520, 6116.10.7520, 6116.93.8800, 

6116.93.9400, 6116.99.4800, 6116.99.5400 and 6116.99.9530. 7 Category 659–C: only HTS numbers 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 

6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010, 6203.43.2090, 

6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and 6211.43.0010. 8 Category 659–H: only HTS numbers 6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 

6505.90.7090 and 6505.90.8090. 9 Category 659–S: only HTS numbers 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 

6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020. 10 Category 666pt.: all HTS numbers except 5805.00.4010, 6301.10.0000, 6301.40.0010, 6301.40.0020, 6301.90.0010, 

6302.53.0010, 6302.53.0020, 6302.53.0030, 6302.93.1000, 6302.93.2000, 6303.12.0000, 6303.19.0010, 6303.92.1000, 

6303.92.2010, 6303.92.2020, 6303.99.0010, 6304.11.2000, 6304.19.1500, 6304.19.2000, 6304.91.0040, 6304.93.0000, 

6304.99.6020, 6307.90.9884, 9404.90.8522 and 9404.90.9522. 11 Category 338–S: all HTS numbers except 6109.10.0012, 6109.10.0014, 6109.10.0018 and 6109.10.0023; Category 339–S: 

all HTS numbers except 6109.10.0040, 6109.10.0045, 6109.10.0060 and 6109.10.0065. 12 Category 340–Z: only HTS numbers 6205.20.2015, 6205.20.2020, 6205.20.2050 and 6205.20.2060. 13 Category 341–Y: only HTS numbers 6204.22.3060, 6206.30.3010, 6206.30.3030 and 6211.42.0054. 14 Category 360–P: only HTS numbers 6302.21.3010, 6302.21.5010, 6302.21.7010, 6302.21.9010, 6302.31.3010, 

6302.31.5010, 6302.31.7010 and 6302.31.9010. 15 Category 410–A: only HTS numbers 5111.11.3000, 5111.11.7030, 5111.11.7060, 5111.19.2000, 5111.19.6020, 

5111.19.6040, 5111.19.6060, 5111.19.6080, 5111.20.9000, 5111.30.9000, 5111.90.3000, 5111.90.9000, 5212.11.1010, 

5212.12.1010, 5212.13.1010, 5212.14.1010, 5212.15.1010, 5212.21.1010, 5212.22.1010, 5212.23.1010, 5212.24.1010, 

5212.25.1010, 5311.00.2000, 5407.91.0510, 5407.92.0510, 5407.93.0510, 5407.94.0510, 5408.31.0510, 5408.32.0510, 

5408.33.0510, 5408.34.0510, 5515.13.0510, 5515.22.0510, 5515.92.0510, 5516.31.0510, 5516.32.0510, 5516.33.0510, 

5516.34.0510 and 6301.20.0020. 16 Category 410–B: only HTS numbers 5007.10.6030, 5007.90.6030, 5112.11.3030, 5112.11.3060, 5112.11.6030, 

5112.11.6060, 5112.19.6010, 5112.19.6020, 5112.19.6030, 5112.19.6040, 5112.19.6050, 5112.19.6060, 5112.19.9510, 

5112.19.9520, 5112.19.9530, 5112.19.9540, 5112.19.9550, 5112.19.9560, 5112.20.3000, 5112.30.3000, 5112.90.3000, 

5112.90.9010, 5112.90.9090, 5212.11.1020, 5212.12.1020, 5212.13.1020, 5212.14.1020, 5212.15.1020, 5212.21.1020, 

5212.22.1020, 5212.23.1020, 5212.24.1020, 5212.25.1020, 5309.21.2000, 5309.29.2000, 5407.91.0520, 5407.92.0520, 

5407.93.0520, 5407.94.0520, 5408.31.0520, 5408.32.0520, 5408.33.0520, 5408.34.0520, 5515.13.0520, 5515.22.0520, 

5515.92.0520, 5516.31.0520, 5516.32.0520, 5516.33.0520 and 5516.34.0520. 17 Category 440–M: only HTS numbers 6203.21.9030, 6203.23.0030, 6205.10.1000, 6205.10.2010, 6205.10.2020, 

6205.30.1510, 6205.30.1520, 6205.90.3020, 6205.90.4020 and 6211.31.0030. 18 Category 651–B: only HTS numbers 6107.22.0015 and 6108.32.0015. 19 Category 359–O: all HTS numbers except 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020, 6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 

6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025, 6211.42.0010 (Category 359–C); 

6103.19.2030, 6103.19.9030, 6104.12.0040, 6104.19.8040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024, 6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035, 

6110.90.9044, 6110.90.9046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020, 6203.19.1030, 6203.19.9030, 6204.12.0040, 6204.19.8040, 

6211.32.0070 and 6211.42.0070 (Category 359–V); 6115.19.8010, 6117.10.6010, 6117.20.9010, 6203.22.1000, 6204.22.1000, 

6212.90.0010, 6214.90.0010, 6406.99.1550, 6505.90.1525, 6505.90.1540, 6505.90.2060 and 6505.90.2545 (Category 359pt.). 20 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except 6115.19.8020, 6117.10.1000, 6117.10.2010, 6117.20.9020, 6212.90.0020, 

6214.20.0000, 6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090, 6406.99.1505 and 6406.99.1560.

43566 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

21 Category 659–O: all HTS numbers except 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 

6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010, 6203.43.2090, 

6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017, 6211.43.0010 (Category 659–C); 6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090, 6505.90.8090 (Category 659–H); 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 

6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010, 6211.12.1020 (Category 659–S); 6115.11.0010, 6115.12.2000, 6117.10.2030, 6117.20.9030, 

6212.90.0030, 6214.30.0000, 6214.40.0000, 6406.99.1510 and 6406.99.1540. 22 Category 224–V: only HTS numbers 5801.21.0000, 5801.23.0000, 5801.24.0000, 5801.25.0010, 5801.25.0020, 

5801.26.0010, 5801.26.0020, 5801.31.0000, 5801.33.0000, 5801.34.0000, 5801.35.0010, 5801.35.0020, 5801.36.0010 and 

5801.36.0020. 23 Category 224–O: all HTS numbers except 5801.21.0000, 5801.23.0000, 5801.24.0000, 5801.25.0010, 5801.25.0020, 

5801.26.0010, 5801.26.0020, 5801.31.0000, 5801.33.0000, 5801.34.0000, 5801.35.0010, 5801.35.0020, 5801.36.0010 and 

5801.36.0020 (Category 224–V). 24 Category 369–O: all HTS numbers except 6307.10.2005 (Category 369–S); 4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020, 4202.12.8060, 

4202.22.4020, 4202.22.4500, 4202.22.8030, 4202.32.4000, 4202.32.9530, 4202.92.0805, 4202.92.1500, 4202.92.3016, 

4202.92.6091, 5601.10.1000, 5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020, 5701.90.2020, 5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010, 5702.49.1020, 

5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000, 5702.99.1010, 5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020, 5805.00.3000, 5807.10.0510, 5807.90.0510, 

6301.30.0010, 6301.30.0020, 6302.51.1000, 6302.51.2000, 6302.51.3000, 6302.51.4000, 6302.60.0010, 6302.60.0030, 

6302.91.0005, 6302.91.0025, 6302.91.0045, 6302.91.0050, 6302.91.0060, 6303.11.0000, 6303.91.0010, 6303.91.0020, 

6304.91.0020, 6304.92.0000, 6305.20.0000, 6306.11.0000, 6307.10.0020, 6307.10.1090, 6307.90.3010, 6307.90.4010, 

6307.90.5010, 6307.90.8910, 6307.90.8945, 6307.90.9882, 6406.10.7700, 9404.90.1000, 9404.90.8040 and 9404.90.9505 

(Category 369pt.). 25 Category 469pt.: all HTS numbers except 5601.29.0020, 5603.94.1010, 6304.19.3040, 6304.91.0050, 6304.99.1500, 

6304.99.6010, 6308.00.0010 and 6406.10.9020. 26 Category 604–O: all HTS numbers except 5509.32.0000 (Category 604–A). 27 Category 369–S: only HTS number 6307.10.2005. 28 Category 863–S: only HTS number 6307.10.2015.

The Committee for the Implementation of 

Textile Agreements has determined that 

these actions fall within the foreign affairs 

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc.04–16616 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain 

Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textiles 

and Textile Products Produced or 

Manufactured in Indonesia

July 16, 2004.

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the 

Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection adjusting limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross 

Arnold, International Trade Specialist, 

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota 

status of these limits, refer to the Quota 

Status Reports posted on the bulletin 

boards of each Customs port, call (202) 

927–5850, or refer to the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection website 

at http://www.cbp.gov. For information 

on embargoes and quota re-openings, 

refer to the Office of Textiles and 

Apparel website at http://

otexa.ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); 

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as 

amended.

The current limits for certain 

categories are being adjusted for swing 

and carryover.

A description of the textile and 

apparel categories in terms of HTS 

numbers is available in the 

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (see 

Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, 

published on February 2, 2004). Also 

see 68 FR 65254, published on 

November 19, 2003.

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements

July 16, 2004.

Commissioner,

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, DC 20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive 

amends, but does not cancel, the directive 

issued to you on November 13, 2003, by the 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. That directive 

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, 

man-made fiber, silk blend and other 

vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, 

produced or manufactured in Indonesia and 

exported during the twelve-month period 

which began on January 1, 2004 and extends 

through December 31, 2004.

Effective on July 21, 2004, you are directed 

to adjust the limits for the categories listed 

below, as provided for under the Uruguay 

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Twelve-month restraint 

limit 1

Levels in Group I

300/301 .................... 7,823,696 kilograms.

618–O 2 .................... 2,161,579 square meters.

634/635 .................... 628,353 dozen.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 

31, 2003. 2 Category 618–O: all HTS numbers except 

5408.24.9010 and 5408.24.9040.

The Committee for the Implementation of 

Textile Agreements has determined that 

these actions fall within the foreign affairs 

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc.04–16617 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43567

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain 

Wool Textile Products Produced or 

Manufactured in the Former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia

July 16, 2004.

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the 

Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection adjusting limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naomi Freeman, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482–4212. For information on the 

quota status of these limits, refer to the 

Quota Status Reports posted on the 

bulletin boards of each Customs port, 

call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection website at http://

www.cbp.gov. For information on 

embargoes and quota re-openings, refer 

to the Office of Textiles and Apparel 

website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); 

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as 

amended.

The current limits for certain 

categories are being adjusted for swing, 

special shift, and carryover.

A description of the textile and 

apparel categories in terms of HTS 

numbers is available in the 

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (see 

Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, 

published on February 2, 2004). Also 

see 68 FR 68597, published on 

December 9, 2003.

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements

July 16, 2004.

Commissioner,

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, DC 20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive 

amends, but does not cancel, the directive 

issued to you on December 3, 2003 by the 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. This directive 

concerns imports of certain wool textile 

products, produced or manufactured in the 

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 

exported during the twelve-month period 

beginning on January 1, 2004 and extending 

through December 31, 2004.

Effective on July 21, 2004, you are directed 

to adjust the current limits for the following 

categories, as provided for under the Uruguay 

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category adjusted twelve-month 

limit 1

433 ........................... 26,575 dozen.

434 ........................... 12,669 dozen.

435 ........................... 30,315 dozen.

443 ........................... 182,857 numbers.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 

31, 2003.

The Committee for the Implementation of 

Textile Agreements has determined that 

these actions fall within the foreign affairs 

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 04–16618 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the Department 

of the Army announces a proposed 

public information collection and seeks 

public comment on the provisions 

thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by September 20, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314–

1000, ATTN: CECW–CO or by e-mail to 

Margaret.E.GaffneySmith@usace.army.mil. Consideration 

will be given to all comments received 

within 60 days of the date of publication 

of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instruments, 

please write to the above address, or call 

Department of the Army Reports 

clearance officer at (703) 325–8433. 

Title, Associated Form, and OMB 

Number: Application for a Department 

of the Army Permit; ENG Form 4345, 

OMB Control Number 0710–0003. 

Needs and Uses: Information 

collected is used to evaluate, as required 

by law, proposed construction or filing 

in waters of the United States that 

results in impacts to the aquatic 

environment and nearby properties, and 

to determine if issuance of a permit is 

in the public interest. Respondents are 

private landowners, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government 

agencies. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit; 

not-for-profit institutions; farms; Federal 

government; State; local or tribal 

government. 

Annual Burden Hours: 155,000. 

Number of Respondents: 15,500. 

Responses Per Respondent: 1. 

Average Burden Per Response: 10 

hours. 

Frequency: On occasion.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps 

of Engineers is required by three federal 

laws, passed by Congress, to regulate 

construction-related activities in waters 

of the United States. This is 

accomplished through the review of 

applications for permits to do this work.

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Alternate Army Federal Register Liaison 

Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16552 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory 

Information Management Group, Office 

of the Chief Information Officer, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

43568 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

September 20, 2004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Leader, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Group, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, publishes that notice containing 

proposed information collection 

requests prior to submission of these 

requests to OMB. Each proposed 

information collection, grouped by 

office, contains the following: (1) Type 

of review requested, e.g. new, revision, 

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) 

Description of the need for, and 

proposed use of, the information; (5) 

Respondents and frequency of 

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or 

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites 

public comment. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Leader, Regulatory Information Management 

Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Federal Student Aid 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Federal Direct Loan Program 

and Federal Family Education Loan 

Program Teacher Loan Forgiveness 

Forms. 

Frequency: Forbearance annually; 

application one time. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit; Individuals or household; 

not-for-profit institutions; Federal 

Government; State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden:

Responses: 8,700. 

Burden Hours: 2,780. 

Abstract: Borrowers who received 

loans from the William D. Ford Federal 

Direct Loan Program and/or the Federal 

Family Education Loan Program and 

who teach in low-income areas for five 

complete consecutive years, and who 

meet other requirements will use this 

application to receive up to $5,000 of 

their subsidized Federal Stafford Loans, 

unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loans, 

Direct Subsidize Loans, and/or Direct 

Unsubsidized loans forgiven. The 

information on the forbearance form 

will be used to determine whether 

borrowers with low balances are eligible 

for forbearance while they are 

performing qualifying teaching service. 

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on 

link number 2589. When you access the 

information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, 

Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, 

DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be 

electronically mailed to the Internet 

address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 

202–245–6621. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be directed to Joseph Schubart at 

his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov.

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339. 

[FR Doc. 04–16525 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Regional Advisory Committees; 

Request for Nomination of Members

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, U.S. Department 

of Education. 

What Is the Purpose of This Notice? 

The purpose of this notice is to give 

the public the opportunity to nominate 

candidates for positions on 10 regional 

advisory committees that will be 

chartered by the Secretary. 

What Is the Role of the Regional 

Advisory Committees? 

Section 206 of the Educational 

Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (‘‘the 

Act’’) requires the establishment of the 

committees to advise the Secretary on 

the educational needs of each of 10 

geographic regions. The committees will 

conduct educational needs assessments 

in their respective regions, and will 

submit reports on the assessment results 

to the Secretary. The educational needs 

identified by the committees will be 

considered by the Secretary in 

establishing priorities for a new program 

of comprehensive centers described in 

section 203 of the Act and for regional 

educational laboratories authorized in 

section 174 of the Education Sciences 

Reform Act of 2002. The comprehensive 

centers and regional educational 

laboratories will provide technical 

assistance to State educational agencies, 

school districts and schools to help 

them implement the goals and programs 

of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as reauthorized 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2002, and use the best research and 

proven practices in their school 

improvement efforts. 

How Will the Regional Advisory 

Committees Assess Educational Needs? 

Each regional advisory committee will 

conduct a variety of activities, including 

virtual meetings, to obtain information 

from individuals, agencies and 

organizations in the region regarding the 

region’s educational needs and how 

those needs would be most effectively 

addressed. Governors, chief State school 

officers and State staff, school district 

educators, public and charter school 

administrators, teachers and parents, 

regional education service providers, 

researchers, and business 

representatives would be among those 

asked to participate in the assessment. 

What Is the Composition of Each 

Regional Advisory Committee? 

Each committee will reflect a 

balanced representation of the States in 

the region and will not have more than 

one representative from each State 

educational agency in the region. In 

addition, the total number of local 

educational agency representatives, 

parents, and practicing educators will 

be greater than the total number of State 

educational agency representatives, 

higher education representatives, 

business representatives and researchers 

on the committee. The committees will 

vary in size but, on average, may have 

about 12 members. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43569

What States Are Included in Each 

Region? 

The 10 regions are the same 

geographic regions served by the 

regional educational laboratories and 

include the following States and 

entities: 

Region 1: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina 

Region 2: Arkansas, Louisiana, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 

Region 3: Arizona, California, Nevada, 

and Utah 

Region 4: Kentucky, Tennessee, 

Virginia, and West Virginia 

Region 5: Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto 

Rico, and Virgin Islands 

Region 6: Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, 

DC

Region 7: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Wyoming 

Region 8: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin 

Region 9: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington 

Region 10: Hawaii, American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, 

and Yap), Guam, the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and the Republic of 

Palau 

Who Is Eligible To Be Nominated? 

You may nominate: 

1. State educational agency 

representatives 

2. Local educational agency (both 

rural and urban) representatives 

3. Representatives of institutions of 

higher education, including individuals 

representing university-based education 

research and university-based research 

in subjects other than education. 

4. Parents. 

5. Practicing educators, including 

classroom teachers, principals, 

administrators, school board members, 

and other local school officials. 

6. Business representatives. 

7. Researchers. 

How Long Will Members of the 

Regional Advisory Committees Serve? 

Members will serve for up to six 

months. The Secretary will dissolve 

each committee after the committee 

submits its needs assessment report. 

The report is due to the Secretary not 

later than 6 months after the committee 

is first convened. 

How Can I Nominate Someone? 

The nominator must submit for each 

nominee the following information to 

the U.S. Department of Education: 

1. A resume of 5 pages or less that 

highlights relevant educational and 

professional experiences; and 

2. A cover page that lists (a) the 

nominee’s name, position, organization 

or group affiliation, mailing address, 

phone number(s), fax number, e-mail 

address and the State represented, and 

(b) the name, position, organization or 

group affiliation, mailing address, 

phone number(s) fax number and e-mail 

address of the person making the 

nomination. 

Send the nomination materials 

electronically to 

Racnominations@ed.gov or by mail to 

Enid Simmons, US Department of 

Education, School Support and 

Technology Programs, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Room 3E303, Washington, 

DC 20202–6400. Telephone: 202–708–

9499. 

When Must Nominations Be Received? 

All nominations must be received no 

later than 30 days from the date of the 

publication of this Notice, midnight 

Eastern Standard Time. If the 30th day 

falls on a weekend or a Federal holiday, 

the deadline will be the next working 

day. 

How Can I Get Additional Information? 

If you have questions about the 

nomination process or about the 

regional advisory committees, please 

send them electronically to 

Racrequest@ed.gov or by mail to Enid 

Simmons, U.S. Department of 

Education, School Support and 

Technology Programs, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Room 3E303, Washington, 

DC 20202–6400. Telephone: 202–708–

9499.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Raymond Simon, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 04–16591 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

General Atomics, Inc.; Notice of Intent 

to Grant Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant 

exclusive patent license. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given to an 

intent to grant to General Atomics, Inc., 

of San Diego, CA, an exclusive license 

to practice the invention described in 

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,841, entitled 

‘‘Solid State Electrochemical Current 

Source’’. The invention is owned by the 

United States of America, as represented 

by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

DATES: Written comments or 

nonexclusive license applications are to 

be received at the address listed below 

no later than August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Technology 

Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

T. Lucas, Office of the Assistant General 

Counsel for Technology Transfer and 

Intellectual Property, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6F–

067, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 

586–2939.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 35 U.S.C. 

209 provides federal agencies with 

authority to grant exclusive licenses in 

federally-owned inventions, if, among 

other things, the agency finds that the 

public will be served by the granting of 

the license. The statute requires that no 

exclusive license may be granted unless 

public notice of the intent to grant the 

license has been provided, and the 

agency has considered all comments 

received in response to that public 

notice, before the end of the comment 

period. 

General Atomics, Inc. of San Diego, 

CA has applied for an exclusive license 

to practice the invention embodied in 

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,841, and has plans 

for commercialization of the invention. 

The exclusive license will be subject 

to a license and other rights retained by 

the U.S. Government, and other terms 

and conditions to be negotiated. DOE 

intends to negotiate to grant the license, 

unless, within 30 days of this notice, the 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Technology Transfer and Intellectual 

Property, Department of Energy, 

Washington, DC 20585, receives in 

writing any of the following, together 

with supporting documents: 

(i) A statement from any person 

setting forth reasons why it would not 

be in the best interests of the United 

States to grant the proposed license; or 

(ii) An application for a nonexclusive 

license to the invention in which 

applicant states that it already has 

brought the invention to practical 

application or is likely to bring the 

invention to practical application 

expeditiously. 

43570 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

The Department will review all timely 

written responses to this notice, and 

will proceed with negotiating the 

license if, after consideration of written 

responses to this notice, a finding is 

made that the license is in the public 

interest.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 15, 2004. 

Paul A. Gottlieb, 

Assistant General Counsel for Technology, 

Transfer and Intellectual Property.

[FR Doc. 04–16585 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP04–371–000] 

Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; 

Notice of Abbreviated Application for 

Certificate of Public Convenience 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 1, 2004, 

Chandeleur Pipe Line Company 

(Chandeleur), pursuant to section 7(c) of 

the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, 

and part 157 of the Commission’s 

regulations submitted an abbreviated 

application for a certificate of public 

convenience and necessity, authorizing 

the acquisition of volumes of natural gas 

to comprise system line pack and the 

authority to include the costs of the line 

pack acquired hereunder in future rate 

filings. The cost of the proposed 

acquisition is $318,432. 

Chandeleur states that the acquisition 

by Applicant of the line pack will 

ensure standardization with industry 

practice. 

Questions regarding this application 

should be directed to Linda L. 

Geoghegan, at 2811 Hayes Road, 

Houston, TX 77082 or by telephone at 

(281) 596–3592 or via e-mail at 

GeoghLL@ChevronTexaco.com. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to 

protest said application should file a 

motion to intervene or a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with sections 

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s 

rules and regulations. All such motions 

or protests must be filed on or before the 

date as indicated below. Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceedings. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. This 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter 

the docket number excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link. 

Take further notice that, pursuant to 

the authority contained in, and subject 

to the jurisdiction conferred upon the 

Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the 

Natural Gas Act and the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, a 

hearing will be held without further 

notice before the Commission or its 

designee on the application if no motion 

to intervene is filed within the time 

required herein and if the Commission, 

on its own review of the matter, finds 

that a grant of the certificate is required 

by the public convenience and 

necessity. If a motion for leave to 

intervene is timely filed, or if the 

Commission, on it own motion, believes 

that a formal hearing is required, further 

notice of such hearing will be duly 

given. 

Under the procedure herein provided 

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be 

unnecessary for Chandeleur to appear or 

be represented at the hearing. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1616 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. CP04–370–000 and RP96–383–

058] 

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of 

Abandonment of Service and 

Negotiated Rate Agreement 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on June 30, 2004, 

Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) 

tendered for filing as part of its FERC 

Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, 

the following Pro Forma tariff sheets:

Third Revised Sheet No. 6

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1404

DTI also submitted, as part of its 

FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 

No. 2, the following Pro Forma tariff 

sheets:

Second Revised Sheet No. 5

First Revised Sheet No. 293

Sheet Nos. 294–308

DTI requests an effective date of 

August 1, 2004 for its proposed tariff 

sheets. DTI states that the purpose of 

this filing is to convert its individually 

certificated service under Rate Schedule 

X–70 to open access service under part 

284. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to 

protest said application should file a 

motion to intervene or a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with sections 

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s 

Rules and Regulations. All such motions 

or protests must be filed on or before the 

date as indicated below. Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceedings. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. This 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter 

the docket number excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link. 

Intervention and Protest Date: July 29, 

2004.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1615 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Notice of Non-Project Use of Project 

Lands and Waters and Soliciting 

Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 

Protests 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that the following 

application has been filed with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection: 

a. Application Type: Non-project use 

of project lands and waters. 

b. Project No.: 2503–082. 

c. Date Filed: July 8, 2004. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43571

d. Applicant: Duke Energy 

Corporation. 

e. Name of Project: Keowee-Toxaway 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: The project is located on 

Lake Keowee in Oconee County, South 

Carolina. The project does not utilize 

Federal or tribal lands. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). 

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joe Hall, 

Duke Energy Company, P.O. Box 1006, 

Charlotte, NC 28201–1006. Phone: (704) 

382–8576

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to 

Shana High at (202) 502–8674. 

j. Deadline for filing comments and/

or motions: August 3, 2004. 

All documents (original and eight 

copies) should be filed with: Ms. 

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. 

Please include the project number (P–

2503–082) on any comments or motions 

filed. Comments, protests, and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages efilings. 

k. Description of Proposal: Duke 

Energy Corporation proposes to lease 

0.313 acres of project property to 

Keowee Key Property Owners 

Association for a commercial/residential 

marina which will consist of one cluster 

dock with 14 slips. The lease will 

increase a previously approved lease 

area from 11.34 acres to 11.653 acres. 

The cluster dock will be constructed of 

treated wood and encapsulated 

Styrofoam. No dredging will be required 

for the construction and operation of 

these facilities. 

l. Locations of the Application: This 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of rules of practice and 

procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, 

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, or 

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as 

applicable, and the project number of 

the particular application to which the 

filing refers. A copy of any motion to 

intervene must also be served upon each 

representative of the Applicant 

specified in the particular application. 

p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, 

and local agencies are invited to file 

comments on the described application. 

A copy of the application may be 

obtained by agencies directly from the 

Applicant. If an agency does not file 

comments within the time specified for 

filing comments, it will be presumed to 

have no comments. One copy of an 

agency’s comments must also be sent to 

the Applicant’s representatives.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1619 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP04-188-003] 

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited 

Partnership; Notice of Compliance 

Filing 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, Great 

Lakes Gas Transmission 

LimitedPartnership (Great Lakes) 

tendered for filing as part of its FERC 

Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 

1, the following tariff sheets, proposed 

to be effective April 1, 2004:

First Revised Sheet No. 50R 

First Revised Sheet No. 50S

Great Lakes states that these tariff 

sheets are being filed to comply with the 

Commission’s June 23, 2004 Order on 

Rehearing and Compliance, wherein the 

Commission accepted Great Lakes’ tariff 

sheets as proposed in its April 30, 2004, 

compliance filing in Docket No. RP04-

188-002, and granted, in part, and 

denied, in part, Great Lakes’ request for 

rehearing in Docket No. RP04-188-001. 

Great Lakes states that it was directed to 

file revised tariff sheets within fifteen 

(15) days of the June 23 Order consistent 

with the Commission directives to 

provide objective criteria for evaluating 

the outlook and history of a shipper as 

part of its creditworthiness review, and 

notice to shippers of the basis for a noncreditworthy determination, as set forth 

in that Order. 

Any person desiring to protest said 

filing should file a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with section 

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and 

Regulations. All such protests must be 

filed in accordance with section 154.210 

of the Commission’s Regulations. 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceedings. This filing is available 

for review at the Commission in the 

Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary 

link. Enter the docket number excluding 

the last three digits in the docket 

number field to access the document. 

For assistance, please contact FERC 

Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502-8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1623 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP02-118-008] 

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; 

Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, High 

Island Offshore System, L.L.C. (HIOS), 

tendered for filing and acceptance (1) a 

Gas Transportation Agreement between 

HIOS and Walter Oil and Gas 

Corporation (Walter) pursuant to HIOS’

Rate Schedule IT; (2) a Negotiated Rate 

43572 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Letter Agreement between HIOS and 

Walter dated August 1, 2004; and (3) a 

Reserve Commitment Agreement 

between HIOS and Walter dated August 

22, 2003. 

HIOS states that the filed agreements 

reflect a negotiated rate arrangement 

between HIOS and Walter that will 

become effective on August 1, 2004. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to 

protest said filing should file a motion 

to intervene or a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with sections 

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s 

rules and regulations. All such motions 

or protests must be filed in accordance 

with section 154.210 of the 

Commission’s regulations. Protests will 

be considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceedings. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. This 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter 

the docket number excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502-8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1622 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP99–176–102] 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 

America; Notice of Negotiated Rate 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 

America (Natural) tendered for filing as 

part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth 

Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets 

listed on Appendix A to the filing, with 

an effective date of July 10, 2004. 

Natural states that the purpose of this 

filing is to implement an amendment to 

an existing negotiated rate transaction 

entered into by Natural and Occidental 

Energy Marketing, Inc., under Natural’s 

Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to section 

49 of the General Terms and Conditions 

of Natural’s Tariff. 

Natural states that copies of the filing 

are being mailed to all parties set out on 

the Commission’s official service list in 

Docket No. RP99–176. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to 

protest said filing should file a motion 

to intervene or a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with sections 

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s 

Rules and Regulations. All such motions 

or protests must be filed in accordance 

with section 154.210 of the 

Commission’s Regulations. Protests will 

be considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceedings. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. This 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter 

the docket number excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1614 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP04–329–001] 

Questar Southern Trails Pipeline 

Company; Notice of Tariff Filing 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 12, 2004, 

Questar Southern Trails Pipeline 

Company (Southern Trails) tendered for 

filing an amendment to its June 11, 

2004, tariff filing. Questar states that the 

amended filing consists of the following 

tariff sheets to Original Volume No. 1 of 

its FERC Gas Tariff:

Substitute Third Revised Sheet Nos. 1 and 30

Substitute Original Sheet No. 114

Southern Trails states that a copy of 

this filing has been served upon its 

customers and the Public Service 

Commissions of Utah, New Mexico, 

Arizona, and California. 

Any person desiring to protest said 

filing should file a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with section 

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and 

Regulations. All such protests must be 

filed in accordance with section 154.210 

of the Commission’s Regulations. 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceedings. This filing is available 

for review at the Commission in the 

Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary 

(FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1624 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Notice of Application for Non-Project 

Use of Project Lands and Soliciting 

Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 

Protests 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that the following 

application has been filed with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection: 

a. Application Type: Non-project use 

of project lands. 

b. Project No.: 516-394. 

c. Date Filed: June 25, 2004. 

d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric 

& Gas Company. 

e. Name of Project: Saluda Project. 

f. Location: Lake Murray in Saluda 

County, South Carolina. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a) 825(r) and 799 

and 801. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43573

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randolph 

R. Mahan, Manager, Environmental 

Programs and Special Projects, SCANA 

Services, Inc., Columbia, SC 29218, 

(803) 217-9538. 

i. FERC Contacts: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to Mrs. 

Jean Potvin at (202) 502-8928, or e-mail 

address: jean.potvin@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments and or 

motions: August 16, 2004. 

All documents (original and eight 

copies) should be filed with: Ms. 

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. 

Please include the project number (P516-394) on any comments or motions 

filed. Comments, protests, and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages efilings. 

k. Description of Request:

The licensee proposes to issue a 

permit authorizing Westshore Limited 

to excavate 3,260 cubic yards of material 

from within an area of 0.918 acres in 

waters of Lake Murray at the existing 

Spinners Marina. 

l. Location of the Application: The 

filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnLineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free (866) 208-3676 or TTY, contact 

(202) 502-8659. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, 

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, or 

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as 

applicable, and the Project Number of 

the particular application to which the 

filing refers. A copy of any motion to 

intervene must also be served upon each 

representative of the Applicant 

specified in the particular application. 

p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, 

and local agencies are invited to file 

comments on the described application. 

A copy of the application may be 

obtained by agencies directly from the 

Applicant. If an agency does not file 

comments within the time specified for 

filing comments, it will be presumed to 

have no comments. One copy of an 

agency’s comments must also be sent to 

the Applicant’s representatives. 

q. Comments, protests and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet lieu of paper. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1620 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. GT95–11–006] 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, 

Inc; Notice of Refund Report 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on June 14, 2004, 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. 

(Southern Star), formerly Williams Gas 

Pipelines Central, Inc., tendered for 

filing a report of activities regarding 

collection of Kansas ad valorem taxes in 

Southern Star’s Docket No. GT95–11. 

Southern Star states that this filing is 

being made in compliance with a 

Commission order directing that the 

pipelines file reports concerning their 

activities to collect and flow through 

refunds of the taxes at issue. Southern 

Star further states that this filing reflects 

amounts still due to Southern Star in 

Docket No. GT95–11 as a result of the 

Kansas ad valorem tax refunds ordered 

by the Commission in 1993 and related 

to tax payments originally made in 1988 

and after. 

Southern Star states that a copy of its 

filing was served on all parties included 

on the official service list. 

Any person desiring to protest said 

filing should file a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with section 

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and 

Regulations. All such protests must be 

filed on or before the protest date as 

shown below. Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceedings. 

This filing is available for review at the 

Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. 

Comments, protests and interventions 

may be filed electronically via the 

Internet in lieu of paper. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link. 

Protest Date: July 21, 2004.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1617 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP04–12–002] 

TransColorado Gas Transmission 

Company; Notice of Compliance Filing 

July 14, 2004. 

Take notice that on July 1, 2004, 

TransColorado Gas Transmission 

Company (TransColorado) tendered for 

filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 

Revised Volume No. 1, the following 

tariff sheets, with an effective date of 

August 1, 2004:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 21

First Revised Sheet No. 22B

TransColorado is filing the abovereferenced tariff sheets in compliance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Order Issuing 

Certificate’’ dated March 24, 2004, in 

Docket No. CP04–12–000. 

TransColorado states that a copy of 

this filing has been served upon all 

43574 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

parties on the official service list for this 

proceeding. 

Any person desiring to protest said 

filing should file a protest with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with section 

385.211 of the Commission’s rules and 

regulations. All such protests must be 

filed on or before the date as indicated 

below. Protests will be considered by 

the Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceedings. This filing is available 

for review at the Commission in the 

Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary 

link. Enter the docket number excluding 

the last three digits in the docket 

number field to access the document. 

For assistance, please contact FERC 

Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the e-Filing link. 

Protest Date: July 29, 2004.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1625 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EC04–130–000, et al.] 

American Transmission Company LLC, 

et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate 

Filings 

July 12, 2004. 

The following filings have been made 

with the Commission. The filings are 

listed in ascending order within each 

docket classification. 

1. American Transmission Company 

LLC 

[Docket No. EC04–130–000] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, 

American Transmission Company LLC 

(ATCLLC) tendered for filing an 

Application for Authority to Acquire 

Transmission Facilities Under section 

203 of the Federal Power Act. ATCLLC 

requests that the Commission authorize 

ATCLLC to acquire ownership of certain 

transmission facilities from the 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. 

ATCLLC requests an effective date of 

August 15, 2004. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004. 

2. CSW Ft. Lupton, Inc. Thermo 

Holdings LP 

[Docket No. EC04–131–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, CSW 

Ft. Lupton, Inc. (CSW) and Thermo 

Holdings LP (Thermo) (jointly, 

Applicants) filed with the Commission 

an application pursuant to section 203 

of the Federal Power Act (FPA) for 

authorization for the sale and transfer of 

all except one tenth of one percent of 

CSW’s partnership interests in Thermo 

Cogeneration Partnership, L.P. (Thermo 

Cogen) to Thermo (which will result in 

an indirect change of control over the 

FPA jurisdictional facilities owned by 

Thermo Cogen). 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

3. New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc. 

[Docket Nos. ER03–552–009 and ER03–984–

007] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, the 

New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for 

filing a compliance filing pursuant to 

the Commission’s order issued June 2, 

2004, in Docket Nos. ER03–552–006 et 

al.

NYISO states that it has served a copy 

of this filing to all parties listed on the 

official service list maintained by the 

Secretary of the Commission in these 

proceedings. NYISO states that it has 

also served a copy of this filing to all 

parties that have executed Service 

Agreements under the NYISO’s OpenAccess Transmission Tariff or Services 

Tariff, the New York State Public 

Service Commission and to the electric 

utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey 

and Pennsylvania. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

4. Public Service Company of New 

Mexico 

[Docket No. ER04–416–002] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, 

Public Service Company of New Mexico 

(PNM) submitted a filing containing 

certain revisions to PNM’s Open Access 

Transmission Tariff (OATT), in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

Order issued June 4, 2004, 107 FERC 

¶ 61,255. 

PNM states that copies of the filing 

have been sent to all PNM large 

generation interconnection customers, 

to all entities that have pending large 

generation interconnection requests 

with PNM, to the New Mexico Public 

Regulation Commission, and to the New 

Mexico Attorney General. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

5. Nevada Power Company and Sierra 

Pacific Power Company 

[Docket No. ER04–418–003] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, 

Nevada Power Company and Sierra 

Pacific Power Company (collectively, 

the Nevada Companies) submitted a 

compliance filing pursuant to the 

Commission’s order issued June 4, 2004, 

107 FERC ¶ 61,255. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

6. Central Vermont Public Service 

Corporation 

[Docket Nos. ER04–510–003 and EL04–88–

002] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, 

Central Vermont Public Service 

Corporation (Central Vermont) in 

response to a deficiency letter issued 

June 15, 2004, additional information 

relating to Substitute Original Service 

Agreement No. 46, a revised unexecuted 

interconnection Agreement with North 

Hartland, LLC filed on April 12, 2004, 

in Docket Nos. ER04–510–002 and 

EL04–88–001. 

Central Vermont states that copies of 

the filing were served upon North 

Hartland, LLC, the Vermont Department 

of Public Service, and the Vermont 

Public Service Board. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

7. Southern California Edison Company 

[Docket No. ER04–724–001] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, 

Southern California Edison Company 

(SCE), tendered for filing supplemental 

information pursuant to the 

Commission’s letter issued June 4, 2004, 

regarding its April 9, 2004, filing in 

Docket No. ER04724–000. 

SCE states that copies of this filing 

were served upon the Public Utilities 

Commission of the State of California, 

FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC 

and Commission Staff. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

8. Midwest Independent Transmission 

System Operator, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER04–754–001] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, the 

Midwest Independent Transmission 

System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

order issued June 4, 2004, in Docket No. 

ER04–754–000, submitted for filing on 

behalf of itself and American 

Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) 

and Wisconsin Public Service 

Corporation (WPSC) a proposed 

Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and 

Restated Generation-Interconnection 

Agreement between ATCLLC, WPSC, 

and the Midwest ISO. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43575

Midwest ISO states that it has 

electronically served a copy of this 

filing, with attachments, upon all 

Midwest ISO Members, Member 

representatives of Transmission Owners 

and Non-Transmission Owners, the 

Midwest ISO Advisory Committee 

participants, as well as all state 

commissions within the region. 

Midwest ISO notes that the filing has 

been electronically posted on the 

Midwest ISO’s Web site at http://

www.midwestiso.org under the heading 

‘‘Filings to FERC’’ for other interested 

parties in this matter. The Midwest ISO 

states that it will provide hard copies to 

any interested parties upon request. 

Comment Date: July 27, 2004. 

9. Renaissance Power, L.L.C. 

[Docket No. ER04–992–000] 

Take notice that on July 7, 2004, 

Renaissance Power, L.L.C. (Renaissance) 

pursuant to section 205 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d, and 

part 35 of the Commission’s regulations, 

18 CFR part 35, submitted for filing a 

rate schedule under which it specifies 

its revenue requirement for providing 

cost-based Reactive Support and Voltage 

Control from Generation Sources within 

the Michigan Electric Transmission 

Company, LLC (METC) control area. 

Renaissance requests an effective date of 

September 1, 2004. 

Renaissance states that it has 

provided copies of the filing to METC, 

and the Midwest Independent System 

Operator, Inc., and the Michigan Public 

Service Commission. 

Comment Date: July 28, 2004. 

10. Duke Energy Corporation 

[Docket No. ER04–993–000] 

Take notice that on July 7, 2004, Duke 

Energy Corporation, on behalf of Duke 

Electric Transmission, (collectively, 

Duke) tendered for filing a revised 

Network Integration Transmission 

Service Agreement (NITSA) between 

Duke and North Carolina Municipal 

Power Authority No. 1. Duke seeks an 

effective date for the revised NITSA of 

July 1, 2004. 

Comment Date: July 28, 2004. 

11. Boston Generating, LLC 

[Docket No. ER04–994–000] 

Take notice that on July 7, 2004, 

Boston Generating, LLC (Boston 

Generating) submitted for filing, 

pursuant to section 205 of the Federal 

Power Act and part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations an 

application for market-based rate 

authorization to sell energy, capacity, 

and ancillary services, and reassign 

transmission capacity and resell firm 

transmission rights. Boston Generating 

requests the waivers and exemptions 

from regulation typically granted to the 

holders of market-based rate 

authorization. Boston Generating 

requests an effective date of August 1, 

2004. 

Comment Date: July 28, 2004. 

Standard Paragraph 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing should file with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 

214 of the Commission’s rules of 

practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 

and 385.214). Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. All such 

motions or protests should be filed on 

or before the comment date, and, to the 

extent applicable, must be served on the 

applicant and on any other person 

designated on the official service list. 

This filing is available for review at the 

Commission or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

filed to access the document. For 

assistance, call (202) 502–8222 or TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Protests and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1611 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL04–110–000, et al.] 

New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc., et al.; Electric Rate and 

Corporate Filings 

July 14, 2004. 

The following filings have been made 

with the Commission. The filings are 

listed in ascending order within each 

docket classification. 

1. New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc., Central Hudson Gas & 

Electric Corporation, LIPA, New York 

Power Authority, New York State 

Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara 

Mohawk Power Corporation, Rochester 

Gas and Electric Corporation v. New 

York Independent System Operator, 

Inc., New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc. 

[Docket No. EL04–110–000, Docket No. 

EL04–113–001, (Not Consolidated), Docket 

No. EL04–115–001, and Docket No. ER04–

983–001] 

Take notice that on July 13, 2004, the 

New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed proposed 

revisions to its Market Administration 

and Control Area Services Tariff and 

Open Access Transmission Tariff under 

its authority to make unilateral tariff 

filings in ‘‘exigent circumstances.’’

NYISO states that the proposed tariff 

revisions are part of a comprehensive 

offer of settlement that the NYISO has 

submitted in the above-captioned 

proceedings. 

The NYISO states that it has 

electronically served a copy of this 

filing on the official representative of 

each of its customers, on each 

participant in its stakeholder 

committees, and on the New York State 

Public Service Commission. 

Comment Date: July 20, 2004. 

2. Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C. 

and Entergy Services, Inc. on Behalf of 

Entergy Louisiana, Inc. 

[Docket No. EL04–118–000] 

Take notice that on July 12, 2004, 

Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C. (PEP) 

and Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of 

Entergy Louisiana, Inc. +, filed with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

a petition for declaratory order that the 

Commission disclaim jurisdiction over 

the disposition of PEP’s generating 

facility located near Perryville, 

Louisiana. 

PEP states that a copy of the petition 

was served upon the Louisiana Public 

Service Commission, the Arkansas 

Public Service Commission, the 

Mississippi Public Service Commission, 

the New Orleans City Council, and the 

Public Utility Commission of Texas. 

Comment Date: August 2, 2004. 

3. Alabama Power Company 

[Docket Nos. ER04–664–002] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Alabama Power Company made a 

compliance filing in accordance with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s order in Alabama Power 

Company, 107 FERC ¶ 61,146 (2004). 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

43576 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

4. PPL Distributed Generation, LLC 

[Docket No. ER04–671–000 and ER04–671–

001] 

On July 12, 2004, PPL Distributed 

Generation, LLC (PPL Distributed 

Generation) submitted a Notice of 

Withdrawal of its market-based rate 

application and of its later filed request 

for extension of time. PPL Distributed 

Generation requests an effective date of 

July 26, 2004. 

Comment Date: July 22, 2004. 

5. Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER04–694–002] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

(VEC), submitted a supplement to its 

March 31, 2004 application for marketbased rate authority originally filed with 

the Commission on March 31, 2004. 

VEC is requesting such authority, 

effective January 1, 2003. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

6. Southern Company Services, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER04–952–000] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, 

Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), 

on behalf of Georgia Power Company 

(GPC), filed with the Commission a 

clarification of its June 23, 2004 Notice 

of Cancellation of the Interconnection 

Agreement between Southern Power 

Company and GPC, Service Agreement 

No. 458, under Southern Companies’

Open Access Transmission Tariff, 

Fourth Revised Volume No. 5. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004. 

7. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 

[Docket No. ER04–1000–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted 

for filing an executed first revised 

second interim interconnection service 

agreement between PJM and Armstrong 

Energy Limited Partnership, L.L.L.P. 

PJM requests a waiver of the 

Commission’s 60-day notice 

requirement to permit a June 10, 2004 

effective date for the Interim ISA. 

PJM states that copies of this filing 

were served upon the parties to the 

agreement and the state regulatory 

commissions within the PJM region. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

8. Ameren Energy Marketing Co. 

Central Illinois Public Service 

Company d/b/a/ AmerenCIPS 

[Docket No. ER04–1001–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Ameren energy Marketing Company 

(AME) and Central Illinois Public 

Service Company d/b/a/ AmerenCIPS, 

(collectively, Ameren Companies) 

pursuant to section 205 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824b, and 

section 35.13 of the Commission’s 

regulations, 18 CFR 35.13, filed an 

amendment to an existing electric 

power sales agreement between them to 

extend the term of that agreement from 

December 31, 2004, through December 

31, 2006, and to make other minor 

conforming changes to this agreement. 

Ameren Companies requests an effective 

date of September 7, 2004. 

Ameren Companies state that copies 

of this filing have been served on all 

affected state commissions. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

9. Alabama Power Company 

[Docket No. ER04–1002–000]

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Alabama Power Company (Alabama 

Power) filed an Exhibit F to the 

Amended and Restated Agreement for 

Partial Requirements and 

Complementary Services between 

Alabama Power and the Alabama 

Municipal Electric Authority (AMEA) 

(Alabama Power Rate Schedule No. 

168). Alabama Power states that the 

amendment sets forth its and AMEA’s 

agreement regarding the addition of a 

new point of connection in accordance 

with the Amended PR Agreement. An 

effective date of May 1, 2004 is 

requested. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

10. American Electric Power Service 

Corporation 

[Docket No. ER04–1003–000 and ER04–

1007–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

American Electric Power Service 

Corporation on behalf of Appalachian 

Power Company, Columbus Southern 

Power Company, Indiana Michigan 

Power Company, Kentucky Power 

Company, Kingsport Power Company, 

Ohio Power Company, Public Service 

Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern 

Electric Power Company, AEP Texas 

Central Company, AEP Texas North 

Company and Wheeling Power 

Company, (collectively AEP) filed 

revisions to their Open Access 

Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that 

has been designated as the Operating 

Companies of the American Electric 

Power System FERC Electric Tariff, 

Third Revised Volume No. 6. 

AEP states that a copy of the 

transmittal letter has been served on all 

parties to this proceeding, all customers 

under the tariff and a copy of the filing 

has been served on the State public 

service commissions of Arkansas, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia and West Virginia. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

11. Alpena Power Generation, L.L.C. 

[Docket No. ER04–1004–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Alpena Power Generation, L.L.C. 

(Alpena Generation), tendered for filing 

a request for market-based rate authority 

and a request for waiver of the sixty-day 

notice requirement. Alpena Generation 

also requests waiver from the 

Commission’s code of conduct, and 

waiver of the accounting, reporting and 

other requirements under parts 41, 101, 

and 141 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

12. EcoElectrica, L.P. 

[Docket No. QF95–328–006] 

Take notice that on July 7, 2004, 

EcoElectrica, L.P. (EcoElectrica) filed an 

amendment to the application filed 

April 18, 2004, in compliance with the 

Letter Order issued July 2, 2004, in 

Docket No. QF95–328–006. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

Standard Paragraph 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing should file with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 

and 385.214). Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. All such 

motions or protests should be filed on 

or before the comment date, and, to the 

extent applicable, must be served on the 

applicant and on any other person 

designated on the official service list. 

This filing is available for review at the 

Commission or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

filed to access the document. For 

assistance, call (202) 502–8222 or TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Protests and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1612 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43577

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL02–123–004, et al.] 

Boston Edison Company, et al., 

Electric Rate and Corporate Filings 

July 13, 2004. 

The following filings have been made 

with the Commission. The filings are 

listed in ascending order within each 

docket classification. 

1. Boston Edison Company 

[Docket No. EL02–123–004] 

Take notice that, on July 2, 2004, 

Boston Edison Company (BECo) 

submitted its compliance filing 

pursuant to the Commission’s Order 

issued June 2, 2004 in Docket No. EL02–

123–002, 107 FEC ¶ 61,248. 

BECo states that Copies of the filing 

were served upon the official service list 

in the above-captioned proceeding and 

the affected customers. 

Comment Date: July 23, 2004. 

2. Devon Power LLC, Middletown 

Power LLC, Montville Power LLC, and 

NRG Power Marketing Inc 

[Docket No. ER03–563–040] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, 

Middletown Power LLC (Middletown) 

and Norwalk Power LLC (Norwalk) 

tendered for filing revisions to the TrueUp Schedules to the Cost-of-Service 

Agreements between Middletown and 

Norwalk and ISO New England Inc. 

(ISO–NE) filed April 7, 2004 in Docket 

No. ER03–563–032 and amended on 

June 28, 2004 in Docket No. ER03–563–

037. 

Middletown and Norwalk state that 

they have provided copies of the 

Revised True-Up Schedules to ISO–NE 

and served each person designated on 

the official service list compiled by the 

Secretary in Docket No. ER03–563. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004. 

3. New York Independent System 

Operator Inc. 

[Docket No. ER03–836–005] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, New 

York Independent System Operator Inc. 

(NYISO) tendered for filing its third and 

10-Minute Non-Synchronous Reserve 

Market Report (Report). NYISO states 

that the Report is in response to 

Commission’s order issued July 1, 2003 

Conditionally Accepting Proposed Tariff 

Revisions in Docket No. ER03–836–000. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004. 

4. Arizona Public Service Company 

[Docket No. ER04–442–003] 

Take notice that July 1, 2004 Arizona 

Public Service Company (APS) 

submitted for filing revisions to its Open 

Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

order issued June 4, 2004 in Docket No. 

ER04–442–002. 

APS states that copies of this letter 

have been served on all parties on the 

service list. 

Comment Date: July 22, 2004. 

5. MidAmerican Energy Company 

[Docket No. ER04–627–001] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, 

MidAmerican Energy Company 

(MidAmerican), filed a revised 

Transmission Operating Agreement 

between MidAmerican and Nebraska 

Public Power District in compliance 

with the Commission’s letter order 

issued May 7, 2004 in Docket No. ER04–

627–000. 

MidAmerican states that it has served 

a copy of the filing on the Iowa Utilities 

Board, the Illinois Commerce 

Commission and the South Dakota 

Public Utilities Commission. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004.

6. MAG Energy Solutions Inc. 

[Docket No. ER04–839–001] 

Take notice that on July 6, 2004, MAG 

Energy Solutions Inc. (MAG E.S.) 

submitted for filing additional 

information and a revised rate schedule 

regarding its Petition for Acceptance of 

Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and 

Blanket Authority filed May 13, 2004 in 

Docket No. ER04–839–001. 

Comment Date: July 28, 2004. 

7. Kansas City Power & Light Company 

[Docket No. ER04–982–000] 

Take notice that on July 1, 2004, 

Kansas City Power & Light Company, 

(KCPL) submitted for filing a Notice of 

Cancellation of Service Schedules B, D, 

E and F to KCPL’s Rate Schedule FERC 

No. 88. 

KCPL states that it has served a notice 

of the proposed cancellation on 

Missouri Public Service Commission, 

Kansas Corporation Commission and 

The Empire District Electric Company. 

Comment Date: July 22, 2004. 

8. Panda Leesburg Power Partners, L.P. 

[Docket No. ER04–995–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Panda Leesburg Power Partners, L.P., 

(Panda Leesburg), pursuant to 18 CFR 

35.13 and 131.53 of the Commission’s 

Rules and Regulations, submitted for 

filing a Notice of Cancellation of Panda 

Leesburg’s FERC Rate Schedule No. 1. 

Panda Leesburg requests an effective 

date of August 20, 2003. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

9. Panda Midway Power Partners, L.P. 

[Docket No. ER04–996–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Panda Midway Power Partners, L.P., 

(Panda Midway), pursuant to 18 CFR 

35.13 and 131.53 of the Commission’s 

Rules and Regulations, submitted for 

filing a Notice of Cancellation of Panda 

Midway’s FERC Rate Schedule No.1. 

Panda Midway requests an effective 

date of April 12, 2004. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

10. Panda Perkiomen Power, L.P. 

[Docket No. ER04–997–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Panda Perkiomen Power, L.P. (Panda 

Perkiomen) pursuant to 18 CFR 35.13 

and 131.53 of the Commission’s Rules 

and Regulations, submitted for filing a 

Notice of Cancellation of Panda 

Perkiomen’s FERC Rate Schedule No. 1. 

Panda Perkiomen requests an effective 

date of August 20, 2003. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

11. Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER04–998–000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2004, 

Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

(VEC) tendered for filing, pursuant to 

section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 

Rate Schedule FERC No. 11 and two 

Notices of Cancellation of its existing 

First Revised Rate Schedule FERC Nos. 

5 and 7, affecting the terms and 

conditions of service to Barton Village, 

Inc. Electric Department (Barton) and 

the Village of Orleans Electric 

Department (Orleans). VEC requests an 

effective date of April 1, 2004. 

VEC states that copies of the filing 

were served on Barton, Orleans, 

Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc., 

the Vermont Public Service Board, and 

the Vermont Department of Public 

Service. 

Comment Date: July 30, 2004. 

12. LG&E Westmoreland Rensselaer 

[Docket No. ER04–999–000] 

Take notice that on July 8, 2004, 

LG&E Westmoreland Rensselaer (LG&E 

Westmoreland) tendered for filing, in 

accordance with 18 CFR 35.15 of the 

Commission’s Rules and Regulations, a 

Notice of Cancellation of its Rate 

Schedule FERC No. 1, Revision No. 1, 

and all supplements thereto. LG&E 

Westmoreland requests an effective date 

of July 1, 2004. 

Comment Date: July 29, 2004. 

43578 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

1 ‘‘We,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the 

environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy 

Projects.

Standard Paragraph 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing should file with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 

and 385.214). Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. All such 

motions or protests should be filed on 

or before the comment date, and, to the 

extent applicable, must be served on the 

applicant and on any other person 

designated on the official service list. 

This filing is available for review at the 

Commission or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

filed to access the document. For 

assistance, call (202) 502–8222 or TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Protests and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1613 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PF04-13-000] 

El Paso Pipeline Group, Western 

Pipelines; Notice of Intent To Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Piceance Basin Expansion Project, 

Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of 

Public Scoping Meetings and Route 

Inspection 

July 14, 2004. 

The staff of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) will prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

on the El Paso Pipeline Group, Western 

Pipeline’s (El Paso) planned Piceance 

Basin Expansion Project in 

northwestern Colorado and southcentral Wyoming. This notice 

announces the opening of the scoping 

process the Commission will use to 

gather input from the public and 

interested agencies on the planned 

project. Your input will help to 

determine which issues need to be 

evaluated in the EIS. The Commission 

will use the EIS in its decisionmaking 

process to determine whether or not to 

authorize the project. Please note that 

the scoping period will close on August 

16, 2004. 

Comments may be submitted in 

written form or verbally. Further details 

on how to submit written comments are 

provided in the Public Participation 

section of this notice. In lieu of sending 

written comments, you are invited to 

attend the public scoping meetings 

scheduled as follows:

SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Date and time Location 

August 3, 2004, at 7 p.m. .................................................. Moffat County Commissioner’s Office—Shadow Mountain Facility, 1055 County Road 

7, Craig, CO. 

August 4, 2004, at 7 p.m. .................................................. Meeker Community Center—Fairfield Center, 200 Main Street, Meeker, CO. 

Note that El Paso plans to hold open house meetings to announce its project to the public on the same dates and at the same locations as 

the FERC public scoping meetings. The open houses will begin at 6:30 p.m. 

Public scoping meetings are being 

held in the two Colorado counties 

where the majority of the planned 

facilities would be located. Because El 

Paso’s planned pipeline would be 

located along the same route in 

Wyoming as the planned Entrega 

Pipeline Project (PF04-7-000) for which 

scoping was recently concluded, we are 

not scheduling an additional public 

meeting in Wyoming. However, this 

should not discourage the submission of 

written comments regarding the 

facilities planned for the Wyoming 

portion of El Paso’s project. 

This notice is being sent to 

landowners; Federal, State, and local 

government agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest 

groups; Native American tribes; other 

interested parties; and local libraries 

and newspapers. We 1 urge government 

representatives to notify their 

constituents of this planned project and 

encourage them to comment on their 

areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project 

El Paso is planning to construct, own, 

and operate a new 143-mile, 24-inchdiameter interstate natural gas pipeline 

that will extend from its existing 

Greasewood Compressor Station near 

Meeker in the Piceance Basin of Rio 

Blanco County, Colorado, to its existing 

Wamsutter Compressor Station in 

Sweetwater County near Wamsutter, 

Wyoming. Here, the new pipeline 

would interconnect with existing 

pipeline systems owned by Wyoming 

Interstate Company and Colorado 

Interstate Gas Company (CIG). This 

project could add at least 350,000 

decatherms per day of new capacity to 

transport natural gas from the Western 

Rocky Mountain Region to markets in 

the midwestern and eastern United 

States. 

The project would include the 

addition of compression at the 

Greasewood Compressor Station, and 

construction of other appurtenant 

facilities. The proposed pipeline 

alignment would follow existing 

pipeline or utility corridors for about 85 

percent of its length. 

One of El Paso’s customers would 

need to transport gas between a location 

in the Parachute Valley, Garfield 

County, Colorado, and the Greasewood 

Compressor Station. Various transport 

means, including the use of both 

existing and new facilities, are under 

consideration. However, one option 

would require construction of a new 36-

mile-long interconnecting pipeline from 

the area of the existing Roan Cliffs Meter 

Station (north of Parachute) to the 

Greasewood Compressor Station. If 

constructed, the route of the 

interconnecting pipeline would 

generally parallel CIG’s existing 

Parachute Creek Lateral pipeline. 

Information on an interconnecting 

pipeline will be included in the analysis 

presented in the EIS. Construction of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43579

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not 

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are 

available on the Commission’s Internet Web site 

http://www.ferc.gov) at the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link or from 

the Commission’s Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371. For instructions on connecting to 

eLibrary, refer to the end of this notice. Copies of 

the appendices are being sent to all those receiving 

this notice in the mail.

3To view information in the docket, follow the 

instructions for using the eLibrary link in 

Availability of Additional Information, below.

new interconnecting facilities would be 

the responsibility of the customer. 

A map depicting El Paso’s planned 

pipeline route between the Greasewood 

Compressor Station and the Wamsutter 

area, and the interconnecting pipeline 

route between the Roan Cliffs Meter 

Station and the Greasewood Compressor 

Station is provided in appendix 1.2

El Paso plans to place the project in 

service by June 2006, with the majority 

of pipeline construction completed by 

the end of 2005. To achieve the initial 

in-service date, El Paso intends to 

request approval to begin construction 

of the Piceance Basin Expansion 

facilities in August 2005. 

Land Requirements 

El Paso’s planned pipeline would 

disturb about 1,750 acres of land during 

construction. Where paralleling another 

pipeline, the new pipeline would 

typically be located about 50 to 75 feet 

from the existing pipeline. El Paso plans 

to use a 100-foot-wide right-of-way 

(ROW) during construction, and 

subsequently maintain a 50-foot-wide 

permanent ROW. The construction 

ROW would be expanded at special 

work areas (e.g., steep slopes, major 

stream crossings). 

Construction of the interconnecting 

pipeline would disturb about 450 acres 

during construction, based on a 100-

foot-wide construction ROW. A 50-foot 

permanent right-of-way would be 

requested for this pipeline. 

The EIS Process 

The FERC will be the lead Federal 

agency for the EIS process, which is 

being conducted to satisfy the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

NEPA requires the Commission to take 

into account the environmental impacts 

that could result from an action 

whenever it considers the issuance of a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity (Certificate). 

NEPA also requires us to discover and 

address issues and concerns the public 

may have about proposals which come 

before the Commission, and to ensure 

those issues and concerns are analyzed 

in the EIS. This process is referred to as 

‘‘scoping.’’ The goal of the scoping 

process is to focus the analysis in the 

EIS on the important and potentially 

significant environmental issues related 

to the proposed action, and on 

reasonable alternatives. This notice 

formally announces the beginning of the 

scoping process and requests agency 

and public comments on El Paso’s 

planned Piceance Basin Expansion 

Project. All scoping comments received 

will be considered during the 

preparation of the EIS. To ensure your 

comments are considered, please 

carefully follow the instructions in the 

Public Participation section of this 

notice. 

Our independent analysis of El Paso’s 

planned project will be included in a 

draft EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed 

to Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest 

groups; Native American tribes; affected 

landowners; other interested parties; 

local libraries and newspapers; and the 

Commission’s official service list. A 45-

day comment period will be allotted for 

review of the EIS. We will consider all 

timely comments and revise the 

document, as necessary, before issuing a 

final EIS. 

The El Paso’s planned Piceance Basin 

Expansion Project is in the preliminary 

design stage. At this time, specific 

routing and other details are being 

finalized and no formal application has 

been filed with the FERC. El Paso 

expects to file a formal application with 

the FERC in November 2004. Although 

we have no formal Certificate 

application, we are initiating our 

environmental review of El Paso’s 

planned project under our NEPA PreFiling Process. The purpose of the 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-filing Process is to: 

• Establish a framework for 

constructive discussion between the 

project proponents, potentially affected 

landowners, agencies, and the 

Commission staff; 

• Encourage the early involvement of 

interested stakeholders to identify 

issues and study needs; and 

• Attempt to resolve issues early, 

before an application is filed with the 

FERC. 

We have already held early 

discussions with the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management, which has agreed to assist 

us in the preparation of the EIS as a 

cooperating agency to satisfy its NEPA 

responsibilities. By this notice, we are 

asking other Federal, State, and local 

agencies with jurisdiction and/or 

special expertise with respect to 

environmental issues to formally 

cooperate with us, too. Agencies that 

would like to request cooperating status 

should follow the instructions for filing 

comments provided below.

Public Participation 

You can make a difference by 

providing us with your specific 

comments or concerns about the 

planned project. Please focus your 

comments on the potential 

environmental effects, reasonable 

alternatives (including alternative 

facility sites and pipeline routes), and 

measures to avoid or lessen 

environmental impact. The more 

specific your comments, the more useful 

they will be. To ensure that your 

comments are timely and properly 

recorded, please mail your comments so 

that they will be received in 

Washington, DC on or before August 16, 

2004, and carefully follow these 

instructions: 

• Send an original and two copies of 

your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; 

• Label one copy of your comments 

for the attention of Gas Branch 1; and 

• Reference Docket No. PF04–13 on 

the original and both copies. 

The public scoping meetings (see page 

1 of this notice) are designed to provide 

another opportunity to offer comments 

on the planned project. Interested 

groups and individuals are encouraged 

to attend the meetings and present 

comments on the environmental issues 

they believe should be addressed in the 

EIS. A transcript of the meetings will be 

made so that your comments will be 

accurately recorded. 

A docket number (PF04–13–000) has 

been established to place information 

filed by El Paso, related documents 

issued by the Commission, and public 

scoping comments into the public 

record.3 Once a formal application is 

filed, the Commission will:

• Publish a Notice of Application in 

the Federal Register; 

• Establish a new docket number; and 

• Set a deadline for interested 

persons to intervene in the proceeding. 

Because the Commission’s NEPA PreFiling Process occurs before an 

application to begin a proceeding is 

officially filed, petitions to intervene 

during this process are premature and 

will not be accepted by the Commission. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic filing of comments. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link and the link to 

the User’s Guide. Prepare your 

submission in the same manner as you 

43580 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

would if filing on paper and save it to 

a file on your hard drive. Before you can 

file comments you will need to create a 

free account by clicking on ‘‘Login to 

File’’ and then ‘‘New User Account.’’

You will be asked to select the type of 

filing you are making. This filing is 

considered a ‘‘Comment on Filing.’’

Route Inspection 

Concurrent with the public scoping 

meetings (August 3 and 4, 2004), we 

will also be conducting an inspection of 

the route and locations of aboveground 

facilities associated with El Paso’s 

planned project. This inspection will 

include both aerial and ground 

components. Anyone interested in 

participating in the inspection activities 

may contact the FERC’s Office of 

External Affairs (identified below) for 

more details and must provide their 

own transportation. 

Environmental Mailing List 

If you wish to remain on our mailing 

list to receive any additional 

environmental notices and copies of the 

draft and final EIS, it is important that 

you return the Return Mailer (appendix 

2) attached to this notice. If you do not 

return the mailer, you will be removed 

from our mailing list. 

Availability of Additional Information 

Additional information about the 

planned project is available from the 

Commission’s Office of External Affairs, 

at 1–866–208–FERC (3372) or on the 

FERC Internet Web site (http://

www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. 

Click on the eLibrary link, click on 

‘‘General Search’’ and enter the docket 

number (i.e., PF04–13–000) excluding 

the last three digits in the Docket 

Number field. Be sure you have selected 

an appropriate date range. For 

assistance, please contact FERC Online 

Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659. 

The Commission now offers a free 

service called eSubscription that allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances 

and submittals in specific dockets. This 

can reduce the amount of time you 

spend researching proceedings by 

automatically providing you with 

notification of these filings, document 

summaries, and direct links to the 

documents. To register for this service, 

go to http://www.ferc.gov/

esubscribenow.htm. 

In addition, a fact sheet prepared by 

the FERC entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural 

Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I 

Need To Know?’’ is available for 

viewing on the FERC Internet Web site. 

This fact sheet addresses a number of 

typically asked questions, including the 

use of eminent domain and how to 

participate in the Commission’s 

proceedings. 

El Paso has initiated a Public 

Participation Plan to provide a means of 

communication for participating 

stakeholders. A toll-free number has 

been established for communicating 

with El Paso regarding this project (Mr. 

David R. Anderson, Land Department 

Manager, 1–877–598–5263). Also, 

contacts and information requests can 

be made by e-mail directly to El Paso at 

david.r.anderson@elpaso.com. Finally, 

El Paso plans to establish a Web site for 

this project by the end of July 2004. The 

Web site will include a list of public 

repositories along the planned route 

where all maps and Federal applications 

are available for inspection, frequently 

asked questions regarding the planned 

project, and other useful information. El 

Paso’s Web site will be: http://

www.elpaso.com.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1621 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2244—Washington] 

Energy Northwest; Notice of Site Visit 

July 13, 2004. 

Energy Northwest, Licensee for the 

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project 

(FERC No. 2244), will be hosting a site 

visit for the project on August 27, 2004. 

The site visit is being conducted to 

provide all parties interested in the 

Project’s relicensing an opportunity to 

view the project’s facilities and 

surrounding area. Commission staff will 

be attending the site visit and providing 

an overview of the Commission’s 

Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), the 

process Energy Northwest is currently 

pursuing for the licensing of the project. 

Under the ILP, the Commission 

conducts its National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) scoping meeting 

within 90 days of the filing of the 

Licensee’s Notice of Intent. A site visit 

is typically held in conjunction with 

that scoping meeting. However, access 

to some project facilities may be limited 

by winter weather during the early part 

of the year when scoping for this project 

is currently planned, in 2005. For this 

reason, it is unlikely that the 

Commission will host its own site visit 

in conjunction with its NEPA scoping 

meeting. Subsequently, the Commission 

encourages all interested parties to 

participate in this site visit to ensure a 

productive scoping meeting early next 

year. Details of the site visit follow:

Date and Time: August 27, 2004 at 11 a.m. 

(PST). 

Location: Packwood Lake Project’s 

Powerhouse, 179 Powerhouse Road, 

Packwood, WA.

Transportation will be provided from 

the powerhouse to the reservoir. Due to 

the remote location of the reservoir, 

some hiking will be involved 

(approximately 2 miles). Please dress 

accordingly. Additionally, it is 

recommended that parties interested in 

attending bring a bag lunch. 

If you are planning to attend the site 

visit or require further information or 

directions, please contact Ms. Laura 

Schinnell of Energy Northwest at: (509) 

372–5123 or via e-mail at: 

lschinnell@energy-northwest.com.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–1618 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Southwestern Power Administration 

Sam Rayburn Dam Power Rate

AGENCY: Southwestern Power 

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of public review and 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Administrator, 

Southwestern Power Administration 

(Southwestern), has prepared Current 

and Revised 2004 Power Repayment 

Studies that show the need for an 

increase in annual revenues to meet cost 

recovery criteria. Such increased 

revenues are required primarily due to 

increased future estimates of operations 

and maintenance expenses at the 

project. The Administrator has 

developed a proposed Sam Rayburn 

Dam rate schedule, which is supported 

by a power repayment study, to recover 

the required revenues. Beginning 

January 1, 2005, the proposed rate 

would increase annual revenues 24.9 

percent from $2,013,024 to $2,513,700.

DATES: The consultation and comment 

period will begin on the date of 

publication of this Federal Register

notice and will end October 19, 2004. 

1. Public Information Forum—July 27, 

2004, 1 p.m. central time, Tulsa, OK. 

2. Public Comment Forum—August 

26, 2004, 9 a.m. central time, Tulsa, OK.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43581

ADDRESSES: If requested, the forums will 

be held in Southwestern’s offices, Room 

1500, Williams Center Tower I, One 

West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 

74103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Forrest E. Reeves, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Corporate 

Operations, Southwestern Power 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595–6696, 

gene.reeves@swpa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Energy was created by an 

Act of the U.S. Congress, in the 

Department of Energy Organization Act, 

Public Law 95–91, dated August 4, 

1977. Southwestern’s power marketing 

activities were transferred from the 

Department of Interior to the 

Department of Energy, effective October 

1, 1977. Guidelines for preparation of 

power repayment studies are included 

in DOE Order No. RA 6120.2, Power 

Marketing Administration Financial 

Reporting. Procedures for Public 

Participation in Power and 

Transmission Rate Adjustments of the 

Power Marketing Administrations are 

found at title 10, part 903, subpart A of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

903). 

Southwestern markets power from 24 

multi-purpose reservoir projects, with 

hydroelectric power facilities 

constructed and operated by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. These projects 

are located in the states of Arkansas, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Southwestern’s marketing area includes 

these States as well as Kansas and 

Louisiana. The costs associated with the 

hydropower facilities of 22 of the 24 

projects are repaid via revenues 

received under the Integrated System 

rates, as are Southwestern’s 

transmission facilities that consist of 

1,380 miles of high-voltage transmission 

lines, 24 substations, and 46 microwave 

and VHF radio sites. Costs associated 

with the Robert D. Willis and Sam 

Rayburn Dams, two projects that are 

isolated hydraulically, electrically, and 

financially from the Integrated System 

are repaid by separate rate schedules. 

The Sam Rayburn Dam project is 

addressed in this notice. 

Following Department of Energy 

guidelines, the Administrator, 

Southwestern, prepared a Current 

Power Repayment study using the 

existing Sam Rayburn Dam rate. The 

Study indicates that Southwestern’s 

legal requirement to repay the 

investment in the power generating 

facility for power and energy marketed 

by Southwestern will not be met 

without an increase in revenues. The 

need for increased revenues is primarily 

due to increased future estimates of 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

power-related expenses for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The Revised 

Power Repayment Study shows that an 

increase in annual revenue of $500,676 

(a 24.9 percent increase), beginning 

January 1, 2005, is needed to satisfy 

repayment criteria. 

Opportunity is presented for 

Southwestern customers and other 

interested parties to receive copies of 

the Sam Rayburn Dam Power 

Repayment Studies and the proposed 

rate schedule. Persons desiring a copy of 

the Power Repayment Data Package 

with the proposed Rate Schedule, 

should submit a request to Mr. James W. 

Sherwood, Director, Rates and 

Repayment, Office of Corporate 

Operations, Southwestern Power 

Administration, One West Third Street, 

Tulsa, OK 74103, (918) 595–6673 or via 

e-mail to swparates@swpa.gov. 

A Public Information Forum is 

scheduled on July 27, 2004, to explain 

to customers and the public the 

proposed rate and supporting studies. 

The proceeding will be transcribed, if 

held. A chairman, who will be 

responsible for orderly procedure, will 

conduct the Forum. Questions 

concerning the rate, studies, and 

information presented at the Forum will 

be answered, to the extent possible, at 

the Forum. Questions not answered at 

the Forum will be answered in writing. 

However, questions involving 

voluminous data contained in 

Southwestern’s records may best be 

answered by consultation and review of 

pertinent records at Southwestern’s 

offices. 

Persons interested in attending the 

Public Information Forum should so 

indicate in writing by letter or facsimile 

transmission (918–595–6656) by July 23, 

2004, their intent to appear at such 

Forum. Should no one indicate an 

intent to attend by the above-cited 

deadline, no such Forum will be held. 

A Public Comment Forum is 

scheduled for August 26, 2004, at which 

interested persons may submit written 

comments or make oral presentations of 

their views and comments related to the 

rate proposal. The proceeding will be 

transcribed, if held. A chairman, who 

will be responsible for orderly 

procedure, will conduct the Forum. 

Southwestern’s representatives present 

and the chairman may ask questions of 

the speakers. 

Persons interested in attending the 

Public Comment Forum should so 

indicate in writing by letter or facsimile 

transmission (918–595–6656) by August 

19, 2004, their intent to appear at such 

Forum. Should no one so indicate an 

intent to attend by the above-cited 

deadline, no such Forum will be held. 

Persons interested in speaking at the 

Forum should submit a request to the 

Administrator, Southwestern, in writing 

by August 19, 2004, their intent to 

appear at such Forum, so that a list of 

speakers can be developed. The 

chairman may allow others to speak if 

time permits. 

A transcript of each Forum will be 

made. Copies of the transcripts may be 

obtained directly from the transcribing 

service for a fee. Copies of all 

documents introduced will also be 

available from the transcribing service 

for a fee. A copy of the written 

comments, together with a diskette in 

MS Word, regarding the proposed rate 

change are due on or before October 19, 

2004. Comments should be submitted to 

Forrest E. Reeves, Assistant 

Administrator, Southwestern Power 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, 74103. 

Following review of the oral and 

written comments and the information 

gathered during the course of the 

proceedings, the Administrator will 

submit the amended Sam Rayburn Dam 

Proposal, and Power Repayment Studies 

in support of the proposed rate to the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy for 

confirmation and approval on an 

interim basis, and subsequently to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) for confirmation and approval 

on a final basis. The FERC will allow 

the public an opportunity to provide 

written comments on the proposed rate 

increase before making a final decision.

Dated: July 8, 2004. 

Michael A. Deihl, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–16584 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

[OPP–2004–0196; FRL–7366–1]

Pesticide Products; Registration 

Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency(EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of applications to register pesticide 

products containing new active 

ingredients not included in any 

previously registered products pursuant 

to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the 

43582 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Written comments, identified by 

the docket ID number OPP–2004–0196, 

must be received on or before August 

20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically, by mail, or 

through hand delivery/courier. Follow 

the detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Harris, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9423; e-mail address: 

Harris.Thomas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an 

agriculturalproducer, food 

manufacturer, or pesticide 

manufacturer. Potentially affected 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532)

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under docket identification (ID) number 

OPP–2004–0196. The official public 

docket consists of the documents 

specifically referenced in this action, 

any public comments received, and 

other information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, 

Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket ID 

number.

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA 

intends to work towards providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments that are 

mailed or delivered to the Docket will 

be scanned and placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit 

Comments?

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket ID number in the subject line on 

the first page of your comment. Please 

ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. If you 

wish to submit CBI or information that 

is otherwise protected by statute, please 

follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do 

not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit 

CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed in this 

unit, EPA recommends that you include 

your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD ROM you submit, and in any 

cover letter accompanying the disk or 

CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43583

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/, and 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in 

docket ID number OPP–2004–0196. The 

system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity, e-mail address, or 

other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–

2004–0196. In contrast to EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the docket without going 

through EPA’s electronic public docket, 

EPA’s e-mail system automatically 

captures your e-mail address. E-mail 

addresses that are automatically 

captured by EPA’s e-mail system are 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the official public docket, and 

made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption.

2. By mail. Send your comments to: 

Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office 

of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0196.

3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Public Information 

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0196. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

docket’s normal hours of operation as 

identified in Unit I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency?

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

or by e-mail. You may claim 

information that you submit to EPA as 

CBI by marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI 

on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

CBI). Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used.

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the registration activity.

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline in this 

notice.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID number 

assigned to this action in the subject 

line on the first page of your response. 

You may also provide the name, date, 

and Federal Register citation.

II. Registration Applications

EPA received applications as follows 

to register pesticide products containing 

active ingredients not included in any 

previously registered products pursuant 

to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of 

FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these 

applications does not imply a decision 

by the Agency on the applications.

Products Containing Active Ingredients 

not Included in any Previously 

Registered Products

1. File Symbol: 264–TRI. Applicant: 

Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

277709. Product Name: Spiromesifen 

Technical. Active Ingredient: 

Spiromesifen at 97%. Proposed 

classification/Use: Formulation into 

insecticide/miticide; for application to 

certain food and feed crops and 

ornamental plants.

2. File Symbol: 264–TRO. Applicant: 

Bayer CropScience. Product Name: 

Oberon 2SC. Insecticide/Miticide. 

Active Ingredient: Spiromesifen at 

24.0%. Proposed classification/Use: For 

application on strawberry; vegetable, 

tuberous and corm (crop subgroup 1C); 

vegetables, leafy greens (except 

Brassica) (crop subgroup 4A); 

vegetables, Brassica (crop group 5); 

vegetables, fruiting (except Cucurbits) 

(crop group 8); vegetables, Cucurbit 

(crop group 9); cotton; and corn, field.

3. File Symbol: 432–RETO. Applicant: 

Bayer Environmental Science, 95 

Chesnut Ridge Rd., Montvale, NJ 07645. 

Product Name: Forbid 4F. Insecticide/

Miticide. Active Ingredient: 

Spiromesifen at 45.2%. Proposed 

classification/Use: For application to 

outdoor ornamental plants.

4. File Symbol: 432–REIN. Applicant: 

Bayer Environmental Science. Product 

Name: BSN 2060 480SC. Insecticide/

Miticide. Active Ingredient: 

Spiromesifen at 45.2%. Proposed 

classification/Use: For application to 

ornamental plants in greenhouse, shade 

house, or nursery settings.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pest.

Dated: July 7, 2004.

Betty Shackleford,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–16215 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

[OPP–2004–0194; FRL–7367–9]

Ziram; Availability of Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision Documents for 

Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

availability and starts a 60-day public 

comment period on the Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) documents for 

the pesticide active ingredient ziram. 

The RED represents EPA’s formal 

regulatory assessment of the health and 

43584 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

environmental data base of the subject 

chemical and presents the Agency’s 

determination regarding which 

pesticidal uses are eligible for 

reregistration.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2004–

0194, must be received on or before 

September 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically, by mail, or 

through hand delivery/courier. Follow 

the detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amaris Johnson, Special Review and 

Reregistration Division (7508C), Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001; telephone number: (703) 305–

9542; e-mail 

address:johnson.amaris@epa.gov.

For technical questions on this RED 

(Case no. 2180), contact Amaris 

Johnson, Chemical Review Manager.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to persons who are or may be 

required to conduct testing of chemical 

substances under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); 

environmental, human health, and 

agricultural advocates; pesticides users; 

and members of the public interested in 

the use of pesticides. Since other 

entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under docket ID number OPP–2004–

0194. The official public docket consists 

of the documents specifically referenced 

in this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Public 

Information and Records Integrity 

Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 

#2, 1801 South Bell St., Arlington, VA. 

This docket facility is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The docket 

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access 

RED documents and RED fact sheets 

electronically, go directly to the REDs 

table on the EPA Office of Pesticide 

Programs Home Page, at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/

status.htm/. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket ID 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA 

intends to work towards providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments that are 

mailed or delivered to the docket will be 

scanned and placed in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. Where practical, physical 

objects will be photographed, and the 

photograph will be placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket along with a 

brief description written by the docket 

staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket ID number in the subject line on 

the first page of your comment. Please 

ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. If you 

wish to submit CBI or information that 

is otherwise protected by statute, please 

follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do 

not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit 

CBI or information protected by statute. 

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed in this 

unit, EPA recommends that you include 

your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD ROM you submit, and in any 

cover letter accompanying the disk or 

CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43585

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/, and 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in 

docket ID number OPP–2004–0194. The 

system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity, e-mail address, or 

other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–

2004–0194. In contrast to EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the docket without going 

through EPA’s electronic public docket, 

EPA’s e-mail system automatically 

captures your e-mail address. E-mail 

addresses that are automatically 

captured by EPA’s e-mail system are 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the official public docket, and 

made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. 

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption. 

2. By mail. Send your comments to: 

Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office 

of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0194. 

3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Public Information 

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 South Bell 

St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID 

Number OPP–2004–0194. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

docket’s normal hours of operation as 

identified in Unit I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

or by e-mail. You may claim 

information that you submit to EPA as 

CBI by marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI 

on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

CBI). Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

6. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the notice or collection activity. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline in this 

document. 

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID number 

assigned to this action in the subject 

line on the first page of your response. 

You may also provide the name, date, 

and Federal Register citation.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

The Agency has issued a RED for the 

pesticide active ingredient listed in this 

document. Under FIFRA, as amended in 

1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated 

reregistration program to reevaluate 

existing pesticides to make sure they 

meet current scientific and regulatory 

standards. The data base to support the 

reregistration of the chemical listed in 

this document is substantially complete, 

and the pesticide’s risks have been 

mitigated so that it will not pose 

unreasonable risks to people or the 

environment when used according to its 

approved labeling. In addition, EPA is 

reevaluating existing pesticides and 

reassessing tolerances under the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. 

The pesticide included in this notice 

also has been found to meet the FQPA 

safety standard.

All registrants of pesticide products 

containing the active ingredient listed in 

this document will be sent the 

appropriate RED, and must respond to 

labeling requirements and product 

specific data requirements (if 

applicable) within 8 months of receipt. 

Products also containing other pesticide 

active ingredients will not be 

reregistered until those other active 

ingredients are determined to be eligible 

for reregistration.

The reregistration program is being 

conducted under Congressionally 

mandated time frames, and EPA 

recognizes both the need to make timely 

reregistration decisions and to involve 

the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing 

this RED as final document with a 60-

day comment period. Although the 60-

day public comment period does not 

affect the registrant’s response due date, 

it is intended to provide an opportunity 

for public input and a mechanism for 

initiating any necessary amendments to 

the RED. If any comment significantly 

affects a RED, EPA will amend the RED 

by publishing the amendment in the 

Federal Register.

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

The legal authority for REDs falls 

under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 

1996. Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA 

directs that, after submission of all data 

concerning a pesticide active ingredient, 

‘‘the Administrator shall determine 

whether pesticides containing such 

active ingredient are eligible for 

reregistration,’’ before calling in product 

specific data on individual end-use 

products, and either reregistering 

products or taking ‘‘other appropriate 

regulatory action.’’

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Pesticides and pests.

43586 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Dated: July 6, 2004.

Debra Edwards,

Director, Special Review and Reregistration 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–16572 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Comments Requested 

July 2, 2004.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a valid control number. 

Comments are requested concerning (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology.

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) comments should be 

submitted on or before September 20, 

2004. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Les 

Smith, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–A804, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or 

via the Internet to Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or copies of the 

information collection(s), contact Les 

Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the 

Internet at Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB 

Control Number: 3060–0500. 

Title: Section 76.1713, Resolution of 

Complaints. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents: 10,400. 

Estimated Time per Response: 18 

hours. 

Frequency of Response:

Recordkeeping and Third party 

disclosure requirements. 

Total Annual Burden: 187,200 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: None. 

Privacy Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.1713 

requires cable system operators to 

advise subscribers at least once each 

calendar year of the procedures for 

resolution of complaints about the 

quality of television signals delivered. 

Cable system operators must maintain 

records on all such subscriber 

complaints and resolution of complaints 

for at least a one-year period.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16605 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–10–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[DA 04–1978] 

The Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau Reminds Telecommunications 

Equipment Manufacturers and 

Telecommunications Service Providers 

of Obligation To Designate Agent for 

Complaints Received by the FCC

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau reminds telecommunications 

equipment manufacturers and 

telecommunications service providers 

subject to Section 255 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, of their 

obligation to designate an agent for 

service of informal and formal 

complaints received by the Federal 

Communications Commissions.

DATES: Effective June 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arlene Alexander, (202) 418–0581 

(voice), (202) 418–0183 (TTY), or e-mail 

Arlene.Alexander@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice, DA 04–1978 released June 30, 

2004. 

This designation or updated 

designation information may be sent to 

the Commission via e-mail to 

Section255_POC@fcc.gov or you can 

mail 1 copy only to: Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 

Attn: Arlene Alexander, Room 6–A629. 

Contact information for section 255 

telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers is posted on the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau’s Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/

cgb/dro/section255_manu.html; contact 

information for telecommunications 

service providers is posted at http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/

service_providers.html; and contact 

information for affected colleges and 

universities is posted at http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/

section255_colleges.html.

The Commission asks that you check 

this information for accuracy. If the 

information is not accurate, current, or 

non-existent, please e-mail the correct 

information to 

Section255_POC@fcc.gov.

The full text of this document and 

filings will be 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. These 

documents may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site: 

www.bcpiweb.com or call 1–800–378–

3160. Filings may also be viewed on the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Disability Rights Office 

homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/

dro.

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This Public Notice can also be 

downloaded in Word and Portable 

Document Formats (PDF) at http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section255.html.

Synopsis: On September 29, 1999, the 

Commission released a Report and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43587

Order and Further Notice of Inquiry 

(Report and Order), See Implementation 

of Section 255 and 251(a)(2) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

enacted by the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996, Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Inquiry, WT Docket No. 96–

198, FCC 99–181, 16 FCC Rcd 6417 

(September 29, 1999) (Report and 

Order), that adopted regulations 

implementing Section 255, which 

requires telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers and service providers to 

ensure that their equipment and 

services are accessible to persons with 

disabilities, to the extent that it is 

readily achievable to do so. The 

regulations require, in part, that 

equipment manufacturers and service 

providers covered by Section 255 

designate an agent for service of 

informal and formal complaints 

received by the Commission. See 47 

CFR 6.18 and 7.18. The designation 

shall include a name or department 

designation, business address, 

telephone number, and, if available, 

TTY number, facsimile number, and 

Internet e-mail address.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jay Keithley, 

Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–16607 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties can review or obtain 

copies of agreements at the Washington, 

DC offices of the Commission, 800 

North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on an agreement to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. 

Agreement No.: 011679–006. 

Title: ASF/SERC Agreement. 

Parties: American President Lines, 

Ltd.; ANL Singapore Pte Ltd.; APL Co. 

Pte Ltd.; China Shipping Container 

Lines, Co. Ltd.; COSCO Container Lines 

Co., Ltd.; Evergreen Marine Corp. 

(Taiwan) Ltd.; Hanjin Shipping Co., 

Ltd.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., 

Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; 

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd.; Nippon Yusen 

Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line 

Ltd.; Sinotrans Container Lines Co., 

Ltd.; Wan Hai Lines Ltd.; and Yang 

Ming Marine Transport Corp. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; 

Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. 

Synopsis: The amendment adds ANL 

Singapore Pte Ltd. as a party to the 

agreement. 

Agreement No.: 200563–011. 

Title: Oakland/Trans Pacific Marine 

Terminal Agreement. 

Parties: Port of Oakland and Trans 

Pacific Container Corporation. 

Filing Party: Thomas D. Clark, Esq.; 

Assistant Port Attorney; Port of 

Oakland; 530 Water Street; Oakland, CA 

94607. 

Synopsis: The proposed amendment 

revises the assigned premises covered 

by the agreement. 

Agreement No.: 201113–004. 

Title: Oakland/SSA LLC Preferential 

Assignment Agreement. 

Parties: Port of Oakland and SSA 

Terminals, LLC. 

Filing Party: Thomas D. Clark, Esq.; 

Assistant Port Attorney; Port of 

Oakland; 530 Water Street; Oakland, CA 

94607. 

Synopsis: The amendment expands 

the assigned premises, provides for 

improvements, and adjusts the 

compensation payable under the 

agreement. 

Agreement No.: 201158. 

Title: Docking and Lease Agreement 

By and Between City of Portland, 

Maine, and Scotia Prince Cruises 

Limited. 

Parties: City of Portland, Maine, and 

Scotia Prince Cruises Limited. 

Filing Party: Judith H. Harris; 

Manager, Maritime Policy; Department 

of Transportation; City of Portland; 40 

Commercial Street, Suite 100; Portland, 

Maine 04101. 

Synopsis: This terminal lease 

agreement, in effect since October 3, 

1986, outlines the terms and conditions 

under which Scotia Prince Cruises 

Limited may use the port facilities of the 

City of Portland, Maine. It also provides 

for an exclusive arrangement between 

the parties, whereby Scotia Prince 

agrees not to operate or participate in 

other passenger or passenger vehicle 

ferry services between other ports in 

New England and Nova Scotia and the 

City of Portland agrees not to grant to 

any other party the right to use the 

premises for any passenger or passenger 

vehicle ferry services without the prior 

written consent of Scotia Prince.

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16600 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

License Applicants 

Notice is hereby given that the 

following applicants have filed with the 

Federal Maritime Commission an 

application for license as a Non-Vessel 

Operating Common Carrier and Ocean 

Freight Forwarder—Ocean 

Transportation Intermediary pursuant to 

section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 

as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 

CFR 515). 

Persons knowing of any reason why 

the following applicants should not 

receive a license are requested to 

contact the Office of Transportation 

Intermediaries, Federal Maritime 

Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

Applicant: 

Starlink Consolidation Service (New 

York), Inc., JFK Cargo Center Bldg. 

75, Suite 230, Jamaica, NY 11430. 

Officers: Anne Wong Liu, Secretary, 

(Qualifying Individual), Patrick 

Chung, President. 

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier 

and Ocean Freight Forwarder 

Transportation Intermediary 

Applicants: 

Caribbean Logistic & Marketing 

Services, C/3 D–5 El Naranjal, Toa 

Baja, PR 00949, Iris V. Figueroa 

Colon, Sole Proprietor. 

Cargo Service Center, Inc., 440 

McClellan Highway, East Boston, 

MA 02128. Officers: Kathleen G. 

Murphy, Vice President, 

(Qualifying Individual), Matthew 

Thoi, President. 

Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean 

Transportation Intermediary 

Applicant: 

Future Forwarding Company, 5673 

Old Dixie Highway, Suite 140, 

Forest Park, GA 30297. Officers: 

Barbara L. Herring, Vice President, 

(Qualifying Individual), David W. 

Holland, Director/Chairman.

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16601 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice.

43588 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

1Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirements described below 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). The FTC is 

seeking public comments on its 

proposal to extend through September 

30, 2007 the current PRA clearance for 

information collection requirements 

contained in its Appliance Labeling 

Rule (‘‘Rule’’), promulgated pursuant to 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’). The clearance expires 

on September 30, 2004.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Appliance 

Labeling Rule: Paperwork comment, 

R611004’’ to facilitate the organization 

of comments. A comment filed in paper 

form should include this reference both 

in the text and on the envelope, and 

should be mailed or delivered to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–159 (Annex U), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. If the comment 

contains any material for which 

confidential treatment is requested, it 

must be filed in paper form, and the first 

page of the document must be clearly 

labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ 1 The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions.

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments will be considered by 

the Commission, and will be available 

to the public on the FTC Web site, to the 

extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a 

matter of discretion, the FTC makes 

every effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

Web site. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/

privacy.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the proposed information 

collection requirements should be 

addressed to Hampton Newsome, 

Attorney, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Division of Enforcement, 

Room 4616, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20580 (202–326–2889).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from 

OMB for each collection of information 

they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of 

information’’ means agency requests or 

requirements that members of the public 

submit reports, keep records, or provide 

information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) As required 

by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the 

FTC is providing this opportunity for 

public comment before requesting that 

OMB extend the existing paperwork 

clearance for the Rule (OMB Control 

Number 3084–0069). 

The FTC invites comments on: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

The Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR 

Part 305) establishes testing, reporting, 

recordkeeping, and labeling 

requirements for manufacturers of major 

household appliances (refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, water 

heaters, clothes washers, dishwashers, 

room air conditioners, furnaces, central 

air conditioners, heat pumps, pool 

heaters, certain lighting products, and 

certain plumbing products). The 

requirements relate specifically to the 

disclosure of information relating to 

energy consumption and water usage. 

The Rule’s testing and disclosure 

requirements enable consumers 

purchasing appliances to compare the 

energy use or efficiency of competing 

models. In addition, EPCA and the Rule 

require manufacturers to submit 

relevant data to the Commission 

regarding energy or water usage in 

connection with the products they 

manufacture. The Commission uses this 

data to compile ranges of comparability 

for covered appliances for publication 

in the Federal Register. These 

submissions, along with required 

records for testing data, may also be 

used in enforcement actions involving 

alleged misstatements on labels or in 

advertisements. 

Burden Statement 

Estimated annual hours burden:

445,000 hours. 

The estimated hours burden imposed 

by Section 324 of EPCA and the 

Commission’s Rule include burdens for 

testing (338,292 hours); reporting (1,324 

hours); recordkeeping (767 hours); 

labeling (101,333 hours); and retail 

catalog disclosures (2,550 hours). The 

total burden for these activities is 

445,000 hours (rounded to the nearest 

thousand), which is the same as staff’s 

previous estimate in its 2001 

submission to OMB. 

The following estimates of the time 

needed to comply with the requirements 

of the Rule are based on census data, 

Department of Energy figures and 

estimates, general knowledge of 

manufacturing practices, and industry 

input and figures. Because compliance 

burden falls almost entirely on 

manufacturers and importers (with a de 

minimis burden for retailers), burden 

estimates are calculated on the basis of 

the number of domestic manufacturers 

and/or the number of units shipped 

domestically in the various product 

categories. 

A. Testing 

Under the Rule, manufacturers of 

covered products must test each basic 

model they produce to determine energy 

usage (or, in the case of plumbing 

fixtures, water consumption). The 

burden imposed by this requirement is 

determined by the number of basic 

models produced, the average number 

of units tested per model, and the time 

required to conduct the applicable test. 

Manufacturers need not subject each 

basic model to testing annually; they 

must retest only if the product design 

changes in such a way as to affect 

energy consumption. The staff estimates 

that the frequency with which models 

are tested every year ranges roughly 

between 10% and 50% and that the 

actual percentage of basic models tested 

varies by appliance category. In 

addition, it is likely that only a small 

portion of the tests conducted is 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43589

2The following numbers reflect estimates of the 

basic models in the market. The actual numbers 

will vary from year to year. Since 2001, the 

Commission has not identified any changes in the 

number of basic models that would yield a 

significant increase in the total burden hours for 

testing. The average number of units tested per 

model and the hours per unit tested are based on 

information from industry sources.

3The amount of annual tests performed is derived 

by multiplying the number of basic models within 

the relevant product categories by the average 

number of units tested per model within each 

category (the underlying information may be drawn 

from the table in Section A.).

attributable to the Rule’s requirements. 

Given the lack of specific data on this 

point, staff has conservatively assumed 

that all of the tests conducted are 

attributable to the Rule’s requirements 

and will use the high end of the range 

noted above. Accordingly, the burden 

estimates are based on the assumption 

that 50% of all basic models are tested 

annually. Thus, the estimated testing 

burden for the various categories of 

products covered by the Rule is as 

follows 2.

Category of manufacturer Number of 

basic models 

Percentage of 

models tested 

(FTC required) 

Avg. number 

of units tested 

per model 

Hours per unit 

tested 

Total annual 

testing burden 

hours 

Refrigerators refrigerator-freezers, and freezers ................. 3,075 50 2 4 12,300 

Dishwashers ......................................................................... 393 50 2 1 393 

Clothes washers .................................................................. 500 50 2 2 1,000 

Water heaters ...................................................................... 650 50 2 24 15,600 

Room air conditioners .......................................................... 1,092 50 2 8 8,736 

Furnaces .............................................................................. 1,900 50 2 8 15,200 

Central A/C .......................................................................... 1,270 50 2 24 30,480 

Heat pumps .......................................................................... 903 50 2 72 65,016 

Pool heaters ......................................................................... 250 50 2 12 3,000 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts .................................................... 975 50 4 3 5,850 

Lamp products ..................................................................... 2,100 50 12 14 176,400 

Plumbing fittings ................................................................... 1,700 50 2 2 3,400 

Plumbing fixtures ................................................................. 22,000 50 1 .0833 917 

338,292 

B. Reporting 

Reporting burden estimates are based 

on information from industry 

representatives. Manufacturers of some 

products, such as appliances and HVAC 

equipment (furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps), indicate 

that, for them, the reporting burden is 

best measured by the estimated time 

required to report on each model 

manufactured, while others, such as 

makers of fluorescent lamp ballasts and 

lamp products, state that an estimated 

number of annual burden hours by 

manufacturer is a more meaningful way 

to measure. The figures below reflect 

these different methodologies as well as 

the varied burden hour estimates 

provided by manufacturers of the 

different product categories that use the 

latter methodology. 

Appliances, HVAC Equipment, and Pool 

Heaters 

Staff estimates that the average 

reporting burden for these 

manufacturers is approximately two 

minutes per basic model. Based on this 

estimate, multiplied by a total of 10,033 

basic models of these products, the 

annual reporting burden for the 

appliance, HVAC equipment, and pool 

heater industry is an estimated 334 

hours (2 minutes × 10,033 models ÷ 60 

minutes per hour). 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Lamp 

Products, and Plumbing Products 

The total annual reporting burden for 

manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, lamp products, and plumbing 

products is based on the estimated 

average annual burden for each category 

of manufacturers, multiplied by the 

number of manufacturers in each 

respective category, as shown below:

Category of manufacturer 

Annual burden 

hours per 

manufacturer 

Number of 

manufacturers 

Total annual 

reporting burden hours 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts ............................................................................................................ 6 20 120 

Lamp products ............................................................................................................................. 15 50 750 

Plumbing products ....................................................................................................................... 1 120 120 

Total Reporting Burden Hours

The total reporting burden for 

industries covered by the Rule is 1,324 

hours annually (334 + 120 + 750 + 120). 

C. Recordkeeping 

EPCA and the Appliance Labeling 

Rule require manufacturers to keep 

records of the test data generated in 

performing the tests to derive 

information included on labels and 

required by the Rule. As with reporting, 

burden is calculated by number of 

models for appliances, HVAC 

equipment, and pool heaters, and by 

number of manufacturers for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, lamp products, and 

plumbing products. 

Appliances, HVAC Equipment, and Pool 

Heaters 

The recordkeeping burden for 

manufacturers of appliances, HVAC 

equipment, and pool heaters varies 

directly with the number of tests 

performed. Staff estimates total 

recordkeeping burden to be 

approximately 167 hours for these 

manufacturers, based on an estimated 

average of one minute per record stored 

(whether in electronic or paper format), 

multiplied by 10,033 tests performed 

annually (1 minute × 10,033 basic 

models ÷ 60 minutes per hour).3

43590 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

4These associations include the Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute, the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association, and the Hydronics 

Institute.

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Lamp 

Products, and Plumbing Products 

The total annual recordkeeping 

burden for manufacturers of fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, lamp products, and 

plumbing products is based on the 

estimated average annual burden for 

each category of manufacturers (derived 

from industry sources), multiplied by 

the number of manufacturers in each 

respective category, as shown below:

Category of manufacturer 

Annual burden 

hours per 

manufacturer 

Number of 

manufacturers 

Total annual 

recordkeeping 

burden hours 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts ............................................................................................................ 2 20 40 

Lamp products ............................................................................................................................. 10 50 500 

Plumbing products ....................................................................................................................... .5 120 60 

Total Recordkeeping Burden Hours 

The total recordkeeping burden for 

industries covered by the Rule is 767 

hours annually (167+40+500+60). 

D. Labeling 

EPCA and the Rule require that 

manufacturers of covered products 

provide certain information to 

consumers, through labels, fact sheets, 

or permanent markings on the products. 

The burden imposed by this 

requirement consists of (1) the time 

needed to prepare the information to be 

provided, and (2) the time needed to 

provide it, in whatever form, with the 

products. The applicable burden for 

each category of products is described 

below: 

Appliances, HVAC Equipment, and Pool 

Heaters 

EPCA and the Rule specify the 

content, format, and specifications for 

the required labels, so manufacturers 

need only add the energy consumption 

figures derived from testing. In addition, 

most larger companies use automation 

to generate labels, and the labels do not 

change from year to year. Given these 

considerations, staff estimate that the 

time to prepare labels for appliances, 

HVAC equipment, and pool heaters is 

no more than four minutes per basic 

model. Thus, for appliances, HVAC 

equipment, and pool heaters, the 

approximate annual drafting burden 

involved in preparing labels is 669 

hours per year [10,033 (basic models) ×

4 minutes (drafting time per basic 

model) ÷ 60 (minutes per hour)]. 

Industry representatives and trade 

associations have estimated that it takes 

between 4 and 8 seconds to affix each 

label to each product. Based on an 

average of 6 seconds per unit, the 

annual burden for affixing labels to 

appliances, HVAC equipment, and pool 

heaters is 83,522 hours [6 (seconds) ×

50,113,098 (the number of total 

products shipped) ÷ 3,600 (seconds per 

hour)]. 

The Rule also requires that HVAC 

equipment manufacturers disclose 

energy usage information on a separate 

fact sheet or in an approved industryprepared directory of products. Staff has 

estimated the preparation of these fact 

sheets requires approximately 30 

minutes per basic model. Manufacturers 

producing at least 95 percent of the 

affected equipment, however, are 

members of trade associations 4 that 

produce approved directories (in 

connection with their certification 

programs independent of the Rule) that 

satisfy the fact sheet requirement. Thus, 

the drafting burden for fact sheets for 

HVAC equipment is approximately 102 

hours annually [4,073 (basic models) ×

.5 hours × .05 (proportion of equipment 

for which fact sheets are required)].

The Rule allows manufacturers to 

prepare a directory containing fact sheet 

information for each retail 

establishment as long as there is a fact 

sheet for each basic model sold. 

Assuming that six HVAC manufacturers 

(i.e., approximately 5% of HVAC 

manufacturers), produce fact sheets 

instead of having required information 

shown in industry directories, and each 

spends approximately 16 hours per year 

distributing the fact sheets to retailers 

and in response to occasional consumer 

requests, the total time attributable to 

this activity would also be 

approximately 96 hours. 

The total annual labeling burden for 

appliances, HVAC equipment, and pool 

heaters is 669 hours for preparation plus 

83,522 hours for affixing, or 84,191 

hours. The total annual fact sheet 

burden is 102 hours for preparation and 

96 hours for distribution, or 198 hours. 

The total annual burden for labels and 

fact sheets for the appliance, HVAC, and 

pool heater industries is, therefore, 

estimated to be 84,389 hours (84,191 + 

198). 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

The statute and the Rule require that 

labels for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

contain an ‘‘E’’ within a circle. Since 

manufacturers label these ballasts in the 

ordinary course of business, the only 

impact of the Rule is to require 

manufactures to reformat their labels to 

include the ‘‘E’’ symbol. Thus, the 

burden imposed by the Rule for labeling 

fluorescent lamp ballasts is minimal. 

Lamp Products 

The burden attributable to labeling 

lamp products is also minimal, for 

similar reasons. The Rule requires 

certain disclosures on packaging for 

lamp products. Since manufacturers 

were already disclosing the substantive 

information required under the Rule 

prior to its implementation, the 

practical effect of the Rule was to 

require that manufactures redesign 

packaging materials to ensure they 

include the disclosures in the manner 

and form prescribed by the Rule. 

Because this effort is now complete, 

there is no ongoing labeling burden 

imposed by the Rule for lamp products. 

Plumbing Products 

The statute and the Rule require that 

manufacturers disclose the water flow 

rate for plumbing fixtures. 

Manufacturers may accomplish this 

disclosure by attaching a label to the 

product, through permanent markings 

imprinted on the product as part of the 

manufacturing process, or by including 

the required information on packaging 

material for the product. While some 

methods might impose little or no 

additional incremental time burden and 

cost on the manufacturer, other methods 

(such as affixing labels) could. Thus, 

staff estimate an overall blended average 

burden associated with this disclosure 

requirement of one second per unit sold. 

Staff also estimate that there are 

approximately 9,000,000 covered 

fixtures and 52,000,000 fittings sold 

annually in the country. Therefore, the 

estimated annual burden to label 

plumbing products is 16,944 hours 

[61,000,000 (units) × 1 (seconds) ÷ 3,600 

(seconds per hour)]. 

Total Burden for Labeling 

The total labeling burden for all 

industries covered by the Rule is 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43591

5The units shipped total is based on combined 

actual or estimated industry figures across all of the 

product categories, except for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, lamp products, and plumbing products. 

Staff has determined that, for those product 

categories, there are little or no costs associated 

with the labeling requirements. The fact sheet 

estimation is based on the previously noted 

assumption that five percent of HVAC 

manufacturers produce fact sheets on their own. 

Based on total HVAC units shipped (10,291,965), 

five percent amounts to 514,598 HVAC units. 

Because manufacturers generally list more than one 

unit on a fact sheet, staff has estimated that 

manufacturers independently preparing them will 

use one sheet for every four of these 514,598 units. 

Thus, staff estimates that HVAC manufacturers 

produce approximately 128,650 fact sheets.

101,333 hours (84,389 +16,944) 

annually. 

E. Retail Sales Catalogs Disclosures 

The Rule requires that sellers offering 

covered products through retail sales 

catalogs (i.e., those publications from 

which a consumer can actually order 

merchandise) disclose in the catalog 

energy (or water) consumption for each 

covered product. Because this 

information is supplied by the product 

manufacturers, the burden on the 

retailer consists of incorporating the 

information into the catalog 

presentation.

In the past, staff has estimated that 

there are 100 sellers who offer covered 

products through paper retail catalogs. 

While the Rule initially imposed a 

burden on catalog sellers by requiring 

that they draft disclosures and 

incorporate them into the layouts of 

their catalogs, paper catalog sellers now 

have substantial experience with the 

Rule and its requirements. Energy and 

water consumption information has 

obvious relevance to consumers, so 

sellers are likely to disclose much of the 

required information with or without 

the Rule. Accordingly, given the small 

number of catalog sellers, their 

experience with incorporating energy 

and water consumption data into their 

catalogs, and the likelihood that many 

of the required disclosures would be 

made in the ordinary course of business, 

staff believe that any incremental 

burden the Rule imposes on these paper 

catalog sellers would be minimal. 

Staff estimates that there are an 

additional 150 new online sellers of 

covered products who are subject to the 

Rule’s catalog disclosure requirements. 

Many of these sellers may not have the 

experience the paper catalog sellers 

have in incorporating energy and water 

consumption data into their catalogs. 

Staff estimates that these online sellers 

each require approximately 17 hours per 

year to incorporate the data into their 

online catalogs. This estimate is based 

on the assumption that entry of the 

required information takes 1 minute per 

covered product and an assumption that 

the average online catalog contains 

approximately 1,000 covered products 

(based on a sampling of websites of 

affected retailers). Given that there is a 

great variety among sellers in the 

volume of products they offer online, it 

is very difficult to estimate such volume 

with precision. In addition, this analysis 

assumes that information for all 1,000 

products is entered into the catalog. 

This is a conservative assumption 

because the number of incremental 

additions to the catalog from year to 

year is likely to be much lower after 

initial start-up efforts have been 

completed. The total catalog disclosure 

burden for all industries covered by the 

Rule is 2,550 hours (150 sellers × 17 

hours annually). 

Estimated annual cost burden:

($7,906,857 in labor costs and 

$3,519,422 in capital or other non-labor 

costs). 

Labor Costs: Staff derived labor costs 

by applying appropriate estimated 

hourly cost figures to the burden hours 

described above. In calculating the cost 

figures, staff assumes that test 

procedures are conducted by skilled 

technical personnel at an hourly rate of 

$20.00, and that recordkeeping and 

reporting, and labeling, marking, and 

preparation of fact sheets, generally are 

performed by clerical personnel at an 

hourly rate of $10.75. 

Based on the above estimates and 

assumptions, the total annual labor 

costs for the five different categories of 

burden under the Rule, applied to all 

the products covered by it, is $7,907,000 

(rounded to the nearest thousand), 

derived as follows:

Activity Burden hours 

per year 

Wage category hourly 

rate 

Total annual 

labor cost 

Testing ......................................................................................................................... 338,292 Skilled technical/$20 ...... $6,765,840 

Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 1,324 Clerical/$10.75 ............... 14,233 

Recordkeeping ............................................................................................................ 767 Clerical/$10.75 ............... 8,245 

Labeling, marking, and fact sheet preparation ........................................................... 101,333 Clerical/$10.75 ............... 1,089,330 

Catalog disclosures ..................................................................................................... 2,550 Clerical/$10.75 ............... 27,413 

7,905,061 

Capital or Other Non-Labor Costs:

$3,519,000 (rounded), determined as 

follows: 

Staff has examined the five distinct 

burdens imposed by EPCA through the 

Rule—testing, reporting, recordkeeping, 

labeling, and retail catalog disclosures—

as they affect the 11 groups of products 

that the Rule covers. Staff has 

concluded that there are no current 

start-up costs associated with the Rule. 

Manufacturers have in place the capital 

equipment necessary—especially 

equipment to measure energy and/or 

water usage—to comply with the Rule. 

Under this analysis, testing, 

recordkeeping, and retail catalog 

disclosures are activities that incur no 

capital or other non-labor costs. As 

mentioned above, testing has been 

performed in these industries in the 

normal course of business for many 

years as has the associated 

recordkeeping. The same is true 

regarding compliance applicable to the 

requirements for paper catalogs. 

Manufacturers and retailers who make 

required disclosures in catalogs already 

are producing catalogs in the ordinary 

course of their businesses; accordingly, 

capital cost associated with such 

disclosure would be minimal or nil. 

Staff recognizes that there may be initial 

costs associated with posting online 

disclosure, and it invites further 

comment to reasonably quantify such 

costs. 

Manufacturers that submit required 

reports to the Commission directly 

(rather than through trade associations) 

incur some nominal costs for paper and 

postage. Staff estimates that these costs 

do not exceed $2,500. Manufacturers 

must also incur the cost of procuring 

labels and fact sheets used in 

compliance with the Rule. Based on 

estimates of 50,113,098 units shipped 

and 128,650 fact sheets prepared,5 at an 

average cost of seven cents for each 

43592 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

1Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).

label or fact sheet, the total (rounded) 

labeling cost is $3,516,922.

William E. Kovacic, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–16483 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 042 3002] 

Jonathan Barash; Analysis To Aid 

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint that accompanies the 

consent agreement and the terms of the 

consent order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

‘‘Jonathan Barash, File No. 042 3002,’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

A comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission/

Office of the Secretary, Room H–159, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, as explained in the 

Supplementary Information section. The 

FTC is requesting that any comment 

filed in paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. Comments filed in 

electronic form (except comments 

containing any confidential material) 

should be sent to the following email 

box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Cleland or Janet Evans, FTC, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3088 

or (202) 326–2125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Section 2.34 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 

2.34, notice is hereby given that the 

above-captioned consent agreement 

containing a consent order to cease and 

desist, having been filed with and 

accepted, subject to final approval, by 

the Commission, has been placed on the 

public record for a period of thirty (30) 

days. The following Analysis to Aid 

Public Comment describes the terms of 

the consent agreement, and the 

allegations in the complaint. An 

electronic copy of the full text of the 

consent agreement package can be 

obtained from the FTC Home Page (for 

June 16, 2004), on the World Wide Web, 

at ‘‘http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9317/

index.htm.’’ A paper copy can be 

obtained from the FTC Public Reference 

Room, Room H–130, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

2222. 

Public comments are invited, and may 

be filed with the Commission in either 

paper or electronic form. Written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before July 30, 2004. Comments should 

refer to ‘‘Jonathan Barash, File No. 042 

3002,’’ to facilitate the organization of 

comments. A comment filed in paper 

form should include this reference both 

in the text and on the envelope, and 

should be mailed or delivered to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–159, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If 

the comment contains any material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested, it must be filed in paper 

(rather than electronic) form, and the 

first page of the document must be 

clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ 1 The 

FTC is requesting that any comment 

filed in paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be sent to the 

following e-mail box: 

consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments, whether filed in 

paper or electronic form, will be 

considered by the Commission, and will 

be available to the public on the FTC 

Web site, to the extent practicable, at 

www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, 

the FTC makes every effort to remove 

home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/

ftc/privacy.htm.

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission has 

accepted, subject to final approval, an 

agreement containing a consent order 

from Jonathan Barash (‘‘proposed 

respondent’’). Proposed respondent 

collaborated with others in the 

marketing of a purported children’s 

weight loss product called ‘‘Pedia Loss,’’

and a purported female libido enhancer 

called ‘‘Fabulously Feminine.’’

The proposed consent order has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

(30) days for reception of comments by 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty (30) days, 

the Commission will review the 

agreement in light of any comments 

received and will decide whether it 

should withdraw from the agreement 

and take other appropriate action or 

make final the agreement’s proposed 

order. 

The Commission’s complaint charges 

that advertising for Pedia Loss made 

unsubstantiated claims that (1) Pedia 

Loss causes weight loss in overweight or 

obese children ages 6 and over, and (2) 

when taken by overweight or obese 

children ages 6 and over, Pedia Loss 

causes weight loss by suppressing 

appetite, increasing fat burning, and 

slowing carbohydrate absorption. The 

Commission’s complaint also charges 

that advertising for Fabulously 

Feminine falsely represented that 

clinical testing proves that Fabulously 

Feminine enhances a woman’s 

satisfaction with her sex life and level 

of sexual desire. In addition, the 

complaint challenges the 

unsubstantiated claim that Fabulously 

Feminine will increase a woman’s 

libido, sexual desire, and sexual 

satisfaction by stimulating blood flow 

and increasing sensitivity. 

Part I A of the proposed order pertains 

to Pedia Loss. It requires that proposed 

respondent possess and rely on 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence to support claims that Pedia 

Loss or any other covered product or 

service causes weight loss, suppresses 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43593

appetite, increases fat burning, or slows 

carbohydrate absorption; causes weight 

loss in overweight or obese children 

ages 6 and over; or causes weight loss 

by suppressing appetite, increasing fat 

burning, or slowing carbohydrate 

absorption, when taken by overweight 

or obese children ages 6 and over. Part 

IB of the order pertains to Fabulously 

Feminine. It requires that proposed 

respondent possess and rely on 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence to support claims that 

Fabulously Feminine or any other 

covered product or service will increase 

a woman’s libido, sexual desire, or 

sexual satisfaction. 

Part II of the proposed order requires 

that proposed respondent possess and 

rely on competent and reliable scientific 

evidence to support benefits, 

performance, or efficacy claims for 

covered products or services defined as 

any dietary supplement, food, drug, or 

device, and any health-related service or 

program promoting weight loss or 

sexual enhancement. 

Part III of the proposed order 

prohibits proposed respondent from 

misrepresenting the existence, contents, 

validity, results, conclusions, or 

interpretations of any test or studies. 

Part IV of the proposed order permits 

proposed respondent to make certain 

claims for drugs or dietary supplements 

that are permitted in labeling under 

laws and/or regulations administered by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

The remainder of the proposed order 

contains standard requirements that 

proposed respondent maintain 

advertising and any materials relied 

upon as substantiation for any 

representation covered by substantiation 

requirements under the order; distribute 

copies of the order to certain company 

officials and employees; and file one or 

more reports detailing his compliance 

with the order. Part IX of the proposed 

order is a provision whereby the order, 

absent certain circumstances, terminates 

twenty years from the date of issuance. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order, and is not intended to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the agreement and proposed order or to 

modify in any way their terms.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16482 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Meeting of the National Advisory 

Council for Healthcare Research and 

Quality

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality (AHRQ).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, this notice announces a meeting of 

the National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality.

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Friday, July 30, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. and is open to the public.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

The Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 

Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Queenan, Coordiantor of the 

Advisory Council, at the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 

Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland, 

20850, (301) 427–1330. For press-related 

information, please contact Karen 

Migdail at (301) 427–1855. 

If sign language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for a 

disability is needed, please contact Mr. 

Donald L. Inniss, Director, Office of 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Program, Program Support Center, on 

(301) 443–1144 no later than April 23, 

2004. Agenda, roster, and minutes are 

available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, 

Committee Management Officer, Agency 

for Healthcare Quality and Research, 

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 

20850. Her phone number is (301) 427–

1554. Minutes will be available after 

August 16, 2004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Purpose 

Section 921 of the Public Health 

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299c) established 

the National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality. In 

accordance with its statutory mandate, 

the Council is to advise the Secretary of 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Director, Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality 

(AHRQ), on matters related to actions of 

the Agecncy to enhance the quality, 

improve the outcomes, reduce the costs 

of health care services, improve access 

to such services through scientific 

research, and to promote improvements 

in clinical practice and in the 

organization, financing, and delivery of 

health care services. 

The Council is composed of members 

of the public appointed by the Secretary 

and Federal ex-officio members. 

II. Agenda 

On Friday, July 30, 2004, the meeting 

will begin at 9 a.m., with the call to 

order by the Council Chair. The 

Director, AHRQ, will present the status 

of the Agency’s current research, 

programs, and initiatives. Tentative 

agenda items include a discussion led 

by David J. Brailer, M.D., Ph.D., newly 

appointed National Health Information 

Technology Coordinator for DHHS, who 

will discuss the information technology 

goals for the Department, and a 

discussion of enhancements to AHRQ’s 

available web-based information tools. 

The official agenda will be available on 

AHRQ’s Web site at http://

www.ahrq.gov no later than July 19, 

2004. The meeting will adjourn at 4 

p.m.

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

Carolyn M. Clancy, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 04–16598 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Contract Review Meeting 

In accordance with section 10(a) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act as 

amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), 

announcement is made of an Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality 

(AHRQ) Technical Review Committee 

(TRC) meeting. This TRC’s charge is to 

review contract proposals and provide 

recommendations to the Director, 

AHRQ, with respect to the technical 

merit of proposals submitted in 

response to a Request for Proposals 

(RFP) regarding ‘‘Health Information 

Technology Resource Center (HITRC)’’. 

The RFP was published in the Federal 

Business Opportunities on June 14, 

2004. 

The upcoming TRC meeting will be 

closed to the public in accordance with 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., 

Appendix 2, FACA regulations, 41 CFR 

101–6.1023 and procurement 

regulations, 48 CFR 315.604(d). The 

discussions at this meeting of contract 

proposals submitted in response to the 

above-referenced RFP are likely to 

reveal proprietary information and 

43594 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the 

proposals. Such information is exempt 

from disclosure under the above-cited 

FACA provision and procurement rules 

that protect the free exchange of candid 

views and facilitate Department and 

Committee operations. 

Name of TRC: The Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality—

‘‘Health Information Technology 

Resource Center (HITRC)’’. 

Date: August 12 and 13, 2004 (Closed 

to the public). 

Place: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, 

Conference Center, Rockville, Maryland 

20850. 

Contact Person: Anyone wishing to 

obtain information regarding this 

meeting should contact Steve Bernstein, 

Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and 

Clinical Partnerships, Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 

Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 

20850, 301–427–1581.

Dated: July 1, 2004. 

Carolyn M. Clancy, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 04–16597 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60Day–04–JP] 

Proposed Data Collections Submitted 

for Public Comment and 

Recommendations 

In compliance with the requirement 

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for 

opportunity for public comment on 

proposed data collection projects, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic 

summaries of proposed projects. To 

request more information on the 

proposed projects or to obtain a copy of 

the data collection plans and 

instruments, or to send comments 

contact Sandi Gambescia, CDC Assistant 

Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton 

Road, MS–E11, Atlanta, GA 30333 or 

send an e-mail to omb@cdc.gov.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Written comments should 

be received within 60 days of this 

notice. 

Proposed Project 

Risk Factors for Acute Hepatitis B or 

Acute Hepatitis C in Older Adults—

New—National Center for Infectious 

Diseases (NCID), Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Questionnaires and data collection 

forms have been designed to collect 

information over a 24-month period 

regarding risk factors for acute hepatitis 

B or acute hepatitis C in persons age ≥60 

years. The purpose of the project is to 

evaluate the possible associations 

between healthcare-related exposures 

and sporadic cases of acute hepatitis B 

or acute hepatitis C among older adults. 

The results of the project will assist CDC 

in accomplishing the part of its mission 

related to preparing recommendations 

for the prevention and control of viral 

hepatitis and its sequelae. 

The respondent universe will include 

residents of a defined geographic area 

served by the participating public health 

agency, along with their healthcare 

providers. Persons identified as meeting 

the case definition for acute hepatitis B 

or C age ≥60 years will be asked to 

participate. Controls will be randomly 

selected through random digit dialing 

from among persons age ≥60 years in the 

general population. For consenting 

cases and controls, medical record 

reviews and healthcare provider 

interviews will be conducted in 

connection with healthcare-related 

exposures. There is no cost to 

respondents.

Respondents Number of

respondents 

Number of

responses per 

respondent 

Average

burden per

response

(in hrs) 

Total burden 

hours 

Consenting Adults Meeting Case/Control Criteria ........................................... 160 1 30/60 80 

Healthcare Providers ....................................................................................... 120 1 20/60 40 

Total .......................................................................................................... 280 ........................ ........................ 120 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43595

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Betsey Dunaway, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and 

Services Office, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 04–16544 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[Program Announcement 04232] 

Strengthening HIV/AIDS, STI and TB 

Prevention, Control and Treatment 

Activities in the Addis Ababa 

University; Notice of Intent To Fund 

Single Eligibility Award 

A. Purpose 

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) announces the intent 

to fund fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds for 

a cooperative agreement program to 

strengthen activities for the prevention, 

control, and treatment of HIV/AIDS, 

STI, and TB in the Addis Ababa 

University (AAU). The Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance number for 

this program is 93.941. 

B. Eligible Applicant 

Assistance will be provided only to 

the Addis Ababa University (AAU). No 

other applicants are solicited. The AAU 

is the only appropriate and qualified 

organization to conduct the activities 

supported by the CDC/GAP in Ethiopia 

because: 

1. The AAU and its TAH are uniquely 

positioned in terms of legal authority, 

ability, and credibility to supported 

technical capacity development for HIV/

AIDS/STI/TB prevention and control 

efforts of the country. 

2. The AAU is mandated by the 

Ethiopian Government to provide 

training for all cadres of health care 

professionals and health social 

scientists who are deployed to all 

regions of the country. 

3. As the only National Central 

Medical Center with the only medical 

speciality/residency training in the 

country, the University and its colleges 

and faculties constitute the oldest and 

largest training institution, and the most 

experienced research facility in the 

country. 

4. The University is associated with 

the Ministry of Education, and works 

closely with the Ministry of Health and 

other sector ministries, as well as with 

a number of regional and international 

institutions, including U.S. universities. 

C. Funding 

Approximately $200,000 is available 

in FY 2004 to fund this award. It is 

expected that the award will begin on or 

before September 1, 2004, and will be 

made for a 12-month budget period 

within a project period of up to five 

years. Funding estimates may change. 

D. Where To Obtain Additional 

Information 

For general comments or questions 

about this announcement, contact: 

Technical Information Management, 

CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 

2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 

30341–4146, telephone: 770–488–2700. 

For program technical assistance, 

contact: Dr. Tadesse Wuhib, Project 

Officer, U.S. Embassy, Entoto Road, P.O. 

Box 1014, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 

telephone: 251–1–669566, e-mail: 

wuhibt@etcdc.com.

For financial, grants management, or 

budget assistance, contact: Shirley 

Wynn, Contract Specialist, CDC 

Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 

Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, 

telephone: 770–488–1515, e-mail: 

zbx6@cdc.gov.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

William P. Nichols, 

Acting Director, Procurement and Grants 

Office, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention.

[FR Doc. 04–16543 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Comprehensive STD Prevention 

Systems, Prevention of STD-Related 

Infertility, and Syphilis Elimination 

Announcement Type: Competing 

Continuation. 

Funding Opportunity Number: 05004. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 93.977. 

Key Dates:

Application Deadline: September 15, 

2004. 

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Authority: This program is authorized 

under Section 318 (a) (b) (c) of the Public 

Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Section 247c 

(a)(b)and(c)], as amended. Regulations 

governing the implementation of this 

legislation are covered under 42 CFR Part 

51b, Subparts A and D.

Purpose: The purpose of the program 

is to support sexually transmitted 

disease (STD) programs in designing, 

implementing, and evaluating 

Comprehensive STD Prevention 

Systems (CSPS), including, where 

applicable, initiatives and strategies 

specific to (1) the Infertility Prevention 

Program (IPP) to prevent STD-related 

infertility; (2) the Syphilis Elimination 

Program (SE) to eliminate syphilis in 

High Morbidity Areas; and (3) the 

Gonoccocal Isolate Surveillance Project 

(GISP) to monitor gonoccocal resistance 

to multiple antibiotics. As an optional 

activity some programs may choose to 

participate in the Quality Evaluation 

Initiative (QEI) to evaluate one program 

activity. This program announcement 

addresses the ‘‘Healthy People 2010’’

focus area of Sexually Transmitted 

Disease which is aimed at addressing 

health disparities (Areas of Special 

Emphasis) among racial and ethnic 

minority populations at greater risk for 

STDs due to health disparities, high risk 

sexual behaviors, the settings in which 

they are found, or because they are at 

risk for or have acquired other diseases. 

These Areas of Special Emphasis 

represent high priority prevention 

opportunities and have direct relevance 

to multiple essential functions. The 

Areas of Special Emphasis identified by 

each grantee will depend on disease and 

behavioral surveillance (e.g., case 

reports, prevalence monitoring, 

behavioral assessments) and other 

locally determined data and criteria. 

While all gender, age, racial, cultural, 

and economic groups are potentially 

affected by STDS, some population 

groups are disproportionately affected 

by STDs and their complications. As 

noted in Healthy People 2010, these 

population groups include African 

Americans, Hispanics, American 

Indian/Alaskan Natives, Asian and 

Pacific Islanders, women, and 

adolescents and young adults. Groups 

considered at risk because of high risk 

sexual behaviors include men who have 

sex with men and persons with multiple 

sex partners. Additionally, high priority 

prevention opportunities may exist for 

groups that can be accessed in certain 

settings. These settings include, but are 

not limited to, correctional facilities, 

HIV prevention and care clinics, 

substance abuse centers or private 

medical care facilities. Finally, 

opportunities exist for STD programs to 

collaborate and integrate with HIV and 

hepatitis prevention programs to better 

serve groups that are at risk for or are 

infected with all of these diseases. 

Examples of collaborative activities 

include, but are not limited to, 

encouraging medical providers to 

provide HIV, hepatitis and STD 

screening in high prevalence settings; 

43596 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

supporting the development and 

expansion of HIV counseling, testing, 

referral and partner services; and 

integrating HIV, hepatitis and STD 

prevention messages into health 

educational materials.

Development of this program 

response provides an opportunity to 

conduct short, intermediate, and long 

term program planning. It may serve as 

the one document that fully describes 

the goals, objectives, activities (present 

and future) of your comprehensive STD 

prevention program. 

Measurable outcomes of the program 

will be in alignment with one (or more) 

of the following performance goal(s) for 

the National Center for HIV, STD, and 

TB Prevention (NCHSTP): (1) Reduce 

STD rates by providing chlamydia and 

gonorrhea screening, treatment, and 

partner treatment to 50 percent of 

women in publicly funded family 

planning and STD clinics nationally; (2) 

Reduce the incidence of primary and 

secondary syphilis; and (3) Reduce the 

incidence of congenital syphilis. 

To ensure quality programs and to 

measure progress, grantees are required 

to report on a set of performance 

measures appropriate for specific 

program components. Each grantee will 

set its own annual target level of 

performance for each performance 

measure. In future years these measures 

will be refined and enhanced. Guidance 

on performance measures for specific 

definitions of measures and terms will 

be provided in a separate companion 

guidance. 

Grantees will be required to specify 

baseline performance using data from 

the period January 1—June 30, 2004. In 

addition, grantees will be required to 

specify one-year and four-year goals for 

each performance measure. The 

discussion should provide a rationale 

for the goals that are set and describe 

data sources and methods of analysis 

used in setting the baseline 

performance, one-year and four-year 

goals. If the data sources needed to 

establish the baseline level are not 

available, the grantee should describe 

what steps or actions will be conducted 

in Year One to set the baseline level in 

Year Two. 

Grantees are also expected to provide 

measurable and quantitative four-year 

project period goals and measurable and 

quantitative one-year budget period 

objectives when developing their 

program plans. These measurable goals 

and objectives should relate to the 

program priorities identified and 

justified in the Background, Need, and 

Narrative sections of the application. If 

the grantee determines, based on project 

area data, that a specific performance 

measure is not applicable, the grantee 

must provide adequate justification as to 

why they should not be held 

accountable for reporting on the 

measure. 

Grantees are responsible for achieving 

the target levels of performance 

measures and program goals and 

objectives established in their grant 

application. If a grantee does not 

achieve their goals, CDC will work with 

the grantee to determine what steps can 

be taken to improve performance. CDC 

actions could include providing 

technical assistance, placing conditions 

or restrictions on the award of funds or, 

with chronic failure to improve, 

reducing funds. 

In addition to performance measures, 

four-year goals and one-year objectives, 

grantees are also required to report 

program data in the same format as 

tables provided. These data tables are 

listed in two sections of this program 

announcement, (1) Background and 

Need and (2) Progress Reports. In future 

years of this grant cycle, the data tables 

will be refined and enhanced. Grantees 

can expect additional data reporting 

requirements to become part of future 

progress reports. 

Activities for CSPS: Awardee 

activities for this program are as follows: 

The grantee will be responsible for 

developing a CSPS program plan that 

includes the following activities: 

1. Provide Community and Individual 

Behavior Change Interventions. 

2. Provide Medical and Laboratory 

Services. 

3. Ensure Partner Services. 

4. Promote Leadership and Program 

Management. 

5. Conduct Surveillance and Data 

Management. 

6. Provide or ensure Training and 

Professional Development. 

7. Ensure a documented STD 

Outbreak Response Plan. 

8. Conduct Program Evaluation. 

Activities for IPP: Awardee activities 

for this program are as follows: The 

grantee will be responsible for 

developing an IPP program plan that 

includes the following activities: 

1. Ensure clinical services including 

chlamydia and gonorrhea screening and 

treatment of young, sexually active 

women and their sex partners. 

2. Support laboratory testing. 

3. Develop surveillance and data 

management systems to ensure 

collection of all CDC core data elements. 

4. Provide program management and 

leadership. 

5. Ensure provider training. 

Activities for SE: Awardee activities 

for this program are as follows: The 

grantee will be responsible for 

developing a SE program plan that 

includes the following activities: 

1. Enhance surveillance. 

2. Strengthen community 

involvement and partnerships. 

3. Provide rapid outbreak response. 

4. Expand clinical and laboratory 

services. 

5. Enhance health promotion. 

Activities for GISP:

1. Collect, handle, and ship 

specimens. 

2. Report demographic and clinical 

data. 

Activities for QEI (Optional): In 

addition to the required evaluation 

activities some grantees may opt to 

participate in the Quality Evaluation 

Initiative by conducting the following 

activities: 

1. Evaluate one program intervention. 

2. Report the outcome of the 

evaluation.

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Grant. 

Fiscal Year Funds: 2005. 

Approximate Total Funding:

$103,000,000. 

Federal funds are intended to 

supplement (not replace or supplant) 

current state and local resources and 

must be used to assist state and local 

programs in conducting high-priority 

activities as described in their CSPS, IPP 

and SE plans. 

CSPS: Approximately $57,000,000 is 

available (based on FY2004 financial 

assistance base-level awards) in FY 2005 

to fund 65 awards. Included within 

CSPS is the optional activity, Quality 

Evaluation Initiative (QEI), for which no 

additional funding is available at this 

time. The average base-level award for 

CSPS is expected to be $877,000, 

ranging from $24,000 to $5,105,000. 

Funding estimates may change. 

IPP: Approximately $28,000,000 

(based on FY 2004 financial assistance 

base level awards) is available in FY 

2005 to fund 65 awards. Awards will 

range from $10,700 to $1,910,000. 

SE: Approximately $18,000,000 is 

available in FY 2005 to supplement up 

to 38 CSPS Project Grants to design, 

implement, and evaluate intervention 

strategies for syphilis elimination in 

High Morbidity Areas (HMA). It is 

expected that awards will range from 

$135,000 to $1,900,000. 

GISP: Approximately $460,000 is 

available in FY 2005. Awards will range 

from $3,000 to $92,000.

Approximate Number of Awards:

CSPS: 65 

IPP: 65 

SE: 38 

GISP: 28–35 

Approximate Average Award:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43597

CSPS: $877,000 

IPP: $431,000 

SE: $474,000 

GISP: $19,000 

Floor of Award Range:

CSPS: $24,000 

IPP: $10,700 

SE: $135,000 

GISP: $3,000 

Ceiling of Award Range:

CSPS: $5,105,000 

IPP: $1,910,000 

SE: $1,900,000 

GISP: $92,000

Anticipated Award Date: January 1, 

2005. 

Budget Period Length: 12 months. 

Project Period Length: 4 years. 

Throughout the project period, CDC’s 

commitment to continuation of awards 

will be conditioned on the availability 

of funds, evidence of satisfactory 

progress by the recipient (as 

documented in required reports), and 

the determination that continued 

funding is in the best interest of the 

Federal Government. 

III. Eligibility Information 

III.1. Eligible Applicants 

CDC is specifically authorized to 

make grants to state and political 

subdivisions of states for research and 

demonstration projects for STD 

prevention and control; STD screening, 

treatment, and case finding; public 

information and education programs for 

STD prevention; and education, 

training, and clinical skills 

improvement for the prevention and 

control of STDs.

CSPS: Eligible applicants for the CSPS 

funds are the 65 official public health 

agencies that are current recipients of 

project grants for Preventive Health 

Services-Sexually Transmitted Disease 

Control Grants. These applicants have 

the necessary infrastructure in place to 

perform the activities required and have 

the experience needed to successfully 

complete the required functions. 

IPP: Eligible applicants for the IPP 

funds are the 65 official public health 

agencies that are current recipients of 

project grants for Preventive Health 

Services—Sexually Transmitted Disease 

Control Grants. These applicants have 

the necessary infrastructure in place to 

perform the activities required and have 

the experience needed to successfully 

complete the required functions. 

SE: Project areas eligible for Syphilis 

Elimination funding are stratified in 

three different tiers: (1) Those with 

greater than 100 cases of Primary and 

Secondary (P and S) syphilis in 2003; 

(2) those with greater than 35 cases of 

P and S and a Male to Female case ratio 

greater than or equal to 2.5 in 2003; (3) 

those project areas previously funded 

for syphilis elimination who have not 

reached stable reductions of P and S 

syphilis for the years 2000–2003. 

Project areas with greater than 100 

cases of P and S syphilis are: Alabama, 

Arizona, Baltimore, Chicago, California, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Los Angeles, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Jersey, New York City, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, San 

Francisco, Tennessee, Texas. 

Project areas with greater than 35 

cases of P and S Syphilis and a Male to 

Female case ratio greater than or equal 

to 2.5: District of Columbia, Minnesota, 

Virginia, Washington, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, New York State, Oregon. 

Those project areas previously funded 

for syphilis elimination activities 1999–

2004 who have not reached stable 

reductions in P and S syphilis for three 

years 2001–2003 are: Arkansas, 

Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Wisconsin. 

GISP: Current participants include 

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, 

Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, 

Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, 

Los Angeles, Oklahoma, and Michigan. 

These applicants have the necessary 

infrastructure in place to perform the 

activities required and have the 

experience needed to successfully 

complete the required functions. 

Additional eligible sites may be added 

as funds become available. 

A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/

organization identified by the state as 

eligible to submit an application under 

the state eligibility in lieu of a state 

application. If you are applying as a 

bona fide agent of a state or local 

government, you must provide a letter 

from the state or local government as 

documentation behind the first page of 

your application form. 

III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching 

Matching funds are not required for 

this program. 

III.3. Other 

If you request a funding amount 

greater than the ceiling of the award 

range, your application will be 

considered non-responsive and will not 

be entered into the review process. You 

will be notified that your application 

did not meet the submission 

requirements.

Note: Title 2 of the United States Code 

Section 1611 states that an organization 

described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal 

Revenue Code that engages in lobbying 

activities is not eligible to receive Federal 

funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

IV.1. Address To Request Application 

Package 

To apply for this funding opportunity 

use application form PHS 5161–1. 

Application forms, instructions, and 

appendices are available on the CDC 

Web site, at the following Internet 

address: www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/

forminfo.htm.

If you do not have access to the 

Internet, or if you have difficulty 

accessing the forms on-line, you may 

contact the CDC Procurement and 

Grants Office Technical Information 

Management Section (PGO–TIM) staff 

at: 770–488–2700. Application forms 

can be mailed to you.

IV.2. Content and Form of Application 

Submission 

The program announcement is the 

definitive guide on application format, 

content, and deadlines. It supersedes 

information provided in the application 

instructions. If there are discrepancies 

between the application form 

instructions and the program 

announcement, adhere to the guidance 

in the program announcement. 

You must submit a signed original 

and two copies of your application 

forms. 

Application: You must include a 

project narrative with your application 

forms. Your narrative must be submitted 

in the following format: 

• Maximum number of pages: CSPS is 

40, IPP is 20, SE is 20, QEI is five; and 

GISP is five. If your narrative exceeds 

the page limit, only the first pages 

which are within the page limit will be 

reviewed. 

• Font size: 12 point unreduced. 

• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches. 

• Page margin size: One inch. 

• Printed only on one side of page. 

• Held together only by metal clips; 

not bound in any other way. 

• Number all pages. 

• Single spaced. 

• Include a complete index with page 

numbers to all parts of the application 

and its appendices. 

Your narrative should address 

activities to be conducted during the 

entire project period, and must include 

the following: 

1. Specific one-year interim targets 

and four-year overall goals. 

2. The discussion should provide a 

rationale for the targets and a 

description of how each relates to 

43598 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Healthy People 2010 Objectives. 

(Reference-http://

www.healthypeople.gov/document/

html/volume2/25stds.htm) 

The goals should reflect the vision, 

priorities and direction of the grantee’s 

STD program during the next four-year 

project period. These goals should be 

supported by background and need 

descriptions and be consistent with the 

goals of the Division of STD Prevention. 

The narrative must include the 

following items in the order listed: 

1. Executive Summary 

Your executive summary should 

include a clear and succinct description 

of your program including, but not 

limited to, funding you are applying for 

(CSPS, IPP, SE, and GISP), program’s 

mission and purpose, program structure, 

significant morbidity and other trends, 

goals of the program for which funding 

is requested, and key activities to meet 

these goals. Those applicants choosing 

to participate in the QEI initiative 

should also address this initiative in the 

executive summary. 

2. Background and Need for CSPS, IPP, 

and SE 

This section should describe the 

grantee’s total STD program (not just the 

portion which is federally funded), STD 

prevention needs, and provide a sound 

platform for proposed CSPS, IPP, and 

SE funded activities. The grantee must 

include the following: 

a. An overview and update of 

chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis 

morbidity and prevalence (where 

appropriate) trends by relevant 

characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/

ethnicity, geography) for the past five 

years. Provide current syphilis reactor 

grid indicating date of last assessment 

and modification. Additionally, 

complete the following four tables 

separately for each of these time 

periods: calendar year 2003 and the first 

six months of 2004.

TABLE 1.—CHLAMYDIA

Provider type 

Number of Chlamydia tests

(List as many as appropriate) 

Number of positive tests

(List as many as appropriate) Test used Screening

criteria 

Females Males Females Males 

FP 

STD 

Prenatal 

TABLE 2.—GONORRHEA

Provider type 

Number of Gonorrhea tests

(List as many as appropriate) 

Number of positive tests

(List as many as appropriate) Test used Screening

criteria 

Females Males Females Males 

FP.

STD.

Prenatal.

TABLE 3.—MALE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYPHILIS CASES

Number of cases 

Cases with 

partner 

information* 

Information about index case 

Total number of HIV+ Total number of HIV¥

Total number of HIV 

status unknown 

HIV + & 

MSM** 

HIV ¥ & 

MSM 

HIV Status 

unknown & 

MSM 

*Partner information is defined as partner information gathered during an interview and/or information gathered from a provider even if the 

case is not interviewed. 

**MSM refers to men who have sex with men. 

TABLE 4.—FEMALE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYPHILIS CASES

Number of Cases Cases with Partner 

Information* 

Information about Index Case 

Total number of 

HIV+ 

Total number of 

HIV¥

Total number of 

HIV status

unknown 

* Partner information is defined as partner information gathered during an interview and/or information gathered from a provider even if the 

case is not interviewed. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43599

b. Discussion of significant behavioral 

trends of groups affected by STDs (e.g., 

sexual risk, substance abuse, and health 

care seeking); health services delivery 

trends (e.g., number of clinics, patients 

seen, relationships with private 

providers) and program management 

(e.g., organizational structure, funding, 

federal and local staffing, resource 

limitations) trends over the past five 

years. Include any other relevant 

information or trends that may be major 

factors affecting STD morbidity within 

your project area. 

c. Discussion of community 

involvement and organizational 

partnerships in planning, 

implementation and evaluation of 

program activities including successes, 

obstacles, and barriers. Also describe 

collaboration with other governmental 

and non-governmental entities (e.g., 

regional infertility prevention projects, 

school-based clinics, correctional 

centers, community planning groups, 

Indian Health Services, tribes, faithbased organizations, STD/HIV 

Prevention Training Centers, AIDS 

Education and Training Centers). 

d. Discussion of Areas of Special 

Emphasis: Grantees are expected to 

identify the Areas of Special Emphasis 

to be addressed through program 

activities and provide a rationale for the 

selections. The grantee must include 

morbidity, behavioral, or other data/

information to support the rationale. 

Examples of information to include are: 

(1) Case rates or prevalence monitoring 

data; (2) data indicating the 

demographic characteristics of the 

groups to be reached; (3) behavioral or 

other risk data; or (4) documentation of 

existing project area activities related to 

the Areas of Special Emphasis chosen. 

e. Statement of grantee’s one year 

interim target and four-year overall 

project period goals for each target. 

Provide a rationale for the targets and a 

description of how each relates to 

Healthy People 2010 Objectives. 

(Reference: http://

www.healthypeople.gov/document/

html/volume2/25stds.htm) 

3. CSPS Essential Functions 

Following are instructions to 

complete this section: 

I. Narrative: Describe and discuss the 

status of each essential function as 

specified under each function. As 

appropriate, include information about 

how the Areas of Special Emphasis 

identified in the background section are 

being addressed. 

II. Objectives: List the budget period 

(one year) program objectives for each 

essential function. They should be 

consistent with grantee’s program 

priorities as related to each function. 

Assure that each objective is specific, 

measurable, achievable and ambitious, 

relevant, and time bound (SMART). The 

suggested number of objectives for each 

essential function is one to three. 

III. Activities: Describe the activities 

that will be conducted to achieve the 

objectives for the next budget period. 

Include in this section any training of 

program staff or external partners 

necessary to conduct the activities and 

achieve the objectives. 

IV. Monitoring Plan: A plan should be 

developed that will monitor the 

activities and progress made toward 

meeting the objectives developed for 

each essential function. The plan should 

answer the following questions: 

1. What is being done? (e.g., strategy, 

intervention,activity) 

2. By whom? (e.g., staffing) 

3. For whom? (e.g., target population) 

4. How? (e.g., where, when, how 

often, how much) 

5. For what specific benefit(s)? (e.g., 

what are the expected results or 

outcomes?)

6. What resources are being used? 

(e.g., staff, materials, money etc.) 

Essential Functions 

Community and Individual Behavior 

Change Interventions. Community 

Behavior Change is defined as an 

intervention conducted for more than 

one person at any given time while 

Individual Behavior Change is defined 

as an intervention conducted one-onone. Information on STD prevention 

interventions (or strategies) can include 

abstinence, monogamy, i.e., being 

faithful to a single sexual partner, or 

using condoms consistently and 

correctly. These approaches can avoid 

risk (abstinence) or effectively reduce 

risk for STD (monogamy, consistent and 

correct condom use). 

The components of this essential 

function are: 

1. Describe how the program 

implements strategies to target 

individuals, groups or whole 

communities to build awareness and 

stimulate individual behavior change. 

2. Describe how the program develops 

networks with experts in the fields of 

communication, behavioral and social 

science, social marketing and 

advertising to further promote STD 

prevention messages. 

Medical and Laboratory Services.

Medical Services are defined as clinical/

diagnostic STD services provided by 

private and public health care 

providers. Laboratory Services are 

defined as STD testing performed at 

licensed facilities. The components are: 

1. Describe collaboration with nongovernmental entities, Communitybased organizations (CBOs), providers, 

etc., whose clients are at risk for STDs 

to expand access to care. 

2. Describe how the program assures 

that the clinical services and standards 

of care in those settings providing STD 

services are of high quality and 

consistent with CDC’s guidelines and 

recommendations. 

3. Describe screening and counseling 

of persons at risk for STDs in settings 

where STD services are provided. 

Screening criteria should be based on 

local morbidity. 

4. Describe how the program assures 

the availability of on-site, ‘‘stat’’

(immediate) STD laboratory tests 

(Clinical Laboratory Improvement 

Amendments [CLIA] adherence 

required) in laboratories in public STD 

clinic settings. 

5. Describe how the program assures 

that all laboratories adhere to reporting 

requirements including the transmission 

of quality, complete data in a timely 

manner to providers and the health 

department. 

There is one performance measure for 

this essential function. Specify baseline 

performance, one-year, and four-year 

goals for the following measure: 

Proportion of female admittees to 

large juvenile detention facilities tested 

for chlamydia. (See appendix five for 

list of proposed large county detention 

facilities by project area that project 

areas may use in responding to this 

measure.) 

The following information regarding 

the baseline indicator should be 

provided: 

1. Describe how the baseline was 

developed. 

2. Describe what data sources were 

used in setting the baseline. 

3. Describe how the data were 

analyzed to develop this baseline. 

4. Describe how the one-year and 

four-year goals were developed. 

5. If the data sources needed to 

establish the baseline level are not 

available, describe what steps/actions 

will be conducted in Year One to set the 

baseline level in Year Two. 

Partner Services. Partner Services are 

those activities offered to individuals 

infected with STDs, their sex partners, 

and other persons who are at increased 

risk for infection in an effort to prevent 

further transmission of disease. The 

components are: 

1. Describe confidential notification, 

appropriate medical attention, and 

needed referrals for sex partners and 

other high risk individuals. 

43600 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

2. Describe risk reduction plans to 

reduce likelihood of acquiring future 

STD/HIV. 

3. Describe identification of 

communities at risk by analyzing 

information gathered from interviews 

conducted with patients, partners, and 

others at risk for STD and HIV. 

4. Describe integration or 

coordination of STD and HIV partner 

services. 

There are five performance measures 

for this essential function. Specify 

baseline performance, and one-year and 

four-year goals, for the following five 

measures: 

1. Proportion of primary and 

secondary syphilis cases interviewed 

within 7, 14, and 30 calendar days from 

the date of specimen collection. 

2. Number of contacts 

prophylactically treated or newly 

diagnosed and treated within 7, 14 and 

30 calendar days from day of interview 

of index case, per case of P and S 

syphilis. 

3. Number of ‘‘associates’’ or 

‘‘suspects’’ tested, per case of P and S 

syphilis. 

4. Number of ‘‘associates’’ or 

‘‘suspects’’ treated for newly diagnosed 

syphilis, per case of P and S syphilis. 

Project areas receiving syphilis 

elimination funding are not required to 

report on the following performance 

measure. For all other project areas, 

when providing required information 

for this measure, describe how the data 

was analyzed to identify the chosen 

priority population(s).

5. Proportion of priority gonorrhea 

cases interviewed within 7, 14 and 30 

days from the date of specimen 

collection. Priority population(s) is to be 

locally determined (e.g., pregnant 

women, women aged 15–19 years, 

women of child-bearing age, resistant 

gonorrhea, MSM, etc.) 

The following information regarding 

each baseline performance should be 

provided: 

1. Describe how the baseline was 

developed. 

2. Describe what data sources were 

used in setting the baseline. 

3. Describe how the data were 

analyzed to develop this baseline. 

4. Describe how the one-year and 

four-year goals were developed. 

5. If the data sources needed to 

establish the baseline level are not 

available, describe what steps/actions 

will be conducted in Year One to set the 

baseline level in Year Two. 

Leadership and Program 

Management. Leadership is defined as 

providing the vision and context in 

which management activities are 

implemented. It provides a clear sense 

of purpose and direction. Program 

Management is defined as overseeing 

the implementation of elements created 

by leadership. Components of this 

essential function are: 

1. Describe program vision to set the 

context in which activities can be 

implemented. 

2. Describe implementation of the 

elements created by leadership which 

include assessment, assurance, and 

policy development. 

3. Describe dissemination and 

implementation of national and local 

guidelines and the delivery of high 

quality STD prevention and clinical 

services. 

4. Describe the development of sound 

policy that promotes STD prevention 

program goals through solid strategic 

and operational planning. 

5. Describe the involvement of 

affected communities and other relevant 

partners in strategic and operational 

planning. 

Surveillance and Data Management.

Surveillance is defined as the ongoing 

and systematic collection, analysis, 

interpretation, and dissemination of 

health data for the purpose of describing 

and monitoring disease trends. Data 

management is defined as the process of 

collection, analysis, storage, retrieval, 

and distribution of data. The 

components of this essential function 

are: 

1. Describe the improvement and 

maintenance of timely and active data 

and information systems for monitoring 

STD incidence and prevalence, 

especially in high risk populations and 

geographic areas. 

2. Describe your system to detect 

changing patterns, identify populations 

at risk, and provide surveillance data 

and feedback to program managers, 

community health providers, HIV 

community planning groups, policy 

makers, family planning partners, 

correctional facilities, Managed Care 

Organizations, and the lay public. 

There are two performance measures 

for this essential function. Baseline 

performance for these measures will be 

provided by CDC. Specify one-year and 

four-year goals for the following two 

measures. 

1. Proportion of reported cases of 

gonorrhea, chlamydia, P and S syphilis, 

early latent (EL) syphilis, and congenital 

syphilis sent to CDC via the National 

Electronic Telecommunications System 

for Surveillance (NETSS) that have 

complete data for age, race, sex, county, 

and date of specimen collection. 

2. Proportion of reported cases of 

gonorrhea, chlamydia, P and S syphilis, 

EL syphilis, and congenital syphilis sent 

to CDC via NETSS within 30 and 60 

days from the date of specimen 

collection. 

The following information regarding 

each baseline indicator should be 

provided: 

1. Describe how the one-year and 

four-year goals were developed. 

Training and Professional 

Development. Training is defined as a 

set of activities designed to develop 

specific skills of workers who are 

required to perform public health 

prevention functions or tasks. The 

training process includes assessment of 

staff proficiency and identification of 

training needs; delivery of training to 

address skill and knowledge 

deficiencies; and evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the training on 

performance. Professional development 

is a strategy to develop the necessary 

professional expertise within the 

targeted workforce. It is a broader level 

of commitment to worker development 

and might include participation in 

informational seminars and in-service 

workshops, formal academic education, 

and experiential activities which aid in 

the growth of workers’ professional 

expertise. Components of this essential 

function are: 

1. Describe the programs on-going 

systematic assessment of the training 

needs of staff and external partners. 

2. Describe how the program 

identifies ongoing training resources. 

3. Describe opportunities for 

professional development for staff 

members. 

4. Describe training for the 

professional development of external 

partners including staff and physicians 

of private medical settings. 

STD Outbreak Response Plan (not 

included in page limitation). All 

grantees must include an updated STD 

Outbreak Response Plan as an 

attachment. The plan should include 

standards for surveillance and 

procedures for analysis of data; a 

timetable and schedule for review of 

disease trends; the disease thresholds, 

for gonorrhea and syphilis at a 

minimum, at which the plan is to be 

initiated; the meaningful involvement of 

the affected community in the effort; 

staffing considerations, including 

number, disciplinary mix, and specific 

responsibilities of members of response 

teams; the notification to CDC; the 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

response; and a schedule for the 

periodic review of both the outbreak 

plan and the surveillance system 

attributes.

4. Quality Evaluation Initiative 

The Quality Initiative, a new 

component, is intended to assist 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43601

grantees in building local evaluation 

capacity by improving knowledge and 

skill in the area of program evaluation 

as practically applied to the CSPS. Selfselected grantees are given the 

opportunity to develop plans to conduct 

an in-depth, science-based evaluation. It 

is an opportunity for a grantee to closely 

examine a program intervention to 

determine its strengths and weaknesses, 

its benefits, and its future direction. In 

addition, grantees will be provided 

technical assistance by the Division to 

assist in the development, 

implementation, and execution of this 

initiative. During the project period, the 

grantee will have an opportunity to 

closely examine a program intervention 

to determine its strengths and 

weaknesses, its benefits, and its future 

direction. 

To express interest in pursuing this 

quality evaluation initiative the grantee 

should address the following items in 

their application. 

a. Describe any current program 

evaluation and quality improvement 

activities the program has or is currently 

conducting. 

b. Select and briefly describe the 

rationale for selection of ONE program 

intervention to be evaluated. 

c. List the most important questions to 

be answered (what does the grantee 

want to learn about the intervention). 

d. Describe what technical assistance 

your project would need to conduct an 

evaluation. 

5. Infertility Prevention Plan 

A comprehensive program plan for 

infertility prevention should be 

developed based on access to 

populations at risk, prevalence of 

disease, and available resources (federal, 

state, local, and private). Project areas 

are expected to develop a program plan 

that uses the most cost-effective 

approaches available and provide a 

rationale for the approach selected. To 

improve cost-effectiveness, programs are 

encouraged to expand screening to 

adolescent women in settings with a 

female prevalence of chlamydia greater 

than two percent (family planning 

clinics, STD clinics, adolescent health 

clinics, Indian Health Service sites, 

community health centers, school-based 

health centers, and juvenile detention 

centers) before screening males. In 

general, screening men is not costeffective unless the prevalence in the 

men screened is substantially higher 

than the prevalence in women who can 

be screened (such as seven percent in 

men vs two percent in women). 

Project area IPP program plans must 

be developed in collaboration with 

family planning (FP) and laboratory 

partners. The application must include 

a recently dated letter that provides 

evidence of collaboration and indicates 

the percentage (at least 50 percent) of 

IPP funds that will support screening 

and treatment of women and their sex 

partners in Title X family planning 

settings. If the funds are less than 50 

percent, justification must be provided 

in the letter. The STD and the 

designated Title X family planning 

representative must jointly sign the 

letter. 

The project area must provide the 

Regional IPP Coordinator a draft copy of 

the CSPS Background section, IPP plan, 

and IPP budget in sufficient time to 

provide feedback prior to local 

clearance. Any comments from the 

Regional IPP Coordinator received seven 

days before submission to local 

clearance should be considered by the 

project area for incorporation in the 

application. 

The following are instructions to 

complete this section. 

I. Narrative: Describe and discuss the 

status of each IPP core component. As 

appropriate, include information about 

how the Areas of Special Emphasis 

identified in the background section are 

being addressed. 

II. Objectives: List the budget period 

(one year) program objectives for each 

IPP core component. The objectives 

should be consistent with and address 

relevant priority areas as outlined in the 

2003 Regional IPP Plan Guidance. 

Assure that each objective is SMART. 

The suggested number of objectives for 

each core component is one to three. 

III. Activities: Describe the required 

activities to achieve the objectives 

related to the five IPP core components 

for the next budget period (one year). 

Report on all relevant activities 

regardless of funding source. Activities 

supported with IPP funds should be 

clearly identified and reported 

separately. Progress reports should be 

shared with members of the regional 

advisory committee to keep them 

abreast of program successes and 

shortfalls.

IV. Monitoring Plan: A plan should be 

developed that will monitor the 

activities and progress made toward 

meeting the objectives developed for 

each IPP core component. The plan 

should answer the following questions: 

1. What is being done? (e.g., strategy, 

intervention, activity) 

2. By whom? (e.g., staffing) 

3. For whom? (e.g., target population) 

4. How? (e.g., where, when, how 

often, how much) 

5. For what benefit? (e.g., what are the 

expected results or outcomes?) 

6. What resources are being used? 

(e.g., staff, materials, money, etc.) 

IPP Core Components: Include a 

description of each of the five IPP core 

components within your narrative. 

Clinical Services 

• Describe how the program is 

targeting/expanding chlamydia 

screening to young sexually active 

women and men at risk for infection in 

family planning, STD and other settings 

including, but not limited to, Indian 

Health Service sites, migrant and 

community health centers, adolescent 

clinics, school-based facilities, and 

juvenile detention centers. 

• Describe counseling and education 

strategies to prevent and control 

chlamydia and gonorrhea including (a) 

the importance of partner referral and 

treatment, (b) the impact of untreated 

chlamydia and repeat chlamydial 

infections on future fertility and (c) 

information on STD prevention methods 

(or strategies) such as abstinence, 

monogamy, i.e., being faithful to a single 

sexual partner, or using condoms 

consistently and correctly. 

• Describe monitoring of treatment 

success. 

• Describe monitoring of partner 

testing and treatment. 

• Describe monitoring of regional 

screening guidelines, protocols, and 

other quality assurance activities. 

Expanded Clinical Services: (If 

funding allows, describe one or more of 

the components below.) 

• Describe how chlamydia screening 

among private sector providers is 

promoted. 

• Describe monitoring of screening 

coverage in family planning and STD 

clinics (i.e., the number of eligible 

women screened divided by the number 

of eligible women being seen at a site). 

• Describe screening women for 

gonorrhea (see budget section for 

funding restrictions). To use IPP funds 

for this purpose, the grantee must 

describe gonorrhea positivity data of 

one percent or greater at the provider 

sites where services are to be supported. 

Pending further guidance from CDC, a 

site-specific or age-specific gonorrhea 

prevalence should equal or exceed one 

percent. Other supporting prevalence 

monitoring data should be included for 

each population or clinic site that can 

substantiate the need for using IPP 

funds. 

• Describe male chlamydia screening 

activities (see budget section for funding 

restrictions). To use IPP funds for this 

purpose, the grantee must quantify and 

describe any other male screening 

activities conducted with other funds 

that are occurring in the project area; 

43602 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

describe what type of activity will be 

undertaken and type of facility; and 

submit core IPP data elements to 

regional coordinator. 

There are two performance measures 

for this IPP Core Component. Specify 

baseline performance, and one-year and 

four-year goals for the following two 

measures: 

1. Among clients of IPP family 

planning clinics, the proportion of 

women with positive chlamydia tests 

that are treated within 14 and 30 days 

of the date of specimen collection. 

2. Among clients of IPP family 

planning clinics, the proportion of 

women with positive gonorrhea tests 

that are treated within 14 and 30 days 

of the date of specimen collection. 

The following information regarding 

baseline performance for each measure 

should be provided: 

1. Describe how the baseline was 

developed. 

2. Describe what data sources were 

used in setting the baseline. 

3. Describe how the data were 

analyzed to develop this baseline.

4. Describe how the one-year and 

four-year goals were developed. 

5. If the data sources needed to 

establish the baseline level are not 

available, describe what steps/actions 

will be conducted in Year One to set the 

baseline level in Year Two. 

Laboratory Support 

• Describe tests used for chlamydia 

and gonorrhea screening including 

criteria for confirmation testing. 

• Describe quality assessment 

practices to monitor performance of 

laboratories. 

• Describe how compliance to 

regional turnaround time standards is 

monitored. 

• Describe how specimen adequacy is 

monitored. 

• Describe methods to increase test 

sensitivity where appropriate (e.g., 

additional testing within negative gray 

zone). 

• Describe methods to improve test 

specificity and improve positive 

predictive value. 

Surveillance and Data Management 

• Describe local information systems 

used to collect all elements of the 

regional IPP core data set. 

• Describe how the project area is 

using data for program planning. 

• Describe how adherence to regional 

or locally developed screening criteria is 

monitored. 

• Describe quality assurance activities 

to monitor completeness and timeliness 

of submission of chlamydia and 

gonorrhea prevalence monitoring data to 

regional coordinators. 

Expanded Surveillance and Data 

Management Component: (If funds are 

available) 

• Describe local information systems 

used to collect enhanced IPP data 

elements. 

Program Management and 

Leadership:

• Describe participation in the 

regional IPP advisory committee and 

collaboration with state family planning 

and public health laboratory partners. 

• Describe how information about the 

regional project is disseminated to local 

areas. 

• Describe how the project area 

adheres to regionally developed 

protocols (when not in conflict with 

local policy). 

Expanded Program Management and 

Leadership: (If funds allow, describe the 

following) 

• Describe strategies to optimize 

program resources (e.g., increasing nonfederal contribution to project; 

improving program efficiency by 

increasing use of electronic reporting or 

reducing laboratory costs; negotiating 

lower test or treatment costs; expanding 

third party reimbursement; or other 

efforts to increase program resources 

during the reporting period). 

Provider Training 

If not addressed in the CSPS training 

section, describe training efforts that 

support implementation of the IPP and 

how training needs are assessed. 

6. Syphilis Elimination (applies only to 

HMA applicants) 

Following are the instructions to 

complete this section: 

I. Narrative: Describe and discuss the 

current status of each SE strategy. As 

appropriate, include information about 

how the Areas of Special Emphasis 

identified in the Background section are 

being addressed. 

II. Objectives: List the budget period 

program (one year) objectives for each 

SE strategy. The objectives should 

reflect your program’s primary focus as 

it relates to each of the five strategies. 

Assure that the objectives are SMART. 

The suggested number of objectives for 

each SE strategy is one to three. 

III. Activities: Describe the activities 

that will be conducted to achieve the 

objectives for the next budget period. 

Include in this section any training of 

program staff or external partners 

necessary to conduct the activities and 

achieve the objectives. 

IV. Monitoring Plan: A plan should be 

developed that will monitor the 

activities and progress made toward 

meeting the objectives developed for 

each SE strategy. The plan should 

answer the following questions: 

1. What is being done? (e.g., strategy, 

intervention, activity) 

2. By whom? (e.g., staffing) 

3. For whom? (e.g., target population) 

4. How? (e.g., where, when, how 

often, how much) 

5. For what specific benefit? (e.g., 

what are the expected results or 

outcomes?) 

6. What resources are being used? 

(e.g., staff, materials, money, etc.) 

Five Strategies to Eliminate Syphilis 

There are five strategies listed in the 

National Plan to Eliminate Syphilis 

from the United States. HMAs must 

address all five strategies. 

1. Enhanced Surveillance 

a. Describe how you will enhance the 

project area surveillance system to plan, 

implement and evaluate syphilis 

elimination activities. This should 

include a description of how case 

reporting systems have been enhanced 

and how the systems have been used to 

estimate the burden of disease, define 

local epidemiology, monitor trends, 

monitor time frames for reporting 

consistent with those in the National 

Plan, identify high priority populations, 

identify gaps in health care and 

prevention intervention opportunities, 

design and evaluate interventions, and 

allocate resources.

b. Describe syphilis prevalence 

monitoring activities as outlined in the 

‘‘Recommendations for Public Health 

Surveillance of Syphilis in the United 

States’’ and how these data have been 

used to evaluate the yield of screening 

programs, monitor disease burden and 

trends, identify priority populations, 

evaluate case reporting data, design 

interventions, and allocate resources. 

There are two performance measures 

for this component. Specify baseline 

performance, and one-year and fouryear goals for the following two 

measures: 

1. Proportion of providers or 

partnerships delivering continuing care 

for >50 HIV+ individuals, who have 

written protocols for screening those 

clients for syphilis. 

2. Proportion of female admittees 

entering selected project area adult city 

and county jails that were tested for 

syphilis. (See appendix four for the list 

of ten adult city and 29 selected county 

jails) 

The following information regarding 

each baseline indicator should be 

provided: 

1. Describe how the baseline was 

developed. 

2. Describe what data sources were 

used in setting the baseline. 

3. Describe how the data were 

analyzed to develop this baseline. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43603

4. Describe how the one-year and 

four-year goals were developed. 

5. If the data sources needed to 

establish the baseline level are not 

available, describe what steps/actions 

will be conducted in Year One to set the 

baseline level in Year Two. 

2. Strengthened Community 

Involvement and Organizational 

Partnerships 

a. Describe assessment activities that 

include members of the affected 

communities to determine the nongovernmental, community-based, health 

and non-health agencies, and 

institutions that should be involved in 

the development of the syphilis 

elimination plan. This should include a 

description of how community 

coalitions and other partners are 

involved to (1) review the epidemiology 

of syphilis and the social and 

institutional context of its persistence 

and (2) design and implement locally 

relevant, enhanced syphilis prevention 

interventions and control services 

identified by community assessment 

activities. 

b. Describe how current STD and HIV 

prevention activities in the project area 

and other relevant healthcare and nonhealth sector activities (e.g., HIV care 

providers, community health centers, 

faith communities, substance abuse 

treatment) are being integrated in the 

syphilis elimination plan. Describe 

activities to increase partnerships to 

improve the availability of and 

accessibility to quality preventive care 

services for high priority populations. If 

obstacles or barriers exist describe the 

situation and activities to overcome the 

situation. 

3. Syphilis Outbreak Response Plan 

In addition to addressing syphilis in 

the STD Outbreak Response Plan 

(required appendix), the grantee should 

provide a rationale for the area-specific 

syphilis threshold cited in the Plan. The 

grantee should also briefly describe 

whether their Outbreak Response Plan 

had been activated and evaluated for the 

period of time between January 2003 

and June 2004. For example, How well 

did it work? Was it necessary to modify 

the plan? What were the outcomes of 

activating the plan and related 

interventions? (e.g., increased 

awareness, reduced incidence, what 

methodology was used to evaluate the 

activation of the plan?) 

4. Expanded Clinical and Laboratory 

Services 

a. Develop, implement, and evaluate 

enhanced syphilis prevention 

interventions and control systems. 

Recipients must be able to provide 

accessible and timely client-centered 

counseling, screening and treatment 

services in sites frequented by priority 

populations. 

b. Working with community and 

institutional partners, grantees must 

determine which of the following 

essential interventions are needed to 

assure elimination of syphilis in their 

local situation. Recipients must be able 

to execute and evaluate the identified 

interventions. Interventions include: (1) 

Enhanced clinical and laboratory 

services to assure high quality, 

accessible biomedical services; (2) 

screening in priority population settings 

that are determined by each project area 

based on current data analyses and 

input from community partners (settings 

could include HIV prevention clinics, 

corrections, drug treatment, emergency 

rooms, homeless shelters, local 

communities, and other community 

appropriate settings); (3) improved 

partner services, including partner 

notification, identification and 

provision of services within socialsexual networks, and high quality 

disease investigation services linking to 

quality clinical and counseling services; 

and (4) community-based services for 

priority populations. Community-based 

services should include access to 

disease screening and treatment, referral 

for other clinical services as 

appropriate, outreach to priority 

populations, prevention education, and 

condom distribution. 

5. Enhanced Health Promotion 

a. Expand community and individual 

risk reduction interventions to lower the 

acquisition and transmission of syphilis 

through delivery of theory-based 

behavior change interventions targeting 

priority populations. 

b. Develop systematic communication 

and media strategies (print, television, 

radio and local CBO outreach activities 

to assure dissemination of syphilis 

elimination messages.

Note: Information on syphilis prevention 

methods (or strategies) can include 

abstinence, monogamy, i.e., being faithful to 

a single sexual partner, or using condoms 

consistently and correctly. These approaches 

can avoid risk (abstinence) or effectively 

reduce risk for syphilis (monogamy, 

consistent and correct condom use).

7. Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance 

Program (Applies Only to GISP 

Applicants) 

Provide a narrative that includes the 

following: 

• Describe enrollment strategy. 

Specifically, describe how applicant 

intends to reach a goal of 25 isolates per 

month. 

• Describe procedures for isolate 

collection, handling and shipping. 

• Describe patient data applicant 

intends to collect and the plan for 

submitting data to CDC in a timely 

fashion. 

• Where appropriate, describe 

procedures for determining betalactamase production and antimicrobial 

susceptibilities of GISP isolates.

• Where appropriate, discuss 

timeliness of isolate testing and 

submission of results, storage or 

duplicate isolates, use of control strains, 

proficiency testing, and timeliness of 

CASPIR isolate submission. 

8. Budget and Budget Justifications (Not 

Included in Page Limit) 

An individual line-item budget and 

budget justification must be submitted 

for each funding source for which your 

program is applying. The budget and 

justifications should reflect year one of 

operation. All requested costs should be 

consistent with program objectives and 

activities, especially those related to 

requests for personnel, and contracts. 

For all contracts, provide: (1) Name of 

contractor, (2) period of performance, 

(3) method of selection (e.g., 

competitive or sole source), (4) 

description of activities, (5) reason for 

contracting activities, and (6) itemized 

budget. For personnel requests, include 

the following: Name, position title, 

salary, percentage of effort, and amount 

requested. For non-federal resources: 

Document the resources expended (see

Form 424A, Section C, Non-Federal 

Resources). Grantees must complete 

appendix number four, Table of staff 

percentage of time spent on HIV 

activities and appendix number five, 

Table of state and local contributions to 

STD prevention efforts. Funding 

restrictions, which must be taken into 

account while writing your budget, are 

listed in section ‘‘IV.5. Funding 

Restrictions’’ of this announcement.

Note: Any information systems 

development supported through this 

cooperative agreement should be done 

according to the Public Health Information 

Network (PHIN) architecture specifications. 

The creation of standards-based, 

interoperable public health information 

systems is the goal of these specifications. 

Two of the chief components of the PHIN 

initiative are affected by or affect almost any 

information systems development project 

and special attention should be paid to them. 

These are standard messaging (data 

exchange) formats and content and standard 

vocabulary code sets. Examples of projects 

heavily affected by these components are 

surveillance systems developed according to 

National Electronic Disease Surveillance 

43604 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

System (NEDSS) standards and Laboratory 

Information Management System (LIMS) 

implementations. For more information on 

Public Health Information Network (PHIN), 

the PHIN architecture, PHIN messaging, and 

PHIN standards, functions, and 

specifications, go to http://

www.cdc.gov.phin/.

Additional information must be 

included in the application appendices. 

The appendices will not be counted 

toward the narrative page limit. This 

additional information includes: 

1. Curriculum Vitae of Project 

Director. 

2. Syphilis Reactor Grid. 

3. Outbreak Response Plan. 

4. IPP letter of support. 

5. Table 1. Percentage Direct 

Assistance/Financial Assistance (DA/

FA) Staff Time Attributed to STD and 

HIV Activities. 

6. Table 2. State and Local 

Contribution for STD Prevention by 

Budget Category. 

You are required to have a Dun and 

Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number to apply for a 

grant or cooperative agreement from the 

Federal government. The DUNS number 

is a nine-digit identification number, 

which uniquely identifies business 

entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is 

easy and there is no charge. To obtain 

a DUNS number, access 

www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1–

866–705–5711. 

For more information, see the CDC 

Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/

funding/pubcommt.htm. If your 

application form does not have a DUNS 

number field, please write your DUNS 

number at the top of the first page of 

your application, and/or include your 

DUNS number in your application cover 

letter. 

Additional requirements that may 

require you to submit additional 

documentation with your application 

are listed in the ‘‘Administrative and 

National Policy Requirements’’ section 

of this announcement. 

IV.3. Submission Dates and Times 

Application Deadline Date:

September 15, 2004. 

Explanation of Deadlines:

Applications must be received in the 

CDC Procurement and Grants Office by 

4 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline 

date. If you send your application by the 

United States Postal Service or 

commercial delivery service, you must 

ensure that the carrier will be able to 

guarantee delivery of the application by 

the closing date and time. If CDC 

receives your application after closing 

due to: (1) Carrier error, when the 

carrier accepted the package with a 

guarantee for delivery by the closing 

date and time, or (2) significant weather 

delays or natural disasters, you will be 

given the opportunity to submit 

documentation of the carriers guarantee. 

If the documentation verifies a carrier 

problem, CDC will consider the 

application as having been received by 

the deadline. 

This announcement is the definitive 

guide on application format, content, 

and deadlines. It supersedes 

information provided in the application 

instructions. If your application does 

not meet the deadline above, it will not 

be eligible for review, and will be 

discarded. You will be notified that 

your application did not meet the 

submission requirements. 

CDC will not notify you upon receipt 

of your application. 

If you have a question about the 

receipt of your application, first contact 

your courier. If you still have a question, 

contact the PGO–TIM staff at: 770–488–

2700. Before calling, please wait two to 

three days after the application 

deadline. This will allow time for 

applications to be processed and logged. 

IV.4. Intergovernmental Review of 

Applications 

Your application is subject to 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs, as governed by Executive 

Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a 

system for state and local governmental 

review of proposed federal assistance 

applications. You should contact your 

state single point of contact (SPOC) as 

early as possible to alert the SPOC to 

prospective applications, and to receive 

instructions on your state’s process. 

Click on the following link to get the 

current SPOC list: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/

spoc.html.

IV.5. Funding Restrictions 

Funding restrictions, which must be 

taken into account while writing your 

budget, are as follows: 

CSPS 

1. Grant funds may be used for costs 

associated with organizing and 

conducting STD Prevention activities 

described in the Application Structure 

and Content section of this 

announcement. Funds cannot be used to 

supplant existing state or local funds. 

2. When federal funds are used to 

develop or purchase STD health 

education materials, they shall contain 

medically accurate information 

regarding the effectiveness or lack of 

effectiveness in preventing the STD the 

materials are designed to address. 

IPP 

1. In consultation with the Project 

Area’s Title X family planning 

grantee(s), at least 50 percent of the total 

IPP funds must be directed to support 

screening of women and their partners 

in Title X family planning programs. 

The level of support must be 

documented in a current letter signed by 

the STD Director and the designated 

Title X family planning grantee 

representative. If less than 50 percent (of 

the funds), the letter must include an 

explanation of the alternate 

arrangement. 

2. Up to ten percent of the total IPP 

funds can be used to support gonorrhea 

screening of women. The collaboration 

letter from the STD Program Director 

and Title X designated representative 

must indicate how the Title X Family 

Planning partner(s) was involved in 

these decisions. The grantee must 

include a detailed budget that delineates 

the amount of IPP funds allocated for 

gonorrhea screening activities. 

3. Up to 20 percent of the total IPP 

funds can be used to support male 

screening. The collaboration letter from 

the STD Program Director and Title X 

designated representative must indicate 

how the Title X Family Planning 

partner(s) was involved in these 

decisions. The grantee must include a 

detailed line item budget that delineates 

the amount of IPP funds allocated for 

male screening and treatment activities. 

4. IPP funds can be used to support 

testing, treatment and counseling 

services provided to the partners of 

individuals with chlamydia. However, 

support of Disease Intervention 

Specialists for these partner services is 

restricted pending the development of 

CDC guidance regarding such services. 

SE 

1. HMAs may use funds for 

infrastructure development to support 

syphilis elimination activities. 

2. Thirty percent of funds must be 

awarded to community organizations 

that serve affected populations. 

Community organizations are those that 

are within reasonably circumscribed 

geographic areas in which there is a 

sense of interdependence and 

belonging. These organizations have 

access to, and history and social 

credibility with, persons and groups 

affected by syphilis. They are able to 

provide culturally competent and 

relevant interventions. Grantees must 

report on activities of these funded 

organizations in future project period 

progress reports. 

If you are requesting indirect costs in 

your budget, you must include a copy 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43605

of your indirect cost rate agreement. If 

your indirect cost rate is a provisional 

rate, the agreement must be less than 12 

months of age. 

Awards will not allow reimbursement 

of pre-award costs. 

Guidance for completing your budget 

can be found on the CDC website, at the 

following Internet address: http://

www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/

budgetguide.htm.

IV.6. Other Submission Requirements 

Application Submission Address 

Submit the original and two hard 

copies of your application by mail or 

express delivery service to: Technical 

Information Management–PA# 05004, 

CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 

2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 

30341.

Applications may not be submitted 

electronically at this time. 

V. Application Review Information 

V.1. Criteria 

You are required to provide measures 

of effectiveness that will demonstrate 

the accomplishment of the various 

identified objectives of the grant. 

Measures of effectiveness must relate to 

the performance goals stated in the 

‘‘Purpose’’ section of this 

announcement. Measures must be 

objective and quantitative, and must 

measure the intended outcome. These 

measures of effectiveness must be 

submitted with the application and will 

be an element of evaluation. 

All applications will receive a 

technical acceptability review (TAR). 

Your application will be evaluated 

against the criteria listed in ‘‘Section 

IV.2. Content and Form of Application 

Submission’’ of this announcement. 

The following review criteria apply to 

the QEI: 

1. Plan Description (60 points) 

Does the applicant describe a plan to 

identify and develop an evaluation of 

one program activity using an 

appropriate framework, e.g., CDC’s 

Framework for Program Evaluation in 

Public Health Practice, that is specific to 

STD prevention and control? Is the plan 

complete, sound, practical, and able to 

be generalized to other STD prevention 

programs. 

2. Capacity (40 points) 

Does the applicant provide a staffing 

plan that demonstrates an 

understanding of the labor requirements 

for this activity including staff 

member(s) name with resume or 

summary of their program evaluation 

experience and other relevant 

experience? Does the applicant clearly 

state a commitment to produce a high 

quality evaluation product? 

The following review criteria apply to 

GISP: 

1. Enrollment strategy (40 points) 

Does the applicant describe an 

enrollment strategy that demonstrates 

likelihood that goal of 25 isolates per 

month will be reached? 

2. Procedures (40 points) 

Does the applicant describe 

appropriate procedures for isolate 

collection, handling and shipping? Does 

the applicant describe, if applicable, 

procedures for determining betalactamase production and antimicrobial 

susceptibilities of GISP isolates? Does 

the applicant discuss, if applicable, 

timeliness of isolate testing and 

submission of results, storage or 

duplicate isolates, use of control strains, 

proficiency testing, and timeliness of 

CDC and ATSDR Specimen Packaging, 

Inventory, and Repository (CASPIR) 

isolate submission. 

3. Data plan (20 points) 

Does the applicant describe data to be 

collected and plan for timely 

submission of data? 

4. Budget (not scored) 

V.2. Review and Selection Process 

Applications will be reviewed for 

completeness by the Procurement and 

Grants Office (PGO) staff and for 

responsiveness by NCHSTP, Division of 

STD Prevention. Incomplete 

applications that are non-responsive to 

the eligibility criteria will not advance 

through the review process. Applicants 

will be notified that their application 

did not meet submission requirements. 

An objective review panel will 

evaluate complete and responsive 

applications according to the criteria 

listed in the ‘‘V.1. Criteria’’ section 

above. 

V.3. Anticipated Announcement and 

Award Date 

Anticipated award date is January 1, 

2005. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

VI.1. Award Notices 

Successful applicants will receive a 

Notice of Grant Award (NGA) from the 

CDC Procurement and Grants Office. 

The NGA shall be the only binding, 

authorizing document between the 

recipient and CDC. The NGA will be 

signed by an authorized Grants 

Management Officer, and mailed to the 

recipient fiscal officer identified in the 

application. 

Unsuccessful applicants will receive 

notification of the results of the 

application review by mail. 

VI.2. Administrative and National 

Policy Requirements 

45 CFR Part 74 or Part 92

For more information on the Code of 

Federal Regulations, see the National 

Archives and Records Administration at 

the following Internet address: http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-tablesearch.html.

The following additional 

requirements apply to this project: 

• AR–1 Human Subjects 

Requirements. 

• AR–2 Requirements for Inclusion 

of Women and Racial and Ethnic 

Minorities in Research. 

• AR–7 Executive Order 12372. 

• AR–8 Public Health System 

Reporting Requirements. 

• AR–10 Smoke-Free Workplace 

Requirements. 

• AR–11 Healthy People 2010. 

• AR–12 Lobbying Restrictions. 

• AR–14 Accounting System 

Requirements. 

• AR–22 Research Integrity. 

• AR–23 States and Faith-Based 

Organizations. 

• AR–24 Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act 

Requirements. 

Additional information on these 

requirements can be found on the CDC 

Web site at the following Internet 

address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/

funding/ARs.htm.

VI.3. Reporting Requirements 

You must provide CDC with an 

original, plus two copies of the 

following reports: 

1. Interim progress report is due on or 

before September 15 of each year. The 

progress report will serve as your noncompeting continuation application, 

and must contain the following 

elements: 

a. Current Budget Period Activities 

Objectives. 

b. Current Budget Period Financial 

Progress. 

c. New Budget Period Program 

Proposed Activity Objectives. 

d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and 

Justification. 

e. Additional Requested Information. 

The following data tables are required 

for the first six months of the budget 

period.

43606 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

TABLE 1.—CHLAMYDIA

Provider type 

Number of Chlamydia tests

(List as many as appropriate) 

Number of positive tests

(List as many as appropriate) Test used Screening

criteria 

Females Males Females Males 

FP.

STD.

Prenatal.

TABLE 2.—GONORRHEA

Provider type 

Number of Gonorrhea tests

(List as many as appropriate) 

Number of positive tests

(List as many as appropriate) Test used Screening criteria 

Females Males Females Males 

FP.

STD.

Prenatal.

TABLE 3.—MALE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYPHILIS CASES

Number of cases 

Cases with 

partner 

information* 

Information about Index Case 

Total number of HIV+ Total number of HIV¥

Total number of HIV 

Status

Unknown 

HIV + & 

MSM 

HIV¥ & 

MSM 

HIV status 

unknown & 

MSM 

* Partner information is defined as partner information gathered during an interview and/or information gathered from a provider even if the 

case is not interviewed. 

TABLE 4.—FEMALE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYPHILIS CASES

Number of cases Cases with partner 

information* 

Information about Index Case 

Total number of 

HIV + 

Total number of 

HIV 

Total number of 

HIV status

unknown 

* Partner information is defined as partner information gathered during an itnerview and/or information gathered from a provider even if the 

case is not interviewed. 

f. Measures of Effectiveness. The 

following performance measures are 

required for the first six months of the 

budget period. 

1. Proportion of female admittees to 

large juvenile detention facilities tested 

for chlamydia. 

2. Proportion of primary and 

secondary (P and S) syphilis cases 

interviewed within 7, 14, and 30 

calendar days from the date of specimen 

collection. 

3. Number of contacts 

prophylactically treated or newly 

diagnosed and treated within 7, 14 and 

30 calendar days from day of interview 

of index case, per case of P and S 

syphilis. 

4. Number of ‘‘associates’’ or 

‘‘suspects’’ tested, per case of P and S 

syphilis. 

5. Number of ‘‘associates’’ or 

‘‘suspects’’ treated for newly diagnosed 

syphilis, per case of P and S syphilis. 

6. Proportion of ‘‘priority’’ gonorrhea 

cases interviewed within 7, 14 and 30 

days from the date of specimen 

collection. Priority population(s) is to be 

locally determined (e.g., pregnant 

women, women aged 15–19 years, 

women of child-bearing age, resistant 

gonorrhea, MSM, etc.) 

7. Proportion of reported cases of 

gonorrhea, chlamydia, P and S syphilis, 

EL syphilis, and congenital syphilis sent 

to CDC via NETSS that have complete 

data for age, race, sex, county, and date 

of specimen collection. 

8. Proportion of reported cases of 

gonorrhea, chlamydia, P and S syphilis, 

EL syphilis, and congenital syphilis sent 

to CDC via NETSS within 30 and 60 

days from the date of specimen 

collection. 

9. Among clients of IPP family 

planning clinics, the proportion of 

women with positive CT tests that are 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43607

treated within 14 and 30 days of date of 

specimen collection.

10. Among clients of IPP family 

planning clinics, the proportion of 

women with positive gonorrhea tests 

that are treated within 14 and 30 days 

of date of specimen collection. 

11. Proportion of providers or 

partnerships delivering continuing care 

for >50 HIV+ individuals, who have 

written protocols for screening those 

clients for syphilis. 

12. Proportion of female admittees 

entering selected project area adult city 

and county jails that were tested for 

syphilis. 

2. Financial status report is due 

March 31 of each year. 

3. Final financial and performance 

reports, no more than 90 days after the 

end of the project period. 

These reports must be sent to the 

Grants Management Specialist listed in 

the ‘‘Agency Contacts’’ section of this 

announcement. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For general questions about this 

announcement, contact: Technical 

Information Management Section, CDC 

Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 

Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, 

Telephone: 770–488–2700. 

For program technical assistance, 

contact: Kim Seechuk, Deputy Branch 

Chief, Program Development and 

Support Branch, Division of STD 

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS E–

27, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404–

639–8339, E-mail: kgs0@cdc.gov.

For financial, grants management or 

budget assistance, contact: Gladys 

Gissentanna, Grants Management 

Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants 

Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, 

GA 30341, Telephone: 770–488–2753, 

E-mail: GGissentanna@cdc.gov.

VIII. Other Information 

Appendices can be found with this 

announcement on the CDC Web site at 

http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/

grantmain.htm Appendix contains: 

(1) Description of SMART Objectives 

(2) Quality Initiative: Examples of 

Interventions to Evaluate 

(3) Outline for Grant Application 

(4) List of 21 adult city and 30 

selected county jails 

(5) Percentage DA/FA Staff Time 

Attributed to STD and HIV Activities 

(6) State and Local Contribution for 

STD Prevention by Budget Category 

See http://www.nchstp.cdc.gov/std/

for: (1) Division of STD Program 

Operations Guidelines, (2) National Plan 

to Eliminate Syphilis from the United 

States, and (3) Regional Infertility Plan 

Guidance.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

William P. Nichols, 

Acting Director, Procurement and Grants 

Office, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention.

[FR Doc. 04–16545 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; Case-Cohort Study 

of Cancer and Related Disorders 

Among Benzene-Exposed Workers in 

China (OMB No. 0925–0454)

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

for the opportunity for public comment 

on the proposed data collection projects, 

the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) will 

publish periodic summaries of proposed 

projects to be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval. 

Proposed Collection 

Title: Case-Cohort Study of Cancer 

and Related Disorders Among BenzeneExposed Workers in China. 

Type of Information Collection:

Revised. 

Need and Use of Information: A casecohort study will examine the 

relationship between exposure to 

benzene and the risk of 

lymphohematopoietic malignancies and 

related disorders, benzene poisoning, 

and lung cancer in Chinese workers. 

Cases and controls will be selected from 

participants in a cohort study of 

benzene-exposed and unexposed 

workers in China. The data will be used 

by NCI to examine risk among workers 

exposed at low levels of benzene 

exposure, and to characterize the dose 

and time-specific relationship between 

benzene exposure and disease risk. 

Frequency of Response: One-time 

study. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Type of Respondents: Workers. 

The annual reporting burden is as 

follows: 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2156. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: One. 

Average Burden Hours per Response:

0.37

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours Requested: 317. 

There are no Capital Costs to report. 

There are also no Operating and/or 

Maintenance Costs to report. 

Request for Comments: Written 

comments and/or suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies are invited 

on one or more of the following points: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection or 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the function of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on the 

proposed project or to obtain a copy of 

the data collection plans and 

instruments, contact: Dr. Richard Hayes, 

Project Officer, OEB/EBP/DCEG/NCI 

6120 Executive Blvd., EPS Room 8114, 

Bethesda, MD 20892–7364, or call nontoll-free number 301–435–3974 or fax 

your request to 301–402–1819 or e-mail 

your request, including your address to: 

HayesR@mail.nih.gov.

Comments Due Date: Comments 

regarding this information collection are 

best assured of having their full effect if 

received within 60 days of the date of 

this publication.

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

Rachelle Ragland Greene, 

NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National 

Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 04–16517 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Cancer Institute; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

43608 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Cancer 

Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee 

D—Clinical Studies. 

Date: August 4–5, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 

Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: William D. Merritt, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Research 

Programs Review Branch, National Cancer 

Institute, Division of Extramural Activities, 

6116 Executive Blvd., 8th Floor, Bethesda, 

MD 20892–8328, 301–496–9767, 

wm63f@nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16493 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Cancer Institute; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The contract proposals and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the contract 

proposals, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Cancer 

Institute Special Emphasis Panel; SBIR: 

Topic 183, ‘‘Particle-Based Flow Cytometer 

for Detection and Quantification of Viral 

Antibodies’’. 

Date: August 4, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract 

proposals. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6116 

Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Gerald G. Loving, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Special 

Review and Resources Branch, Division of 

Extramural Activities, National Cancer 

Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 

Executive Boulevard, Room 8101, Rockville, 

MD 20892–7405, 301/496–7987.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16496 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Cancer Institute; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Cancer 

Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee 

E—Cancer Epidemiology, Prevention & 

Control. 

Date: August 4, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 

Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Mary C. Fletcher, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Research 

Programs Review Branch, Division of 

Extramural Activities, National Cancer 

Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 

Executive Boulevard, Rm 8115, Bethesda, 

MD 20892, (301) 496–7413.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16499 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Cancer Institute; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The contract proposals and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the contract 

proposals, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Cancer 

Institute Special Emphasis Panel SBIR Topic 

181. 

Date: July 27, 2004. 

Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract 

proposals. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6116 

Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: C. Michael Kerwin, PhD, 

MPH, Scientific Review Administrator, 

Special Review and Logistics Branch, 

Division of Extramural Activities, National 

Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 

Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 

8057, MSC 8329, Bethesda, MD 20892–8329, 

301–496–7421, kerwinm@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43609

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16500 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Cancer Institute; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Cancer 

Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee 

C—Basic & Preclinical. 

Date: August 3–5, 2004. 

Time: 4 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 

Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Michael B. Small, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Research 

Programs Review Branch, Division of 

Extramural Activities, National Cancer 

Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 

Executive Boulevard, Room 8127, Bethesda, 

MD 20892, 301–402–0996, 

small@mail.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16511 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Center for Research 

Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Center for 

Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel 

Clinical Research. 

Date: August 4, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to Adjournment. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 

Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. 

Contact Person: Linda C. Duffy, Scientific 

Review Administrator, Office of Review, 

NCRR, National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Democracry Blvd, Room 10882, Bethesda, 

MD 20892, (301) 435–0810, 

duffyl@mail.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 

Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 

93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16507 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Center for Research 

Resources; Notice of Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, and the disclosure of 

which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.

Name of Committee: National Center for 

Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; 

Comparative Medicine. 

Date: July 20, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. Adjournment. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Office of Review, One Democracy 

Plaza, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 

20892 (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Harold L. Watson, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Office of 

Review, NCRR, National Institutes of Health, 

6701 Democracy Boulevard, 1 Democracy 

Plaza, Room 1078, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–

435–0813, watsonh@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: National Center for 

Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; 

Clinical Research. 

Date: July 21, 2004. 

Time: 3 p.m. to Adjournment. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Office of Review, One Democracy 

Plaza, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 

20892 (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Harold L. Watson, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Office of 

Review, NCRR, National Institutes of Health, 

6701 Democracy Boulevard, 1 Democracy 

Plaza, Room 1078, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 

20892–4874, 301–435–0813, 

watsonh@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 

Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 

43610 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16508 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Center on Minority Health and 

Health Disparities; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Center on 

Minority Health and Health Disparities 

Special Emphasis Panel, ZMD1 (05) RIMIResearch Infrastructure in Minority 

Institutions Programs. 

Date: August 8–10, 2004. 

Time: 5 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase 

Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., 

Washington, DC 20015. 

Contact Person: Merlyn M. Rodrigues, PhD, 

MD, Director, Office of Extramural Activities, 

National Center On Minority Health, and 

Health Disparities, National Institutes of 

Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd. Suite 800, 

Bethesda, MD 20894, 301–402–1366, 

rodrigm1@mail.nih.gov.

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16509 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Heart, Lung, and Blood 

Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The contract proposals and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secretes or 

commercial property such as patentable 

material, and personal information 

concerning individuals associated with 

the contract proposals, the disclosure of 

which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.

Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, 

and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel 

Review of RFP: NHLBI–HB–05–07 (REDS–II). 

Date: August 3, 2004. 

Time: 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract 

proposals. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Chitra Krishnamurti, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Review 

Branch, Room 7206, Division of Extramural 

Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 

Institute, National Institutes of Health, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–0398.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for 

Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 

Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung 

Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases 

and Resources Research, National Institutes 

of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16513 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development 

Special Emphasis Panel; Development of 

Literacy in Spanish Speaking Children. 

Date: July 23, 2004. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase 

Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., 

Washington, DC 20015. 

Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Division of 

Scientific Review, National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, 6100 

Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(301) 435–6911, hopmannm@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.364, Population Research; 

93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 

Research; 93.209, Contraception and 

Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16492 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in 552b(c)(4) and 

552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. 

The grant applications and the 

discussions could disclose confidential 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43611

trade secrets or commercial property 

such as patentable material, and person 

information concerning individuals 

associated with the grant applications, 

the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences Special 

Emphasis Panel; Superfund Basic Research 

and Training Program. 

Date: October 18–21, 2004. 

Time: 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham 

Airport, 4810 Old Page Road, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

Contact Person: Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, 

National Inst. of Environmental Health 

Sciences, Office of Program Operations, 

Scientific Review Branch, P.O. Box 12233, 

MD EC–30, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, 919/541–1446, 

eckertt1@niehs.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk 

Estimation—Health Risks from 

Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 

Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 

Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund 

Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and 

Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower 

Development in the Environmental Health 

Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, 

Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16494 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Dental & 

Craniofacial Research; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Dental and Craniofacial Research Special 

Emphasis Panel; 05–06, Review of R21s. 

Date: August 5, 2004. 

Time: 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 

Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, 

MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Rebecca Roper, MS, MPH, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific 

Review Branch, Division of Extramural 

Research, National Inst of Dental & 

Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of 

Health, 45 Center Dr., room 4AN32E, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 451–5096.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Disease and 

Disorders Research, National Institutes of 

Health, HHS)

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16495 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Allergy and 

Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special 

Emphasis Panel; Unsolicited P01. 

Date: August 11, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review an evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700 B 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Annie Walker-Abbey, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific 

Review Program, Division of Extramural 

Activities, National Institutes of Health/

NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, RM. 3266, 

Bethesda, MD 20892–7616, 301–451–2671, 

aabbey@niaid.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 

and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 

Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16497 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Allergy and 

Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS 

Research Advisory Committee, NIAID. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public, with attendance limited to space 

available. Individuals who plan to 

attend and need special assistance, such 

as sign language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

notify the Contact Person listed below 

in advance of the meeting.

Name of Committee: AIDS Research 

Advisory Committee, NIAID. 

Date: August 17, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: Members of the AIDS Research 

Advisory Committee will convene to discuss 

and vote on the concepts for the restructuring 

of the Division of AIDS clinical research 

effort. DAIDS leadership will identify the key 

changes that were made to the concepts since 

the May 24th meeting and reviewers will 

share their specific comments. The 

Committee will formally vote on the concepts 

for the Domestic and International Sites for 

HIV Vaccine, Prevention and Therapeutic 

Clinical Trials and the Leadership for HIV 

and AIDS Clinical Trials Networks. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B 

Rockledge Drive, Room 1205, Bethesda, MD 

20817, (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Rona L. Siskind, Executive 

Secretary, AIDS Research Advisory 

Committee, 6700–B Rockledge Drive, Room 

4139, Bethesda, MD 20892–7601, 301–435–

3732. 

Any interested person may file written 

comments with the committee by forwarding 

the statement to the Contact Person listed on 

this notice. The statement should include the 

name, address, telephone number and when 

applicable, the business or profession 

affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 

43612 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 

Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16498 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute on Aging; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Aging, Special Emphasis Panel, Multiple 

Diseases and Gamma Secretase. 

Date: July 26–27, 2004. 

Time: 6 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 

Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. 

Contact Person: Alessandra M. Bini, Ph.D., 

Health Scientist Administrator, Scientific 

Review Office, National Institute on Aging, 

National Institutes of Health, Room 2C212, 

7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 

20814, 301–402–7708. 

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16501 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institutes of Environmental 

Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, Special 

Emphasis Panel, Collaborative Centers for 

Parkinson’s Disease Environmental Research. 

Date: August 12, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, 

Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, 3446, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709, (Telephone Conference 

Call). 

Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific 

Review Branch, Division of Extramural 

Research and Training, Nat. Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 

12233, MD EC–30, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709, 919/541–1307.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk 

Estimation—Health Risks from 

Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 

Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 

Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund 

Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and 

Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower 

Development in the Environmental Health 

Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, 

Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16503 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences Special 

Emphasis Panel Social Determinants of 

Health: Beyond Individual Factors. 

Date: August 10,2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, 

Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, 122 Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709 (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: RoseAnne M. McGee, 

Associate Scientific Review Administrator, 

Scientific Review Branch, Office of Program 

Operations, Division of Extramural Research 

and Training, Nat. Inst. of Environmental 

Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541–

0752.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences Special 

Emphasis Panel 7th Annual Midwest DNA 

Repair Symposium. 

Date: August 10, 2004. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, 

Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, 122 Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709, (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: RoseAnne M. McGee, 

Associate Scientific Review Administrator, 

Scientific Review Branch, Office of Program 

Operations, Division of Extramural Research 

and Training, Nat. Inst. of Environmental 

Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541–

0752.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences Special 

Emphasis Panel, Toxicology for Teachers. 

Date: August 10,2004. 

Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43613

Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, 

Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, (Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: RoseAnne M. McGee, 

Associate Scientific Review Administrator, 

Scientific Review Branch, Office of Program 

Operations, Division of Extramural Research 

and Training, Nat. Inst. of Environmental 

Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541–

0752.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk 

Estimation—Health Risks from 

Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 

Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 

Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund 

Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and 

Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower 

Development in the Environmental Health 

Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, 

Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16504 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, Special 

Emphasis Panel, Superfund Basic Research 

and Training Program. 

Time: October 4–7, 2004. 

Time: 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham 

Airport, 4810 Old Page Road, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

Contact Person: Janice B. Allen, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Branch, Division of 

Extramural Research and Training, Nat. 

Institute of Environmental Health Science, 

P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30/Room 3170 B, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541–

7556.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk 

Estimation—Health Risks from 

Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 

Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 

Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund 

Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and 

Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower 

Development in the Environmental Health 

Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, 

Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16505 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development 

Special Emphasis Panel Violence Processes 

and Intervention Efficacy. 

Date: August 5, 2004. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: The Hotel George, 15 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20001. 

Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Division of 

Scientific Review, National Institute of Child 

Health, and Human Development, 6100 

Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(301) 435–6911, hopmannm@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 

93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 

Research; 93.209, Contraception and 

Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16506 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development 

Special Emphasis Panel; Earda Review 

Meeting. 

Date: August 5–6, 2004. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase 

Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., 

Washington, DC 20015. 

Contact Person: Carla T. Walls, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Division of 

Scientific Review, National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 

Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 

20892, (301) 435–6898, wallsc@mail.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 

93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 

Research; 93.209, Contraception and 

Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS)

43614 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16510 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Mental Health; 

Notice of Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; 

NCDDG–PANEL 1. 

Date: August 3, 2004. 

Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin 

Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Peter J. Sheridan, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Division of 

Extramural Activities, National Institute of 

Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 

6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6142, MSC 9606, 

Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–1513, 

psherida@mail.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research 

Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development 

Award, Scientist Development Award for 

Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 

93.282, Mental Health National Research 

Service Awards for Research Training, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16512 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Mental Health; 

Notice of Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, HIV/

AIDS Research Training. 

Date: July 27, 2004. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin 

Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Martha Ann Carey, PhD, 

RN, Scientific review Administrator, Division 

of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 

Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 

6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6151, MSC 9608, 

Bethesda, MD 20892–9608, 301–443–1606, 

mcarey@mail.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health research 

Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development 

Award, Scientist Development Award for 

Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 

93.282, Mental Health National Research 

Service Awards for Research Training, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16514 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences Special 

Emphasis Panel Superfund Basic Research 

and Training Program. 

Date: October 4–7, 2004. 

Time: 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham 

Airport, 4810 Old Page Road, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

Contact Person: Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, 

National Inst. of Environmental Health 

Sciences, Office of Program Operations, 

Scientific Review Branch, P.O. Box 12233, 

MD EC–30, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, 919/541–1446, 

eckertt1@niehs.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk 

Estimation—Health Risks from 

Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 

Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 

Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund 

Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and 

Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower 

Development in the Environmental Health 

Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, 

Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16516 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43615

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 

Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Acute, 

Critical and Traumatic Brain and Neural Cell 

Injury. 

Date: July 16, 2004. 

Time: 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: The Westin Embassy Row Hotel, 

2100 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20008. 

Contact Person: David L. Simpson, PhD, 

MD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center 

for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5192, 

MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1278, simpsond@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, 

Miscellaneous Musculoskeletal Topics. 

Date: July 19, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Mehrdad M. Tondravi, 

PhD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, 

Center for Scientific Review, National 

Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 

Room 4108, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20982, 

(301) 435–1173, tondravm@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, EAR. 

Date: July 27, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: The Watergate, 2650 Virginia 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. 

Contact Person: Joseph Kimm, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, 

MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20982, (301) 435–

1249, kimmj@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, MDCN 

SEP—Neuroregulation. 

Date: July 29, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Carole L. Jelsema, PhD, 

Chief and Scientific Review Administrator, 

MDCN Scientific Review Group, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, 

MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1248, jelsemac@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel AIDS and 

Alternative Medicine. 

Date: August 2, 2004. 

Time: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Abraham P. Bautista, MS, 

PhD, Scientist Review Administrator, Center 

for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5102, 

MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1506, bautista@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel T-Cell 

Signaling Mechanism. 

Date: August 2, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Angela Y. Ng,PhD, MBA, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6200, 

MSC 7804 (For courier delivery, use MD 

20817), Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1715, 

nga@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel SBIR Grant 

Applications Review. 

Date: August 3, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: One Washington Circle Hotel, One 

Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037. 

Contact Person: Mark P. Rubert, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, 

MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1775, rubertm@csr.nih.gov.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel 

Hyperaccelerated Award/Mechanisms in 

Immunomodulation Trials. 

Date: August 3, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4200, 

MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1152, edwardss@csr.nih.gov.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel ZRG1 AARR 

E (04) Review of AIDS Overflow Application. 

Date: August 4, 2004. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Kenneth A. Roebuck, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, 

MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1166, roebuckk@csr.nih.gov.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel 

Cardioprotective Effects of PDE–5 Inhibitors. 

Date: August 6, 2004. 

Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, 

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center 

for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, 

MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1210, chaudhaa@csr.nih.gov.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel ODCS 

Special Emphasis Panel 

Date: August 6, 2004. 

Time: 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: J. Terrell Hoffeld, PhD, 

DDS, Dental Officer, USPHS, Center for 

43616 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4116, 

MSC 7816, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1781, hoffeldt@csr.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16502 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 

Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Musculosketal Biomechanics & 

Rehabilitation. 

Date: July 14, 2004. 

Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Chief, 

Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences IRG, 

Center for Scientific Review, NIH, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1215, 

mcdonald@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; Dental 

Sciences. 

Date: July 21, 2004. 

Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Chief, 

Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences IRG, 

Center for Scientific Review, NIH, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1215, 

mcdonald@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Communicative Disorders and Cognitive 

Processes. 

Date: July 21, 2004. 

Time: 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Dana Jeffrey Plude, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institute of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3192, 

MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–

2309, pluded@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; Psychiatric 

Genetics Review. 

Date: July 21, 2004.

Time: 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Cheryl M. Corsaro, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, 

MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1045, corsaroc@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fogarty 

International Programs. 

Date: July 26, 2004. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20008. 

Contact Person: Dan D. Gerendasy, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5132, 

MSC 7843, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–

6830, gerendad@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Behavioral 

Genetics and Psychiatric Disorders. 

Date: July 26, 2004. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3170, 

MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–

8011, guadagma@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Circadian 

Rhythms in Plants, Flies, and Crustaceans. 

Date: July 26, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Lawrence Baizer, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, 

MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1257, baizerl@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Tooth 

Development. 

Date: July 27, 2004. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Priscilla B. Chen, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, 

MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1787, chenp@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Bone 

Biology. 

Date: July 27, 2004. 

Time: 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Priscilla B. Chen, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, 

MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1787, chenp@csr.nih.gov.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43617

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Emphasis Panel, Rehabilitative 

Neuoroscience SBIR. 

Date: July 28, 2004. 

Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Chief, 

Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences IRG, 

Center for Scientific Review, NIH, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1215, 

mcdonald@csr.nih.gov.

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–16515 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

In compliance with section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 concerning 

opportunity for public comment on 

proposed collections of information, the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration will publish 

periodic summaries of proposed 

projects. To request more information 

on the proposed projects or to obtain a 

copy of the information collection 

plans, call the SAMHSA Reports 

Clearance Officer on (301) 443–7978. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collections of information 

are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Proposed Project: Understanding the 

Establishment and Maintenance of 

Pioneering Transition Programs—New—

SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health 

Services will seek information about the 

establishment and maintenance of 

programs funded in part by state child 

mental health agencies that prepare 

youth from these agencies for adult 

functioning, and can provide these 

services continuously beyond the upper 

age limit of state child mental health 

eligibility. Many, if not most, of the 

youth served in state child mental 

health systems cannot access state adult 

mental health services; thus, the ability 

to provide continuing transition support 

services to this population throughout 

the period of transition, roughly to the 

age of 25, is critical to the likelihood of 

adult success. 

The small number of pioneering 

programs in the country that have 

successfully negotiated the system to 

achieve this status have much to teach 

those trying to develop better transition 

support systems. In particular, the 

history of how the program was 

established, what it takes to maintain 

the program, the challenges the 

programs have faced in providing 

transition supports and their solutions 

to these problems can help others, and 

prevent needless duplication of trial and 

error. This project will begin the 

development of guidelines for other 

attempting to bridge this important 

service gap through discovering shared 

and unique approaches to establishing 

and maintaining pioneering transition 

programs, and the challenges that they 

face in providing services to this grossly 

underserved population. 

Nine such programs have been 

identified. Another four programs, that 

have not been maintained, will also be 

identified, yielding a total of 13 

programs that will be examined. 

Examination will occur primarily 

through telephone interview of multiple 

stakeholders per program. Program 

information will also be requested 

electronically. Stakeholders from each 

program will consist of the following: 2 

state-level child mental health 

administrators, 2 program-level 

administrators/staff, and up to an 

additional 3 key stakeholders that are 

identified during the process of 

interviewing the first 4 stakeholders. 

Stakeholders will be asked about 3 

issues: (1) How the program was 

established; (2) efforts to keep the 

program open and funded; and (3) 

factors that facilitated or inhibited its 

opening or maintenance. Sufficient 

detail will be sought to determine the 

unique efforts needed for these kinds of 

programs, as opposed to common efforts 

made to establish any new program. 

Two questionnaires will be used to 

obtain this information, one for program 

administrators or staff and the other for 

other stakeholders. 

The following table summarizes the 

estimated response burden for this 

project.

Respondent Number of

respondents 

Responses/

respondents 

Total

responses 

Hours per

response 

Total hour

burden 

Pioneering Programs: Staff/Administrators .......................... 26 1 26 1.5 39 

Pioneering Programs: Stakeholders .................................... 52 1 52 1.0 52 

Total .................................................................................. 78 1 3978 ........................ 91 

43618 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Send comments to Nancy Pearce, 

SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 

Room 16–105, Parklawn Building, 5600 

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. 

Written comments should be received 

by September 20, 2004.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Anna Marsh, 

Executive Officer, SAMHSA.

[FR Doc. 04–16546 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[USCG–2004–18474] 

Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal LLC, 

Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port 

License Application

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS; and 

Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard and the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) give 

notice, as required by the Deepwater 

Port Act of 1974, as amended, that they 

have received an application for the 

licensing of a liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) deepwater port, and that the 

application appears to contain the 

required information. This notice 

summarizes the applicant’s plans and 

the procedures that will be followed in 

considering the application.

DATES: Any public hearing held in 

connection with this application must 

be held no later than March 18, 2005, 

and it would be announced in the 

Federal Register. A decision on the 

application must be made within 90 

days after the last public hearing held 

on the application.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2004–18474 to the 

Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

(3) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329. 

(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

Lieutenant Ken Kusano at 202–267–

1184, or e-mail at 

KKusano@comdt.uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Andrea M. 

Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–0271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

You may submit comments 

concerning this application. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://dms.dot.gov

and will include any personal 

information you have provided. We 

have an agreement with the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) to use their 

Docket Management Facility. Please see 

DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. 

Submitting comments: If you submit a 

comment, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (USCG–2004–18474), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. You may submit your 

comments and material by electronic 

means, mail, fax, or delivery to the 

Docket Management Facility at the 

address under ADDRESSES; but please 

submit your comments and material by 

only one means. If you submit them by 

mail or delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope.

Viewing comments and documents:

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time and 

conduct a simple search using the 

docket number. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in room 

PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the Department of 

Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Receipt of application; determination.

On May 25, 2004, the Coast Guard and 

MARAD received an application from 

Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal LLC, 800 

Bell Street, Houston, TX 77002 for all 

federal authorizations required for a 

license to own, construct and operate a 

deepwater port off the coast of 

Louisiana with associated pipeline 

facilities. On July 8, 2004, we 

determined that the application 

contains all information required by the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. (the 

Act). The application and related 

documentation supplied by the 

applicant (except for certain protected 

information specified in 33 U.S.C. 1513) 

will be available in the public docket 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Background. According to the Act, a 

deepwater port is a fixed or floating 

manmade structure other than a vessel, 

or a group of structures, located beyond 

State seaward boundaries and used or 

intended for use as a port or terminal for 

the transportation, storage, and further 

handling of oil or natural gas for 

transportation to any State. 

A deepwater port must be licensed, 

and the Act provides that a license 

applicant submit detailed plans for its 

facility to the Secretary of 

Transportation, along with its 

application. The Secretary has delegated 

the processing of deepwater port 

applications to the Coast Guard and 

MARAD. The Act allows 21 days 

following receipt of the application to 

determine if it appears to contain all 

required information. If it does, we must 

publish a notice of application in the 

Federal Register and summarize the 

plans. This notice is intended to meet 

those requirements of the Act and to 

provide general information about the 

procedure that will be followed in 

considering the application.

Application procedure. The 

application is considered on its merits. 

Under the Act, we must hold at least 

one public hearing within 240 days 

from the date this notice is published. 

A separate Federal Register notice will 

be published to notify interested parties 

of any public hearings that are held. At 

least one public hearing must be held in 

each adjacent coastal state. Pursuant to 

33 U.S.C. 1508, we designate Louisiana 

as the adjacent coastal state for this 

application. Other states may apply for 

adjacent coastal state status in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43619

accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1508 (a)(2). 

After the last public hearing, Federal 

agencies and the adjacent coastal State 

have 45 days in which to comment on 

the application, and approval or denial 

of the application must follow within 90 

days of the last public hearing. Details 

of the application process are described 

in 33 U.S.C. 1504 and in 33 CFR part 

148. 

The Coast Guard and MARAD plan to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for this project. The EIS 

will also assess the environmental 

impact of an onshore pipeline that is 

part of the project proposal, even though 

an affiliate of Pearl Crossing LNG 

Terminal LLC must separately apply for 

and receive an authorization from the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) for that onshore pipeline. We 

have consulted with FERC and 

understand that the affiliate applied to 

FERC for onshore pipeline authorization 

under Docket Number CP04–374–000, 

CP04–375–000 and CP04–376–000. All 

comments related to this project, 

including the onshore pipeline, may be 

submitted in accordance with the 

guidance under ADDRESSES.

Summary of the application. The 

application plan calls for the proposed 

deepwater port to be located outside 

State waters in the Gulf of Mexico on 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), 

approximately 41 miles (66 kilometers) 

south of the Louisiana coast in West 

Cameron Block 220. It will be located in 

a water depth of approximately 62 feet 

(19 meters). The proposed Pearl 

Crossing LNG Terminal is a concrete 

Gravity Based Structure (GBS). The 

terminal proposes to install two integral 

liquefied natural gas storage tanks and 

serve as the platform for vessels to 

offload and regasify LNG. 

The proposed GBS is a double-walled 

concrete structure, rectilinear in shape, 

that would measure approximately 590 

feet (180 meters) long by 295 feet (90 

meters) wide. The structure would rest 

on the seabed with a total terminal 

footprint (GBS plus jacket structures) 

area of approximately 12 acres (5 

hectares). The terminal would include 

LNG storage tanks, equipment for 

receiving and vaporization of LNG, 

electric power generation, water 

purification, nitrogen generation, 

sewage treatment and accommodations 

for up to 60 persons. The total net 

working capacity of the two integral 

LNG storage tanks would be 250,000 

cubic meters (m3). 

Pearl Crossing would have the ability 

to accommodate two LNG carriers 

alongside that will have capacities 

ranging from 125,000 to 250,000 m3 per 

vessel. This would allow one incoming 

LNG carrier to be secured to prepare to 

offload cargo, while another LNG carrier 

is completing an offloading cycle. 

Ship cargo transfer will use two 

loading arm packages (one on each side 

of the terminal), each consisting of five 

16-inch-diameter (40-centimeter) 

loading arms. LNG carriers would 

offload through four of the loading arms. 

Offloading rates are expected to equal 

14,000 m3 per hour of LNG. The fifth 

loading arm would be dedicated to 

vapor return from the terminal for 

pressure equalization between an LNG 

carrier and the storage tanks of Pearl 

Crossing. 

The regasification process would be 

accomplished through thirteen electric 

pumps that will supply 13,200 gallons 

per minute (50,000 liters per minute) of 

seawater for the open rack vaporizers. 

The intakes will utilize passive, 

cylindrical wedge-wire-type screens 

with an automated air backwash system. 

The slot size would be 0.25 inch (6.4 

millimeters) or less to minimize 

impingement or entrainment of marine 

organisms. Seawater would be treated 

with hypochlorite produced by an 

electrolytic chlorination unit prior to 

entering the seawater pump intake lines. 

The applicant proposes to install two 

dedicated 42-inch-diameter (1,100 mm) 

offshore pipelines that will originate at 

the terminal and traverse the Gulf of 

Mexico in a northwesterly direction to 

the high water mark near Johnsons 

Bayou in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. 

Each offshore pipeline would have a 

throughput capacity of 1.4 billion 

standard cubic feet per day (Bscfd) for 

a total peak capacity of 2.8 Bscfd. 

Thereafter, the pipelines will continue 

onshore to multiple gas delivery points 

in Louisiana and come under FERC 

jurisdiction. 

Pearl Crossing Pipeline LLC will 

transport natural gas from the terminal’s 

two offshore pipelines for further 

transportation. Gas will be transported 

to a metering and distribution station in 

Johnsons Bayou for delivery to several 

interstate and intrastate pipelines near 

the station. Once onshore, an additional 

63.75 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline and five additional meter 

stations would be constructed. The 

pipeline would terminate near Starks, 

Louisiana, and requires separate 

permitting by FERC. There are no 

proposals for onshore storage.

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

Joseph J. Angelo, 

Director of Standards, Marine Safety, 

Security, and Environmental Protection, U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

H. Keith Lesnick, 

Senior Transportation Specialist, Deepwater 

Ports, Program Manager, U.S. Maritime 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–16590 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Information Collection Renewal 

Submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for Approval Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act; OMB 

Control Number 1018–0092, 

Applications for Permits/Licenses

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (We) has submitted the 

collection of information described 

below to OMB for approval under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. A description of the 

information collection requirement is 

included in this notice. If you wish to 

obtain copies of the information 

collection requirements, related forms, 

or explanatory material, contact the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer at the address or 

telephone number listed below.

DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to 

approve or disapprove information 

collections but may respond after 30 

days. Therefore, to ensure maximum 

consideration, you must submit 

comments on or before August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on 

this information collection renewal to 

the Desk Officer for the Department of 

the Interior at OMB–OIRA via facsimile 

or e-mail using the following fax 

number or e-mail address: (202) 395–

6566 (fax); 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov (e-mail). 

Please provide a copy of your comments 

to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MS 222 

ARLSQ, Arlington, VA 22207; (703) 

358–2269 (fax); or 

anissa_craghead@fws.gov (e-mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request a copy of the information 

collection request, related forms, or 

explanatory material, contact Anissa 

Craghead at telephone number (703) 

43620 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

358–2445, or electronically at 

anissa_craghead@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), require that interested members 

of the public and affected agencies have 

an opportunity to comment on 

information collection and 

recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)). 

We have submitted a request to OMB 

to renew its approval of the collection 

of information included in Form 3–200–

1, the general permit application form; 

Form 3–200–2, Designated Port 

Exception permit application form; and 

Form 3–200–3, Import/Export license 

application form.

All three of these forms are approved 

under OMB control number 1018–0092, 

which expires on July 31, 2004. We are 

requesting a three year term of approval 

for this information collection activity. 

We may not conduct or sponsor, and 

you are not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) makes it unlawful 

to import or export fish, wildlife, or 

plants without obtaining prior 

permission as deemed necessary for 

enforcing the ESA or upholding the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species (CITES) (see 16 

U.S.C. 1538(e)). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Form 3–200–1, Permit Application 

Form, is the general application form for 

all permitted activities authorized by 

the Service. In the interest of making the 

application process simpler for the 

public, we have previously modified the 

format of the first page of Form 3–200, 

creating a sequence of forms such as 

Form 3–200–1, 3–200–2, 3–200–3, etc.

This enables the public to use a specific 

application form when requesting 

permission to conduct a certain 

otherwise unauthorized activity. Each 

specific application form contains 

questions that are specific to the 

requested activity. This makes the 

application process easier for the public 

by eliminating the need to use one 

application form, with standard 

questions, to apply for any number of 

otherwise unauthorized activities, many 

of which are distinctly different from 

one another and could not be 

adequately or fairly evaluated using 

standard questions. In the above 

mentioned sequence of forms, the 

general Permit Application Form is 

designated as Form 3–200–1. Since this 

form has been modified for applications 

for specific activities as described 

above, it is rarely, if ever used by itself. 

Therefore, the annual responses and the 

annual burden hours resulting from the 

use of this form are essentially zero. 

Though this form is rarely, if ever, used 

by itself, we intend to maintain this 

form in the event that a general permit 

application form is needed at some 

point in the future for an unanticipated 

activity, one that was not provided for 

in the development of the sequence of 

forms described above. 

The Service’s Form 3–200–2, 

Designated Port Exception permit 

application form is the application form 

to request an import or export of 

wildlife or wildlife products at a port 

other than a port designated in 50 CFR 

14.12. Title 50, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, § 14.11 (50 CFR 14.11) 

makes it unlawful to import or export 

wildlife or wildlife products at a port 

other than a designated port listed in 50 

CFR 14.12, unless you qualify for one of 

the exceptions that allow you to import 

or export your wildlife or wildlife 

products at a different port. These 

exceptions allow you to import or 

export wildlife or wildlife products at a 

nondesignated port for the following 

reasons: (1) For use as scientific 

specimens; (2) to minimize deterioration 

or loss; and (3) to relieve economic 

hardship. We recognize the limitations 

that the requirement to use a designated 

port may place on certain individuals, 

businesses or scientific organizations. 

The issuance of a Designated Port 

Exception permit can relieve these 

limitations for certain qualified 

individuals, businesses or scientific 

organizations. Our estimates of the total 

annual responses and the total annual 

burden hours for Form 3–200–2 

contained in our notice published in the 

Federal Register on March 16, 2004 (69 

FR 12343), were in error. The estimates 

contained in that notice were based only 

upon our data for new applicants using 

Form 3–200–2. The estimates contained 

in this notice are based upon our data 

for new applicants and renewal 

applicants using Form 3–200–2. It will 

take an average of one hour for each 

respondent to complete the application 

for a designated port exception permit, 

whether it is a new application or an 

application to renew an existing 

designated port exception permit.

The Service’s Form 3–200–3, Import/

Export license application form, is the 

application form to request an import/

export license. Title 50, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, § 14.11 (50 CFR 

14.91) makes it unlawful to import or 

export wildlife or wildlife products for 

commercial purposes without first 

having obtained an import/export 

license. This authority allows us to 

ensure that protected species are not 

being used in commercial trade. We use 

the information obtained from Form 3–

200–3 as an enforcement tool and 

management aid in monitoring the 

international wildlife market and 

detecting trends and changes in the 

commercial trade of wildlife and 

wildlife products. Our estimates of the 

total annual responses and the total 

annual burden hours for Form 3–200–3 

contained in our notice published in the 

Federal Register on March 16, 2004 (69 

FR 12343), were in error. The estimates 

contained in that notice were based only 

upon our data for new applicants using 

Form 3–200–3. The estimates contained 

in this notice are based upon our data 

for new applicants and renewal 

applicants using Form 3–200–3. It will 

take an average of one hour for each 

respondent to complete the application 

for an import/export license, whether it 

is a new application or an application 

to renew an existing import/export 

license. Import/export licensees are 

required to maintain records that 

accurately describe each importation or 

exportation of wildlife or wildlife 

products made under the license, and 

any additional sale or transfer of the 

wildlife or wildlife products. In 

addition, licensees are required to make 

these records and the corresponding 

inventory of wildlife or wildlife 

products available for our inspection at 

reasonable times, subject to applicable 

limitations of law. However, these 

recordkeeping requirements will not 

result in additional burden to import/

export licensees because these records 

already exist. Form 3–177, Declaration 

for Importation or Exportation of Fish or 

Wildlife, which is required for all 

imports or exports of wildlife or wildlife 

products, provides an accurate 

description of these imports and 

exports. Form 3–177 is approved under 

OMB control number 1018–0012, which 

expires December 31, 2006. Normal 

business practices should produce 

records, such as invoices or bills of sale, 

that describe additional sales or 

transfers of the wildlife or wildlife 

products. 

Title: Permit application form. 

Approval Number: 1018–0092. 

Service Form Number: 3–200–1. 

Frequency of Collection: Rarely, if 

ever used, for reasons described above. 

Description of Respondents: Scientific 

institutions, businesses or individuals 

that request permission to conduct any 

number of otherwise unauthorized 

activities. 

Total Annual Responses: 0. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 0. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43621

Title: Designated Port Exception 

permit application form. 

Approval Number: 1018–0092. 

Service Form Number: 3–200–2.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion, 

whenever permission is requested to 

import wildlife or wildlife products at a 

nondesignated port for use as scientific 

specimens, to minimize deterioration or 

loss, or to relieve economic hardship. 

Description of Respondents: Scientific 

institutions, businesses or individuals 

that import or export scientific 

specimens, wildlife, or wildlife 

products. 

Total Annual Responses:

Approximately 1,164. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: The total 

annual burden is approximately 1,164 

hours. We estimate the reporting burden 

to average one hour per response. 

Title: Import/Export license 

application form. 

Approval Number: 1018–0092. 

Service Form Number: 3–200–3. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion, 

whenever permission is requested to 

import or export wildlife or wildlife 

products for commercial purposes. 

Description of Respondents:

Businesses or individuals that import or 

export wildlife or wildlife products for 

commercial purposes. 

Total Annual Responses:

Approximately 6,886. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: The total 

annual burden is approximately 6,886 

hours. We estimate the reporting burden 

to average one hour per response. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this renewal on: (1) Whether the 

collection of information is useful and 

necessary for us to do our job, (2) the 

accuracy of our estimate of the burden 

on the public to complete the form; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(4) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection on respondents, including 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

This information collection is part of a 

system of records covered by the 

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)). 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the record, which we will honor to the 

extent allowable by law. There may also 

be limited circumstances in which we 

would withhold a respondent’s identity 

from the rulemaking record, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state this clearly at the 

beginning of your comment. We will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

generally make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Anissa Craghead, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16606 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 5-Year Review of Holy 

Ghost Ipomopsis and Kuenzler 

Hedgehog Cactus

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announces a 5-year 

review of Holy Ghost Ipomopsis 

(Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus) and 

Kuenzler hedgehog cactus 

(Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri) 

under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The purpose of 

reviews conducted under this section of 

the Act is to ensure that the 

classification of species as threatened or 

endangered on the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 

(List) is accurate. 

The 5-year review is an assessment of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available at the time of the review. 

Therefore, we are requesting submission 

of any new information (best scientific 

and commercial data) on Holy Ghost 

Ipomopsis and Kuenzler hedgehog 

cactus since their original listings as 

endangered species in 1994 (59 FR 

13836) and 1979 (44 FR 61924), 

respectively. If the present classification 

of either of these species is not 

consistent with the best scientific and 

commercial information available, the 

Service will recommend whether or not 

a change is warranted in the Federal 

classification of Holy Ghost Ipomopsis 

or Kuenzler hedgehog cactus. Any 

change in Federal classification would 

require a separate final rule-making 

process.

DATES: Information submitted for our 

consideration must be received on or 

before August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Information submitted on 

either species should be sent to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 

Species Division, Chief, Attention: 5-

year Review, 500 Gold St. SE., 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87103. 

Information received in response to this 

notice and review will be available for 

public inspection by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Brown or Tracy Scheffler at the 

above address, or at 505/248–6920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Why Is a 5-year Review Conducted? 

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires 

that we conduct a review of listed 

species at least once every 5 years. We 

are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B) and 

the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), 

to determine, on the basis of such a 

review, whether or not any species 

should be removed from the List 

(delisted), or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened, or from 

threatened to endangered. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require 

that we publish a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing those species 

currently under active review. This 

notice announces our active review of 

Holy Ghost Ipomopsis and Kuenzler 

hedgehog cactus. 

What Information Is Considered in the 

Review? 

A 5-year review considers all new 

information available at the time of the 

review. These reviews will consider the 

best scientific and commercial data that 

has become available since the current 

listing determination or most recent 

status review of each species, such as: 

A. Species biology including, but not 

limited to, population trends, 

distribution, abundance, demographics, 

and genetics; 

B. Habitat conditions including, but 

not limited to, amount, distribution, and 

suitability; 

C. Conservation measures that have 

been implemented to benefit the 

species; 

D. Threat status and trends (see five 

factors under heading ‘‘How do we 

determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened?’’); and

E. Other new information, data, or 

corrections including, but not limited 

to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, 

identification of erroneous information 

contained in the List, and improved 

analytical methods. 

43622 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

How Are Holy Ghost Ipomopsis and 

Kuenzler Hedgehog Cactus Currently 

Listed? 

The List is found in 50 CFR 17.11 

(wildlife) and 17.12 (plants). 

Amendments to the List through final 

rules are published in the Federal 

Register. The List is also available on 

our internet site at http://

endangered.fws.gov/

wildlife.html#Species. In Table 1 below, 

we provide a summary of the listing 

information for both species.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE LISTING INFORMATION FOR HOLY GHOST IPOMOPSIS AND KUENZLER HEDGEHOG CACTUS

Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule 

Holy Ghost Ipomopsis .................................... Ipomopsis sanctispiritus.Endangered ............... NM ............................. 1994; 59 FR; 13836 

13840 

Kuenzler hedgehog cactus ............................ Echinocereus fendleri

var. kuenzleri.

Endangered ............... NM ............................. 1979; 44 FR; 61924 

61927 

Definitions Related to This Notice 

The following definitions are 

provided to assist those persons who 

contemplate submitting information 

regarding the species being reviewed: 

A. Species includes any species or 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate, which 

interbreeds when mature. 

B. Endangered means any species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

C. Threatened means any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

How Do We Determine Whether a 

Species Is Endangered or Threatened? 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes 

that we determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: 

A. The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

C. Disease or predation; 

D. The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that 

our determination be made on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. 

What Could Happen as a Result of This 

Review? 

If we find that there is new 

information concerning either Holy 

Ghost Ipomopsis or Kuenzler hedgehog 

cactus indicating a change in 

classification may be warranted, we may 

propose a new rule that could do one of 

the following: (a) reclassify the species 

from endangered to threatened; or (b) 

remove the species from the List. If we 

determine that a change in classification 

is not warranted for either species, Holy 

Ghost Ipomopsis and Kuenzler 

hedgehog cactus will remain on the List 

under their current status. 

Public Solicitation of New Information 

We request any new information 

concerning the status of Holy Ghost 

Ipomopsis or Kuenzler hedgehog cactus. 

See ‘‘What information is considered in 

the review?’’ heading for specific 

criteria. Information submitted should 

be supported by documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, methods 

used to gather and analyze the data, 

and/or copies of any pertinent 

publications, reports, or letters by 

knowledgeable sources. Our practice is 

to make comments, including names 

and home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their home addresses from the 

supporting record, which we will honor 

to the extent allowable by law. There 

also may be circumstances in which we 

may withhold from the supporting 

record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. We will not 

consider anonymous comments, 

however. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Authority 

This document is published under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 14, 2004. 

Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16489 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Tribal Consultation on Indian 

Education Topics

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of tribal consultation 

meetings. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will 

conduct consultation meetings to obtain 

oral and written comments concerning 

potential issues in Indian Education 

Programs. The potential issues will be 

set forth and described in a tribal 

consultation booklet to be issued before 

the meetings by the Office of Indian 

Education Programs (OIEP). The 

proposed topics are: implementation of 

a recommendation proposed by the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) to 

modify the accounting codes used for 

the expenditure of funds in schools; 

developing a high school curriculum to 

provide high schools students with 

essential life skills and financial 

management training to better prepare 

them for success as adults; establishing 

a pilot school to test an alternative 

school model for a Center of Excellence 

(Leadership Academy) designed to 

provide students with additional 

training in leadership; and the 

upcoming Facility Maintenance and 

Construction Negotiated Rulemaking, as 

required by Public Law 107–110, Sec. 

1125, 115 Stat 2021.

DATES: August 16 through 21, 2004, for 

all locations listed. All meetings will 

begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m. 

(local time) or until all meeting 

participants have an opportunity to 

make comments.

ADDRESSES: Send or hand-deliver 

written comments to Edward Parisian, 

Director, Office of Indian Education 

Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS 

Room 3512–MIB, 1849 C St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. Submissions by 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43623

facsimile should be sent to (202) 273–

0030.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Garry Martin, (202) 208–2472.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meetings are a follow-up to similar 

meetings conducted by the OIEP/BIA 

since 1990. The purpose of the 

consultation, as required by 25 U.S.C. 

2011(b), is to provide Indian tribes, 

school boards, parents, Indian 

organizations and other interested 

parties with an opportunity to comment 

on potential issues raised during 

previous consultation meetings or being 

considered by the BIA on Indian 

education programs.

MEETING SCHEDULE

Date Location Local Contact Phone Numbers 

August 16 ....................................... Minneapolis, MN ........................... Terry Portra .................................. (612) 713–4400 ext. 1090 

August 16 ....................................... Portland, OR ................................. John Reimer ................................. (503) 872–2743 

August 17 ....................................... Gallup, NM .................................... Beatrice Woodward ...................... (505) 786–6152 

August 17 ....................................... Nashville, TN ................................ Ernest Clark .................................. (615) 695–4101 

August 18 ....................................... Aberdeen, SD ............................... Dr. Cherie Farlee .......................... (605) 964–8722 

August 18 ....................................... Billings, MT ................................... Levon French ................................ (406) 247–7953 

August 19 ....................................... Phoenix, AZ .................................. Kevin Skenandore ........................ (928) 338–5442 

August 19 ....................................... Oklahoma City, OK ....................... Joy Martin ..................................... (405) 605–6051 

August 20 ....................................... Sacramento, CA ........................... Fayetta Babby .............................. (916) 978–6058 

August 20 ....................................... Albuquerque, NM .......................... Dr. Jennie Jimenez ....................... (505) 753–1465 

A consultation booklet for the 

meetings is being distributed to 

federally-recognized Indian tribes, 

Bureau Regional and Agency Offices 

and Bureau-funded schools. The 

booklets will also be available from 

local contact persons at each meeting. 

Public Comment Availability 

Comments, including names, street 

addresses, and other contact 

information of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the 

address listed under the ADDRESSES

section during regular business hours 

(7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.s.t.), Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish us to 

withhold your name, street address, and 

other contact information (such as fax or 

phone number) from public review or 

from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will honor your request to 

the extent allowable by law. We will 

make available for public inspection in 

their entirety all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses. 

Authority 

This notice is published in 

accordance with the authority delegated 

by the Secretary of the Interior to the 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.1.

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

Aurene M. Martin, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–16615 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[OR–010–1020–PK; HAG 04–0215] 

Council Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Lakeview District.

ACTION: Meeting Notice for the 

Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory 

Council. 

SUMMARY: The Southeast Oregon 

Resource Advisory Council (SEORAC) 

will hold an all day field tour on 

Monday, August 23, 2004 starting at 7 

a.m. Pacific Time (PT) at the Lakeview 

District Office. Tuesday, August 24, 

2004 the meeting will be from 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m. (PT). Members of the public are 

invited to attend the Lakeview meeting 

in person at the Lakeview District 

Office, Conference Room, 1301 South G 

Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630. Public 

comment is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. on 

Tuesday, August 24, 2004. Information 

from the public, to be distributed to the 

Council members is requested in written 

format 10 days prior to the Council 

meeting. 

The meeting topics that may be 

discussed by the Council include a 

discussion of issues within Southeast 

Oregon related to: Tour of Beaty Butte 

Allotment and review; Welcome to New 

Members and RAC Administration 

duties; RAC Charter review for possible 

boundary changes; Budget Process 

update; Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI)—

Healthy Forest Restoration Act projects 

(HFRA) and determining the RAC 

participation with District and Forest 

projects; The RAC role with Business 

Plan for the Lakeview Resource 

Management Plan; Standards and 

Guidelines update; Differences in 

agencies Off Road Vehicles policies; Sub 

committee reports and status; Federal 

Officials’ update and other issues that 

may come before the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional information concerning the 

SEORAC tour or meeting may be 

obtained from Pam Talbott, Contact 

Representative, Lakeview Interagency 

Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, 

OR 97630 (541) 947–6107, or 

ptalbott@or.blm.gov and/or from the 

following Web site http://

www.or.blm.gov/SEOR–RAC.

Dated: July 7, 2004. 

M. Joe Tague, 

Associate District Manager.

[FR Doc. 04–16491 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[AZ–910–0777–XP–241A] 

State of Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting and tour of the Arizona 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC). 

The business meeting will be held on 

August 18, 2004, at the Bureau of Land 

Management National Training Center 

located at 9828 North 31st Avenue, 

Phoenix, Arizona. It will begin at 9 a.m. 

and conclude at 4 p.m. The agenda 

items to be covered include: Review of 

the May 26, 2004, Meetings Minutes; 

BLM State Director’s Update on 

43624 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Statewide Issues; Presentations on BLM 

Stewardship Contracting; BLM 

Antiquities Act Celebration Update; 

University of Arizona Project on 

Collecting and Interpreting Rangeland 

Monitoring Data; and Arizona Land Use 

Planning Updates; RAC Questions on 

Written Reports from BLM Field 

Managers; Field Office Rangeland 

Resource Team Proposals; Reports by 

the Standards and Guidelines, 

Recreation, Off-Highway Vehicle Use, 

Public Relations, Land Use Planning 

and Tenure, and Wild Horse and Burro 

Working Groups; Reports from RAC 

members; and Discussion of future 

meetings. A public comment period will 

be provided at 11:30 a.m. on August 18, 

2004, for any interested publics who 

wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona State Office, 222 

North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004–2203, (602) 417–9215.

Lonna O’Neal, 

Acting Arizona State Director.

[FR Doc. 04–16547 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–508] 

Certain Absorbent Garments; Notice of 

A Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Motion To Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) granting complainants’ motion to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation in the above-captioned 

investigation to add ABS Bienes de 

Capital S.A. de C.V. as a respondent to 

this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3152. Copies of the ID and all 

nonconfidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation are or 

will be available for inspection during 

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this patent-based 

section 337 investigation on May 7, 

2004, based on a complaint filed by 

Tyco Healthcare Retail Group, Inc. and 

Paragon Trade Brands, Inc. of King of 

Prussia, Pennsylvania. 69 FR 25609. The 

respondents named in the investigation 

are Grupo ABS Internacional, S.A. de 

C.V. and Absormex S.A. de C.V. of 

Mexico, and Absormex USA, Inc. of 

Laredo, Texas. The complaint alleged 

that respondents violated section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing into 

the United States, selling for 

importation, and/or selling within the 

United States after importation certain 

absorbent garments by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,275,590; 5,403,301; and 

4,892,528. 

On June 16, 2004, complainants filed 

a motion for leave to amend their 

complaint to add ABS Bienes de Capital 

S.A. de C.V. as a respondent to the 

investigation. 

On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an 

ID (Order No. 4) granting complainants’

unopposed motion to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation. 

No petitions for review of the ID were 

filed. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

action is contained in section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1337) and in section 210.42 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

Issued: July 12, 2004. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–16528 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

July 13, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor 

(DOL). To obtain documentation, 

contact Darrin King on 202–693–4129 

(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Student Data Form. 

OMB Number: 1218–0172. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit; 

not-for-profit institutions; Federal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43625

Government; and State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. 

Number of Respondents: 5,000. 

Number of Annual Responses: 5,000. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Total Burden Hours: 417. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: The Student Data Form 

(OSHA Form 182) is used to collect 

student group and emergency 

information from Training Institutes 

students. This information is used to 

contact designated persons in the event 

of an emergency; for student group data 

reports; and for tuition receipt.

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16537 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

July 14, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requests (ICRs) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor 

(DOL). To obtain documentation, 

contact Darrin King on 202–693–4129 

(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 

20503, 202–395–7316 (this is not a tollfree number), within 30 days from the 

date of this publication in the Federal 

Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Hazardous Conditions 

Complaints. 

OMB Number: 1219–0014. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents: 1,003. 

Number of Annual Responses: 1,003. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 12 

minutes. 

Total Burden Hours: 201. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: Section 103(g) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977 (Pub. L. 91–173, as amended by 

Pub. L. 95–164) (Mine Act), states that 

a representative of miners, or any 

individual miner where there is no 

representative of miners, may submit a 

written or oral notification of alleged 

violation of the Mine Act or a 

mandatory standard or of an imminent 

danger. Such notification requires 

MSHA to make an immediate 

inspection. A copy of the notice must be 

provided to the operator. 

30 CFR, part 43, implements section 

103(g) of the Mine Act. It provides the 

procedures for submitting notification of 

the alleged violation and the actions 

which MSHA must take after receiving 

the notice. 

Agency: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Ventilation Plan and Main Fan 

Maintenance Record. 

OMB Number: 1219–0016. 

Frequency: On occasion and annually. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents: 258. 

Number of Annual Responses: 267. 

Estimated Time Per Response: Varies 

from 24 hours to develop a new or 

revise an existing mine ventilation plan 

to 1.5 hours to develop or revise a main 

ventilation fan maintenance schedule. 

Total Burden Hours: 6,206.

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: 30 CFR 57.8520 and 

57.8525 requires mine operators to 

install and maintain a properly 

operating ventilation system and to 

maintain main fans according to either 

the manufacturers recommendations or 

a written periodic schedule developed 

by the mine operator. 

Agency: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans. 

OMB Number: 1219–0019. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents: 78. 

Number of Annual Responses: 78. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 20 

hours. 

Total Burden Hours: 1,560. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $1,170. 

Description: 30 CFR 77.1900 requires 

coal mine operators to submit to MSHA 

for approval, a plan that will provide for 

the safety of workmen in each slope or 

shaft that is commenced or extended. 

Agency: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Safety Defects; Examination, 

Correction and Records. 

OMB Number: 1219–0089. 

Frequency: On occasion; Annually; 

and each shift. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents: 12,163.

43626 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Information collection requirement Annual responses 

Average response time 

(hours) 

Annual burden 

hours 

30 CFR 56/57.13015 ................................................................................................................... 3,238 0.17 540 

30 CFR 56/57.13030 ................................................................................................................... 488 0.17 81 

30 CFR 56/57.14100 ................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Small Mines .......................................................................................................................... 4,243,837 0.08 339,507 

Large Mines .......................................................................................................................... 4,756,020 0.08 380,482 

30 CFR 56/57.18002 ................................................................................................................... 2,438,987 0.20 487,797 

Total: ..................................................................................................................................... 11,442,570 ////// 1,208,407 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: 30 CFR 56/57.14100, 56/

57.13015, 56/57.13030, and 56/57.18002 

requires equipment operators to inspect 

equipment, machinery, and tools that 

are to be used during a shift for safety 

defects before the equipment is placed 

in operation. Reports of uncorrected 

defects are required to be recorded by 

the mine operator and retained for 

MSHA review until the defect has been 

corrected.

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16538 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

July 15, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requests (ICRs) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor 

(DOL). To obtain documentation, 

contact Darrin King on 202–693–4129 

(this is not a toll-free number) or email: 

king.darrin@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment Standards Administration 

(ESA), Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 

20503, 202–395–7316 (this is not a tollfree number), within 30 days from the 

date of this publication in the Federal 

Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employment Standards 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Request for State or Federal 

Workers’ Compensation Information. 

OMB Number: 1215–0060. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government and Federal Government. 

Number of Respondents: 1,600. 

Number of Annual Responses: 1,600. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Total Burden Hours: 400. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $640. 

Description: The Federal Mine Safety 

and Health Act of 1977, as amended (30 

U.S.C. 901) and 20 CFR 725.535, directs 

that DOL Black Lung benefit payments 

to a beneficiary for any month be 

reduced by any other payments of State 

or Federal benefits for workers’

compensation due to pneumoconiosis. 

The information collected by the Form 

CM–905 allows DOL to determine the 

amounts of black lung benefits paid to 

beneficiaries. Black Lung amounts are 

reduced dollar for dollar, for other black 

lung related workers’ compensation 

awards the beneficiary may be receiving 

from State or Federal programs. 

Agency: Employment Standards 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Labor Standards for Federal 

Service Contracts—Regulations 29 CFR, 

part 4. 

OMB Number: 1215–0150. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Type of Response: Reporting and 

recordkeeping. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit and Federal Government. 

Number of Respondents: 83,854.

Information collection requirement Annual responses 

Average response time 

(hours) 

Annual burden 

hours 

Vacation Benefit Seniority List ..................................................................................................... 82,149 1.00 82,149 

Conformance Record ................................................................................................................... 200 0.50 100 

Collective Bargaining Agreement ................................................................................................ 1,505 0.08 125 

Total: ..................................................................................................................................... 83,854 /////////// 82,374 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43627

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: The Service Contract Act 

(SCA) and Regulation 29 CFR part 4 

impose certain recordkeeping and 

incidental reporting requirements 

applicable to employers with employees 

performing on service contracts within 

the Federal government. The basic 

payroll recordkeeping requirements 

contained in this regulation, Sec. 

4.6(g)(1)(i) through (iv), have been 

previously approved under OMB–1215–

0017, which constitutes the basic 

recordkeeping regulations for all laws 

administered by the Wage and Hour 

Division. This information collection 

contains three requirements not cleared 

under the above information collection. 

They are: A vacation benefit seniority 

list, which is used by the contractor to 

determine vacation fringe benefit 

entitlements earned and accrued by 

service contract employees who were 

employed by predecessor contractors; a 

conformance record report, which is 

used by Wage and Hour to determine 

the appropriateness of the conformance 

and compliance with the SCA and its 

regulations; and a collective bargaining 

agreement, submitted by the contracting 

agency to Wage and Hour to be used in 

the issuance of wage determinations for 

successor contracts subject to section 

2(a) and 4(c) of the SCA.

Darrin A. King, 

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16540 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration 

Proposed collection; comment request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. Currently, the 

Employment Standards Administration 

is soliciting comments concerning the 

proposed collection: Report of 

Construction Contractor’s Wage Rates 

(WD–10). A copy of the proposed 

information collection request can be 

obtained by contacting the office listed 

below in the addresses section of this 

Notice.

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addresses section below on or before 

September 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Room S–3201, Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0418, 

fax (202) 693–1451, Email 

bell.hazel@dol.gov. Please use only one 

method of transmission for comments 

(mail, fax, or Email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background 

The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141, 

et seq.) provides that every contract in 

excess of $2,000 to which the United 

States or the District of Columbia is a 

party for construction, alteration, and/or 

repair which requires or involves the 

employment of mechanics and/or 

laborers shall contain a provision stating 

the minimum wages to be paid various 

classes of laborers and mechanics which 

shall be based upon the wages that will 

be determined by the Secretary of Labor 

to be prevailing for the corresponding 

classes of laborers and mechanics 

employed on projects of a character 

similar to the contract work in the city, 

town, village or other civil subdivision 

of the State in which the work is to be 

performed. Further, Section 1.3 of 

Regulations 29 CFR part 1 provides that 

the Administrator of the Wage and Hour 

Division (WHD), through a delegation of 

authority, is responsible for making 

these wage determinations. Form WD–

10 is used by the U.S. Department of 

Labor to elicit construction project data 

from contractor associations, contractors 

and unions. The wage data is used to 

determine locally prevailing wages 

under the Davis-Bacon and Related 

Acts. This information collection is 

currently approved for use through 

February 28, 2005. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department of Labor is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

III. Current Actions 

The Wage and Hour Division seeks 

the approval of the extension of this 

information collection to obtain wage 

data in order to determine current 

prevailing wage rates in the various 

localities throughout the country. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Agency: Employment Standards 

Administration. 

Title: Report of Construction 

Contractor’s Wage Rates. 

OMB Number: 1215–0046. 

Agency Number: WD–10. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Total Respondents: 37,500. 

Total Annual Responses: 75,000. 

Time Per Response: 20 minutes. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours:

25,000. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): $0. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Sue R. Blumenthal, 

Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review 

and Internal Control, Division of Financial 

Management, Office of Management, 

Administration and Planning, Employment 

Standards Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–16539 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification 

The following parties have filed 

petitions to modify the application of 

43628 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

existing safety standards under section 

101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977. 

1. Consolidation Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–025–C] 

Consolidation Coal Company, 1800 

Washington Road, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15241 has filed a petition 

to modify the application of 30 CFR 

75.312(c) and (d) (Main mine fan 

examinations and records) to its 

Loveridge No. 22 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 

46–01433) located in Marion County, 

West Virginia. The petitioner requests a 

modification of the existing standard to 

permit testing at least every 31 days of 

the automatic closing door(s) and the 

automatic fan signal device without 

shutting down the fan and without 

removing miners from the mine. The 

petitioner proposes to provide the fans 

with an alarm system consisting of a 

mechanical switch that will be mounted 

to the fan housing and designed to 

activate a relay in the fan monitoring 

panel when the air reversal prevention 

door is in the closed position. The relay 

will activate a warning light near the 

door location and provide an audible 

and visible alarm at a location where a 

responsible person will always be on 

duty when miners are working 

underground, and will have two-way 

communication with working sections. 

The petitioner states that a magnetic 

switch may be used if approved by the 

District Manager. The petitioner has 

listed in this petition for modification 

specific terms and conditions that will 

be used when the proposed alternative 

method is implemented. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method would provide at least the same 

measure of protection as the existing 

standard. 

2. Ohio County Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–026–C] 

Ohio County Coal Company, PO Box 

39, Centertown, Kentucky 42328 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1103–4 

(Automatic fire sensor and warning 

device systems; installation; minimum 

requirements) to its Big Run 

Underground Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15–

18552) located in Ohio County, 

Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to 

install a carbon monoxide monitoring 

system as an early warning fire 

detection system near the center and in 

the upper third of the belt entry in a 

location that would not expose 

personnel working on the system to 

unsafe situations. The petitioner has 

listed in this petition for modification 

specific terms & conditions that will be 

used when the proposed alternative 

method is implemented. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method would provide at least the same 

measure of protection as the existing 

standard. 

3. Snyder Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–027–C] 

Snyder Coal Company, 66 Snyder 

Lane, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 49.2 (Availability 

of mine rescue teams) to its No. 1 Rock 

Slope (MSHA I.D. No. 36–09256) 

located in Schuylkill County, 

Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a 

modification of the standard to permit 

the reduction of two mine rescue teams 

with five members and one alternate 

each, to two mine rescue teams of three 

members with one alternate for either 

team. The petitioner asserts that an 

attempt to utilize five or more rescue 

team members in the mine’s confined 

working places would result in 

diminution of safety to both the miners 

at the mine and members of the rescue 

team, and that the proposed alternative 

method would provide at least the same 

measure of protection as the existing 

standard. 

4. Snyder Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–028–C]

Snyder Coal Company, 66 Snyder 

Lane, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1100–2(a) 

(Quantity and location of firefighting 

equipment) to its No. 1 Rock Slope 

(MSHA I.D. No. 36–09256) located in 

Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The 

petitioner requests a modification of the 

standard to permit use of only portable 

fire extinguishers to replace existing 

requirements where rock dust, water 

cars, and other water storage equipped 

with three (3) ten quart pails is not 

practical. The petitioner proposes to use 

two (2) portable fire extinguishers near 

the slope bottom and an additional 

portable fire extinguisher within 500 

feet of the working face for equivalent 

fire protection for the No. 1 Rock Slope 

Mine. The petitioner asserts that the 

proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

5. Snyder Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–029–C] 

Snyder Coal Company, 66 Snyder 

Lane, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1200(d) & (i) 

(Mine map) to its No. 1 Rock Slope 

Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 36–09256) located 

in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The 

petitioner proposes to use cross-sections 

instead of contour lines through the 

intake slope, at locations of rock tunnel 

connections between veins, and at 1,000 

foot intervals of advance from the intake 

slope; and to limit the required mapping 

of the mine workings above and below 

to those present within 100 feet of the 

vein being mined except when veins are 

interconnected to other veins beyond 

the 100-foot limit through rock tunnels. 

The petitioner asserts that due to the 

steep pitch encountered in mining 

anthracite coal veins, contours provide 

no useful information and their 

presence would make portions of the 

map illegible. The petitioner further 

asserts that use of cross-sections in lieu 

of contour lines has been practiced 

since the late 1800’s thereby providing 

critical information relative to the 

spacing between veins and proximity to 

other mine workings which fluctuate 

considerably. The petitioner asserts that 

the proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

6. Snyder Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2004–030–C] 

Snyder Coal Company, 66 Snyder 

Lane, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1202 and 

75.1202–1(a) (Temporary notations, 

revisions, and supplements) to its No. 1 

Rock Slope Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 36–

09256) located in Schuylkill County, 

Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes 

to revise and supplement mine maps 

annually instead of every 6 months as 

required, and to update maps daily by 

hand notations. The petitioner also 

proposes to conduct surveys prior to 

commencing retreat mining and 

whenever either a drilling program 

under 30 CFR 75.388 or plan for mining 

into inaccessible areas under 30 CFR 

75.389 is required. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method would provide at least the same 

measure of protection as the existing 

standard. 

7. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation 

[Docket No. M–2004–031–C] 

Eastern Associated Coal Corporation, 

1970 Barrett Court, PO Box 1990, 

Henderson, Kentucky 42419 has filed a 

petition to modify the application of 30 

CFR 75.364(b)(7) (Weekly examination) 

to its Federal No. 2 Mine (MSHA I.D. 

No. 46–01456) located in Monogalia 

County, West Virginia. The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the use of a 480-volt 

3 phase alternating current electric 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43629

power circuit for its non-permissible 

deep well submersible pump that 

would: (i) Contain either a direct or 

derived neutral resistor at the source 

transformer or power center, and a 

grounding circuit originating at the 

grounded side of the grounding resistor 

extended along with the power 

conductors and serve as the grounding 

conductor for the frame of the pump; (ii) 

contain a grounding resistor that limits 

the ground fault current to not more 

than 15 amperes, and rated for the 

maximum fault current available and 

insulated from the ground for a voltage 

equal to the phase-to-phase voltage of 

the system; (iii) provide protection by 

suitable circuit breaker of adequate 

interrupting capacity with devices to 

provide protection against under 

voltage, grounded phase, short-circuit, 

and overload; (iv) contain a 

disconnecting device installed in 

conjunction with the circuit breaker to 

provide visual evidence that the power 

is disconnected; and (v) provide 

controls to shut the pumps down in low 

flow conditions. The petitioner states 

that the controls will monitor for low 

current which is an indication of low 

flow conditions; that a certified person 

will conduct weekly electrical checks; 

and that the monthly examination of 

electrical equipment required by 30 CFR 

77.502 will include a functional test of 

the grounded phase protective devices 

to determine the proper operation and 

record. The results of the functional 

tests will be recorded in the approved 

‘‘Examination of Electrical Equipment’’

record books. The petitioner asserts that 

the proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

8. Cotter Corporation 

[Docket No. M–2004–007–M] 

Cotter Corporation, 7800 E. Dorado 

Place, Suite 210, Englewood, Colorado 

80111 has filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 57.11055 

(Inclined escapeways) to its C-JD–9 

Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 05–03066) located 

in Montrose County, Colorado. The 

petitioner requests modification of the 

existing standard to permit the portable 

emergency hoisting facility (truck) to be 

stored in a safe area at the Nucla, 

Colorado office and yard and 

transported to the mine site when 

necessary for the emergency escape of 

the miners, and allow the provisions of 

30 CFR 57.11050(b) to be used until the 

emergency hoisting facility is located 

over the borehole and ready to evacuate 

the miners. The petitioner has listed in 

this petition specific terms and 

conditions that will be applied when 

the proposed alternative method is 

implemented. The petitioner asserts that 

the proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

Request for Comments: Persons 

interested in these petitions are 

encouraged to submit comments via email to comments@msha.gov, by fax at 

(202) 693–9441, or by regular mail to the 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209. 

All comments must be postmarked or 

received in that office on or before 

August 20, 2004. Copies of these 

petitions are available for inspection at 

that address.

Dated at Arlington, Virginia this 15th day 

of July 2004. 

Marvin W. Nichols, Jr., 

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, 

and Variances.

[FR Doc. 04–16481 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice 04–091] 

National Environmental Policy Act; 

Development of Advanced 

Radioisotope Power Systems

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

ACTION: Extension of the scoping period.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for Implementing 

the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and NASA’s 

policy and procedures (14 CFR subpart 

1216.3), NASA announced its intent to 

conduct scoping and to prepare a Tier 

I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the development of advanced 

Radioisotope Power Systems (RPSs) on 

April 22, 2004 in the Federal Register

(69 FR 21867). This notice is to inform 

the public that the scoping period for 

the Advanced Radioisotope Power 

Systems EIS has been extended through 

July 30, 2004. 

NASA, in cooperation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), proposes 

to develop two types of advanced RPSs 

to satisfy a wide of range of future space 

exploration mission requirements. 

These advanced RPSs would be capable 

of functioning in the vacuum of space 

and in the environments encountered 

on the surfaces of the planets, moons 

and other solar system bodies. These 

power systems would be based upon the 

General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) 

previously developed by DOE and used 

in the Radioisotope Thermoelectric 

Generators for the Galileo, Ulysses, and 

Cassini missions. The advanced RPSs 

would be capable of providing longterm, reliable electrical power to 

spacecraft across the range of conditions 

encountered in space and planetary 

surface missions. The Tier I EIS will 

address in general terms the 

development and qualification for flight 

of advanced RPSs using passive or 

dynamic systems to convert the heat 

generated from the decay of plutonium 

to electrical energy, and research and 

development of technologies that could 

enhance the capability of future RPS 

systems. This development activity 

would include, but not necessarily be 

limited to: (1) New power conversion 

technologies to more efficiently use the 

heat energy from the GPHS module, and 

(2) improving the versatility of the RPS 

so that it would be capable of operating 

for extended periods both in the 

vacuum of space and in planetary 

atmospheres. For more detailed 

information see the original Federal 

Register notice cited above.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to 

submit comments on environmental 

concerns in writing on or before July 30, 

2004, to assure full consideration during 

the scoping process.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Dr. George Schmidt, NASA 

Headquarters, Code S, Washington, DC 

20546–0001. While hardcopy comments 

are preferred, comments may be sent by 

electronic mail to: rpseis@nasa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George Schmidt, NASA Headquarters, 

Code S, Washington, DC 20546–0001, 

by telephone at 202–358–0113, or by 

electronic mail at rpseis@nasa.gov.

Jeffrey E. Sutton, 

Assistant Administrator for Institutional and 

Corporate Management.

[FR Doc. 04–16592 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7501–01–P

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee 

Meetings (Teleconference) 

Time and Date: 1 p.m. e.d.t., August 

20, 2004. 

Place: National Council on Disability, 

1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, 

Washington, DC.

AGENCY: National Council on Disability 

(NCD). 

43630 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Status: All parts of this meeting will 

be open to the public. Those interested 

in participating in this meeting should 

contact the appropriate staff member 

listed below. Due to limited resources, 

only a few telephone lines will be 

available for the call. 

Agenda: Roll call, announcements, 

reports, new business, adjournment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Geraldine (Gerrie) Drake Hawkins, 

Ph.D., Program Analyst, NCD, 1331 F 

Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 

20004; 202–272–2004 (voice), 202–272–

2074 (TTY), 202–272–2022 (fax), 

ghawkins@ncd.gov.

Cultural Diversity Advisory 

Committee Mission: The purpose of 

NCD’s Cultural Diversity Advisory 

Committee is to provide advice and 

recommendations to NCD on issues 

affecting people with disabilities from 

culturally diverse backgrounds. 

Specifically, the committee will help 

identify issues, expand outreach, infuse 

participation, and elevate the voices of 

underserved and unserved segments of 

this nation’s population that will help 

NCD develop federal policy that will 

address the needs and advance the civil 

and human rights of people from 

diverse cultures.

Dated: July 16, 2004. 

Ethel D. Briggs, 

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 04–16614 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–MA–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE 

ARTS AND HUMANITIES 

Proposed Collection, Comment 

Request, Analysis of Impact of 

Museum and Library Services

AGENCY: Institute of Museum and 

Library Services.

ACTION: Notice, request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and 

Library Services, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and federal agencies to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 

U.S.C. 3508 (2)(A)]. This pre-clearance 

comment opportunity helps to ensure 

that: requested data can be provided in 

the desired format, reporting burden 

(time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents 

can be properly assessed. The Institute 

of Museum and Library Services is 

currently soliciting comments 

concerning anticipated analyses of the 

impact of museum and library services. 

A copy of the proposed information 

collection request can be obtained by 

contacting the individual listed below 

in the addressee section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addressee section below on or before 

September 20, 2004. 

IMLS is particularly interested in 

comments that help the agency to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collocation of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submissions of responses.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Karen 

Motylewski, Research Officer, Institute 

of Museum and Library Services, 1100 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 223, 

Washington, DC 20506. Ms Motylewski 

can be reached by fax: 202–606–0395; or 

by e-mail at Kmotylewski@imls.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Institute of Museum 

and Library Services is charged with 

promoting the improvement of library 

and museum services for the benefit of 

the public. Through grantmaking and 

leadership activities, IMLS seeks to 

assure that libraries and museums are 

able to play an active role in cultivating 

an educated and engaged citizenry. 

IMLS builds the capacity of libraries 

and museums by encouraging the 

highest standards in management, 

public service, and education; 

leadership in the use of technology; 

strategic planning for results, and 

partnerships to create new networks 

that support lifelong learning and the 

effective management of assets.

According to its strategic plan, IMLS 

is dedicated to creating and sustaining 

a nation of learners by helping libraries 

and museum service their communities. 

IMLS believes that libraries and 

museums are key resources for 

education in the United States and 

promotes the vision of a learning society 

in which learning is seen as a 

community-wide responsibility 

supported by both formal and informal 

educational entities. 

Current Actions 

The reauthorization of the Museum 

and Library Services Act in 2003 creates 

new authority for IMLS to carry out and 

publish analyses of the impact of 

museum and library services. The Act 

stipulates that these analyses should be 

conducted in ongoing consultation with 

stakeholders including ‘‘State Library 

Administrative Agencies; state, regional, 

and national library and museum 

organizations and other relevant 

agencies.’’

The Act further states that these 

analyses ‘‘shall identify national needs 

for and trends of museum and library 

services provided with IMLS support, 

* * * report on the impact and 

effectiveness of programs conducted 

with funds made available by the 

Institute in addressing such needs, 

* * * and identify, and disseminate 

information on, the best practices of 

such program.’’

IMLS is developing a plan to address 

the requirements of the statute. As a first 

step, IMLS is requesting public 

comment to identify national needs for 

and trends in museum and library 

service. These comments will be used to 

identify areas in which analyses would 

be useful. The following questions are 

intended to assist stakeholders in 

identifying high priority areas that IMLS 

should explore through further research 

and study. Following this collection of 

public comment, IMLS will contact up 

to 50 key members of stakeholder 

groups for structured interviews 

regarding the list of possible topics for 

analysis. Both the public comment and 

results of the structured interviews will 

provide the foundation for IMLS to use 

in fulfilling this new requirement. 

To comment please examine the 

following list. How would further 

exploration of these issues improve 

library and museum services in the 

United States? Which issues are of the 

greatest importance? Are there 

additional issues that should be added 

to the list? 

A. How do changing community 

expectations impact library and 

museum services? How can libraries 

and museum respond to these 

expectations?

Representative issues:

• Altered patterns of informationseeking and learning. 

• Changing educational patterns. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43631

• Evolving roles of libraries and 

museums. 

• Expectations for multi-institution 

and cross-disciplinary collaboration. 

• Competition from alternative 

venues. 

B. How do digital technology and the 

Web impact library and museum 

services? How can libraries and 

museums respond to challenges and 

benefit the public?

Representative issues:

• User expectations for seamless 

access to resources across organizational 

boundaries. 

• Requirements for building and 

maintaining technology systems, 

products, and services.

• Desirability of integrating 

technology in management functions 

and services. 

• Changing staff skill and knowledge 

requirements. 

• Budget implications. 

• Need to accommodate visitor/user 

skills and equipment needs (e.g., 

technical support, on-site equipment 

access, off-site equipment and 

connectivity). 

C. What are the impacts of growing 

community diversity on library and 

museum service? How can museums 

and libraries respond to them?

Representative issues:

• Changing demography of local, 

regional, and national audiences. 

• Altered educational norms. 

• Institutional need to reflect visitor/

user diversity. 

• Need to address language and 

cultural diversity. 

• Expanding definitions of access and 

barriers (e.g., ADA, Limited English 

Proficiency). 

D. How do changes in requirements 

for institutional infrastructure that have 

occurred or are emerging impact library 

and museum service? How can 

museums and libraries respond to them?

Representative issues:

• Requirements for creation, 

maintenance, management, and 

accessibility of learning resources. 

• Leadership and professional 

development, evolving requirements for 

staff skills. 

• Development and fundraising 

challenges. 

• Need to sustain public safety and 

security in parallel with public 

confidentiality and privacy. 

• Need to provide broad access to 

resources in parallel with protection of 

intellectual property rights. 

E. What are the challenges of 

developing and communicating a public 

value role for libraries and museums? 

How can museums and libraries 

respond to them?

Representative issues:

• Developing a strategy to be part of 

the community fabric to address unmet 

needs. 

• Need to develop practical resultsoriented evaluation tools and capacities. 

• Expectations for outcomes- and 

impact-based reporting. 

• Need to persuade policy and other 

decision-makers of competitive priority 

of museum/library services. 

• Need to attract non-users and 

infrequent users; need to expand 

audiences. 

F. What is the perception of 

educators, business leaders, community 

leaders and public policy makers on the 

impact of library and museum service in 

creating an educated and informed 

citizenry? 

• Contribution to formal education. 

• Contribution to civic engagement. 

• Contribution to lifelong learning. 

• Contribution to quality of 

community life. 

• Contribution to family life. 

Agency: Institute of Museum and 

Library Services. 

Title: Analysis of Impact of Museum 

and Library Services. 

OMB Number: n/a. 

Agency Number: 3137. 

Frequency: One time. 

Affected Public: Museums, libraries 

and archives. 

Number of Respondents: 50. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 

hour. 

Total Burden Hours: 50. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: 0. 

Total Annual costs: 0. 

Contact: Karen Motylewski, Research 

Officer, Office of Research and 

Technology, Institute of Museum and 

Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, email kmotylewski@imls.gov, telephone 

(202) 606–5551.

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Rebecca Danvers, 

Director, Office of Research and Technology.

[FR Doc. 04–16533 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7036–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410] 

Constellation Energy Group, Nine Mile 

Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 

Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 

the Application and Notice of 

Opportunity for Hearing Regarding 

Renewal of Facility Operating license 

Nos. DPR–63 and NPF–69 for an 

Additional 20-Year Period 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is considering application for the 

renewal of Operating License Nos. DPR–

63 and NPF–69, which authorize the 

Constellation Energy Group Inc., to 

operate the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 at 1850 

megawatts thermal for Unit 1 and 3467 

megawatts thermal for Unit 2. The 

renewed licenses would authorize the 

applicant to operate the Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, for an 

additional 20 years beyond the period 

specified in the current licenses. The 

current operating license for the Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 

expires on August 22, 2009, and the 

current operating license for the Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 

expires on October 31, 2026. 

The Commission’s staff has received 

an application dated May 26, 2004, from 

Constellation Energy Group Inc., 

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the 

Operating License Nos. DPR–63 and 

NPF–69 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively. A 

Notice of Receipt and Availability of the 

license renewal application, 

‘‘Constellation Energy Group; Nine Mile 

Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 

Notice of Receipt and Availability of 

Application for Renewal Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–63 and 

NPF–69 for an Additional 20-Year 

Period,’’ was published in the Federal 

Register on June 8, 2004 (69 FR 32069). 

The Commission’s staff has 

determined that Constellation Energy 

Group has submitted sufficient 

information in accordance with 10 CFR 

54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c) 

that is acceptable for docketing. The 

current Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410 

for Operating License Nos. DPR–63 and 

NPF–69, respectively, will be retained. 

The docketing of the renewal 

application does not preclude 

requesting additional information as the 

review proceeds, nor does it predict 

whether the Commission will grant or 

deny the application. 

Before issuance of each requested 

renewed license, the NRC will have 

made the findings required by the 

43632 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

1To the extent that the application contains 

attachments and supporting documents that are not 

publicly available because they are asserted to 

contain safeguards or proprietary information, 

petitioners desiring access to this information 

should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel 

to discuss the need for a protective order.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. In accordance with 10 

CFR 54.29, the NRC will issue a 

renewed license on the basis of its 

review if it finds that actions have been 

identified and have been or will be 

taken with respect to: (1) Managing the 

effects of aging during the period of 

extended operation on the functionality 

of structures and components that have 

been identified as requiring aging 

management review, and (2) timelimited aging analyses that have been 

identified as requiring review, such that 

there is reasonable assurance that the 

activities authorized by the renewed 

licenses will continue to be conducted 

in accordance with the current licensing 

basis (CLB), and that any changes made 

to the plant’s CLB comply with the Act 

and the Commission’s regulations. 

Additionally, in accordance with 10 

CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an 

environmental impact statement that is 

a supplement to the Commission’s 

NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ dated May 

1996. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as 

part of the environmental scoping 

process, the staff intends to hold a 

public scoping meeting. Detailed 

information regarding this meeting will 

be the subject of a separate Federal 

Register notice. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this Federal Register

notice, the requestor/petitioner may file 

a request for a hearing, and any person 

whose interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene 

with respect to the renewal of the 

licenses. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852 and is accessible from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System’s (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS should contact the 

NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–

397–4209, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

If a request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene is filed within the 

60-day period, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. In the event that no request for a 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed within the 60-day period, the 

NRC may, upon completion of its 

evaluations and upon making the 

findings required under 10 CFR parts 51 

and 54, renew the licenses without 

further notice. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding, taking into 

consideration the limited scope of 

matters that may be considered 

pursuant to 10 CFR parts 51 and 54. The 

petition must specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following factors: (1) The nature of 

the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under 

Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 

the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, 

financial, or other interest in the 

proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of 

any decision or order which may be 

entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

of each contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or the 

expert opinion that supports the 

contention on which the requestor/

petitioner intends to rely in proving the 

contention at the hearing. The 

requestor/petitioner must also provide 

references to those specific sources and 

documents of which the requestor/

petitioner is aware and on which the 

requestor/petitioner intends to rely to 

establish those facts or expert opinion. 

The requestor/petitioner must provide 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact.1 Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the action 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one that, if proven, would 

entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. 

A requestor/petitioner who fails to 

satisfy these requirements with respect 

to at least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party.

Each contention shall be given a 

separate numeric or alpha designation 

within one of the following groups and 

all like subject-matters shall be grouped 

together: 

1. Technical—primarily concerns 

issues relating to technical and/or 

health and safety matters discussed or 

referenced in the Nine Mile Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 safety analysis for 

the application (including issues related 

to emergency planning and physical 

security to the extent that such matters 

are discussed or referenced in the 

application). 

2. Environmental—primarily concerns 

issues relating to matters discussed or 

referenced in the Environmental Report 

for the license renewal application. 

3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into 

one of the categories outlined above. 

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two 

or more requestors/petitioners seek to 

co-sponsor a contention or propose 

substantially the same contention, the 

requestors/petitioners will be required 

to jointly designate a representative who 

shall have the authority to act for the 

requestors/petitioners with respect to 

that contention within ten (10) days 

after advised of such contention. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing, including the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. A request for a hearing or a 

petition for leave to intervene must be 

filed by: (1) First class mail addressed 

to the Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43633

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) 

facsimile transmission addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at 301–415–1101, 

verification number is 301–415–1966. A 

copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene must also 

be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to the attorney for the licensee. 

Attorney for the Applicant: David R. 

Lewis, Esq., Shaw Pittman, 2300 N 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

Detailed information about the license 

renewal process can be found under the 

Nuclear Reactors icon at http://

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/

licensing/renewal.html on the NRC’s 

website. Copies of the application to 

renew the operating licenses for the 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 

1 and 2, are available for public 

inspection at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852–2738, and at http://

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/

licensing/renewal/applications the 

NRC’s website while the application is 

under review. The NRC maintains an 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. These documents 

may be accessed through the NRC’s 

Public Electronic Reading Room on the 

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html under ADAMS 

accession number ML041490211. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, may contact the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or 

by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

The staff has verified that a copy of 

the license renewal application is also 

available to local residents near the 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station at the 

Penfield Library (Selective Depository), 

Reference and Documents Department, 

State University of New York, Oswego, 

New York 13126.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this the 15th 

day of July 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Pao-Tsin Kuo, 

Program Director, License Renewal and 

Environmental Impacts Program, Division of 

Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–16531 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328] 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 

Exemption 

1.0 Background 

The Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA, the licensee) is the holder of 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–77 

and DPR–79, which authorize operation 

of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (facility 

or SQN), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

respectively. The licenses provide, 

among other things, that the facility is 

subject to all rules, regulations, and 

orders of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) 

now or hereafter in effect. 

The facility consists of two 

pressurized water reactors located in 

Hamilton County, Tennessee. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix 

G requires that pressure-temperature (P–

T) limits be established for reactor 

pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal 

operating and hydrostatic or leak rate 

testing conditions. TVA requested that 

they be able to use Westinghouse Report 

WCAP–15315, ‘‘Reactor Vessel Closure 

Head/Vessel Flange Requirements 

Evaluation for Operating PWR 

[Pressurized-Water Reactor] and BWR 

[Boiling-Water Reactor] Plants’’ in lieu 

of 10 CFR, Appendix G, Footnote 2 to 

Table 1. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health or safety, and are consistent with 

the common defense and security, and 

(2) when special circumstances are 

present. Therefore, in determining the 

acceptability of the licensee’s exemption 

request, the staff has performed the 

following regulatory, technical, and 

legal evaluations to satisfy the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for 

granting the exemption. 

3.1 Regulatory Evaluation 

It is stated in 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix G that ‘‘[t]he minimum 

temperature requirements * * * pertain 

to the controlling material, which is 

either the material in the closure flange 

or the material in the beltline region 

with the highest reference temperature 

* * * the minimum temperature 

requirements and the controlling 

material depend on the operating 

condition (i.e., hydrostatic pressure and 

leak tests, or normal operation including 

anticipated normal operational 

occurrences), the vessel pressure, 

whether fuel is in the vessel, and 

whether the core is critical. The metal 

temperature of the controlling material, 

in the region of the controlling material 

which has the least favorable 

combination of stress and temperature, 

must exceed the appropriate minimum 

temperature requirement for the 

condition and pressure of the vessel 

specified in Table 1 [of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix G].’’ Footnote 2 to Table 1 in 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix G specifies 

that RPV minimum temperature 

requirements related to RPV closure 

flange considerations shall be based on 

‘‘[t]he highest reference temperature of 

the material in the closure flange region 

that is highly stressed by bolt preload.’’

In order to address provisions of 

amendments to modify SQN Units 1 and 

2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

implement a pressure-temperature 

limits report (PTLR) for each unit, TVA 

requested in its submittal dated 

September 6, 2002, that the staff exempt 

SQN Units 1 and 2 from the application 

of specific requirements of 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix G, as they pertain to the 

establishment of minimum temperature 

requirements, for all modes of operation 

addressed by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

G, based on the material properties of 

the material of the RPV closure flange 

region that is highly stressed by the bolt 

preload. The licensee’s initial technical 

basis for this exemption request was 

submitted on December 19, 2002. The 

requirements from which TVA 

requested that SQN Units 1 and 2 be 

exempted shall be referred to for the 

purpose of this exemption as ‘‘those 

requirements related to the application 

of Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix G.’’ The proposed action 

is in accordance with the licensee’s 

43634 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

application for exemption contained in 

its September 6, 2002, submittal, and is 

needed to support the TS amendments 

that are contained in the same 

submittal. The proposed amendments 

will revise the SQN Units 1 and 2 TSs 

to permit the implementation of a PTLR 

for each unit. 

TVA’s final, complete technical basis 

for the requested exemption was 

submitted to the NRC by letters dated 

June 24, 2003, and December 18, 2003. 

The licensee’s June 24, 2003, letter 

included as an attachment 

Westinghouse report WCAP–15984–P, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Reactor Closure Head/

Vessel Flange Requirements Evaluation 

for SQN Units 1 and 2.’’ This revision 

of WCAP–15984 updated information 

provided in WCAP–15984–P, Revision 

0, which had been submitted to the staff 

on December 19, 2002. The licensee’s 

December 18, 2003, letter provided 

responses to specific questions raised by 

the NRC staff to clarify information in 

WCAP–15984–P, Revision 1. 

3.2 Technical Evaluation 

WCAP–15984–P, Revision 1 included 

a fracture mechanics analysis of 

postulated flaws in SQN Units 1 and 2 

RPV closure flange regions under 

boltup, 100 degrees Fahrenheit per hour 

(°F/hr) heatup, 100 °F/hr cooldown, and 

steady-state conditions, with the heatup 

and cooldown transients being modeled 

in accordance with what would be 

permissible using P–T limit curves 

based on SQN Units 1 and 2 beltline 

materials. Westinghouse performed 

finite element modeling to calculate the 

stresses present at critical locations 

within the flange region and determined 

that the 100 °F/hr heatup transient was 

the most severe condition with the 

upper head-to-flange weld being the 

most limiting location. With these 

stresses, Westinghouse calculated the 

applied stress intensity (KI applied) for 

semi-elliptical, outside diameter 

initiated, surface breaking flaws with an 

aspect ratio (length vs. depth) of 6:1, 

and with depths ranging from 0 to 90 

percent of the thickness of the 

component wall. The KI applied values 

were calculated in accordance with the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code (ASME Code) Section XI, 

Appendix G, subparagraph G–2220 

requirements for the analysis of flange 

locations. Westinghouse then compared 

these KI applied values to ASME Code 

lower bound static crack initiation 

fracture toughness (KIC) values 

determined from the nil-ductility 

transition reference temperature (RTNDT) 

values for the SQN Units 1 and 2 RPV 

closure flange materials. Westinghouse 

also provided an assessment of the 

potential for changes in the material 

RTNDT values for the SQN Units 1 and 

2 RPV closure flange materials due to 

thermal aging resulting from exposure to 

the RPV operating environment.

The use of ASME Code KIC as the 

material property for the fracture 

mechanics analysis represents the most 

significant change between the analysis 

provided in WCAP–15984–P, Revision 1 

and the analysis which was performed 

as the basis for establishing the 

minimum temperature requirements in 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix G. The 

minimum temperature requirements 

related to Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix G were 

incorporated into the Code of Federal 

Regulations in the early 1980s and were 

based on analyses which used ASME 

Code lower bound crack arrest/dynamic 

test fracture toughness (KIA) as the 

parameter for characterizing a material’s 

ability to resist crack initiation and 

propagation. The use of ASME Code KIA

is always conservative with respect to 

the use of ASME Code KIC for fracture 

mechanics evaluations, and its use in 

the evaluations which established the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix G was justified based on the 

more limited knowledge of RPV 

material behavior that was available in 

the early eighties. However, the use of 

ASME Code KIC, not ASME Code KIA, is 

consistent with the actual physical 

processes that would govern flaw 

initiation under conditions of normal 

RPV operation, including RPV heatup, 

cooldown, and hydrostatic and leak 

testing. Based on our current 

understanding of the behavior of RPV 

materials, the NRC staff has routinely 

approved licensees utilization of ASME 

Code KIC as the basis for evaluating RPV 

beltline materials to demonstrate 

compliance with the intent of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix G through the 

licensees use of ASME Code Cases N–

640 and N–641. 

The minimum KIC value given in 

ASME Code for a RPV steel, regardless 

of material RTNDT value or temperature, 

is 33.2 ksi√in. This value represents the 

‘‘lower shelf’’ of the ASME Code KIC

curve. Based on information in WCAP–

15984–P, Revision 1 and the licensee’s 

December 18, 2003, response to NRC 

staff questions, it is apparent that the 

KIapplied for any flaw up to 1⁄4 of the wall 

thickness (1⁄4T) at the limiting location 

(refer to WCAP–15984–P, Revision 1, 

Figure 4–2), would not exceed 33.2 

ksi√in (including staff consideration of 

ASME Code structural factors) until 

between 1 and 2 hours into the 100°F/

hr heatup transient. The temperature at 

the tip of postulated flaws up to 1⁄4 T 

size would be adequate at that point in 

time to ensure that the limiting SQN 

flange materials would exhibit fracture 

toughness properties in excess of ASME 

Code ‘‘lower shelf’’ behavior. 

Hence, the analysis provided in 

WCAP–15984–P, Revision 1 has 

demonstrated that, for the most limiting 

transient addressed by 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix G, the combination of factors 

which would have to exist (high stresses 

in the RPV flange region along with the 

metal of the flange region being at low 

temperature) cannot exist 

simultaneously, and the structural 

integrity of the SQN Units 1 and 2 RPV 

closure flange materials will not be 

challenged by facility operation in 

accordance with P–T limit curves based 

consideration of SQN Units 1 and 2 

beltline materials. Therefore, the more 

conservative minimum temperature 

requirements related to Footnote 2 to 

Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G 

are not necessary to meet the underlying 

intent of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, 

to protect SQN Units 1 and 2 RPVs from 

brittle failure during normal operation 

under both core critical and core noncritical conditions and RPV hydrostatic 

and leak test conditions. 

3.3 Legal Basis for Exemption 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50, when 

(1) the exemptions are authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

public health or safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security; and (2) when special 

circumstances are present. The staff 

accepts the licensee’s determination that 

an exemption would be required to 

permit TVA to not meet those 

requirements related to the application 

of Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix G. The staff examined the 

licensee’s rationale to support the 

exemption request and agrees that based 

on the information provided in WCAP–

15984–P, Revision 1 and TVA’s 

December 18, 2003, letter, an acceptable 

technical basis has been established to 

exempt SQN Units 1 and 2 from 

requirements related to the application 

of Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix G. The technical basis 

provided by TVA has established that 

an adequate margin of safety against 

brittle failure would continue to be 

maintained for SQN Units 1 and 2 RPVs 

without the application of those 

requirements related to the application 

of Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix G, for normal operation 

under both core critical and core nonVerDate jul<14>2003 19:09 Jul 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43635

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See letter from Jeffrey Burns, Associate General 

Counsel, Amex, to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant 

Director, Division of Market Regulation 

(‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated July 7, 2004 

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). In Amendment No. 1, the 

Amex elaborated on the size of the initial issuance 

and clarified that the dissemination of the value of 

the S&P 500 would be over the Consolidated Tape 

Association’s Network B. In addition, in 

Amendment No. 1, the Amex clarified certain 

adjustments that will be made to the methodology 

of calculating the value of the S&P 500.

critical conditions and RPV hydrostatic 

and leak test conditions. Hence, the staff 

concludes that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose 

of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G will be 

achieved without the application of 

those requirements related to the 

application of Footnote 2 to Table 1 of 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix G. Therefore, 

the staff concludes that requesting the 

exemption under the special 

circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) 

is appropriate, and should be granted to 

TVA such that those requirements 

related to the application of Footnote 2 

to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

G need not be applied to SQN Units 1 

and 2. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, and is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants TVA an 

exemption from those requirements 

related to the application of Footnote 2 

to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

G, for SQN Units 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 

Commission has determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not 

result in any significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment (69 

FR 32372). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of July, 2004. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh, 

Director, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–16532 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear 

Waste; Renewal Notice

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: This notice is to announce the 

renewal of the Advisory Committee on 

Nuclear Waste (ACNW) for a period of 

two years. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

has determined that the renewal of the 

charter for the Advisory Committee on 

Nuclear Waste for the two year period 

commencing on July 15, 2004, is in the 

public interest, in connection with 

duties imposed on the Commission by 

law. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, after consultation with 

the Committee Management Secretariat, 

General Services Administration. 

The purpose of the Advisory 

Committee on Nuclear Waste is to report 

to and advise the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) on nuclear waste 

management. The bases of ACNW 

reviews include 10 CFR Parts 20, 40, 50, 

60, 61, 63, 70, 71 and 72, and other 

applicable regulations and legislative 

mandates. In performing its work, the 

Committee will examine and report on 

those areas of concern referred to it by 

the Commission and may undertake 

studies and activities on its own 

initiative, as appropriate. Emphasis will 

be on protecting the public health and 

safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. 

The Committee will undertake studies 

and activities related to nuclear waste 

management such as transportation, 

storage and disposal facilities, the 

effects of low levels of ionizing 

radiation, decommissioning, materials 

safety, application of risk-informed, 

performance-based regulations, and 

evaluation of licensing documents, rules 

and regulatory guidance. The 

Committee will interact with 

representatives of the public, NRC, 

ACRS, other Federal agencies, State and 

local agencies, Indian Tribes, and 

private, international and other 

organizations as appropriate to fulfill its 

responsibilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

T. Larkins, Executive Director of the 

Committee, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 

telephone (301) 415–7360.

Dated July 15, 2004. 

Andrew L. Bates, 

Federal Advisory Committee Management 

Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16530 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act; Public Hearing 

July 22, 2004. 

OPIC’s Sunshine Act notice of its 

public hearing was published in the 

Federal Register (Volume 69, Number 

127, Page 40421) on July 2, 2004. No 

requests were received to provide 

testimony or submit written statements 

for the record; therefore, OPIC’s public 

hearing in conjunction with OPIC’s July 

29, 2004 Board of Directors meeting 

scheduled for 10 AM on July 29, 2004 

has been cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Information on the hearing cancellation 

may be obtained from Connie M. Downs 

at (202) 336–8438, via facsimile at (202) 

218–0136, or via email at 

cdown@opic.gov.

Dated: July 19, 2004. 

Connie M. Downs, 

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16674 Filed 7–19–04; 10:32 am] 

BILLING CODE 3210–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50019; File No. SR–Amex–

2004–48] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of a Proposed 

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 

Thereto by American Stock Exchange 

LLC Relating to the Listing and 

Trading of Notes Linked to the 

Performance of the Standard and 

Poor’s 500 Index 

July 14, 2004. 

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on June 14, 

2004, the American Stock Exchange LLC 

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in items I and 

II below, which items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. On July 12, 

2004, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 

to the proposed rule change.3 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons and is 

approving the proposal on an 

accelerated basis.

43636 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27753 

(March 1, 1990). 55 FR 8626 (March 8, 1990) (order 

approving File No. SR–Amex–89–29).

5Morgan Stanley and Standard & Poor’s, a 

division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 

(‘‘S&P’’) have entered into a non-exclusive license 

agreement providing for the use of the S&P 500 by 

Morgan Stanley and certain affiliates and 

subsidiaries in connection with certain securities 

including these Notes. S&P is not responsible for 

and will not participate in the issuance and creation 

of the Notes.

6The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based stock index, 

which provides an indication of the performance of 

the U.S. equity market. The Index is a 

capitalization-weighted index reflecting the total 

market value of 500 widely-held component stocks 

relative to a particular base period. The Index is 

computed by dividing the total market value of the 

500 stocks by an Index divisor. The Index Divisor 

keeps the Index comparable over time to its base 

period of 1941–1943 and is the reference point for 

all maintenance adjustments. The securities 

included in the Index are listed on the Amex, New 

York Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’) or traded 

through NASDAQ. The Index reflects the price of 

the common stocks of 500 companies without 

taking into account the value of the dividend paid 

on such stocks. 

The S&P indices are presently a ‘‘full’’ marketcapitalization weighted index. That is, the value of 

the Index is calculated by, for each component, 

multiplying the total number of shares outstanding 

of the component by the price per share of the 

component. The result is then divided by the 

divisor. S&P announced on March 1, 2004 that it 

intends to shift its major indexes to ‘‘float-adjusted’’

market capitalization weights. That is, the value of 

the Index will be calculated by, for each 

component, multiplying the number of shares in the 

public float of the component by the price per share 

of the component. The result is then divided by the 

divisor. Thus, the ‘‘float adjusted’’ market 

capitalization methodology will exclude blocks of 

stocks that do not trade from the weighting 

determination for a stock in the index. 

The transition from full market-cap weighting to 

float-adjusted weighting will be implemented over 

an 18 month period. In September 2004, S&P will 

publish procedures and float adjustment factors, 

and begin calculation of provisional float adjusted 

indexes. The float adjustment factors will include, 

among other things, information regarding the 

adjustments that will be made to each component 

in order to determine what each component’s float 

will be. At that time, S&P will start calculating a 

provisional index alongside of the regular index. It 

is not expected that any securities or futures 

exchange will trade products on this or any 

provisional index during the transition period. S&P 

has stated that, notwithstanding the simultaneous 

calculation of provisional indexes, there will still be 

only one official set of S&P indexes. In March 2005, 

the non-provisional S&P indexes will shift to partial 

float adjustment, using float adjustment factors that 

represent half of the total adjustment, based on the 

information published in September 2004. In 

September 2005, the shift to float adjustment will 

be completed, the official indexes will be fully 

float-adjusted, and the provisional indexes will be 

discontinued. Float adjustment factors will be 

reviewed annually in September. During the 

transition period, S&P will adjust the divisor of the 

indexes in order to maintain continuity across the 

adjustments. Therefore, as a result of the divisor 

adjustments, the Index value will maintain 

continuity immediately following both adjustments 

(in March 2005 and September 2005). S&P does not 

expect any companies to be removed from the Index 

as a result of the adjustments. Also S&P does not 

expect a change in the value of the derivative based 

on the index, due to adjustments S&P can make to 

the index divisor; however, none of this is 

guaranteed.

7The initial listing standards for the Notes 

require: (1) A minimum public distribution of one 

million units; (2) a minimum of 400 shareholders; 

(3) a market value of at least $4 million; and (4) a 

term of at least one year. In addition, the listing 

guidelines provide that the issuer has assets in 

excess of $100 million, stockholder’s equity of at 

least $10 million, and pre-tax income of at least 

$750,000 in the last fiscal year or in two of the three 

prior fiscal years. In the case of an issuer which is 

unable to satisfy the earning criteria stated in 

Section 1010 of the Company Guide, the Exchange 

will require the issuer to have the following: (1) 

Assets in excess of $200 million and stockholders’

equity of at least $10 million; or (2) assets in excess 

of $100 million and stockholders’ equity of at least 

$20 million.

8The Exchange’s continued listing guidelines are 

set forth in Sections 1001 through 1003 of Part 10 

to the Exchange’s Company Guide. Section 1002(b) 

of the Company Guide states that the Exchange will 

consider removing from listing any security where, 

in the opinion of the Exchange, it appears that the 

extent of public distribution or aggregate market 

value has become so reduced to make further 

dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. With respect 

to continued listing guidelines for distribution of 

the Notes, the Exchange will rely, in part, on the 

guidelines for bonds in Section 1003(b)(iv). Section 

1003(b)(iv)(A) provides that the Exchange will 

normally consider suspending dealings in, or 

removing from the list, a security if the aggregate 

market value or the principal amount of bonds 

publicly held is less than $400,000.

9See Amendment No. 1.

10A negative return of the S&P 500 will reduce 

the redemption amount at maturity with the 

potential that the holder of the Note could lose his 

entire investment amount.

11A ‘‘market disruption event’’ is defined as (i) 

the occurrence of a suspension, absence or material 

limitation of trading of 20% or more of the 

component stocks of the Index on the primary 

market for more than two hours of trading or during 

the one-half hour period preceding the close of the 

principal trading session on such primary market; 

(ii) a breakdown or failure in the price and trade 

reporting systems of any primary market as a result 

of which the reported trading prices for 20% or 

more of the component stocks of the Index during 

the last one-half hour preceding the close of the 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to list and 

trade notes, the performance of which is 

linked to the Standard and Poor’s 500 

Index (‘‘S&P 500’’ or ‘‘Index’’). The text 

of the proposed rule change, as 

amended, is available at the Office of 

the Secretary, the Amex and at the 

Commission. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Amex included statements concerning 

the purpose of, and basis for, the 

proposed rule change, as amended, and 

discussed any comments it received on 

the proposed rule change. The text of 

these statements may be examined at 

the places specified in item III below. 

The Amex has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Under Section 107A of the Amex 

Company Guide (‘‘Company Guide’’), 

the Exchange may approve for listing 

and trading securities which cannot be 

readily categorized under the listing 

criteria for common and preferred 

stocks, bonds, debentures, or warrants.4

The Amex proposes to list for trading 

under Section 107A of the Company 

Guide notes linked to the performance 

of the S&P 500 (the ‘‘S&P 500 Notes’’ or 

‘‘Notes’’).5 Morgan Stanley will issue 

the Notes under the name ‘‘PLUSSM.’’

The S&P 500 is determined, calculated 

and maintained solely by Standard and 

Poor’s.6 At maturity, the Notes will 

provide for a multiplier of any positive 

performance of the S&P 500 (the 

‘‘Upside Leverage Factor’’) during such 

term subject to a maximum payment 

amount or ceiling to be determined at 

the time of issuance (the ‘‘Capped 

Value’’).

The S&P 500 Notes will conform to 

the initial listing guidelines under 

Section 107A 7 and continued listing 

guidelines under Sections 1001–1003 8

of the Company Guide. The Notes are 

senior non-convertible debt securities of 

Morgan Stanley. The Notes will have a 

term of no more than ten (10) years. 

Morgan Stanley will issue the Notes in 

denominations of whole units (a 

‘‘Unit’’), with each Unit representing a 

single Note. The original public offering 

price will be $10 per Unit, and the size 

of the initial issuance will be $77.18 

million.9 The Notes will entitle the 

owner at maturity to receive an amount 

based upon the percentage change of the 

S&P 500. The Notes will not have a 

minimum principal amount that will be 

repaid, and accordingly, payment on the 

Notes prior to or at maturity may be less 

than the original issue price of the 

Notes.10 The Notes are also not callable 

by the issuer, Morgan Stanley, or 

redeemable by the holder.

The payment that a holder or investor 

of a Note will be entitled to receive (the 

‘‘Redemption Amount’’) will depend on 

the relation of the level of the S&P 500 

at the close of the market on the second 

scheduled trading day prior to maturity 

of the Notes (the ‘‘Final Level’’) and the 

closing value of the Index on the date 

the Notes are priced for initial sale to 

the public (the ‘‘Initial Level’’). If there 

is a ‘‘market disruption event 11 when 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43637

principal trading session on such primary market 

are materially inaccurate; (iii) the suspension, 

material limitation or absence of trading on any 

major securities market for trading in futures or 

options contracts or exchange traded funds related 

to the Index for more than two hours of trading or 

during the one-half hour period preceding the close 

of the principal trading session on such market, and 

(iv) a determination by Morgan Stanley & Co., 

Incorporated that any event described in clauses 

(i)–(iii) above materially interfered with the ability 

of Morgan Stanley or any of its affiliates to unwind 

or adjust all or a material portion of the hedge 

position with respect to the Notes.

12See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

19907 (June 24, 1983), 48 FR 30814 (July 5, 1983) 

(approving the listing and trading of options on the 

S&P 500 Index); 31591 (December 18, 1992), 57 FR 

60253 (December 18, 1992) (approving the listing 

and trading of Portfolio Depositary Receipts based 

on the S&P 500 Index); 27382 (October 26, 1989), 

54 FR 45834 (October 31, 1989) (approving the 

listing and trading of Exchange Stock Portfolios 

based on the value of the S&P 500 Index); 30394 

(February 21, 1992), 57 FR 7409 (March 2, 1992) 

(approving the listing and trading of a unit 

investment trust linked to the S&P 500 Index) 

(SPDR); 47911 (May 22, 2003), 68 FR 32558 (May 

30, 2003) (approving the listing and trading of notes 

(Wachovia TEES) linked to the S&P 500); 47983 

(June 4, 2003), 68 FR 35032 (June 11, 2003) 

(approving the listing and trading of a CSFB 

Accelerated Return Notes linked to S&P 500); 48152 

(July 10, 2003), 68 FR 42435 (July 17, 2003) 

(approving the listing and trading of a UBS Partial 

Protection Note linked to the S&P 500) and 48486 

(September 11, 2003), 68 FR 54758 (September 18, 

2003) (approving the listing and trading of CSFB 

Contingent Principal Protection Notes on the S&P 

500).

13Amex Rule 411 requires that every member, 

member firm or member corporation use due 

diligence to learn the essential facts, relative to 

every customer and to every order or account 

accepted.

14See Amex Rule 462 and Section 107B of the 

Company Guide.

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

determining the Final Level of the 

Index, the Final Level will be 

determined on the next available trading 

day during which no ‘‘market 

disruption event’’ occurs.

If the percentage change of the Index 

is positive (i.e., the Final Level is greater 

than the Initial Level), the Redemption 

Amount per Unit will equal:

$10 $10 , Final Level Initial Level

Initial Level

+ × Upside Leverage Factor not to exceed the Capped Value.  −





 ×





 





The Upside Leverage Factor, determined 

at the time of issuance, is expected to be 

200% of the percent increase in the 

Final Level of the S&P 500, which will 

be subject to the Capped Value of 

approximately $11.80 or 118% of the 

issue price. 

If the percentage change of the Index 

is zero or negative (i.e., the Final Level 

is less than or equal to the Initial Level), 

the Redemption Amount per Unit will 

equal:

$10 Final Level

Initial Level

× 







Thus, if the Final Level of the S&P 

500 is less than the Initial Level, an 

investor would receive less than his 

initial $10 per share investment. 

However, the Notes are not leveraged on 

the downside; the return would be 

directly proportional to the decline in 

the S&P 500. The Notes are cash-settled 

in U.S. dollars and do not give the 

holder any right to receive a portfolio 

security, dividend payments or any 

other ownership right or interest in the 

portfolio or index of securities 

comprising the S&P 500. The Notes are 

designed for investors who want to 

participate in or gain enhanced upside 

exposure to the S&P 500, subject to the 

Capped Value, and who are willing to 

forego principal protection and market 

interest payments on the Notes during 

such term. The Commission has 

previously approved the listing of 

securities and related options linked to 

the performance of the S&P 500 Index.12

As of June 9, 2004, the market 

capitalization of the securities included 

in the S&P 500 ranged from a high of 

$318 billion to a low of $757 million. 

The average daily trading volume for 

these same securities for the last six (6) 

months ranged from a high of 62.4 

million shares to a low of 130,000 

shares. The Index value will be 

disseminated at least once every fifteen 

(15) seconds throughout the trading day. 

Because the Notes are issued in $10 

denominations, the Amex’s existing 

equity floor trading rules will apply to 

the trading of the Notes. First, pursuant 

to Amex Rule 411, the Exchange will 

impose a duty of due diligence on its 

members and member firms to learn the 

essential facts relating to every customer 

prior to trading the Notes.13 Second, the 

Notes will be subject to the equity 

margin rules of the Exchange.14 Third, 

the Exchange will, prior to trading the 

Notes, distribute a circular to the 

membership providing guidance with 

regard to member firm compliance 

responsibilities (including suitability 

recommendations) when handling 

transactions in the Notes and 

highlighting the special risks and 

characteristics of the Notes. With 

respect to suitability recommendations 

and risks, the Exchange will require 

members, member organizations and 

employees thereof recommending a 

transaction in the Notes: (1) To 

determine that such transaction is 

suitable for the customer, and (2) to 

have a reasonable basis for believing 

that the customer can evaluate the 

special characteristics of, and is able to 

bear the financial risks of such 

transaction. In addition, Morgan Stanley 

will deliver a prospectus in connection 

with initial sales of the Notes.

The Exchange represents that its 

surveillance procedures are adequate to 

properly monitor the trading of the 

Notes. Specifically, the Amex will rely 

on its existing surveillance procedures 

governing equities, which have been 

deemed adequate under the Act. In 

addition, the Exchange also has a 

general policy which prohibits the 

distribution of material, non-public 

information by its employees. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change, as amended, is 

consistent with section 6 15 of the Act in 

general and furthers the objectives of 

section 6(b)(5) 16 in particular in that it 

is designed to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanisms of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, protect 

investors and the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange did not receive any 

written comments on the proposed rule 

change. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 


EN21JY04.002</GPH> EN21JY04.003</GPH>
43638 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

18See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

48152 (July 10, 2003), 68 FR 42435 (July 17, 2003) 

(approving the listing and trading of the UBS Partial 

Protection Note linked to the Index); 47983 (June 

4, 2003), 68 FR 35032 (June 11, 2003) (approving 

the listing and trading of a CSFB Accelerated 

Return Notes linked to Index); 47911 (May 22, 

2003), 68 FR 32558 (May 30, 2003) (approving the 

listing and trading of notes (Wachovia TEES) linked 

to the Index); 31591 (December 18, 1992), 57 FR 

60253 (December 18, 1992) (approving the listing 

and trading of Portfolio Depositary Receipts based 

on the Index); 30394 (February 21, 1992), 57 FR 

7409 (March 2, 1992) (approving the listing and 

trading of a unit investment trust linked to the 

Index)(SPDR); 27382 (October 26, 1989), 54 FR 

45834 (October 31, 1989) (approving the listing and 

trading of Exchange Stock Portfolios based on the 

value of the Index); and 19907 (June 24, 1983), 48 

FR 30814 (July 5, 1983) (approving the listing and 

trading of options on the Index).

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In approving this rule, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.78c(f). 20See supra note 6.

change, as amended, is consistent with 

the Act. Comments may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–Amex–2004–48 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20549–0609. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–Amex–2004–48. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of 

such filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Amex. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–Amex–

2004–48 and should be submitted on or 

before August 11, 2004. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change 

After careful consideration, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as amended, is consistent 

with the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange, and, in particular, with the 

requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act.17 The Commission has approved 

the listing of securities with a structure 

similar to that of the Notes.18

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

the listing and trading of the Notes 

based on the Index is consistent with 

the Act and will promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, foster 

cooperation and coordination with 

persons engaged in regulating, clearing, 

settling, processing information with 

respect to, and facilitating transactions 

securities, and, in general, protect 

investors and the public interest 

consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act.19

The Notes will provide investors who 

are willing to forego market interest 

payments during the term of the Notes 

with a means to participate or gain 

exposure to the Index, subject to the 

Capped Value. The Notes are nonconvertible debt securities whose price 

will be derived and based upon the 

Initial Level. The Commission notes that 

the Notes will not have a minimum 

principal investment amount that will 

be repaid, and payment on the Notes 

prior to or at maturity may be less than 

the original issue price of the Notes. At 

maturity, if the Final Value of the S&P 

500 is greater than the Initial Value, the 

performance of the Note is leveraged on 

the ‘‘upside.’’ In other words, the 

investor will receive, for each $10 

principal amount, a payment equal to 

$10 plus 200% of the percent increase 

in the value of the S&P 500, subject to 

the Capped Value of approximately 

$11.80 or 118% of the issue price. 

However, if the S&P 500 declines from 

the Initial Value, then the investors will 

receive proportionately less than the 

original issue price of the Notes. The 

return on the notes, however, is not 

leveraged on the downside. 

Thus, the Notes are non-principal 

protected instruments, but are not 

leveraged on the downside. The level of 

risk involved in the purchase or sale of 

the Notes is similar to the risk involved 

in the purchase or sale of traditional 

common stock. Because the final level 

of return of the Notes is derivatively 

priced and based upon the performance 

of an index of securities; because the 

Notes are debt instruments that do not 

guarantee a return of principal; and 

because investors’ potential return is 

limited by the Capped Value, if the 

value of the Index has increased over 

the term of such Note, there are several 

issues regarding the trading of this type 

of product. However, for the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission 

believes the Exchange’s proposal 

adequately addresses the concerns 

raised by this type of product. 

The Commission notes that the 

protections of Amex Rule 107A were 

designed to address the concerns 

attendant on the trading of hybrid 

securities like the Notes. In particular, 

by imposing the hybrid listing 

standards, suitability, disclosure and 

compliance requirements noted above, 

the Commission believes that Amex has 

addressed adequately the potential 

problems that could arise from the 

hybrid nature of the Notes. The 

Commission notes that Amex will 

distribute a circular to its membership 

calling attention to the specific risks 

associated with the Notes. The 

Commission also notes that Morgan 

Stanley will deliver a prospectus in 

connection with the initial sales of the 

notes. In addition, the Commission 

notes that Amex will incorporate and 

rely upon its existing surveillance 

procedures governing equities, which 

have been deemed adequate under the 

Act. 

In approving the product, the 

Commission recognizes that the Index is 

a capitalization-weighted index 20 of 500 

companies listed on Nasdaq, the NYSE, 

and the Amex. The Exchange represents 

that the Index will be determined, 

calculated, and maintained by S&P. As 

of June 9, 2004, the market 

capitalization of the securities included 

in the S&P 500 ranged from a high of 

$757 billion to a low of $318 million. 

The average daily trading volume for 

these same securities for the last six (6) 

months ranged from a high of 62.4 

million shares to a low of 130,000 

shares.

Given the large trading volume and 

capitalization of the compositions of the 

stocks underlying the Index, the 

Commission believes that the listing and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43639

21The issuer Morgan Stanley disclosed in the 

prospectus that the original issue price of the notes 

includes commissions (and the secondary market 

prices are likely to exclude commissions) and 

Morgan Stanley’s costs of hedging its obligations 

under the notes. These costs could increase the 

initial value of the Notes, thus affecting the 

payment investors receive at maturity. The 

Commission expects such hedging activity to be 

conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory 

requirements.

22See Company Guide Section 107A.

23The Commission notes that the 500 component 

stocks that comprise the Index are reporting 

companies under the Act, and the Notes will be 

registered under Section 12 of the Act.

24See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

44913 (October 9, 2001), 66 FR 52469 (October 15, 

2001) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on the performance of 

the Nasdaq-100 Index) (File No. SR–NASD–2001–

73); 44483 (June 27, 2001), 66 FR 35677 (July 6, 

2001) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on a portfolio of 20 

securities selected from the Amex Institutional 

Index) (File No. SR–Amex–2001–40); and 37744 

(September 27, 1996), 61 FR 52480 (October 7, 

1996) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on a weighted portfolio 

of healthcare/biotechnology industry securities) 

(File No. SR–Amex–96–27).

25See supra note 18.

26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).

27 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6) and 78s(b)(2).

28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).

2 17 CFR 240. 19b–4.

trading of the Notes that are linked to 

the Index should not unduly impact the 

market for the underlying securities 

comprising the Index or raise 

manipulative concerns.21 As discussed 

more fully above, the underlying stocks 

comprising the Index are wellcapitalized, highly liquid stocks. 

Moreover, the issuers of the underlying 

securities comprising the Index are 

subject to reporting requirements under 

the Act, and all of the component stocks 

are either listed or traded on, or traded 

through the facilities of, U.S. securities 

markets. Additionally, the Amex’s 

surveillance procedures will serve to 

deter as well as detect any potential 

manipulation.

Furthermore, the Commission notes 

that the Notes are depending upon the 

individual credit of the issuer, Morgan 

Stanley. To some extent this credit risk 

is minimized by the Exchange’s listing 

standards in Section 107A of the 

Company Guide which provide the only 

issuers satisfying substantial asset and 

equity requirements may issue 

securities such as the Notes. In addition, 

the Exchange’s ‘‘Other Securities’’

listing standards further require that the 

Notes have a market value of at least $4 

million.22 In any event, financial 

information regarding Morgan Stanley 

in addition to the information on the 

500 common stocks comprising the 

Index will be publicly available.23

The Commission also has a systemic 

concern, however, that a broker-dealer 

such as Morgan Stanley, or a subsidiary 

providing a hedge for the issuer will 

incur position exposure. However, as 

the Commission has concluded in 

previous approval orders for other 

hybrid instruments issued by brokerdealers,24 the Commission believes that 

this concern is minimal given the size 

of the Notes issuance in relation to the 

net worth of Morgan Stanley.

Finally, the Commission notes that 

the value of the Index will be 

disseminated at least once every fifteen 

seconds throughout the trading day. The 

Commission believes that providing 

access to the value of the Index at least 

once every fifteen seconds throughout 

the trading day is extremely important 

and will provide benefits to investors in 

the product. 

The Commission finds good cause for 

approving the proposed rule change, as 

amended, prior to the 30th day after the 

date of publication of the notice of filing 

thereof in the Federal Register. The 

Exchange has requested accelerated 

approval because this product is similar 

to several other instruments currently 

listed and traded on the Amex.25 The 

Commission believes that the Notes will 

provide investors with an additional 

investment choice and that accelerated 

approval of the proposal will allow 

investors to begin trading the Notes 

promptly. Additionally, the Notes will 

be listed pursuant to Amex’s existing 

hybrid security listing standards as 

described above. Therefore, the 

Commission finds good cause, 

consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the 

Act,26 to approve the proposal on an 

accelerated basis.

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,27 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–Amex–2004–

48) and Amendment No. 1 thereto is 

hereby approved on an accelerated 

basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.28

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16554 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50016; File No. SR–Amex–

2004–43] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of a Proposed 

Rule Change by the American Stock 

Exchange LLC Relating to the Listing 

and Trading of Notes Linked to the 

Performance of the Nikkei 225 Index 

July 14, 2004. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that 

on June 3, 2004, the American Stock 

Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons and is 

approving the proposal on an 

accelerated basis.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to list and 

trade notes linked to the performance of 

the Nikkei 225 (‘‘Nikkei 225’’ or 

‘‘Index’’). The text of the proposed rule 

change is available at the Office of the 

Secretary, the Amex and at the 

Commission. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Amex included statements concerning 

the purpose of, and basis for, the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item III below. The Amex has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Under Section 107A of the Amex 

Company Guide (‘‘Company Guide’’), 

the Exchange may approve for listing 

43640 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27753 

(March 1, 1990). 55 FR 8626 (March 8, 1990) (order 

approving File No. SR–Amex–89–29).

4Morgan Stanley and Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. 

(‘‘NKS’’) have entered into a non-exclusive license 

agreement providing for the use of the Nikkei 225 

by Morgan Stanley and certain affiliates and 

subsidiaries in connection with certain securities 

including these Notes. NKS is not responsible and 

will not participate in the issuance and creation of 

the Notes.

5The Nikkei 225 is calculated, published and 

disseminated by NKS. The Notes are not sponsored, 

endorsed, sold or promoted by NKS. NKS is a 

recognized service with business information in 

Japan and publishes a large business daily, The 

Nihon Keizai Shimbon, and four other financial 

newspapers. NKS is not affiliated with a securities 

broker or dealer. The Index measures the composite 

price performance of selected Japanese stocks. The 

Index is currently based on the 225 Underlying 

Stocks trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange 

(‘‘TSE’’) and represents a broad cross-section of 

Japanese industry. All 225 of the stocks underlying 

the index are stocks listed in the First Section of 

the TSE. Stocks listed in the First Section are 

among the most actively traded stocks on the TSE. 

The Index is a modified, price-weighted index. 

Each component stock’s weight in the Index is 

based on its price per share rather than the total 

market capitalization of the issuers. NKS calculates 

the Index by multiplying the per share price of a 

component stock by the corresponding weighting 

factor for the stock (a ‘‘Weight Factor’’), calculating 

the sum of all these products and dividing that sum 

by a divisor. The divisor, initially set on May 16, 

1949 at 225, was 23.156 as of June 1, 2004, and is 

subject to periodic adjustments. Each Weight Factor 

is computed by dividing ¥50 by the par value of the 

relevant component stock, so that the share price 

of each component stock when multiplied by its 

Weight Factor corresponds to a share price based 

on a uniform par value of ¥50. Each Weight Factor 

represents the number of shares of the related 

component stock, which are included in one 

trading unit of the Index. The stock prices used in 

the calculation of the Index are those reported by 

a primary market for the component stocks, which 

is currently the TSE.

6The initial listing standards for the Notes 

require: (1) a minimum public distribution of one 

million units; (2) a minimum of 400 shareholders; 

(3) a market value of at least $4 million; and (4) a 

term of at least one year. In addition, the listing 

guidelines provide that the issuer has assets in 

excess of $100 million, stockholder’s equity of at 

least $10 million, and pre-tax income of at least 

$750,000 in the last fiscal year or in two of the three 

prior fiscal years. In the case of an issuer which is 

unable to satisfy the earning criteria stated in 

Section 101 of the Company Guide, the Exchange 

will require the issuer to have the following: (1) 

assets in excess of $200 million and stockholders’

equity of at least $10 million; or (2) assets in excess 

of $100 million and stockholders’ equity of at least 

$20 million.

7The Exchange’s continued listing guidelines are 

set forth in Sections 1001 through 1003 of Part 10 

to the Exchange’s Company Guide. Section 1002(b) 

of the Company Guide states that the Exchange will 

consider removing from listing any security where, 

in the opinion of the Exchange, it appears that the 

extent of public distribution or aggregate market 

value has become so reduced to make further 

dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. With respect 

to continued listing guidelines for distribution of 

the Notes, the Exchange will rely, in part, on the 

guidelines for bonds in Section 1003(b)(iv). Section 

1003(b)(iv)(A) provides that the Exchange will 

normally consider suspending dealings in, or 

removing from the list, a security if the aggregate 

market value or the principal amount of bonds 

publicly held is less than $400,000.

8A negative return of the Nikkei 225 will reduce 

the redemption amount at maturity with the 

potential that the holder of the Note could lose his 

entire investment amount.

9A ‘‘trading day’’ is generally a day on which 

trading is conducted on the TSE and on any 

exchange on which futures or options related to the 

Index are traded, other than a day on which trading 

on any such exchange is scheduled to close prior 

to its regular final weekday closing time.

10A ‘‘market disruption event’’ is defined as (i) 

the occurrence of a suspension, absence, or material 

limitation of trading of 20% or more of the 

component stocks of the Index on the primary 

market for more than two hours of trading or during 

the one-half hour period preceding the close of the 

principal trading session on such primary market; 

(ii) a breakdown or failure in the price and trade 

reporting systems of any primary market as a result 

of which the reported trading prices for 20% or 

more of the component stocks of the Index during 

the last one-half hour preceding the close of the 

principal trading session on such primary market 

are materially inaccurate; (iii) the suspension, 

material limitation, or absence of trading on any 

major securities market for trading in futures or 

options contracts or exchange traded funds related 

to the Index for more than two hours of trading or 

during the one-half hour period preceding the close 

of the principal trading session on such market; and 

(iv) a determination by Morgan Stanley & Co., 

Incorporated that any event described in clauses 

(i)–(iii) above materially interfered with the ability 

of Morgan Stanley or any of its affiliates to unwind 

or adjust all or a material portion of the hedge 

position with respect to the Notes.

and trading securities which cannot be 

readily categorized under the listing 

criteria for common and preferred 

stocks, bonds, debentures, or warrants.3

The Amex proposes to list for trading 

under Section 107A of the Company 

Guide notes linked to the performance 

of the Nikkei 225 (the ‘‘Nikkei Notes’’ or 

‘‘Notes’’).4 Morgan Stanley will issue 

the Notes under the name ‘‘PLUSSM.’’

The Nikkei 225 is determined, 

calculated and maintained solely by 

NKS.5 The Notes will provide an 

uncapped multiplier in the positive 

performance of the Nikkei 225 during 

their term. The Notes will not be subject 

to a maximum payment amount or 

ceiling.

The Nikkei 225 Notes will conform to 

the initial listing guidelines under 

Section 107A 6 and continued listing 

guidelines under Sections 1001–1003 7

of the Company Guide. The Notes are 

senior non-convertible debt securities of 

Morgan Stanley. The Notes will have a 

term of not less than one year but no 

more than ten (10) years and are 

expected to mature on June 30, 2009. 

Morgan Stanley will issue the Notes in 

denominations of whole units (a 

‘‘Unit’’), with each Unit representing a 

single Note. The original public offering 

price will be $10 per Unit. The Notes 

will entitle the owner at maturity to 

receive an amount based upon the 

percentage change of the Nikkei 225. 

The Notes will not have a minimum 

principal amount that will be repaid, 

and accordingly, payment on the Notes 

prior to or at maturity may be less than 

the original issue price of the Notes.8

The Notes are also not callable by the 

issuer, Morgan Stanley, or redeemable 

by the holder.

The payment that a holder or investor 

of a Note will be entitled to receive (the 

‘‘Redemption Amount’’) will depend on 

the relation of the level of the Nikkei 

225 at the close of the market on the 

second trading day 9 prior to maturity of 

the Notes (the ‘‘Final Level’’) and the 

closing value of the Index on the trading 

day immediately following the day the 

Notes are priced for initial sale to the 

public (the ‘‘Initial Value’’). At maturity, 

if the Final Level is greater than the 

Initial Value, the investor will receive 

for each $10 principal amount of PLUS 

that he holds, a payment equal to $10 

plus the percentage increase in the 

value of the Nikkei 225 Index 

multiplied by the ‘‘Upside Leverage 

Factor,’’ which is expected to be 170–

180% of the Initial Value. If the Final 

Value is equal to the Initial Value, the 

investor will receive a payment of $10 

equal to the principal amount invested 

for each PLUS. If the Final Value 

declines from the Initial Value, the 

investor will receive proportionally less 

at maturity than the $10 principal 

invested. Thus, the Notes are not 

principal protected because the 

payment at maturity is linked to the 

performance of the Nikkei 225 Index. If 

there is a ‘‘market disruption event’’ 10

when determining the Final Level of the 

Index, the Final Level will be 

determined on the next available trading 

day during which no ‘‘market 

disruption event’’ occurs.

Thus, if the percentage change of the 

Index is positive (i.e., Final Level is 

greater than the Initial Level), the 

Redemption Amount per Unit will 

equal:

$10 $10 Final Level Initial Level

Initial Level

+ × Upside Leverage Factor  −





 ×





 






EN21JY04.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43641

11See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

49670 (May 7, 2004), 69 FR 27959 (May 17, 2004) 

(approving the listing and trading of Accelerated 

Return Notes linked to the Nikkei 225); 38940 

(August 15, 1997), 62 FR 44735 (August 22, 1997) 

(approving the listing and trading of notes based on 

the Major 11 International Index); 34821 (October 

11, 1994), 59 FR 52568 (October 18, 1994) 

(approving the listing and trading of warrants on 

the Nikkei 300); and 27565 (December 22, 1989), 55 

FR 376 (January 4, 1990) (approving the listing and 

trading of warrants based on the Nikkei 225).

12TSE Trading hours are currently 9:00 a.m. to 

11:00 a.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Tokyo 

time, Monday through Friday. Due to time zone 

differences, on any normal trading day the TSE will 

close prior to the opening of business in New York 

City on the same calendar day. Therefore, the 

closing level of the Index on a trading day will 

generally be available in the U.S. by the opening of 

business on the same calendar day.

13Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Burns, 

Associate General Counsel, Amex, and Florence 

Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division, 

Commission, dated July 12, 2004.

14Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Burns, 

Associate General Counsel, Amex, and Florence 

Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division, 

Commission, dated July 12, 2004 (pertaining to 

discussion of the continuity of the level of the 

Index). Underlying Stocks may be deleted or added 

by NKS. However, to maintain continuity in the 

Index, the policy of NKS is generally not to alter 

the composition of the Underlying Stocks except 

when an Underlying Stock is deleted in accordance 

with the following criteria. Any stock becoming 

ineligible for listing in the First Section of the TSE 

due to any of the following reasons will be deleted 

from the Underlying Stocks: bankruptcy of the 

issuer; merger of the issuer into, or acquisition of 

the issuer by, another company; delisting of the 

stock or transfer of the stock to the ‘‘Seiri-Post’’

because of excess debt of the issuer or because of 

any other reason; or transfer of the stock to the 

Second Section of the TSE. Upon deletion of a stock 

from the Index, NKS will select, in accordance with 

certain criteria established by it, a replacement for 

the deleted Underlying Stock. In an exceptional 

case, a newly listed stock in the First Section of the 

TSE that is recognized by NKS to be representative 

of a market may be added to the Underlying Stocks. 

As a result, an existing Underlying Stock with low 

trading volume and not representative of a market 

will be deleted.

15Amex Rule 411 requires that every member, 

member firm or member corporation use due 

diligence to learn the essential facts, relative to 

every customer and to every order or account 

accepted.

16See Amex Rule 462 and Section 107B of the 

Company Guide.

17Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Burns, 

Associate General Counsel, Amex, and Florence 

Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division, 

Commission, dated July 12, 2004 (pertaining to key 

pricing dates).

18See Information Sharing Agreement between 

the Amex and the TSE dated September 25, 1990.

19 ISG membership obligates an exchange to 

compile and transmit market surveillance 

information and resolve in good faith any 

disagreements regarding requests for information or 

responses thereto.

The Upside Leverage Factor, determined 

at the time of issuance, is expected to be 

between 170–180%.

If the percentage change of the Index 

is zero or negative (i.e., Final Level is 

less than or equal to the Initial Level), 

the Redemption Amount per Unit will 

equal:

$10 Final Level

Initial Level

× 







The Notes are cash-settled in U.S. 

dollars and do not give the holder any 

right to receive a portfolio security, 

dividend payments or any other 

ownership right or interest in the 

portfolio or index of securities 

comprising the Nikkei 225. The Notes 

are designed for investors who want to 

participate in and gain enhanced upside 

exposure to a broad representation of 

the Japanese stock market and who are 

willing to forego principal protection 

and market interest payments on the 

Notes during such term. The Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) has 

previously approved the listing of 

securities linked in whole, or in part, to 

the performance of the Nikkei 225 on 

the Exchange.11

As of June 1, 2004, the market 

capitalization of the securities included 

in the Nikkei 225 ranged from a high of 

approximately 14.512 trillion yen 

($131.118 billion) to a low of 

approximately 31.331 billion yen 

($283.082 million). The average daily 

trading volume for these same securities 

for the last six (6) months ranged from 

a high of approximately 5.996 million 

shares to a low of approximately 1.190 

million shares. The Index is composed 

of 225 securities and is broad-based. 

The highest weighted stock has a weight 

of 3.483% while the top five (5) stocks 

in the Index account for 14.283%. The 

level or value of the Index is calculated 

once per minute during TSE Trading 

hours 12 and is readily accessible to U.S. 

investors at http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp

and http://www.bloomberg.com. NKS is 

under no obligation to continue the 

calculation and dissemination of the 

Index. In the event that NKS ever ceases 

to maintain the Index, the Exchange will 

contact the Commission staff to consider 

prohibiting the continued trading of the 

Notes.13

In order to maintain continuity in the 

level of the Index in the event of certain 

changes due to non-market factors 

affecting the Underlying Stocks, such as 

the addition or deletion of stocks, 

substitution of stocks, stock dividends, 

stock splits or distributions of assets to 

stockholders, the divisor used in 

calculating the Index is adjusted in a 

manner designed to prevent any 

instantaneous change or discontinuity 

in the level of the Index. The divisor 

remains at the new value until a further 

adjustment is necessary as the result of 

another change. As a result of each 

change affecting any Underlying Stock, 

the divisor is adjusted in such a way 

that the sum of all share prices 

immediately after the change multiplied 

by the applicable Weight Factor and 

divided by the new divisor, i.e., the 

level of the Index immediately after the 

change, will equal the level of the Index 

immediately prior to the change.14

Because the Notes are issued in $10 

denominations, the Amex’s existing 

equity floor trading rules will apply to 

the trading of the Notes. First, pursuant 

to Amex Rule 411, the Exchange will 

impose a duty of due diligence on its 

members and member firms to learn the 

essential facts relating to every customer 

prior to trading the Notes.15 Second, the 

Notes will be subject to the equity 

margin rules of the Exchange.16 Third, 

the Exchange will, prior to trading the 

Notes, distribute a circular to the 

membership providing guidance with 

regard to member firm compliance 

responsibilities (including suitability 

recommendations) when handling 

transactions in the Notes and 

highlighting the special risks and 

characteristics of the Notes. With 

respect to suitability recommendations 

and risks, the Exchange will require 

members, member organizations and 

employees thereof recommending a 

transaction in the Notes: (1) To 

determine that such transaction is 

suitable for the customer, and (2) to 

have a reasonable basis for believing 

that the customer can evaluate the 

special characteristics of, and is able to 

bear the financial risks of such 

transaction. In addition, Morgan Stanley 

will deliver a prospectus in connection 

with initial sales of the Notes in 

accordance with its standard prospectus 

delivery procedures.

The Exchange represents that its 

surveillance procedures are adequate to 

properly monitor the trading of the 

Notes. Specifically, the Amex will rely 

on its existing surveillance procedures 

governing equities that include 

additional monitoring on key pricing 

dates,17 which have been deemed 

adequate under the Act. In addition, the 

Exchange has an effective surveillance 

sharing agreement with the TSE that 

may be used as a basis for listing and 

trading securities linked to the Nikkei 

225.18 The Exchange also notes that the 

TSE is a member of the Intermarket 

Surveillance Group (‘‘ISG’’).19 As a 

result, the Exchange asserts that market 

surveillance information is available 

from the TSE, if necessary, due to 

regulatory concerns that may arise in 

connection with the component stocks. 

In the event that it becomes necessary, 

the Exchange will seek the 

Commission’s assistance pursuant to 


EN21JY04.001</GPH>
43642 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

20 15 U.S.C. 78f.

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

22See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

49999 (July 9, 2004) (approving the listing and 

trading of Contingent Principal Protection Notes 

Linked to the Performance of the Nikkei 225 Index); 

49670 (May 7, 2004), 69 FR 27959 (May 17, 2004) 

(approving the listing and trading of Accelerated 

Return Notes linked to the Nikkei 225 for Nasdaq); 

and 38940 (August 15, 1997), 62 FR 44735 (August 

22, 1997) (approving the listing and trading of 

Market Index Target-Term Securities the return on 

which is based on changes in the value of a 

portfolio of 11 foreign indexes, including the Nikkei 

225 Index).

23See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

47464 (March 7, 2003), 68 FR 12116 (March 13, 

2003) (approving the listing and trading of Market 

Recovery Notes Linked to the S&P 500 Index); 

47009 (December 16, 2002), 67 FR 78540 (December 

24, 2002) (approving the listing and trading of 

Market Recovery Notes linked to the Nasdaq-100 

Index); and 46883 (November 21, 2002), 67 FR 

71216 (November 29, 2002) (approving the listing 

and trading of Market Recovery Notes linked to the 

Dow Jones Industrial Average).

24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

25 In approving this rule, the Commission notes 

that it has considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f).

memoranda of understanding or similar 

inter-governmental agreements or 

arrangements that may exist between 

the Commission and the Japanese 

securities regulators.

The Exchange also has a general 

policy that prohibits the distribution of 

material, non-public information by its 

employees. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6 of the Act 20 in general and 

furthers the objectives of Section 

6(b)(5) 21 in particular in that it is 

designed to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

facilitating transactions in securities, 

and to remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange did not solicit or 

receive any written comments on the 

proposed rule change. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change, as amended, is consistent with 

the Act. Comments may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–Amex–2004–43 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20549–0609. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR-Amex-2004–43. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

offices of Amex. All comments received 

will be posted without change; the 

Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–Amex–

2004–43 and should be submitted on or 

before August 11, 2004. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change 

Amex has asked the Commission to 

approve the proposal on an accelerated 

basis to accommodate the timetable for 

listing the Notes. The Commission notes 

that it has previously approved the 

listing of securities the performance of 

which have been linked to, or based on, 

the Index.22 The Commission has also 

previously approved the listing of 

securities with a structure similar to that 

of the Notes.23

After careful consideration, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as amended, is consistent 

with the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder, 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange, and, in particular, with the 

requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act,24 in that it is designed to promote 

just and equitable principles of trade, to 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market, 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest.25 The Commission 

believes that the Notes will provide 

investors with a means to participate in 

any percentage increase in the Index 

that exists at the maturity of the Notes.

The Notes are non-principal protected 

debt instruments, the price of which 

will be derived from and based upon the 

value of the Nikkei 225 Index. The 

Notes do not have a minimum principal 

amount that will be repaid at maturity, 

and the payments of the Notes prior to 

or at maturity may be less than the 

original issue price of the Notes. 

Accordingly, the level of risk involved 

in the purchase or sale of the Notes is 

similar to the risk involved in the 

purchase or sale of traditional common 

stock. Because the final rate of return of 

the Notes is derivatively priced, based 

on the performance of the 225 common 

stocks underlying the Nikkei 225 Index, 

and because the Notes are instruments 

that do not guarantee a return of 

principal, there are several issues 

regarding the trading of this type of 

product. However, for the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission 

believes that Amex’s proposal 

adequately addresses the concerns 

raised by this type of product.

The Commission notes that the 

protections of Amex Rule 107A were 

designed to address the concerns 

attendant to the trading hybrid 

securities like the Notes. In particular, 

by imposing the hybrid listing 

standards, suitability, disclosure, and 

compliance requirements noted above, 

the Commission believes that Amex has 

addressed adequately the potential 

problems that could arise from the 

hybrid nature of the Notes. The 

Commission notes that Amex will 

distribute a circular to its membership 

calling attention to the specific risks 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43643

26The issuer Morgan Stanley disclosed in the 

prospectus that the original issue price of the Notes 

includes commissions, and the secondary market 

prices are likely to exclude commissions, and 

Morgan Stanley’s costs of hedging its obligations 

under the Notes. These costs could increase the 

Initial Value of the Notes, thus affecting the 

payment investors receive at maturity. The 

Commission expects such hedging activity to be 

conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory 

requirements.

27See http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp and http://

www.bloomberg.com.

28See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

44913 (October 9, 2001), 66 FR 52469 (October 15, 

2001) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on the performance of 

the Nasdaq-100 Index) (File No. SR–NASD–2001–

73); 44483 (June 27, 2001), 66 FR 35677 (July 6, 

2001) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on a portfolio of 20 

securities selected from the Amex Institutional 

Index) (File No. SR–Amex–2001–40); and 37744 

(September 27, 1996), 61 FR 52480 (October 7, 

1996) (order approving the listing and trading of 

notes whose return is based on a weighted portfolio 

of healthcare/biotechnology industry securities) 

(File No. SR–Amex–96–27).

29See supra notes 22 and 23.

30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).

associated with the Notes. The 

Commission also notes that Morgan 

Stanley will deliver a prospectus in 

connection with the initial sales of the 

Notes. In addition, the Commission 

notes that Amex will incorporate and 

rely upon its existing surveillance 

procedures governing equities, which 

have been deemed adequate under the 

Act. 

In approving the product, the 

Commission recognizes that the Index is 

a stock index calculated, published and 

disseminated by NKS, which measures 

the composite price performance of 

selected Japanese stocks. The Index is 

currently based on 225 common stocks 

traded on the TSE and represents a 

broad cross-section of Japanese 

industry. All 225 underlying stocks are 

listed in the First Section of the TSE and 

are, therefore, among the most actively 

traded stocks on the TSE. The Nikkei is 

a modified, price-weighted index, 

which means a component stock’s 

weight in the Nikkei is based on its 

price per share rather than total market 

capitalization of the issuers. NKS 

calculates the Index by multiplying the 

per share price of a component stock by 

the corresponding weighting factor for 

the stock, calculating the sum of all 

these products, and dividing that sum 

by a divisor. 

As stated above, NKS is under no 

obligation to continue the calculation 

and dissemination of the Index. In the 

event the calculation and dissemination 

every minute of the Index is 

discontinued, Amex represents that it 

will contact Commission staff and 

consider prohibiting the continued 

listing of the Notes. The Commission 

notes that the changes in the 

composition of the Nikkei 225 Index is 

made solely by NKS. The changes to 

these common stocks tend to be made 

infrequently with most substitutions the 

result of mergers and other 

extraordinary corporate actions. As of 

June 1, 2004, the market capitalization 

of the securities included in the Nikkei 

225 ranged from a high of 

approximately 14.512 trillion yen 

($131.118 billion) to a low of 

approximately 31.331 billion yen 

($283.082 million). The average daily 

trading volume for these same securities 

for the last six (6) months ranged from 

a high of approximately 5.996 million 

shares to a low of approximately 1.190 

million shares. The Index is composed 

of 225 securities and is broad-based. 

The highest weighted stock has a weight 

of 3.483% while the top five (5) stocks 

in the Index account for 14.283%. Given 

the composition of the stocks 

underlying the Nikkei 225 Index, the 

Commission believes that the listing and 

trading of the Notes that are linked to 

the Nikkei 225 Index should not unduly 

impact the market for the underlying 

securities comprising the Nikkei 225 

Index or raise manipulative concerns.26

As discussed more fully above, the 

underlying stocks comprising the Nikkei 

225 Index are well-capitalized, highly 

liquid stocks.

In light of the fact that the Nikkei is 

a foreign index, the Commission 

believes adequate surveillance sharing 

agreements between the Amex and the 

TSE is a necessary prerequisite to deter 

and detect potential manipulations or 

other improper or illegal trading 

involving the Notes. While many of the 

issuers of the underlying securities 

comprising the Nikkei 225 are not 

subject to reporting requirements under 

the Act, Amex represents that an 

adequate surveillance sharing agreement 

exists through the ISG between the 

Amex and the TSE to deter and detect 

potential manipulations or other 

improper trading in the underlying 

components. Therefore, Amex’s 

surveillance procedures will serve to 

deter as well as detect any potential 

manipulation. This agreement obligates 

the Amex and TSE to compile and 

transmit market surveillance 

information and resolve in good faith 

any disagreements regarding requests 

for information. Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that the 

surveillance sharing Agreement through 

ISG is adequate for the Amex to surveil 

the components of the Nikkei 225 for 

potential manipulation or other trading 

abuses between the markets with 

respect to the trading of the Notes based 

on the Nikkei 225. 

Furthermore, the Commission notes 

that the Notes are dependent upon the 

individual credit of the issuer, Morgan 

Stanley. To some extent this credit risk 

is minimized by the Amex’s listing 

standards in Amex Rule 107A, which 

provide the only issuers satisfying 

substantial asset and equity 

requirements may issue securities such 

as the Notes. In addition, the Amex’s 

hybrid listing standards further require 

that the Notes have a market value of at 

least $4 million. In any event, financial 

information regarding Morgan Stanley, 

in addition to the information on the 

225 common stocks comprising the 

Nikkei 225 Index, including the 

dissemination of the Index value once 

per minute, will be publicly available.27

The Commission also has a systemic 

concern, however, that a broker-dealer 

such as Morgan Stanley, or a subsidiary 

providing a hedge for the issuer will 

incur position exposure. However, as 

the Commission has concluded in 

previous approval orders for other 

hybrid instruments issued by brokerdealers,28 the Commission believes that 

this concern is minimal given the size 

of the Notes issuance in relation to the 

net worth of Morgan Stanley.

Finally, as the Commission noted, the 

value of the Nikkei 225 Index will be 

disseminated at least once every minute 

throughout the trading day. Because the 

Nikkei 225 Index contains foreign 

securities and is composed of highly 

liquid and well-capitalized securities, 

the Commission believes that providing 

access to the value of the Index at least 

once every minute throughout the 

trading day is sufficient and will 

provide benefits to investors in the 

product. 

The Commission finds good cause for 

approving the proposed rule change 

prior to the thirtieth day after the date 

of publication of notice of filing thereof 

in the Federal Register. The 

Commission believes that the Notes will 

provide investors with an additional 

investment choice and that accelerated 

approval of the proposal will allow 

investors to begin trading the Notes 

promptly. In addition, the Commission 

notes that it has previously approved 

the listing and trading of other 

derivative securities based on the Index 

and securities with a structure similar to 

that of the Notes.29 Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that there is good 

cause, consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) 

and 19(b)(2) of the Act,30 to approve the 

proposal, on an accelerated basis.

43644 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

32 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See letter from Arthur B. Reinstein, Deputy 

General Counsel, CBOE, to Lisa N. Jones, Special 

Counsel, Division of Market Regulation 

(‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated April 8, 2004 

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

4Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49620 

(April 26, 2004), 69 FR 24205.

5Letter from Thomas A. Bond, Member, CBOE, et 

al., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, 

dated April 28, 2004.

6Letter from Joanne Moffic-Silver, General 

Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CBOE, to 

Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated 

May 24, 2003.

7Letter from Thomas A. Bond, Member, CBOE, et 

al., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, 

dated June 8, 2004 (‘‘June 8th Letter’’).

8The CBOE noted that the CBOT’s proposed 

restructuring has not yet been consummated and 

that it remains uncertain when the proposed 

restructuring will occur. Indeed, the 2003 

Agreement specifically states that the CBOT is not 

obligated to consummate the contemplated 

restructuring or any other restructuring. The CBOE 

also noted that the CBOT’s proposal to issue a 

separately transferable interest representing the 

Exercise Right as part of its restructuring was the 

subject of a prior proposed interpretation by the 

CBOE of Article Fifth(b), which was filed with the 

Commission as a proposed rule change in File No. 

SR–CBOE–2002–01. On April 7, 2004, the CBOE 

withdrew this filing. See letter from Arthur B. 

Reinstein, Deputy General Counsel, CBOE, to Lisa 

N. Jones, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, 

dated April 6, 2004.

9According to the CBOE, under the proposed 

interpretation of Article Fifth(b) embodied in the 

2003 Agreement, Exercise Right Privileges may be 

separately bought and sold and bundled and 

rebundled with the other rights and privileges of 

CBOT Full Membership for purposes of making the 

holder of an Exercise Right Privilege eligible to 

exercise.

10 In addition, the 2003 Agreement states that 

CBOE’s offer would have no effect on a CBOT Full 

Member’s right to exercise on the CBOE if the CBOT 

Full Member chooses not to accept CBOE’s offer, 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,31 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–Amex–2004–

43) is hereby approved on an 

accelerated basis.

For the Commission by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.32

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16555 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50028; File No. SR–CBOE–

2004–16] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Inc.; Order Granting Approval to a 

Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to 

an Interpretation of Paragraph (b) of 

Article Fifth of Its Certificate of 

Incorporation and an Amendment to 

Rule 3.16(b) 

July 15, 2004. 

I. Introduction 

On March 4, 2004, the Chicago Board 

Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

adopt an interpretation, embodied in an 

agreement dated December 17, 2003 

(‘‘2003 Agreement’’), between the CBOE 

and the Board of Trade of the City of 

Chicago, Inc. (‘‘CBOT’’), of paragraph (b) 

of Article Fifth of the CBOE Certificate 

of Incorporation (‘‘Article Fifth(b)’’) and 

CBOE Rule 3.16, pertaining to the right 

of the 1,402 Full Members of CBOT to 

become members of CBOE without 

having to purchase a CBOE membership 

(‘‘Exercise Right’’). On April 9, 2004, the 

CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change.3 The proposed 

rule change, as amended, was published 

for comment in the Federal Register on 

May 3, 2004.4 The Commission received 

one comment letter on the proposed 

rule change.5 On May 25, 2004, the 

CBOE submitted a response to the 

comment letter,6 and the commenter 

replied to CBOE’s response in a second 

comment letter submitted on June 16, 

2004.7 This order approves the 

proposed rule change, as amended.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

The CBOE is proposing to interpret 

Article Fifth(b) to explain how it will 

apply, upon the distribution by the 

CBOT to each of its 1,402 Full Members 

upon their individual request, to a 

separately transferable interest 

representing the Exercise Right 

component of each CBOT Full 

Membership. According to the CBOE, 

the CBOT’s willingness to issue 

transferable Exercise Right interests is 

reflected in the 2003 Agreement. 

Because CBOE Rule 3.16 currently refers 

to certain terms that were previously 

interpreted and defined in an agreement 

between CBOE and the CBOT in 1992 

(‘‘1992 Agreement’’), and the terms are 

now further interpreted and defined in 

the 2003 Agreement, the proposed rule 

change also amends CBOE Rule 3.16 to 

add a reference in the 2003 Agreement. 

The 2003 Agreement contemplates the 

issuance by the CBOT of a separately 

transferable interest representing the 

Exercise Right component of a CBOT 

Full Membership in advance of the 

consummation of the CBOT’s proposed 

corporate restructuring, which 

contemplates a similar separately 

transferable interest structure.8 In 

addition, the CBOE represents that the 

CBOT’s membership has approved 

changes to the CBOT Rules and 

Regulations, pursuant to the terms of the 

2003 Agreement, to give effect to a 

structure providing for the issuance of 

these interests. Thus, the interpretation, 

embodied in the 2003 Agreement, 

constitutes the substance of the 

proposed rule change.

The interpretation of Article Fifth(b), 

embodied in the 2003 Agreement, 

includes definitions of who will be 

‘‘Eligible CBOT Full Members’’ and 

‘‘Eligible CBOT Full Member Delegates’’

entitled to exercise after the CBOT has 

issued separately transferable interests 

representing the Exercise Right 

component of CBOT Full Memberships 

to those CBOT Full Members who 

request them. The interests are referred 

to in the 2003 Agreement and in this 

filing as ‘‘Exercise Right Privileges.’’

The CBOE represents that, under 

these definitions, to become a member 

of the CBOE by virtue of the Exercise 

Right, the holder or delegate (i.e., a 

lessee under CBOT Rules and 

Regulations) of one of the 1,402 

outstanding CBOT Full Memberships in 

which an Exercise Right Privilege has 

been issued must possess one Exercise 

Right Privilege, whether bundled or 

unbundled 9 from the related CBOT Full 

Membership. In addition, the CBOE 

believes that a CBOE exerciser member 

must also possess all of the other rights 

or privileges appurtenant to a CBOT 

Full Membership; meet the applicable 

membership and eligibility 

requirements of the CBOT; and be 

deemed to be a ‘‘CBOT Full Member’’ or 

a ‘‘CBOT Full Member Delegate’’ under 

the CBOT Rules and Regulations.

The 2003 Agreement also provides 

that the CBOT will adopt and maintain 

rules and procedures acceptable to the 

CBOE governing the issuance and 

subsequent transfer of Exercise Right 

Privileges and CBOT Full Memberships, 

to enable the CBOE to administer the 

operation of the Exercise Right in a 

manner consistent with the 

interpretation embodied in the 2003 

Agreement. In addition, the 2003 

Agreement states that the CBOE intends 

to make an offer to CBOT Full Members 

that, subject to the terms and conditions 

of the offer, will allow the CBOE to 

purchase Exercise Right Privileges from 

those CBOT Full Members that accept 

the offer.10 Further, as provided in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43645

and that holders of the Exercise Right would 

continue to be entitled to become an exerciser 

member of the CBOE.

11By its terms, Article Fifth(b) may be amended 

only with the approval of 80% of CBOE’s members 

admitted by exercise, and 80% of CBOE’s members 

admitted other than by exercise, each voting as a 

separate class.

12The CBOE noted that the proposed 

interpretation of the Exercise Right that is the 

subject of this filing does not displace the 

interpretation embodied in the 1992 Agreement, 

except it provides that if there are any 

inconsistencies between the interpretation 

embodied in the 2003 Agreement and the 

interpretation embodied in the 1992 Agreement, 

then the interpretation embodied in the 2003 

Agreement would control.

13The Commission notes that the commenters 

refer to two separate proposed rule changes filed by 

the CBOE—File No. SR–CBOE–2002–01 and SR–

CBOE–2004–16. But see supra note 8 (noting that 

CBOE has withdrawn File No. SR–CBOE–2002–01).

14See supra notes 5 and 7.

15See supra note 11.

16 In its June 8th Letter, the commenters replied 

that, although SR–CBOE–2002–01 was withdrawn, 

they believe that the CBOT restructuring will be 

occurring soon, and therefore the Commission 

should not separate the issues presented in both 

filings (citing to a letter from Charles P. Carey, 

Chairman, CBOT, which generally provides that, 

upon final court approval of a settlement agreement 

with plaintiffs in the minority member lawsuit, and 

the Commission declaring CBOT’s registration 

statement effective, it can move forward with a 

membership vote and complete the restructuring). 

See supra note 7.

17The commenters also state that, under the 

CBOT’s membership organization, the voting rights 

are joined with the trading rights and equity 

interests and are not separated. However, when 

CBOT is demutualized, the parts will be separated 

and consequently the parties holding the voting 

rights may be different and have different agendas 

than the parties having the trading rights.

18 In response, commenters state that the 

proposed interpretation would create two classes of 

CBOT memberships—one with the Exercise Right 

and one without. Thus, CBOT members would be 

able to receive value for Exercise Right, which was 

not recognized in Article Fifth(b) and the 1992 

Agreement. See supra note 7.

2003 Agreement, the CBOT and the 

CBOE have each agreed to provide to 

the other certain current information 

regarding the status of their members, 

including exercisers and persons who 

own or lease an Exercise Right Privilege.

The CBOE represents that the 

proposed interpretation of Article 

Fifth(b) is consistent with the language 

of Article Fifth(b), and that the 

interpretation does not propose to 

amend Article Fifth(b) in any respect; it 

only interprets how Article Fifth(b) 

would apply in circumstances that were 

not envisioned when Article Fifth(b) 

was adopted, and therefore were not 

addressed in the language of Article 

Fifth(b).11 The CBOE also believes that 

the proposed interpretation of Article 

Fifth(b) is consistent with the 

interpretation of the Exercise Right 

embodied in the 1992 Agreement.12

Finally, the CBOE represents that the 

interpretation of Article Fifth(b), 

embodied in the 2003 Agreement, is 

intended to apply solely in the 

circumstances involving the issuance of 

Exercise Right Privileges to some or all 

of its 1,402 Full Members as described 

in the 2003 Agreement, so as to make it 

clear that the interpretation is not 

intended to cover any other 

circumstances that might arise and also 

have an impact on the Exercise Right. 

III. Summary of Comments 

As noted above, the Commission 

received comments on the proposed 

rule change 13 from several members of 

the CBOE.14 In general, the commenters 

believe that the Commission should not 

approve the proposed rule change 

because the interpretation, embodied in 

the 2003 Agreement, constitutes an 

amendment to Article Fifth(b) and thus 

should be subject to a membership 

vote.15 According to the commenters, 

Article Fifth(b) was established (and 

approved by the Commission) to 

provide a mechanism for CBOE 

members and CBOT members who 

exercise on the CBOE (‘‘CBOE exerciser 

members’’) to: (1) Decide on whether 

changes in the definition or structure of 

a CBOT member would affect the 

Exercise Right, and (2) protect one class 

of CBOE membership from adversely 

affecting the other.

Regarding CBOT’s proposed 

restructuring, the commenters believe 

that the CBOT’s proposed restructuring 

necessitates an amendment to Article 

Fifth(b), and not an interpretation, 

because once the CBOT demutualizes, it 

will no longer be a membership 

organization. In particular, the 

commenters state that, changing from a 

membership structure, in which CBOE 

and its members have information on 

actions of the CBOT that affect the 

Exercise Right and the number of CBOE 

exerciser members, to a demutualized 

stock corporation affects the governance 

and operations of the CBOT. The 

commenters also express concern that, 

along with CBOT’s proposed 

restructuring, committee structures, 

petition processes, and representation 

on the board of directors would also 

change. Therefore, the commenters 

believe that the CBOT’s restructuring 

warrants an Article Fifth(b) vote. The 

commenters further note that the 

definition of a ‘‘member of the Board of 

Trade’’ is being amended in the CBOT’s 

proposed restructuring, which should 

be subject to an Article Fifth(b) vote. 

The commenters are also concerned 

that, if the CBOT demutualizes, the 

Exercise Right could be negated by the 

CBOE; they cite to a provision in the 

1992 Agreement that states that, if the 

CBOT, among other things, is acquired 

by another entity (and the surviving 

entity is not a registered exchange), then 

Article Fifth(b) would not apply. 

In response to the commenters’

concerns, the Exchange maintains that 

the CBOT’s issuance of the Exercise 

Right Privileges is separate and distinct 

from the CBOT’s pending 

restructuring.16 The Exchange believes 

that the commenters’ concerns primarily 

refer to changes in the structure or 

governance of the CBOT resulting from 

a demutualization—a circumstance not 

subject to this filing. In addition, the 

Exchange notes that the proposed 

interpretation provides that, although 

the Exercise Right Privilege would be a 

transferable interest, the holder of the 

Exercise Right Privilege would not have 

the right to exercise on the CBOE unless 

the holder also possess a CBOT Full 

Membership.

The commenters also express concern 

that the proposed interpretation states 

that certain disputes concerning the 

definition of a CBOT member as it 

pertains to the Exercise Right will be 

subject to arbitration as opposed to the 

membership vote provided in Article 

Fifth(b). Further, the commenters 

believe that according to the 1992 

Agreement, a CBOE exerciser member 

does not have the right to transfer 

(whether by sale, lease, gift, bequest, or 

otherwise) its CBOE regular 

membership or any other trading rights 

and privileges appurtenant thereto. The 

commenters interpret provisions of the 

1992 Agreement to require that all 

equity and trading rights would have to 

be assembled to exercise if the CBOT’s 

demutualization were to occur. Thus, 

the commenters are concerned that the 

proposed interpretation would allow the 

CBOT to demutualize into three classes 

of shares (A, B, and C) that can be split 

and sold separately, which constitutes 

an amendment to Article Fifth(b) and 

not an interpretation.17

In response to the commenter’s 

concerns, the Exchange believes that the 

purpose of the Exercise Right Privilege 

is to create an interest that CBOE, or 

others, might purchase to reduce the 

number of outstanding Exercise Rights, 

and to give CBOT members a way to 

realize the value of the Exercise Right 

without having to sell their entire CBOT 

membership.18 The Exchange believes 

that the proposed interpretation 

embodied in the 2003 Agreement is 

consistent with the language of Article 

Fifth(b) in that the Exercise Right would 

remain available to a person so long as 

he or she remains a member of the 

43646 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

19The CBOE represents that, if and when the 

CBOT restructures and is no longer a membership 

organization, the CBOE will further interpret the 

Exercise Right to determine its application in light 

of the demutualization. Telephone conversation 

between Arthur B. Reinstein, Deputy General 

Counsel, CBOE, and Lisa N. Jones, Special Counsel, 

Division, Commission, on June 10, 2004.

20See letter from Michael D. Allen, Esq., 

Richards, Layton & Finger, to Joanne Moffic-Silver, 

General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CBOE, 

dated June 29, 2004 (providing a legal opinion from 

Delaware counsel in connection with CBOE–2004–

16) (‘‘Opinion of Counsel’’).

21 In its June 8th Letter, the commenters reply 

that, although the CBOE Board of Directors has the 

right to interpret changes in the CBOT membership, 

Article Fifth(b) requires both the CBOE member and 

the Exercise Right holder to decide if changes or 

amendments to Article Fifth(b) are permissible. 

Thus, the commenters believe that the CBOE Board 

of Directors is usurping members’ rights by 

interpreting Article Fifth(b). See supra note 7.

22 In approving this rule, the Commission has 

considered the impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 24 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(A).

25Telephone conversation among Arthur B. 

Reinstein, Deputy General Counsel, CBOE, 

Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, and Lisa 

N. Jones, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, 

on July 15, 2004.

26See supra note at p. 5.

27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

CBOT.19 The Exchange notes that the 

1992 Agreement provides that if a CBOT 

Full Membership is divided into 

separate parts, a person must hold all of 

the parts to exercise on the CBOE. The 

Exchange states that the interpretation 

does not amend Article Fifth(b), rather, 

as noted above, the interpretation 

describes how the Article would apply 

under circumstances that were not 

originally contemplated when Article 

Fifth(b) was adopted.

Further, the Exchange represents that 

it has been advised by its Delaware 

counsel that, under Delaware state law, 

it is within the general authority of 

CBOE’s Board of Directors to interpret 

its governing documents when 

questions arise as to their application in 

these types of circumstances, so long as 

the interpretation adopted by the 

Exchange’s Board of Directors is 

consistent with the terms of the 

governing documents themselves.20 The 

Exchange represents that the 

interpretations do not constitute 

amendments to the governing 

documents, and thus are not subject to 

the procedures that would apply if they 

were actually being amended.21

IV. Discussion 

After careful review of the proposal, 

the comments received, and CBOE’s 

response to the comments, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

a national securities exchange.22 In 

particular, the Commission finds that 

the proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act,23 which requires, 

among other things, that the rules of an 

exchange be designed to promote just 

and equitable principles of trade, and in 

general to protect investors and the 

public interest, and Section 6(c)(3)(A) of 

the Act,24 which permits, among other 

things, an exchange to examine and 

verify the qualifications of an applicant 

to become a member, and the natural 

persons associated with such applicant, 

in accordance with the procedures 

established by exchange rules.

The CBOE believes that the proposed 

interpretation should clarify a 

circumstance regarding the Exercise 

Right that was not originally envisioned 

by the CBOE and CBOT when Article 

Fifth(b) was adopted. The CBOE also 

represents that the CBOT will issue to 

each of its 1,402 Full Members, upon 

their individual request, a separately 

transferable interest representing the 

Exercise Right component of the CBOT 

Full Membership. Moreover, the CBOE 

represents that to be eligible as a CBOE 

exerciser member, one must hold a 

CBOT Full Membership, which would 

include one Exercise Right Privilege 

(representing the Exercise Right) in 

addition to all the other rights or 

privileges appurtenant to a CBOT Full 

Membership. 

The Commission has considered the 

commenters’ concerns about how the 

proposed interpretation could adversely 

affect the Exercise Right. In its decision 

to approve the proposal, the 

Commission is relying on CBOE’s 

representation that the CBOT will adopt 

and maintain rules and procedures 

governing the issuance and transfer of 

the Exercise Right Privileges to enable 

the CBOE to administer the operation of 

the Exercise Right in a manner 

consistent with Exchange rules. Further, 

the Commission notes that CBOE has 

represented that both the CBOE and 

CBOT will provide each other with 

current information regarding the status 

of their members, including exerciser 

members and persons who own or lease 

an Exercise Right Privilege. The 

Commission believes that this open 

exchange of information regarding the 

Exercise Right should adequately 

address any concerns that the proposal 

will adversely affect CBOE regular 

membership, or any other trading rights 

and privileges thereof. 

The Commission has also considered 

the commenters’ concerns about the 

CBOT’s proposed restructuring, and 

notes that CBOT’s proposed 

restructuring has not yet been 

consummated. The Commission 

emphasizes that this order only 

approves CBOE’s interpretation as it 

relates to the proposed changes to CBOE 

Rule 3.16. The Commission is not 

making a finding on any facts and 

circumstances surrounding CBOT’s 

proposed restructuring under Delaware 

law. 

In addition, the Commission is not 

approving or disapproving the terms of 

the 2003 Agreement; rather, the 

Commission is approving a proposed 

rule change filed by the CBOE which 

interprets CBOE’s rules. Further, in 

approving this proposal, the 

Commission is relying on CBOE’s 

representation that its interpretation is 

appropriate under Delaware state law,25

and CBOE’s Opinion of Counsel that it 

is within the general authority of its 

Board of Directors to interpret Article 

Fifth(b) when questions arise as to its 

application under certain 

circumstances, so long as the 

interpretation adopted by the 

Exchange’s Board of Directors is made 

in good faith, consistent with the terms 

of the governing documents themselves, 

and not for inequitable purposes.26 The 

Commission has not independently 

evaluated the propriety of CBOE’s 

interpretation under Delaware state law.

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,27 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2004–

16), as amended, is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.28

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16559 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50013; File No. SR–CHX–

2004–02] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order 

Approving Proposed Rule Change by 

the Chicago Stock Exchange, 

Incorporated Relating to the Minimum 

Automatic Execution Threshold Size 

July 14, 2004. 

On February 11, 2004, the Chicago 

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43647

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49793 

(June 2, 2004), 69 FR 32645.

4 In approving the proposal, the Commission has 

considered the rule’s impact on efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 

78c(f).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

7 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–1.

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See letter from Ellen J. Nelly, Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel, CHX, to Nancy J. 

Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market 

Regulation, Commission, dated May 11, 2004 

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 

superseded and replaced the original rule filing in 

its entirety.

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49721 

(May 18, 2004), 69 FR 29592.

5 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

eliminate the existing 100-share 

minimum automatic execution 

threshold and the rule governing the 

procedures by which specialists obtain 

permission to switch from automatic 

execution mode to manual execution 

mode. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on June 10, 2004.3 The 

Commission received no comments on 

the proposal. This order approves the 

proposed rule change.

The Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder that 

are applicable to a national securities 

exchange.4 Specifically, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act,5 in general, and 

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,6 in particular, 

which requires that the rule of the 

Exchange be designed to promote just 

and equitable principles of trade, to 

remove impediments and to perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest.

The Exchange has represented that 

under its current rules, a CHX specialist 

is required to permit its MAX system to 

automatically execute an unlimited 

number of orders for 100 shares or less 

at the then-prevailing national best bid 

or offer (‘‘NBBO’’), until the 

consolidated quotation stream reflects a 

change in the NBBO price. The CHX 

believes that this requirement imposes 

virtually unlimited liability on its 

specialists to fill orders at the NBBO 

regardless of the aggregate number 

shares actually available at the NBBO. 

The Exchange believes that this is an 

unintended and unwarranted 

consequence of automatic execution 

guarantees such as the Exchange’s 

current rule and that by eliminating the 

100-share minimum automatic 

execution threshold, specialists will 

have the option to act as agent for an 

order or manually execute the order, 

rather than have an order execute 

against him automatically at the NBBO. 

Thus, the Commission believes that 

eliminating the 100-share minimum 

automatic execution threshold will give 

CHX specialists more flexibility in 

handling orders. 

The Exchange has also represented 

that a number of CHX specialist firms 

have developed and are implementing a 

remote pricing functionality (‘‘RFP’’) 

that permits specialists to respond to 

orders that are dropped for manual 

handling. The RFP functionality permits 

specialists to price individual orders. 

The RFP then provides the Exchange’s 

MAX system with automated execution 

instructions for orders that otherwise 

would require further manual 

intervention of a CHX specialist. The 

Exchange believes that eliminating the 

100-share minimum automatic 

execution threshold will grant 

specialists the option to handle more 

orders in this manner if they choose. 

The Commission believes that the rule 

requiring specialists to guarantee 

automatic executions at the NBBO was 

one the CHX imposed on it specialists 

voluntarily in order to make its market 

more attractive to sources of order flow. 

The Commission believes that the 

business decision to potentially forego 

order flow by no longer requiring 

specialist to provide such automatic 

executions is a judgment the Act allows 

the CHX to make. The Commission 

notes, however, that specialists are 

required to handle all orders in 

accordance with their best execution 

obligations and the Commission Quote 

Rule 7 regardless of whether such orders 

are executed manually or automatically.

Finally, the Commission believes it is 

appropriate to delete the current CHX 

rule governing the procedures by which 

specialists are to obtain permission to 

switch from automatic execution mode 

to manual execution mode because the 

elimination of the 100-share minimum 

automatic execution threshold 

effectively permits CHX specialists to 

switch to manual execution mode at any 

time. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the 

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

CHX–2004–02) be, and hereby is, 

approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16557 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50024; File No. SR–CHX–

2004–10] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order 

Granting Approval of Proposed Rule 

Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto 

by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. 

Relating to Co-Specialist Assignments 

and Evaluations 

July 15, 2004. 

On February 3, 2004, the Chicago 

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 

19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 

change relating to co-specialist 

assignments and evaluations. On May 

12, 2004, CHX submitted Amendment 

No. 1 to the proposal.3

The proposed rule change, as 

amended, was published for notice and 

comment in the Federal Register on 

May 24, 2004.4 The Commission 

received no comment letters on the 

proposal.

The Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange 5 and, in particular, the 

requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act.6 Section 6(b)(5) requires, among 

other things, that the rules of the 

exchange be designed to promote just 

and equitable principles of trade, to 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest.

The Commission notes that the 

proposed rule change, among other 

things, seeks to modify the co-specialist 

assignment and evaluation processes to 

shift the emphasis from evaluation 

questionnaire responses to execution 

quality data results (specifically, data on 

effective spread and speed of 

43648 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

7 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–5.

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–49777 

(May 26, 2004), 69 FR 31149.

3The terms Balance Order Securities and Special 

Trades are defined in Rule 1 of NSCC’s Rules and 

Procedures. The term Valued Delivery Order refers 

to an order to deliver securities where delivery is 

to be made for payment as opposed to a Free 

Delivery which refers to an order to deliver 

securities free of any payment by the receiver.

4The Commission recently approved NSCC’s 

CNS Rewrite. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

50026 (July 15, 2004) [File No. SR–NSCC–2004–01].

5Telephone conversation between Diane L. 

Brennan, Director of Risk Management, DTC, and 

staff of the Division of Market Regulation, 

Commission (May 21, 2004). Supplemented by 

letter from Diane L. Brennan, DTC (May 27, 2004).

6The date for implementation in the Notice has 

been adjusted. E-mail from Diane L. Brennan, DTC 

(June 23, 2004).

execution). Currently, execution quality 

data is not a factor for consideration 

during either the co-specialist 

assignment or evaluation processes. 

Instead such processes rely on the 

results of the co-specialist 

questionnaire, with substantial weight 

given to the questionnaire in the 

assignment process. Under the proposed 

rule change, the co-specialist 

questionnaire, while still a factor in the 

assignment process, would not be given 

substantial weight in the assignment 

process and would no longer be a factor 

in the evaluation process. Order 

execution quality data would be 

introduced as a factor in both the cospecialist assignment and evaluation 

processes and would be given 

substantial weight in the assignment 

process. The Commission believes that 

this change should help improve the 

quality of co-specialists serving on the 

CHX because it would require the CHX’s 

Committee on Specialist Assignment 

and Evaluation (‘‘CSAE’’) to make 

assignment and reallocation decisions 

based on objective, quantifiable 

performance criteria, rather than relying 

on the more subjective co-specialist 

questionnaire answers. 

The proposed rule change also 

establishes a new process for evaluating 

co-specialists. Under this proposed 

evaluation process, on a quarterly basis, 

each co-specialist would be given an 

order execution quality score (derived 

from the execution quality data reported 

pursuant to Rule 11Ac1–5 under the 

Act 7) and those co-specialists whose 

scores rank in the bottom 5% of all cospecialist scores would be required to 

participate in a special performance 

meeting with the CSAE. In the course of 

the special performance meeting, the 

CSAE would be permitted to take a 

variety of informal actions to encourage 

or assist the affected co-specialist. A 

special performance meeting could also 

be triggered by any of the factors 

considered in the assignment process 

(except the co-specialist questionnaire). 

If the informal actions from the special 

performance meeting do not result in 

improved co-specialist performance, the 

CSAE may conduct a formal hearing on 

the co-specialist’s performance to 

determine whether to take action to 

reallocate the co-specialist’s securities 

or suspend or terminate the cospecialist’s registration in accordance 

with Rule 3, Article XVII of the CHX 

rules. In this regard, the Commission 

notes that a co-specialist may appeal the 

CSAE’s decision by filing a request for 

review with the CHX’s Executive 

Committee under Rule 4, Article XVII of 

the CHX rules.

The Commission also notes that the 

proposed rule change strives to 

streamline the co-specialist 

questionnaire by reducing the range of 

rating scores and eliciting further 

responses for negative performance 

ratings. The Commission believes this 

change should make the questionnaires 

easier for brokers to complete and the 

responses to the questionnaires more 

useful to the CSAE. Therefore, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act. 

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CHX–2004–

10), as amended by Amendment No. 1, 

be, and hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16558 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50025; File No. SR–DTC–

2004–04] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Depository Trust Company; Order 

Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Establish a Valued Delivery 

Order Interface With the National 

Securities Clearing Corporation 

July 15, 2004. 

I. Introduction 

On May 3, 2004, The Depository Trust 

Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) proposed rule change 

File No. SR–DTC–2004–04 pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice 

of the proposed rule change was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 2, 2004.2 No comment letters were 

received. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Commission is now granting 

approval of the proposed rule change.

II. Description 

The National Securities Clearing 

Corporation (‘‘NSCC’’) currently creates 

receive and deliver instructions for 

‘‘Balance Order Securities’’ and for 

‘‘Special Trades’’ which NSCC members 

then have to manually enter into DTC as 

‘‘Valued Delivery Orders’’ (‘‘VDOs’’).3 In 

connection with NSCC’s project to 

update and revise its Continuous Net 

Settlement (‘‘CNS’’) system (‘‘CNS 

Rewrite’’), NSCC requested DTC to 

establish an interface to automate and 

facilitate the processing and book-entry 

settlement of Balance Orders and 

Special Trades.4

DTC and NSCC currently have an 

automated VDO municipal bond 

interface known as the PDQ Automated 

Municipal Bond Settlement Facility 

(‘‘PDQ Facility’’). Pursuant to the PDQ 

Facility, NSCC members and NSCC 

municipal comparison only members 

(‘‘MCOMs’’) that are also DTC 

participants (‘‘common participants’’) or 

that clear through DTC participants may 

authorize NSCC to send to DTC their 

compared municipal bond transaction 

data in an automated file and may 

authorize DTC to accept and input such 

data as VDOs. 

As a result of requests from common 

participants and based upon DTC’s and 

NSCC’s positive experience with the 

PDQ Facility, DTC and NSCC will 

expand the PDQ Facility to include all 

NSCC Balance Orders and Special 

Trades. The VDO Interface will 

automatically convey from NSCC to 

DTC VDO instructions for each common 

participant’s Balance Orders and 

Special Trades pursuant to standing 

instructions given to NSCC by the 

common participant. For NSCC MCOMs 

that are not common participants, NSCC 

will create delivery versus payment 

VDO instructions for a MCOM’s Special 

Trades if both the MCOM and its DTC 

clearing broker have each provided 

standing instructions to process such 

trades through the VDO Interface. The 

VDO Interface will incorporate the PDQ 

Facility’s functionality and will replace 

the PDQ Facility.5 DTC intends to 

implement the proposed rule change in 

conjunction with the implementation of 

NSCC’s CNS Rewrite on or about August 

6, 2004.6

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43649

7 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See File No. SR–ISE–2003–30 (the ‘‘Permanent 

Fee Filing’’).

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49009 

(December 30, 2003), 69 FR 714 (January 6, 2004) 

(SR–ISE–2003–39). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

III. Discussion 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires among other things that the 

rules of a clearing agency be designed to 

promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions.7 The Commission finds 

that DTC’s proposed rule change is 

consistent with this requirement 

because VDO Interface being established 

will promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions by providing greater 

efficiency in the processing and bookentry settlement of Balance Orders and 

Special Trades by providing greater 

functionality and by allowing members 

to focus less attention on exception 

processing.

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and in 

particular Section 17A of the Act and 

the rules and regulations thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the 

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

DTC–2004–04) be and hereby is 

approved.

For the Commission by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16562 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50010; File No. SR–ISE–

2004–25] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of Proposed 

Rule Change by the International 

Securities Exchange, Inc., Relating to 

the Extension of the Linkage Fee Pilot 

Program 

July 13, 2004. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on July 1, 

2004, the International Securities 

Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or the 

‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I and II below, which items 

have been substantially prepared by the 

Exchange. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons and is 

approving the proposed rule change on 

an accelerated basis.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The ISE is proposing to extend until 

July 31, 2005 the current pilot program 

regarding transaction fees charged for 

trades executed through the intermarket 

options linkage (‘‘Linkage’’). Currently 

pending before the Commission is a 

filing to make such fees permanent.3

The proposed fee schedule is 

available at the Exchange and at the 

Commission. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

ISE included statements concerning the 

purpose of, and basis for, the proposed 

rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item III below. The Exchange has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this proposed rule 

change is to extend for one year the 

pilot program establishing ISE fees for 

Principal (‘‘P’’) Orders and Principal 

Acting as Agent (‘‘P/A’’) Orders 

executed through Linkage. The fees 

currently are effective for a pilot 

program scheduled to expire on July 31, 

2004,4 and this filing would extend the 

fees through July 31, 2005. The three 

fees the ISE charges for P and P/A 

orders are: the basic execution fees for 

trading on the ISE, which range from 

$.12 to $.21 per contract/side depending 

on average daily trading volume on the 

Exchange; a $.10 surcharge per contract/

side for trading certain licensed 

products; and a $.03 comparison fee 

contract/side (collectively ‘‘Linkage 

fees’’). The Exchange represents that 

these are the same fees that all ISE 

Members pay for non-customer 

transactions executed on the Exchange. 

The ISE does not charge for the 

execution of Satisfaction Orders sent 

through Linkage and is not proposing to 

charge for such orders.

In the Permanent Fee Filing, the ISE 

discusses in detail the reasoning why it 

believes it is appropriate to charge fees 

for P and P/A Orders executed through 

Linkage. In sum, the ISE argues that 

market makers on competing exchanges 

can match a better price on the ISE; they 

are never obligated to send orders to the 

ISE through Linkage. However, if such 

market makers do seek the ISE’s 

liquidity, whether through conventional 

orders or through the use of P or P/A 

Orders, the Exchange believes it is 

appropriate to charge ISE Members the 

same fees levied on other non-customer 

orders. The ISE appreciates that there 

has been limited experience with 

Linkage and that the Commission is 

continuing to study Linkage in general 

and the effect of fees on trades executed 

through Linkage. Thus, this filing would 

extend the status quo for ISE’s Linkage 

fees for one year while the Commission 

considers the Permanent Fee Filing. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The ISE believes that the basis for this 

proposed rule change is the requirement 

under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 5 that an 

exchange provide for the equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 

other charges among its members and 

other persons using its facilities. As 

discussed in more detail above, the ISE 

believes that this proposed rule change 

will equitably allocate fees by having all 

non-customer users of ISE transaction 

services pay the same fees. If the ISE 

were not to charge Linkage fees, the ISE 

believes that the Exchange’s fee would 

not be equitable, in that ISE Members 

would be subsidizing the trading of 

their competitors, all of whom access 

the same trading services.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change imposes any 

burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. Moreover, 

the ISE believes that failing to adopt the 

proposed rule change would impose a 

burden on competition by requiring ISE 

Members to subsidize the trading of 

their competitors. 

43650 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

6 In approving this rule, the Commission notes 

that it has considered its impact on efficiency, 

competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

10 Id.

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49717 (May 

17, 2004), 69 FR 29605.

3At the current time, trades in debt securities 

compared or recorded through NSCC’s Real-Time 

Trade Matching (‘‘RTTM’’) system will not utilize 

this same day settling capability. Instead, as-of 

trades in such securities compared or recorded 

through RTTM after its cutoff time on T+2 will not 

settle in the normal settlement cycle but will be 

assigned a new settlement date which will be the 

settlement day following the day the trade is 

compared or recorded by NSCC.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received from 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange has not solicited, and 

does not intend to solicit, comments on 

this proposed rule change. The 

Exchange has not received any 

unsolicited written comments from 

members or other interested parties. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–ISE–2004–25 on the subject 

line. 

Paper comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20549–0609. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–ISE–2004–25. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

offices of the ISE. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR-ISE–

2004–25 and should be submitted on or 

before August 11, 2004. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change 

After careful consideration, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder, applicable 

to a national securities exchange,6 and, 

in particular, with the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act 7 and the rules 

and regulations thereunder. The 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

6(b)(4) of the Act,8 which requires that 

the rules of the Exchange provide for the 

equitable allocation or reasonable dues, 

fees and other charges among its 

members and other persons using its 

facilities. The Commission believes that 

the extension of the Linkage fee pilot 

until July 31, 2005 will give the 

Exchange and the Commission further 

opportunity to evaluate whether such 

fees are appropriate.

The Commission finds good cause, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,9

for approving the proposed rule change 

prior to the thirtieth day after the date 

of publication of the notice of the filing 

thereof in the Federal Register. The 

Commission believes that granting 

accelerated approval will preserve the 

Exchange’s existing pilot program for 

Linkage fees without interruption as the 

ISE and the Commission further 

consider the appropriateness of Linkage 

fees.

V. Conclusion 

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 10 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–ISE–2004–25) 

is hereby approved on an accelerated 

basis for a pilot period to expire on July 

31, 2005.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16556 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50026; File No. SR–NSCC–

2004–01] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

National Securities Clearing 

Corporation; Order Granting Approval 

of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify 

the National Securities Clearing 

Corporation’s Continuous Net 

Settlement System 

July 15, 2004. 

I. Introduction 

On February 23, 2004, the National 

Securities Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘NSCC’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

and on March 26, 2004, amended 

proposed rule change File No. SR–

NSCC–2004–01 pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposed 

rule change was published in the 

Federal Register on May 24, 2004.2 No 

comment letters were received. For the 

reasons discussed below, the 

Commission is now granting approval of 

the proposed rule change.

II. Description 

As part of the securities industry’s 

straight-through processing (‘‘STP’’) 

initiative, NSCC has been engaged in a 

project to update and revise its 

Continuous Net Settlement (‘‘CNS’’) 

system (‘‘CNS Rewrite’’). The major 

aspects of the CNS Rewrite include a 

completely new platform on which the 

CNS system will run that will 

accommodate real-time updates to the 

system, will improve access to CNS and 

depository information for members, 

and will provide the capability to add 

trades to the settlement process on a 

real-time basis until 11:30 a.m. on 

settlement day. 

The new CNS system, with a targeted 

implementation date of August 2004, 

will be able to take in trades until 11:30 

a.m. on settlement day and to net and 

settle them that day.3 To support this, 

NSCC has developed new Supplemental 

Consolidated Trade Summaries that will 

report trades settling on settlement date. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43651

4 In general, the day cycle currently begins at 

approximately 7 a.m. and ends at 3:10 p.m., and the 

night cycle begins at approximately 7 p.m. and ends 

at 12 a.m.

5The Daytime Miscellaneous Activity Report will 

also include corporate actions, stock borrows, and 

any other miscellaneous activity received in CNS 

after the start of the day cycle.

6Transactions in securities that are not eligible 

for CNS are processed through NSCC’s Balance 

Order Accounting Operation. Such securities are 

referred to as ‘‘Balance Order Securities.’’

7The Commission recently approved DTC’s 

establishing an interface to accommodate this 

transmission. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

50025 (July 15, 2004) [File No. SR–DTC–2004–04].

8All such DOs will be subject to DTC’s applicable 

DO fees. The DO standing instructions will cover 

all of the member’s NSCC balance orders and 

special trades. The delivering member can use 

DTC’s Inventory Management System if it wishes to 

control the timing and flow of any particular 

balance order transaction.

9 17 CFR 240.15c3–3.

10For a description of DTC’s memo seg service, 

refer to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26250 

(November 3, 1988), 53 FR 45638 [File No. SR–

DTC–88–16].

11A technical change is also being made to this 

section to delete the reference to such trades having 

the status of ‘‘security balance orders.’’ This 

deletion should have been made at the same time 

Rule 18 was amended in 2000 to clarify that Special 

Trades are to be settled directly between the 

members. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

42747 (May 2, 2000), 65 FR 30170 [File No. SR–

NSCC–98–14].

12Once this functionality is implemented, NSCC 

will no longer provide the PDQ Automated 

Municipal Bond Settlement Facility. This service 

currently provides for automated DTC delivery 

instructions for compared municipal bond 

transactions.

13At this time, no corresponding change is being 

made to Procedure II.D. because both the Fixed 

Income Transaction System (‘‘FITS’’) and its 

Continued

CNS will produce the Supplemental 

Consolidated Trade Summary at or 

about 2 a.m. and at or about 1 p.m. on 

each settlement date. In addition, so that 

members can update their CNS 

positions immediately, CNS will 

provide intraday messages for activity 

that occurs after the start of the day 

cycle as a result of settling trades and 

miscellaneous activity going into CNS 

on settlement date.4 These messages 

will be optional to the member because 

the same information will also be 

reported in the second Supplemental 

Consolidated Trade Summary made 

available at 1 p.m. and in the Daytime 

Miscellaneous Activity Report issued 

later in the afternoon on each settlement 

date.5 In addition, members will be able 

to view their CNS positions on a realtime basis using the Participant Browser 

Service (‘‘PBS’’) developed by The 

Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’). 

The CNS Cash Reconciliation Statement 

will be updated on a real-time basis and 

will be available on PBS after night 

cycle processing.

Another new STP feature available in 

the new CNS system will be the ability 

to create automated Deliver Orders 

(‘‘DOs’’) for non-CNS, depository 

eligible securities.6 Today, NSCC creates 

receive and deliver instructions, or 

balance orders, for non-CNS depository 

eligible securities. Its members then 

have to enter the balance orders as DOs 

at DTC. To automate and streamline the 

processing of trades in non-CNS, 

depository eligible issues, at the request 

of the member with the delivery 

obligation, NSCC will create delivery 

versus payment DOs that will 

automatically be transmitted to DTC for 

processing.7 This is an optional feature 

that can be activated by the delivery of 

standing instructions to NSCC that will 

cover all of the deliverer’s balance 

orders and special trades.8

Other new features that will be 

implemented include the enhancement 

of the CNS Stock Borrow Program to 

include acceptance of borrowing 

instructions for the day cycle and the 

acceptance and real-time application of 

CNS ‘‘Fully Paid For’’ securities 

instructions. The CNS Stock Borrow 

Program enhancement is intended to 

maximize the use of excess collateral 

and reduce the number of CNS fails. In 

addition to providing instructions for 

securities available for borrowing in the 

night cycle, members will now also be 

able to provide CNS with a new file of 

available excess collateral from 5 a.m. 

until 1 p.m. for use in the day cycle. 

The real-time acceptance of CNS 

‘‘Fully Paid For’’ instructions is 

intended to further facilitate members’

compliance with securities law 

requirements concerning possession or 

control of customer securities. At the 

current time, a member that delivers 

securities in its possession or control in 

anticipation of receiving securities from 

CNS as a result of allocations during the 

night cycle may instruct NSCC to move 

the open CNS long position from its 

CNS A (long valued) Account to its 

Fully-Paid-For E Subaccount to meet its 

customer possession or control 

requirements. NSCC makes such 

movements at the end of the processing 

day and concurrently debits the 

member’s settlement account for the 

value of the position in the E 

subaccount. NSCC then segregates the 

funds received as a result of such debit 

so that it constitutes a control location 

within the meaning of Securities 

Exchange Act Rule 15c3–3.9

The proposed CNS changes modify 

this procedure to (a) expand the 

capability of a member to utilize the 

Fully-Paid-For E Subaccount in 

anticipation of CNS allocations in the 

day cycle as well as in the night cycle 

and (b) permit fully-paid instructions to 

be received and applied on a real-time 

basis during the day cycle up through 

2:45 p.m. By accepting such instructions 

on a real-time basis, any securities 

received into a member’s Fully-Paid-For 

E subaccount can automatically be 

updated to the member’s memo seg 

position at DTC on an intraday basis at 

the member’s election through standing 

instructions.10

The following is a summary of NSCC 

rules that have to be changed to 

implement the modifications to the CNS 

system: 

(1) Rule 11, ‘‘CNS System,’’ is being 

amended to reflect the addition of the 

Supplemental Consolidated Trade 

Summaries that will be produced on 

each settlement day. Because of the new 

system’s ability to take in trades, to net 

them, and to update CNS processing on 

a real-time basis on settlement day, Rule 

11 is also being amended to make clear 

that with respect to trades settling on 

that day, a member’s obligation to 

deliver or pay for and receive CNS 

securities will be fixed each time the 

member’s net settling position is 

determined by CNS processing and the 

net settling position is made available 

by NSCC. 

In addition, Section 9 of Rule 11 is 

being amended to provide the 

mechanism whereby a member with 

trades in CNS or Balance Order 

securities designated as ‘‘Special 

Trades’’ (which must be settled on a 

member-to-member basis) may issue 

NSCC standing instructions to provide 

automated DO instructions to DTC.11

Any such instructions will cover all of 

the delivering member’s balance orders 

and Special Trades.

(2) Rule 44, ‘‘Deliveries Pursuant to 

Balance Orders,’’ is being amended to 

provide the mechanism whereby a 

delivering member can issue standing 

instructions to NSCC to provide 

automated delivery instructions to DTC. 

Any such instructions will cover all of 

the delivering member’s balance orders 

and Special Trades.12

(3) Procedures II, ‘‘Trade Comparison 

Service,’’ and III, ‘‘Trade Recording 

Service (Interface Clearing Procedures),’’

are being amended to make conforming 

changes to account for same day settling 

trades by indicating that the cutoff times 

for trade comparison and recording of 

as-of trades to settle on their originally 

designated settlement schedules will 

now be the cutoff time set on T+3 

(instead of T+2). T+3 and older as-of 

trades received thereafter will be 

assigned a new settlement date, which 

will be the following settlement day.13

43652 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

successor, RTTM, do not have same day settling 

trade capability. They will continue to maintain 

their current T+2 cutoff times so that trades 

received for comparison or recording by FITS or 

RTTM after T+2 will be assigned a new settlement 

date, which will be the settlement day following the 

date the trade is compared or recorded. A 

subsequent rule filing will be made to make any 

necessary conforming changes at such time as the 

RTTM system is modified to accept and process 

same day settling trades.

14The portion of the Note relating to stock loan 

recalls was made inapplicable pursuant to a noaction letter to Robert J. Woldow, Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel, NSCC, from 

Michael Macchiaroli, Assistant Director, Division of 

Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange 

Commission (June 28, 1985).

15 ‘‘Settlement Date’’ is defined as the date 

specified for a transaction to settle.

16 ‘‘Settlement day’’ is defined as any business 

day on which settlement may be made through 

NSCC’s facilities.

17The dates for implementation in the Notice 

have been adjusted. E-mails from Merrie Witkin, 

NSCC (June 10, 2004 and June 14, 2004).

18 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).

(4) Procedure V, ‘‘Balance Order 

Accounting Operation,’’ is being 

amended to reflect that security balance 

orders will be shown on the 

Consolidated Trade Summary and 

Supplemental Consolidated Trade 

Summaries issued on each settlement 

day. An indicator will be added to these 

reports to reflect any standing 

instructions given by the member for the 

issuance of DOs for balance orders and 

Special Trades. 

(5) Procedure VII, ‘‘CNS Accounting 

Operation,’’ is being amended to reflect 

(a) NSCC’s ability to accept through 

11:30 a.m. and process on a real-time 

basis on settlement date trades settling 

on that day, (b) the issuance of the two 

Supplemental Consolidated Trade 

Summaries on each settlement day, (c) 

the updated reports and methods of 

reporting information (including 

through real-time message updates, the 

web-based PBS screens which report 

updated CNS positions on a real-time 

basis, and additional Miscellaneous 

Activity Reports), and (d) certain 

conforming changes to properly reflect 

current processing. 

In addition, the Fully-Paid-For 

Account procedures included in 

Procedure VII, ‘‘CNS Accounting 

Operation,’’ are being amended to 

reflect the extension of this program to 

the day cycle allocation process, the 

real-time acceptance of instructions 

through the day cycle, and the real-time 

application of such instructions. Also 

the Note accompanying Procedure 

VII.E.5. is being modified because the 

portion relating to stock loan recalls is 

no longer applicable.14

(6) Addendum C, ‘‘NSCC Automated 

Stock Borrow Procedures,’’ is being 

amended to reflect the extension of this 

service to the daytime processing cycle 

and to provide the mechanism whereby 

members can loan their available 

securities to NSCC during the morning 

of settlement day. These securities will 

be used for any shortfalls that the CNS 

system has in the day cycle.

The daytime stock borrow process 

will be separate from the nighttime 

stock borrow process. Securities that 

members make available for the 

nighttime process will not be applied in 

the daytime process. Members will have 

the option to participate in the 

nighttime stock borrow program, the 

daytime stock borrow program, or in 

both programs. The changes also reflect 

the member’s ability to be advised of 

any borrows through intraday messages 

so that members have the ability to 

make movements into their Fully-PaidFor Accounts as needed. 

(7) Addendum G, ‘‘Fully-Paid-For 

Account,’’ is being amended to reflect 

that this application will be available to 

members on a real-time basis during the 

day cycle on each settlement day in 

order to facilitate members’ compliance 

with their securities possession or 

control requirements. 

At this time a clarification is also 

being made to Rule 12, ‘‘Settlement,’’

consistent with NSCC’s collection and 

segregation of amounts debited in 

connection with positions in the FullyPaid-For E subaccount. It has always 

been understood that the movement into 

this subaccount was contingent upon 

the member’s due payment of the funds 

debited with respect to the value of that 

position. It is the collection and 

segregation of such funds that permits 

NSCC to guarantee the position ‘‘free of 

payment’’ and thus constitute a valid 

‘‘control location.’’ Thus, Rule 12 is 

being amended to make clear that any 

movement of a long valued position to 

the Fully-Paid-For E subaccount will 

not become final until the member 

satisfies its end-of-day money 

settlement obligation. 

(8) Addendum K, ‘‘Interpretation of 

the Board of Directors—Application of 

Clearing Fund,’’ is being amended to 

reflect that with respect to trades 

received by NSCC after commencement 

of the nighttime processing cycle and 

prior to 11:30 a.m. on each settlement 

day, NSCC’s trade guaranty will attach 

to such trades as of the completion of 

the trade comparison process or the 

trade recording process for such trades. 

(9) Consistent with NSCC’s extension 

of its trade guaranty to same day settling 

trades, Rule 15, ‘‘Financial 

Responsibility and Operational 

Capability,’’ is being amended to make 

clear that additional clearing fund 

payments that may be assessed on 

members may also include charges 

relative to such same day settling trades. 

In addition, the rule change makes a 

number of technical corrections, 

including the following: 

(1) It defines the terms ‘‘Settlement 

Date’’ 15 and ‘‘settlement day’’ 16 which 

are used throughout NSCC’s Rules & 

Procedures and makes clear that the 

Consolidated Trade Summary is issued 

on each day that is a settlement day.

(2) It revises Procedure I, 

‘‘Introduction,’’ to delete references to 

SIAC as NSCC’s facilities manager and 

to codify NSCC’s longstanding 

established practice of setting data 

submission thresholds to minimize data 

transmission errors and data field 

requirements. 

(3) It changes the heading of 

Procedure II, ‘‘Trade Comparison 

Service,’’ to ‘‘Trade Comparison and 

Recording Service’’ to reflect that this 

procedure covers trade recording as well 

as trade comparison. 

NSCC intends to implement changes 

to the CNS system on or about August 

6, 2004. At that time, all CNS Rewrite 

functionality will be implemented 

except for processing same day settling 

trades and the two Supplemental 

Consolidated Trade Summaries that 

support same-day trade settlement. 

NSCC intends to begin processing same 

day settling trades and the supporting 

Supplemental Consolidated Trade 

Summaries on or about August 19, 

2004.17

III. Discussion 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires among other things that the 

rules of a clearing agency be designed to 

promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions.18 The Commission finds 

that NSCC’s proposed rule change is 

consistent with this requirement 

because the changes being made to the 

NSCC’s CNS system will promote the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions by 

providing greater functionality and 

capacity and by allowing members to 

focus less attention on exception 

processing.

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and in 

particular Section 17A of the Act and 

the rules and regulations thereunder. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43653

19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

20 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See letter from Darla C. Stuckey, Corporate 

Secretary, NYSE, to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant 

Director, Commission, dated July 13, 2004 

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 revised 

the proposed rule text. Amendment No. 1 is 

incorporated into this notice.

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47689 

(April 17, 2003), 68 FR 20200 (April 24, 2003) (SR–

NYSE–99–51) and NYSE Information Memo 03–26 

(June 10, 2003) for further information on NYSE 

Rules 132A, B, and C.

5NYSE Rule 123, Record of Orders, requires that 

all orders in any security traded on the Exchange 

be entered into a database before they can be 

represented in the Exchange’s auction market.

6NYSE Rule 3 defines the terms ‘‘security’’ and 

‘‘securities’’ as having the meaning given those 

terms in the Act and the General Rules and 

Regulations thereunder. Section 3(a)(10) of the Act, 

in turn, defines ‘‘security’’ as any ‘‘note, stock, 

treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture,’’

etc. (emphasis added).

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,19 that the 

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

NSCC–2004–01) be and hereby is 

approved.

For the Commission by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.20

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16561 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50021; File No. SR–NYSE–

2004–38] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of Proposed 

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 

Thereto by the New York Stock 

Exchange, Inc. Exempting Bonds from 

the Order Tracking System 

Requirements (NYSE Rule 132B) 

July 14, 2004. 

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on July 7, 

2004, the New York Stock Exchange, 

Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the Exchange. On July 

13, 2004, the NYSE amended the 

proposed rule change.3 The Commission 

is publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change, 

as amended, from interested persons 

and to grant accelerated approval of the 

proposed rule change, as amended.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

This proposal is to amend NYSE Rule 

132B to eliminate the requirement to 

capture order information for listed 

bonds. The text of the proposed rule 

change is below. Proposed new 

language is italicized.

Rule 132B Order Tracking Requirements 

1. With respect to any security listed 

on the New York Stock Exchange except 

bonds, each member and member 

organization shall:

* * * * *

(Remainder of rule unchanged.) 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

NYSE included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item III below. The Exchange has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Background. NYSE Rules 132A, B and 

C4 (‘‘OTS rules’’) require that members 

and member organizations record 

details of every customer and 

proprietary order in any security listed 

on the Exchange from the time of receipt 

or origination through the time of 

execution or cancellation. The purpose 

of these requirements is to provide a 

complete audit trail for orders in 

Exchange-listed securities. Thereby, the 

Exchange is able to provide an accurate, 

time-sequenced record of orders, 

quotations and transactions beginning 

with the receipt of an order by any 

NYSE member firm and further 

documenting the life of the order 

through the process of execution or 

cancellation of that order.

Rule 132A. NYSE Rule 132A requires 

members and member organizations to 

synchronize the business clocks used to 

record the date and time of any event 

that the Exchange requires to be 

recorded. The Exchange requires the 

date and time of orders in Exchangelisted securities to be recorded. The 

Rule also requires members and member 

organizations to maintain the 

synchronization of this equipment in 

conformity with procedures prescribed 

by the Exchange. 

Rule 132B. NYSE Rule 132B 

prescribes requirements and procedures 

with respect to orders in any security 

listed on the Exchange received or 

originated by a member or member 

organization. It requires a member or 

member organization to immediately 

record data elements as detailed in the 

Rule. If an order is transmitted to 

another member or member 

organization, is transmitted to another 

department of the same member, or is 

modified or cancelled, information 

detailed in the Rule must be recorded. 

Additionally, the recipient of the order 

must record the order details as 

provided in the Rule. 

Orders submitted to the Floor via an 

exchange or proprietary system that 

comply with existing NYSE Rule 

123(e) 5 (requiring the electronic capture 

of orders on the floor via NYSE’s Front 

End Systemic Capture Program) are 

exempt from recording the order details 

from the point at which the order 

arrives on the Floor. The transmitting 

and receiving floor members, however, 

are required to record the unique Order 

ID, the transmitting firm, and the 

recipient firm.

Rule 132C. Members and member 

organizations must record and retain the 

order details as required by the Rule, 

and upon Exchange request, submit 

such details to the Exchange. The 

Exchange makes requests for order 

tracking information on an as-needed 

basis in order for the Exchange to carry 

out its surveillance and regulatory 

functions. Members and member 

organizations are required to submit the 

data in an automated format. 

Proposed Exemption for Listed Bonds.

The Exchange proposes to exempt listed 

bonds from the requirements of the OTS 

rules. As adopted, the OTS rules apply 

to any security 6 listed on the Exchange, 

which includes bonds. However, at the 

time the OTS rules proposal was 

promulgated, the Exchange was 

focusing its attention on the application 

of the OTS rules to equity securities. 

The Exchange believes there are several 

reasons why the exclusion of bonds 

from the OTS rules would not be against 

the public interest and would not 

diminish the protection of investors. 

These are explained below.

Cost and Effectiveness. The Exchange 

represents that its member organizations 

would have to make extensive changes 

43654 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

7The Exchange understands that the rules of the 

National Association of Securities Dealers 

(‘‘NASD’’) regarding Nasdaq’s Order Audit Trail 

System apply only to equity securities. See NASD 

Rule 6951(j) (defining ‘‘order’’).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

10 In approving this proposal, the Commission has 

considered its impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

13See note 7 supra.

14The Commission notes, however, that should 

the trading environment for bonds listed on the 

NYSE change such that the Automated Bond 

System no longer captures information sufficient to 

create adequate audit trails for bond trades, or such 

that any of the Exchange’s representations above 

under the subheading ‘‘Cost and Effectiveness’’ are 

no longer valid, then the Commission’s analysis and 

conclusion may change.

15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

to their existing systems to capture 

order details for listed bonds in an 

electronic system as required by the 

OTS rules. At this time, the Exchange 

understands that member organizations 

have not established automated order 

tracking mechanisms and protocols for 

debt securities trading. The Exchange 

represents that such changes would be 

expensive, especially since they would 

have to be accomplished in a short time 

frame. 

In addition, the Exchange believes 

that the information that would be 

captured through such systems would 

not seem to provide a commensurate 

benefit in terms of increased compliance 

efforts. Trades on the Exchange in listed 

bonds are conducted through the 

Automated Bond System, which 

electronically captures order and 

execution details of each bond trade, 

providing an audit trail for these trades 

independent of the requirements of the 

OTS rules. Thus, for bond transactions 

conducted on the Exchange, the 

Exchange believes that existing 

procedures provide adequate regulatory 

information substantially comparable to 

the requirements of the OTS rules. 

In view of the fact that there are a 

significant number of bonds that are not 

listed and that the vast majority of 

transactions in bonds are conducted 

away from the Exchange, the Exchange 

believes that requiring member 

organizations to establish different 

systems and procedures for listed bonds 

and non-listed bonds would be costly 

and would not provide a significant 

improvement in regulatory capability.7

Given the reasons set forth above, the 

Exchange believes that exempting listed 

bonds from the OTS rules should not 

present any significant regulatory 

issues.

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change, as amended, is 

consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 8

in general and furthers the objectives of 

section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular 

in that it is designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change, as amended, 

will impose any burden on competition 

that is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received from 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange has neither solicited 

nor received written comments on the 

proposed rule change. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NYSE–2004–38 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20549–0609. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSE–2004–38. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the NYSE. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–NYSE–

2004–38 and should be submitted on or 

before August 11, 2004. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change 

The Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change, as amended, is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange.10 The Commission 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 11

in general and furthers the objectives of 

section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular 

in that it is designed to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade and to 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market. 

Specifically, in light of the Exchange’s 

representations that: (1) Existing 

procedures provide regulatory 

information that is adequate and 

comparable to the information required 

by the OTS rules, and (2) Nasdaq’s 

Order Audit Trail System rules, which 

serve a similar purpose to the OTS 

rules, do not apply to debt securities,13

the Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act.14

The Exchange has requested that the 

Commission find good cause pursuant 

to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 15 for 

approving the proposed rule change, as 

amended, on an accelerated basis prior 

to the thirtieth day after its publication 

in the Federal Register. The provisions 

of Rule 132B are scheduled to be 

effective July 16, 2004. The 

Commission’s grant of accelerated 

approval would help ensure that 

Exchange members are able to comply 

with the provisions of Rule 132B when 

it becomes effective. Further, Exchange 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43655

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

members would not have to expend 

valuable resources to establish 

procedures that comply with the OTS 

rules for mandatory electronic capture 

of order information in listed bonds. As 

discussed above, the Exchange asserts 

that instituting OTS rules for listed 

bonds would not provide a significant 

improvement in regulatory capability, 

would be largely duplicative, and would 

be costly to Exchange members. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds 

good cause for approving the proposed 

rule change, as amended, on an 

accelerated basis prior to the thirtieth 

day after publication of notice in the 

Federal Register.

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 that the 

proposed rule change, as amended (SR–

NYSE–2004–38), is hereby approved on 

an accelerated basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–16560 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3585; Amdt. #5] 

State of Indiana 

In accordance with a notice received 

from the Department of Homeland 

Security—Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, effective July 14, 

2004, the above numbered declaration is 

hereby amended to reopen the incident 

period. The incident period for this 

declared disaster is now May 25, 2004, 

through and including June 25, 2004. 

All other information remains the 

same, i.e., the deadline for filing 

applications for physical damage is 

August 2, 2004, and for economic injury 

the deadline is March 3, 2005.

Dated: July 15, 2004.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 04–16599 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Social Security Administration 

(SSA).

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

DATES: August 17, 2004, 9 a.m.–4 p.m.*; 

August 18, 2004, 9 a.m.–5 p.m.; August 

19, 2004, 9 a.m.–1 p.m. 

*The full deliberative panel meeting 

ends at 4:45. The standing committees 

of the Panel will meet from 4 p.m. until 

5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Woodfin Suites Hotel, 5800 

Shellmound Street, Emeryville, CA 

94608, Phone: (510) 601–5880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Type of meeting: This is a quarterly 

meeting open to the public. The public 

is invited to participate by coming to the 

address listed above. Public comment 

will be taken during the quarterly 

meeting. The public is also invited to 

submit comments in writing on the 

implementation of the Ticket to Work 

and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

(TWWIIA) of 1999 at any time. 

Purpose: In accordance with section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) announces a 

meeting of the Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Advisory Panel (the Panel). 

Section 101(f) of Public Law 106–170 

establishes the Panel to advise the 

President, the Congress, and the 

Commissioner of SSA on issues related 

to work incentives programs, planning, 

and assistance for individuals with 

disabilities as provided under section 

101(f)(2)(A) of the TWWIIA. The Panel 

is also to advise the Commissioner on 

matters specified in section 101(f)(2)(B) 

of that Act, including certain issues 

related to the Ticket to Work and SelfSufficiency Program established under 

section 101(a) of that Act. 

Interested parties are invited to attend 

the meeting. The Panel will use the 

meeting time to receive briefings, hear 

presentations, conduct full Panel 

deliberations on the implementation of 

TWWIIA, and receive public testimony. 

The Panel will meet in person 

commencing on Tuesday, August 17, 

2004 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (standing 

committee meetings from 4 p.m. to 5:30 

p.m.); Wednesday, August 18, 2004 

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, 

August 19, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

Agenda: The Panel will hold a 

quarterly meeting. Briefings, 

presentations, full Panel deliberations 

and other Panel business will be held 

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 

August 17, 18, and 19, 2004. Public 

testimony will be heard in person 

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 from 3:30 

p.m. to 4 p.m. and on Thursday, August 

19, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 

Members of the public must schedule a 

timeslot in order to comment. In the 

event that the public comments do not 

take up the scheduled time period for 

public comment, the Panel will use that 

time to deliberate and conduct other 

Panel business. 

Individuals interested in providing 

testimony in person should contact the 

Panel staff as outlined below to 

schedule time slots. Each presenter will 

be called on by the Chair in the order 

in which they are scheduled to testify 

and is limited to a maximum fiveminute verbal presentation. Full written 

testimony on TWWIIA Implementation, 

no longer than 5 pages, may be 

submitted in person or by mail, fax or 

e-mail on an on-going basis to the Panel 

for consideration. 

Since seating may be limited, persons 

interested in providing testimony at the 

meeting should contact the Panel staff 

by e-mailing Monique Fisher, at 

Monique.Fisher@ssa.gov or calling (202) 

358–6435. 

The full agenda for the meeting will 

be posted on the Internet at http://

www.ssa.gov/work/panel at least one 

week before the meeting or can be 

received in advance electronically or by 

fax upon request. 

Contact Information: Anyone 

requiring information regarding the 

Panel should contact the TWWIIA Panel 

staff. Records are being kept of all Panel 

proceedings and will be available for 

public inspection by appointment at the 

Panel office. Anyone requiring 

information regarding the Panel should 

contact the Panel staff by: 

• Mail addressed to Social Security 

Administration, Ticket to Work and 

Work Incentives Advisory Panel Staff, 

400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 700, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

• Telephone contact with Monique 

Fisher at (202) 358–6435. 

• Fax at (202) 358–6440. 

• E-mail to TWWIIAPanel@ssa.gov.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Carol Brenner, 

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16480 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

43656 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4768] 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Rescission of Statutory Debarment 

and Reinstatement of Eligibility To 

Apply for Export/Retransfer 

Authorizations Pursuant to Section 

38(g)(4) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; Armaments Corporation of South 

Africa Ltd. (Armscor) and the Denel 

Group (Pty) Ltd. (Denel)

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Department of State has fully 

rescinded the statutory debarment 

against the Armaments Corporation of 

South Africa Ltd. (Armscor) and the 

Denel Group (Pty) Ltd. (Denel) and its 

divisions; and any divisions, 

subsidiaries, associated companies, 

affiliated persons, and successor entities 

pursuant to section 38(g)(4) of the Arms 

Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 

2778) and § 127.11 of the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 

CFR parts 120–130).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert W. Maggi, Managing Director, 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 

Department of State (202) 663–2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA and § 127.7 of the 

ITAR prohibit the issuance of export 

licenses or other approvals to a person, 

or any party to the export, who has been 

convicted of violating certain U.S. 

criminal statutes enumerated at section 

38(g)(1)(A) of the AECA and § 120.27 of 

the ITAR. The term ‘‘person’’ means a 

natural person as well as a corporation, 

business association, partnership, 

society, trust, or any other entity, 

organization, or group, including 

governmental entities. The term ‘‘party 

to the export’’ means the president, the 

chief executive officer, and any other 

senior officers of the license applicant; 

and any consignee or end-user of any 

item to be exported. 

Effective June 8, 1994, the Department 

of State implemented a policy of denial 

pursuant to sections 38 and 42 of the 

AECA and §§126.7(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the 

ITAR for Armscor, Denel and its 

divisions (including Kentron (Pty) Ltd.), 

and any divisions, subsidiaries, 

associated companies, affiliated 

persons, and successor entities based 

upon an indictment returned in the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania charging Armscor and 

Kentron with violating and conspiring 

to violate the AECA (see 59 FR 33811, 

June 30, 1994). 

Subsequently, after the companies 

accepted plea agreements in connection 

with the criminal charges, the 

Department of State imposed statutory 

debarment against Armscor and Denel 

and its divisions effective February 27, 

1997 (see 62 FR 13932, March 24, 1997). 

A Federal Register notice was 

published on March 4, 1998 (63 FR 

10671), that rescinded the policy of 

denial and temporarily suspended the 

statutory debarment against Armscor 

and Denel in accordance with section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA. The temporary 

suspension of the statutory debarment 

was consistent with the Agreement 

Between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government 

of the Republic of South Africa 

Concerning Cooperation on Defense 

Trade Controls (the Agreement). The 

Agreement provided that the companies 

would establish internal compliance 

programs and further required that the 

companies would make available an 

amount of money equivalent to 

suspended civil fines to the South 

African Government to support the 

effective implementation of its national 

export control regime. 

Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA permits 

rescission of debarment after 

consultation with the Secretary of the 

Treasury and after a thorough review of 

the circumstances surrounding the 

conviction and a finding that 

appropriate steps have been taken to 

mitigate any law enforcement concerns. 

After thoroughly reviewing the steps 

Armscor and Denel have taken with 

respect to the establishment of internal 

compliance programs and supporting 

the effective implementation of a 

national export regime, the Department 

of State has determined that Armscor 

and Denel have taken the appropriate 

initiatives to address the causes of the 

violations and to mitigate any law 

enforcement concerns. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 127 of 

the ITAR, effective July 14, 2004, the 

debarment against Armscor and Denel is 

fully rescinded. The effect of this notice 

is that Armscor, Denel and its divisions, 

and any divisions, subsidiaries, 

associated companies, affiliated 

persons, and successor entities may 

participate, without prejudice, in the 

export or transfer of defense articles, 

related technical data, and defense 

services subject to section 38 of the 

AECA and the ITAR.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–16588 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), 

as Amended: Notice Regarding the 

2003 Annual Review

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR) 

received petitions in September 2003 to 

review certain practices in certain 

beneficiary developing countries to 

determine whether such countries are in 

compliance with the ATPA eligibility 

criteria. This notice specifies the results 

of the preliminary review of those 

petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bennett M. Harman, Deputy Assistant 

U.S. Trade Representative for Latin 

America, at (202) 395–9446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ATPA 

(19 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.), as renewed and 

amended by the Andean Trade 

Promotion and Drug Eradication Act of 

2002 (ATPDEA) in the Trade Act of 

2002 (Pub. L. 107–210), provides trade 

benefits for eligible Andean countries. 

Pursuant to section 3103(d) of the 

ATPDEA, USTR promulgated 

regulations (15 CFR part 2016) (68 FR 

43922) regarding the review of 

eligibility of countries for the benefits of 

the ATPA, as amended. 

In a Federal Register notice dated 

August 14, 2003, USTR initiated the 

2003 ATPA Annual Review and 

announced a deadline of September 15, 

2003 for the filing of petitions (68 FR 

48657). Several of these petitions 

requested the review of certain practices 

in certain beneficiary developing 

countries regarding compliance with the 

eligibility criteria set forth in sections 

203(c) and (d) and section 204(b)(6)(B) 

of the ATPA, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

3203 (c) and (d); 19 U.S.C. 

3203(b)(6)(B)). 

In a Federal Register notice dated 

November 13, 2003, USTR published a 

list of the responsive petitions filed 

pursuant to the announcement of the 

annual review. The Trade Policy Staff 

Committee (TPSC) has conducted a 

preliminary review of these petitions. 15 

CFR 2016.2(b) provides for 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43657

announcement of the results of the 

preliminary review on or about 

December 1. 15 CFR 2016.2(b) also 

provides for modification of the 

schedule if specified by Federal 

Register notice. In a Federal Register

notice dated December 30, 2003, USTR 

modified the schedule for this review, 

specifying that the results would be 

announced on or about March 31, 2004. 

In a Federal Register notice dated April 

5, 2004, USTR modified the schedule 

for this review, specifying that the 

results would be announced on or about 

May 15, 2004. 

Following is the status of the 

responsive petitions filed pursuant to 

the announcement of the annual review. 

The TPSC has determined that certain of 

the petitions do not require action and 

terminates their review. These include: 

Nortel Networks—Colombia, PhRMA—

Peru, Big 3 Marine—Peru, Duke 

Energy—Ecuador, and PhRMA—

Ecuador. 

The TPSC has decided to modify the 

date of the announcement of the results 

of preliminary review for the following 

petitions: Engelhard—Peru, Princeton 

Dover—Peru, LeTourneau—Peru, Duke 

Energy—Peru, AFL-CIO—Ecuador, 

Human Rights Watch—Ecuador, and 

US/LEAP—Ecuador. USTR will 

announce the results of the preliminary 

review of these petitions at the same 

time it publishes the list of responsive 

petitions filed pursuant to the 2004 

Annual ATPA Review.

Bennett M. Harman, 

Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative 

for Latin America.

[FR Doc. 04–16479 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W3–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Proposed Advisory Circular; Guidance 

Material for 14 CFR 33.75, Safety 

Analysis

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed advisory circular and request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability and request for comments of 

draft Advisory Circular (AC), No 33.75–

1, Guidance Material for 14 CFR 33.75, 

Safety Analysis.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the 

proposed AC to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Attn: Ann Azevedo, 

Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, 

ANE–110, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, MD 01803–5299.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Azevedo, Engine and Propeller 

Standards Staff, ANE–110, at the above 

address, telephone (781) 238–7117, fax 

(781) 238–7199. If you have access to 

the Internet, you may also obtain further 

information by writing to the following 

address: Ann.Azevedo@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

You may obtain a copy of the draft AC 

by contacting the person named under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or if 

using the Internet, you may obtain a 

copy at the following address: http://

www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. Interested 

persons are invited to comment on the 

proposed AC and to submit written 

data, views, or arguments. Commenters 

must identify the subject of the AC, and 

submit comments to the address 

specified above. The Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, will consider all 

responses received on or before the 

closing date for comments before it 

issues the final AC. 

We will also file in the docket all 

substantive comments received, and a 

report summarizing them. The docket is 

available for public inspection both 

before and after the comment date. If 

you wish to review the docket in 

person, you may go the address above 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

If you wish to contact the above 

individual directly, you can use the 

above telephone number or e-mail 

address provided. 

Background 

This draft advisory circular (AC) 

would provide guidance and acceptable 

methods, but not the only methods that 

may be used to demonstrate compliance 

with the safety analysis requirements of 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulation (14 CFR) § 33.75. 

This advisory circular would be 

published under the authority granted 

to the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, and 

would provide guidance for the 

requirements in 14 CFR part 33.

Jay J. Pardee, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16522 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application 

04–07–C–00–BGM To Impose/Use the 

Revenue From a Passenger Facility 

Charge (PFC) at Greater Binghamton 

Airport, Binghamton, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on 

application. 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 

invites public comment on the 

application to impose/use the revenue 

from a PFC at Greater Binghamton 

Airport under the provisions of the 

Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion 

Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) 

(Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 

application may be mailed or delivered 

in triplicate to the FAA at the following 

address: Federal Aviation 

Administration, New York Airports 

District Office, 600 Old Country Road, 

Suite 446, Garden City, NY 11530. 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Carl R. 

Beardsley, Jr., Deputy Commissioner of 

Aviation, of the Broome County 

Department of Aviation at the following 

address: Broome County Department of 

Aviation, Greater Binghamton Airport, 

2534 Airport Road, Box 16, Johnson 

City, NY 13790. 

Air carriers and foreign air carriers 

may submit copies of written comments 

previously provided to the Broome 

County Department of Aviation under 

section 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Levine, Airport Engineer, New 

York Airports District Office, 600 Old 

Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City, 

NY 11530, (516) 227–3807. The 

application may be reviewed in person 

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposes to rule and invites public 

comment on the application to impose/

use the revenue from a PFC at Greater 

Binghamton Airport under the 

provisions of the Aviation Safety and 

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title 

IX of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). 

43658 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

On June 29, 2004, the FAA 

determined that the application to 

impose/use the revenue from a PFC 

submitted by the Broome County 

Department of Aviation was 

substantially complete within the 

requirements of § 158.25 of Part 158. 

The FAA will approve or disapprove the 

application, in whole or in part, no later 

than September 29, 2004. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the application. 

PFC Application No.: 04–07–C–00–

BGM. 

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50. 

Proposed charge effective date: May 1, 

2005. 

Proposed charge expiration date:

December 1, 2005. 

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$531,220. 

Brief description of proposed 

project(s):

—Glycol Collection Rehabilitation 

—Runway 16/34 Rehabilitation, 

Design/Construction 

—Runway 10/28 Safety Area Study 

—Airport Wildlife Hazard Study 

—Airport Entrance Road 

Improvements 

—Taxiway Rehabilitation—Design 

Class or classes of air carriers which 

the public agency has requested not be 

required to collect PFCs: NonScheduled/On Demand Air Carriers 

filing FAA form 1800–31. 

Any person may inspect the 

application in person at the FAA office 

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA 

regional airports office located at: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports Division, AEA–610, Eastern 

Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New 

York, 11434–4809. 

In addition, any person may, upon 

request, inspect the application, notice 

and other documents germane to the 

application in person at the Broome 

County Department of Aviation.

Issued in Garden City, New York on July 

8, 2004. 

Philip Brito, 

Manager, New York Airports District Office, 

Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 04–16523 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application 

(04–03–C–00–SHR) To Impose and Use 

the Revenue From a Passenger Facility 

Charge (PFC) at the Sheridan County 

Airport, Submitted by the County of 

Sheridan, Sheridan, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on 

application. 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 

invites public comment on the 

application to impose and to use PFC 

revenue at the Sheridan County Airport 

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 

and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 

application may be mailed or delivered 

in triplicate to the FAA at the following 

address: Craig A. Sparks, Manager; 

Denver Airports District Office, DEN–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration; 

26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224; 

Denver, Colorado 80249–6361. 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to Mr. John W. 

Stopka, Airport Manager, at the 

following address: Sheridan County 

Airport, 908 W. Brundage Lane, 

Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. 

Air Carriers and foreign air carriers 

may submit copies of written comments 

previously provided to the Sheridan 

County Airport, under section 158.23 of 

Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Chris Schaffer, (303) 342–1258; Denver 

Airports District Office, DEN–ADO; 

Federal Aviation Administration; 26805 

68th Avenue, Suite 224; Denver, 

Colorado 80249–6361. The application 

may be reviewed in person at this same 

location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposes to rule and invites public 

comment on the application (04–03–C–

00–SHR) to impose and to use PFC 

revenue at the Sheridan County Airport, 

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 

and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). 

On July 13, 2004, the FAA determined 

that the application to impose and to 

use the revenue from a PFC submitted 

by the County of Sheridan, Wyoming, 

was substantially complete within the 

requirements of § 158.25 of Part 158. 

The FAA will approve or disapprove the 

application, in whole or in part, no later 

than October 13, 2004. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the application. 

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50. 

Proposed charge-effective date: March 

1, 2005. 

Proposed charge-expiration date: May 

1, 2010. 

Total requested for use approval:

$247,309.00. 

Brief description of proposed projects:

Perimeter fencing; Land acquisition for 

approaches (easements); Reconstruction 

of parallel Taxiway A; Reconstruct 

commercial apron; Update airport 

layout plan; Snow removal equipment, 

and security gates. 

Class or classes of air carriers that the 

public agency has requested not be 

required to collect PFC’s: None. 

Any person may inspect the 

application in person at the FAA office 

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA 

Regional Airports Office located at: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Northwest Mountain Region, Airports 

Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Suite 315, Renton, WA 98055–

4056. 

In addition, any person may, upon 

request, inspect the application, notice 

and other documents germane to the 

application in person at the Sheridan 

County Airport.

Issued in Renton, Washington on July 13, 

2004. 

David A. Field, 

Manager, Planning, Programming and 

Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain 

Region.

[FR Doc. 04–16524 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

July 14, 2004. 

The Department of Treasury has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requirement(s) to 

OMB for review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 43659

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 20, 2004, 

to be assured of consideration. 

Bureau of the Public Debt (PD) 

OMB Number: 1535–0082. 

Form Numbers: PD F 5237. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Subscription for Purchase of 

U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local 

Government Series One-Day Certificate 

of Indebtedness Demand Deposit. 

Description: PD F 5237 is used to 

collect information from State and local 

government entities wishing to purchase 

Treasury securities. 

Respondents: State, local or tribal 

government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

100. 

Estimated Burden Hours Per 

Respondent: 8 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden 

Hours: 13 hours.

OMB Number: 1535–0083. 

Form Numbers: PD F 5238. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Request for Redemption of U.S. 

Treasury Securities-State and local 

government Series One-Day Certificates 

of Indebtedness. 

Description: PD F 5238 is used to 

collect information from State and local 

government entities to process 

redemptions of U.S. Treasury Securities. 

Respondents: State, local or tribal 

government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

100. 

Estimated Burden Hours Per 

Respondent: 3 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden 

Hours: 5 hours.

OMB Number: 1535–0112. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Sale and Issue of Marketable 

Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes and 

Bonds. 

Description: Information is needed in 

order to process tenders and to ensure 

compliance with Treasury Auction 

Rules. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

households, business or other for-profit, 

not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1. 

Estimated Burden Hours Per 

Respondent: 1. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden 

Hours: 1 hour.

OMB Number: 1535–0117. 

Form Numbers: PD F 1010. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Resolution for Transactions 

Involving Registered Securities. 

Description: PD F 1010 is completed 

by an official of an organization that is 

designated to act on behalf of the 

organization. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

500. 

Estimated Burden Hours Per 

Respondent: 10 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden 

Hours: 85 hours.

OMB Number: 1535–0128. 

Form Numbers: PD F 5396. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form. 

Description: PD F 5396 is used to 

process payment data to the financial 

institution. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20,000. 

Estimated Burden Hours Per 

Respondent: 10 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden 

Hours: 3,400 hours. 

Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe, 

(304) 480–6553, Bureau of the Public 

Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, 

West VA 26106–1328. 

OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., 

(202) 395–7316, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16564 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

July 14, 2004. 

The Department of Treasury has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requirement(s) to 

OMB for review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 20, 2004, 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–1054. 

Form Number: IRS Form 8736. 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Application for Automatic 

Extension of Time to File U.S. Return 

for a Partnership, REMIC or Certain 

Trusts. 

Description: Form 8736 is used by 

partnerships, REMICs, and by certain 

trusts to request an automatic 3-month 

extension of time to file Form 1065, 

Form 1041, or Form 1066. Form 8736 

contains data needed by the IRS to 

determine whether or not a taxpayer 

qualifies for such an extension. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, farms. 

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 36,000. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/

Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—2 hr., 37 min. 

Learning about the law or the 

form—30 min. 

Preparing, copying, assembling, and 

sending the form to the IRS—34 min. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 132,840 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1601. 

Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue 

Procedure 98–32. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: EFTPS Programs for Reporting 

Agents. 

Description: The Batch and Bulk Filer 

programs are used by Filers for 

electronically submitting enrollments, 

federal tax deposits, and federal tax 

payments on behalf of multiple 

taxpayers. These programs are part of 

the Electronic Federal Tax Payments 

System (EFTPS). 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 3,000. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/

Recordkeeper: 82 hours, 23 minutes. 

Frequency of response: On occasion, 

Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Semiannually, Annually, Biennially. 

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 246,877 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1620. 

Form Number: IRS Form 8812. 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Additional Child Tax Credit. 

Description: Section 24 of the Internal 

Revenue Code allows taxpayers a credit 

for each of their dependent children 

who is under age 17 at the close of the 

taxpayer’s tax year. The credit is 

advantageous to taxpayers as it directly 

reduces the tax liability for the year and, 

if the taxpayer has three or more 

children, may result in a refundable 

amount of credit. 

43660 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Notices 

Respondents: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 9,000,000. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/

Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—6 min. 

Learning about the law or the 

form—9 min. 

Preparing the form—28 min. 

Copying, assembling, and sending 

the form to the IRS—20 min. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 9,630,000 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1731. 

Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue 

Procedure 2001–37. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Extraterritorial Income 

Exclusion Elections.

Description: This revenue procedure 

provides guidance for implementing the 

elections (and revocation of such 

elections) established under the ‘‘FSC 

Repeal and Extraterritorial Income 

Exclusion Act of 2000.’’

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

56. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent:

20 minutes. 

Frequency of response: Other (once). 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 19 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1847. 

Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue 

Procedure 2004–29. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Statistical Sampling in § 274 

Context. 

Description: For taxpayers desiring to 

establish for purposes of § 274(n)(2)(A), 

(C), (D), or (E) that a portion of the total 

amount of substantiated expenses 

incurred for meals and entertainment is 

excepted from the 50% limitation of 

§ 274(n), the revenue procedure requires 

that taxpayers maintain adequate 

documentation to support the statistical 

application, sample unit findings, and 

all aspects of the sample plan. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers:

400. 

Estimated Burden Hours 

Recordkeeper: 8 hours. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping 

Burden: 3,200 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1884. 

Announcement Number:

Announcement 2004–43. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Election of Alternative Deficit 

Reduction Contribution. 

Description: Announcement 2004–43 

describes the notice that must be given 

by an employer to plan participants and 

beneficiaries and to the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation within 30 days of 

making an election to take advantage of 

the alternative deficit reduction 

contribution described in Public Law 

108–18, and gives a special transition 

rule for the 1st quarter. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 200. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/

Recordkeeper:

Respondents:—60 hours. 

Recordkeepers:—200 hours. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 12,000 hours. 

Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland 

(202) 622–3428, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6411–03, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224. 

OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., 

(202) 395–7316, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–16565 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service 

Open Meeting of the Wage & 

Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 

(Notices) Issue Committee of the 

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Wage 

& Investment Reducing Taxpayer 

Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the 

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 

conducted in Pittsburgh, PA. The 

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting 

public comments, ideas and suggestions 

on improving customer service at the 

Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 

13 and 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1–888–912–1227, or 

954–423–7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given pursuant to Section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 

that an open meeting of the Wage & 

Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 

(Notices) Issue Committee of the 

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 

in Pittsburgh PA at the Courtyard 

Pittsburgh Airport, 450 Cherrington 

Parkway, Coraopolis, PA 15108, Friday 

August 13, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. e.d.t. and Saturday August 14, 

2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. e.d.t. 

Individual comments will be limited to 

5 minutes. If you would like to have the 

TAP consider a written statement, 

please call 1–888–912–1227 or 954–

423–7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP 

Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, 

Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. 

Notification of intent to participate in 

the meeting must be made with Sallie 

Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 

1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7979.

The agenda will include various IRS 

issues. 

Dated: July 15, 2004. 

Bernard Coston, 

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 04–16596 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

43661

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

Distribution of Continued Dumping 

and Subsidy Offset to Affected 

Domestic Producers

Correction 

In notice document 04–12187 

beginning on page 31162 in the issue of 

June 2, 2004, make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 31208, in the table, under 

the column heading, ‘‘Petitioners/

suporters,’’ in the 13th entry, ‘‘Lamb’s 

Honey FarmLamb’s Honey Farm’’ 

should read, ‘‘Lamb’s Honey Farm’’. 

2. On the same page, in the same 

table, under the same column, in the 

17th entry from the bottom, ‘‘Talbott;s 

Honey’’ should read, ‘‘Talbott’s Honey’’. 

3. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, in the 5th 

entry from the bottom, ‘‘Wooten Golden 

Queens’’ should read, ‘‘Wooten’s 

Golden Queens’’. 

4. On page 31211, in the table, under 

the column heading ‘‘Petitioners/

suporters,’’ in the 32nd entry, ‘‘A.H. 

Meyers & Sons’’ should read, ‘‘A.H. 

Meyer & Sons’’. 

5. On page 31212, in the table, under 

the column heading ‘‘Petitioners/

suporters,’’, in the fifth entry from the 

bottom, ‘‘Franklin Lumber Co.’’ should 

read, ‘‘Franklin Timber Co.’’. 

6. On page 31218, in the table, under 

the column titled ‘‘Petitioners/

suporters,’’, after the 22nd entry titled 

‘‘Shuqualak Lumber’’, add ‘‘Sierra 

Forest Products’’. 

7. On page 31220, in the table, under 

the column heading, ‘‘Petitioners/

suporters,’’, the third entry, ‘‘Electralloy 

Empire Specialty Steel’’ should actually 

be the third and fourth entries: 

‘‘Electralloy’’ and ‘‘Empire Specialty 

Steel’’. 

8. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, the ninth 

entry, ‘‘Electralloy Empire Specialty 

Steel’’ should actually be the ninth and 

10th entries: ‘‘Electralloy’’ and ‘‘Empire 

Specialty Steel’’. 

9. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, the 15th 

entry, ‘‘Electralloy Empire Specialty 

Steel’’ should actually be the 15th and 

16th entries: ‘‘Electralloy’’ and ‘‘Empire 

Specialty Steel’’. 

10. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, the 21st 

entry, ‘‘Electralloy Empire Specialty 

Steel’’ should actually be the 21st and 

22nd entries: ‘‘Electralloy’’ and ‘‘Empire 

Specialty Steel’’.

[FR Doc. C4–12187 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

Wednesday,

July 21, 2004

Part II

Department of the 

Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Removing the Eastern Distinct 

Population Segment of the Gray Wolf 

From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule

43664 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AJ03 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing the Eastern 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) proposes to 

remove the Eastern Distinct Population 

Segment (EDPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife established under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We propose this action 

because available data indicate that this 

DPS no longer meets the definitions of 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

The gray wolf population is stable or 

increasing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan, and exceeds its 

numerical recovery criteria. Completed 

State wolf management plans will 

provide adequate protection and 

management to the species in these 

three States if the gray wolf is delisted 

in the EDPS. The proposed rule, if 

finalized, would remove this DPS from 

the protections of the Act by ending its 

threatened classification. This proposed 

rule would also remove the currently 

designated critical habitat for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota and Michigan and 

remove the current special regulations 

for gray wolves in Minnesota and other 

Midwestern States. This proposal, if 

finalized, would not change the status 

or special regulations currently in place 

for the Western or Southwestern DPSs 

of the gray wolf or for the red wolf (C. 

rufus).

DATES: We must receive comments by 

November 18, 2004 in order to ensure 

their consideration in our final decision. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings by September 7, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and other information, identified by RIN 

1018–AJ03, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Gray Wolf Delist—EDPS, c/o 

Content Analysis Team, P.O. Box 

221150, Salt Lake City, UT 84122–1150 

• Fax: (801) 517–1015

• Email: egwdelist@fs.fed.us. Include 

‘‘Attn: Gray Wolf Delisting’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the ‘‘Public 

Comments Solicited’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

The complete file for this rule is 

available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at our Midwest Regional Office: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 

Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, 

MN 55111–4056. Call 612–713–5350 to 

make arrangements. The comments and 

materials we receive during the 

comment period also will be made 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours. See the ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ section of SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for location information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct all questions or requests for 

additional information to the Service 

using the Gray Wolf Phone Line—612–

713–7337, facsimile—612–713–5292, 

the general gray wolf electronic mail 

address—GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV,

or write to: Gray Wolf Questions, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 

Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, 

MN 55111–4056. Additional 

information is also available on our 

World Wide Web site at http://

midwest.fws.gov/wolf. In the event that 

our internet connection is not 

functional, please contact the Service by 

the alternative methods mentioned 

above. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speech-impaired may call 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–

8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This rule begins with discussions on 

the biology, ecology, taxonomy, and 

historical range of the gray wolf. We 

then describe previous Federal listing 

actions taken for this DPS of gray 

wolves. Next, we discuss the purpose 

and relevant definitions of the Act and 

conclude this introductory section with 

a discussion of the conservation and 

recovery of the EDPS of the gray wolf. 

We then analyze the current status of 

the EDPS relative to the criteria set out 

in section 4(c)(1) of the Act to determine 

whether it still warrants listing under 

the Act. This analysis takes into account 

the effects of current and future likely 

actions that may positively or negatively 

affect the EDPS if it were delisted. 

A. Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves 

Gray wolves are the largest wild 

members of the Canidae, or dog family, 

with adults ranging from 18 to 80 

kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)) 

depending upon sex and subspecies 

(Mech 1974). The average weight of 

male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 

lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to 

102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 

lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 

lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WI DNR) 1999a). Wolves’ fur 

color is frequently a grizzled gray, but 

it can vary from pure white to coal 

black. Wolves may appear similar to 

coyotes (Canis latrans) and some 

domestic dog breeds (such as the 

German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. 

familiaris). Wolves’ longer legs, larger 

feet, wider head and snout, and straight 

tail distinguish them from both coyotes 

and dogs. 

Wolves primarily are predators of 

medium and large mammals. Wild prey 

species in North America include whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and 

mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces 

alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), woodland 

caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren 

ground caribou (R. arcticus), bison 

(Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos 

moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), 

mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), 

beaver (Castor canadensis), and 

snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), 

with small mammals, birds, and large 

invertebrates sometimes being taken 

(Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 

1999a). In the EDPS, during the last 22 

years, wolves have also killed domestic 

animals including horses (Equus 

caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep 

(Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), llamas 

(Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), geese 

(Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys 

(Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus 

sp.), pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), 

dogs, and cats (Felis catus) (Paul 2001, 

Wydeven et al. 2001a). 

Wolves are social animals, normally 

living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves, 

although 2 packs in Yellowstone 

National Park (NP) had 22 and 27 

members in 2000; Yellowstone NP’s 

Druid Peak pack increased to 37 

members in 2001 (USFWS et al. 2001, 

2002). Winter 2001–02 pack size in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula averaged 

4.3 wolves (Potvin et al. submitted). 

Packs are primarily family groups 

consisting of a breeding pair, their pups 

from the current year, offspring from the 

previous year, and occasionally an 

unrelated wolf. Packs typically occupy,

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43665

and defend from other packs and 

individual wolves, a territory of 50 to 

550 square kilometers (km2) (20 to 214 

square miles (mi2)). In the northern U.S. 

Rocky Mountains, territories tend to be 

larger, usually from 520 to 1,040 km2

(200 to 400 mi2), and in Wood Buffalo 

NP in Canada, territories of up to 2,700 

km2 (1,042 mi2) have been recorded 

(Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service, in 

litt. 2000). Normally, only the topranking (‘‘alpha’’) male and female in 

each pack breed and produce pups. 

Litters are born from early April into 

May; they range from 1 to 11 pups, but 

generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources (MI 

DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992a; USFWS et 

al. 2001). Normally a pack has a single 

litter annually, but the production of 2 

or 3 litters in one year has been 

documented in Yellowstone NP 

(USFWS et al. 2002). Yearling wolves 

frequently disperse from their natal 

packs, although some remain with their 

natal pack. Yearlings may range over 

large areas as lone animals after leaving 

their natal pack or they may locate 

suitable unoccupied habitat and a 

member of the opposite sex and begin 

their own pack. Dispersal distances of 

800 km (500 mi) have been documented 

(Fritts 1983; James Hammill, MI DNR, in 

litt. 2001). Individual wolves have more 

recently traveled from central 

Wisconsin to east-central Indiana (655 

km (407 mi)) and northern Illinois 

(unknown distance), from the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan to northern 

Missouri (965 km (600 mi)), and from 

the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan 

population to east-central Nebraska 

(unknown distance). 

The gray wolf historically occurred 

across most of North America, Europe, 

and Asia. In North America, gray wolves 

formerly occurred from the northern 

reaches of Alaska, Canada, and 

Greenland to the central mountains and 

the high interior plateau of southern 

Mexico. The only areas of the 

conterminous United States that 

apparently lacked gray wolf populations 

since the last ice age are parts of 

California and portions of the eastern 

and southeastern United States (an area 

occupied by the red wolf). In addition, 

wolves were generally absent from the 

deserts and mountaintop areas of the 

western United States (Young and 

Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, 

Nowak 2000). (Refer to the Taxonomy of 

Gray Wolves in the Eastern United 

States section below for additional 

discussion.) 

European settlers in North America 

and their cultures often had 

superstitions and fears of wolves and a 

unified desire to eliminate them 

(Boitani 1995). Their attitudes, coupled 

with perceived and real conflicts 

between wolves and human activities 

along the frontier, led to widespread 

persecution of wolves. Poisons, 

trapping, and shooting spurred by 

Federal, State, and local government 

bounties extirpated this once 

widespread species from more than 95 

percent of its range in the 48 

conterminous States. At the time the Act 

was passed, only several hundred 

wolves occurred in northeastern 

Minnesota and on Isle Royale, 

Michigan, and a few scattered wolves 

may have occurred in the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan, Montana, and 

the American Southwest. 

Researchers have learned a great deal 

about gray wolf biology, especially 

about the species’ adaptability and its 

use of nonwilderness habitats. Public 

appreciation of the role of predators in 

our ecosystems has increased. Surveys 

indicate that approximately 60 percent 

of persons in the eastern and western 

United States have positive attitudes 

towards wolves and their restoration 

(Williams et al. 2002). Most 

importantly, within the last decade the 

prospects for gray wolf recovery in 

several areas of their historical range in 

the United States have greatly increased. 

In the EDPS, wolves have dramatically 

increased their numbers and occupied 

range. 

The gray wolf is one of two North 

American wolf species currently 

protected by the Act. The other species 

is the red wolf (Canis rufus), which is 

listed as endangered throughout its 

historical range in the southeastern 

United States and extending west into 

central Texas. The red wolf is the 

subject of a separate recovery program. 

This final rule does not affect the 

current listing status or protection of the 

red wolf.

Gray wolf populations in the United 

States are protected under the Act by 

separate listings covering the EDPS, the 

Western DPS, and the Southwestern 

DPS (50 CFR 17.11(h)), regulations 

establishing three non-essential 

experimental populations (50 CFR 

17.84(i) and (k)), and by special 

regulations for parts of the Western and 

Eastern DPSs (50 CFR 17.40(d), (n), and 

(o)). Regulations for the Western and 

Southwestern DPSs would not be 

removed or changed if this proposal is 

finalized. 

It is important to note that the 

protections of the gray wolf under the 

Act does not extend to gray wolf-dog 

hybrids regardless of the geographic 

location of the capture of their pure wolf 

ancestors. As noted in the final 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 

1, 2003), gray wolf-dog hybrids have no 

value to gray wolf recovery programs 

and can introduce dog genes into wild 

wolf populations. 

B. Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the 

Northeastern United States 

Both versions (USFWS 1978 and 

1992a) of the Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan) 

were developed to recover the gray wolf 

subspecies Canis lupus lycaon,

commonly known as the eastern timber 

wolf. Canis lupus lycaon was believed 

to be the gray wolf subspecies that 

historically occurred throughout the 

northeastern quarter of the United States 

east of the Great Plains (Young and 

Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974). 

Since the publication of those recovery 

plans, various studies on the subspecific 

taxonomy of the gray wolf have been 

conducted with conflicting results 

(Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003; Wayne et al.

1995; Wilson et al. 2000). 

Wilson et al. (2000) questioned the 

identity of the Canis species in 

southeastern Canada, an area with an 

extant wolf population adjacent to the 

northeastern United States. The 

alternative view of southeastern Canada 

wolf taxonomy as advanced by Wilson 

et al. (2000) appears to be gaining wider 

acceptance among taxonomists. That 

view is that the wolf currently occurring 

in Algonquin Provincial Park and 

southern Quebec Province, and possibly 

the ancestral wolf of southeastern 

Canada and the northeastern United 

States, is a smaller form of wolf, similar 

to or indistinguishable from the red 

wolf. Others argue that ecologically, the 

ancestral wolf in northern New England 

and northern New York where moose 

and woodland caribou were the 

predominant ungulate prey (Hall 1981), 

and throughout New York State where 

elk were indigenous (Hall 1981), was 

likely to be a large-bodied gray wolf, 

rather than a smaller, deer-eating wolf, 

such as the red wolf (Daniel Harrison, 

University of Maine, pers. comm.). 

We acknowledge that our 

understanding of wolf taxonomy at both 

the species and the subspecies levels is 

likely to continue changing as new 

studies are completed and the results of 

additional genetic and morphometric 

analyses are published. Analyses of the 

canids recently found in the 

northeastern United States and 

southeastern Canada point to a northsouth (and to a lesser extent, west-east) 

gradient consisting of western gray wolf, 

eastern wolf, and coyote. The western 

gray wolf historically occupied much of 

the western United States and much of 

Canada. According to recent genetic 

analyses (Wilson et al. 2000), the eastern 

43666 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

wolf, now referred to by some 

investigators as Canis lycaon, currently 

occupies southeastern Canada and may 

have historically occupied the 

northeastern United States and portions 

of the Great Lakes area as well (Fascione 

et al. 2001). The Service believes that it 

is equally likely there was a contact 

zone between the two forms of wolves 

along this broad boundary between the 

northern extent of white-tailed deer 

range and the southern extent of caribou 

and moose range. 

Currently, molecular genetic and 

morphological data suggest several 

plausible identities for the large canid 

that historically occupied the Northeast. 

Nowak’s (1995) morphological data 

support the contention that Canis lupus 

lycaon, a subspecies of the gray wolf, 

occupied part of the Northeast, 

including southern New England. A 

recent molecular genetics study (Wilson 

et al. 2000) disputes that this species is 

a gray wolf, and suggests it is a form of 

red wolf and both forms should be 

referred to as C. lycaon. Nowak’s (2002) 

more recent analysis places the 

boundary between the gray wolf and red 

wolf in central New York and northern 

Vermont, with C. l. lycaon to the north 

and west of this line and the red wolf 

subspecies, C. rufus floridanus, to the 

east and south. Furthermore, Nowak 

(2002, 2003) now suggests that C. l. 

lycaon may be a subspecies of hybrid 

origin resulting from matings of C. lupus

and C. rufus.

The historical range of the gray wolf 

and the taxonomy of the wolf in the 

conterminous United States is the 

subject of substantial scientific debate. 

As pointed out in the April 2003 final 

reclassification (68 FR 15804) and by 

Brewster and Fritts (1995), wolf 

systematics is a continually evolving 

science. During the 1800s and through 

the mid-1900s, which Brewster and 

Fritts (1995) refer to as the ‘‘descriptive 

era,’’ wolf taxonomies were based on 

physical attributes such as color, 

weight, and size. During the 

‘‘multivariate analysis era’’ (1950s to 

present), alternative wolf taxonomies 

were based on statistical analyses of 

multiple morphometric data, 

particularly cranial measurements. 

Lastly, recent advances in molecular 

taxonomy (1970s to present) have made 

it possible to compare phylogenic 

relatedness between closely related 

species and subspecies and to 

characterize their differences. 

Proponents of each alternative wolf 

taxonomy offer a different view of the 

range of wolf species and subspecies in 

North America. 

The coyote is the dominant canid in 

the northeastern United States at 

present, although wolf genetic material 

is also present in these animals (Wilson 

et al. 2004). It is extremely difficult to 

determine the genetic identity of the 

wolf (or wolves) that occurred in the 

Northeast before European settlement. 

The ranges of specific forms of wolf may 

have changed over time or intermingled 

along contact zones, and scientific 

consensus on one ancestral form of wolf 

for the Northeast may not be possible. 

We, however, encourage additional 

research on the identity of the historical 

wolf of the northeast region, the 

taxonomy and phylogeny of 

contemporary wolves in southeastern 

Canada, and new information on the 

occurrence of wolves in the 

northeastern United States and 

southeastern Canada. Due to the 

extreme uncertainty over wolf 

taxonomy, at this time we are adopting 

no final position on the identity of the 

wolf (or wolves) that historically existed 

in the northeastern United States. As 

announced in the final reclassification 

rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), we are 

treating gray wolves in the northeastern 

United States as part of the EDPS.

C. Historical Range of the Gray Wolf 

Until the molecular genetics studies 

of the last few years, the range of the 

gray wolf before European settlement 

was generally believed to include most 

of North America. The only areas that 

were believed to have lacked gray wolf 

populations are southern and interior 

Greenland, the coastal regions of 

Mexico, all of Central America south of 

Mexico, coastal and other parts of 

California, the extremely arid deserts 

and the mountaintops of the western 

United States, and parts of the eastern 

and southeastern United States (Young 

and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 

1974, Nowak 1995). (Some authorities, 

however, question the reported 

historical absence of gray wolves from 

parts of California (Carbyn in litt. 2000, 

Mech, U.S. Geological Survey, in litt.

2000)). Authors are inconsistent on their 

views of the precise boundary of 

historical gray wolf range in the eastern 

and southeastern United States. Some 

use Georgia’s southeastern corner as the 

southern extent of gray wolf range 

(Young and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); 

others believe gray wolves did not occur 

at all in the southeastern U.S. (Hall 

1981) or only to a limited extent, 

primarily at relatively high elevations 

(Nowak 1995). The southeastern and 

mid-Atlantic States have generally been 

recognized as being within the historical 

range of the red wolf; the extent of 

overlap between the ranges of these 

competing canids is unknown. Recent 

morphological work (Nowak 2002, 

2003) supports extending the historical 

range of the red wolf into southern New 

England or even further north. This 

suggests that the historical range of the 

gray wolf in the eastern United States 

may have been more limited than 

previously believed, although the ranges 

of the wolf species may have expanded 

and contracted after the last ice age. 

The results of recent molecular 

genetic (Wilson et al. 2000) and 

morphometric studies (Nowak 1995, 

2002) may help explain some of the past 

difficulties in determining the southern 

boundary of the gray wolf’s range in the 

eastern United States. Unless additional 

data demonstrate that gray wolves did 

not historically occur in the 

northeastern U.S., we have defined the 

historical range of the gray wolf as 

including those areas north of the Ohio 

River, the southern borders of 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and 

southern Missouri; and west from 

central Texas and Oklahoma (68 FR 

15804). This boundary is a reasonable 

compromise of several published 

accounts, being somewhat south of that 

shown by Nowak (2002) and north of 

the range boundary shown by Young 

and Goldman (1944) and Mech (1974). 

The historical range boundary we used 

to establish the southern boundary of 

the EDPS in 50 CFR 17.11(h) most 

closely approximates that shown in Hall 

(1981). 

While the historical range and 

taxonomy of the wolf in the 

northeastern United States continues to 

be debated, the fact that wolves were 

indigenous to that region is well 

established in historical accounts and 

bounty records. As early as 1645, the 

Massachusetts Court complained of ‘‘the 

great losse and damage’’ suffered by the 

colony because wolves killed settlers’

cattle (Cronon 1983). Cronon (1983) 

reports that such complaints persisted 

in newly settled areas throughout the 

colonial period. Young and Goldman 

(1944) recount the early years of wolf 

bounties offered on Long Island, New 

York, where in 1663 it was agreed that 

settlers be provided bushels of Indian 

corn in exchange for wolf heads. In 

1794, Samuel Williams recorded in The 

Natural and Civil History of Vermont

that, ‘‘One of the most common and 

noxious of all our animals, is the Wolf.’’

A review of wolf bounty records in 

Maine revealed documentation for well 

over 100 bounties paid, primarily 

during the 1800s (R. Joseph, USFWS, in 

litt. 2000). In the Proceedings of the 

Portland Society of Natural History 

(1930), it is reported that wolves were 

numerous in the Portland, Maine, 

region, and existed at least until 1740 in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43667

the immediate vicinity of the present 

city. 

From the first reward offered by the 

Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, wolf 

bounties became a common means of 

addressing livestock losses to wolf 

predation in colonial America. By the 

early eighteenth and into the nineteenth 

centuries, bounties on the wolf were 

common throughout the United States. 

Wolf populations in the northeastern 

United States were strongly affected as 

colonial settlement progressed and 

activities such as forest clearing, 

hunting, and trapping reduced the 

wolf’s natural habitat and prey 

(ungulates and beaver). Remaining wolf 

populations were largely eliminated by 

the bounties, and by 1900, the wolf was 

considered extirpated from the 

northeastern United States (Nowak 

2002). Hamilton (1943) noted that where 

the wolf formerly ranged widely 

throughout the eastern States, persistent 

hunting, trapping, and poisoning 

resulted in its extermination in 

Pennsylvania, New York, and New 

England well before the close of the 

nineteenth century. 

D. Previous Federal Action 

On April 1, 2003, we published a final 

rule (68 FR 15804) that reclassified and 

delisted gray wolves, as appropriate, 

across their range in the 48 

conterminous United States and 

Mexico. In that final rule (on page 

15806), we included a detailed 

summary of the previous Federal 

actions completed prior to publication 

of that final rule. 

The first part of the April 1, 2003, 

final rule delisted gray wolves in parts 

or all of 16 southern States because that 

area is outside the historical range of the 

species. The second part of the final rule 

separated the remainder of the 32 States 

and Mexico into three gray wolf DPSs, 

and it gave each DPS a separate listing 

under the Act as threatened or 

endangered (see Figure 1 below). 

Additionally, new special regulations 

under section 4(d) of the Act were 

established for portions of the Western 

and Eastern Gray Wolf DPSs.

On March 1, 2000, we received a 

petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of 

Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 

2000, we received a petition from the 

Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. 

Krak’s petition requested the delisting of 

gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan. The Minnesota 

Conservation Federation requested the 

delisting of gray wolves in a Western 

Great Lakes DPS. Because the data 

reviews resulting from the processing of 

these petitions would be a subset of the 

review begun by our July 13, 2000, 

proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the 

current listing of the gray wolf across 

most of the conterminous United States, 

we did not initiate separate reviews in 

response to those two petitions. This 

proposed rule constitutes both our 90-

day finding that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted and our 12-month 

finding that the actions are warranted. 

On April 1, 2003, we also received a 

petition from Defenders of Wildlife, 

Sierra Club, RESTORE: The North 

Woods, and The Wildlands Project 

requesting that we list a DPS of wolves 

in the northeastern United States. As 

explained in the April 1, 2003, 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804) and 

our September 12, 2003, response to the 

petitioners, the absence of a wolf 

population in the Northeast precluded 

us from designating that entity as a 

separate DPS. Instead, the EDPS 

includes New Hampshire, Maine, 

Vermont, and New York; any gray 

wolves that may exist in or disperse into 

these States continue to be protected as 

threatened under the Act until a final 

delisting of the EDPS is published. 


EP21JY04.005</GPH>
43668 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

E. Purpose and Definitions of the Act 

The primary purpose of the Act is to 

prevent the endangerment and 

extinction of animal and plant species. 

The Act requires the Service to identify 

species that meet the Act’s definitions of 

endangered or threatened, to add those 

species that meet either of these 

definitions to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, 

respectively), and to plan and 

implement conservation actions to 

improve their status to the point at 

which they no longer need the 

protections of the Act. When that 

protection is no longer needed, we take 

steps to remove (delist) the species from 

the Federal lists. If a species is listed as 

endangered, we may first reclassify it to 

threatened status as an intermediate 

step, if the species has met the 

downlisting criteria outlined in its 

recovery plan before its eventual 

delisting; reclassification before 

delisting, however, is not required. 

Section 3 of the Act provides the 

following definitions that are relevant to 

this rule: 

Endangered species—any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range; 

Threatened species—any species 

which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range; and 

Species—includes any subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. (For 

further information on DPSs, see our 

February 7, 1996, DPS policy (61 FR 

4722) or the April 1, 2003, final gray 

wolf reclassification rule (68 FR 15804)). 

Understanding the Service’s strategy 

for gray wolf recovery also requires an 

understanding of the meaning of 

‘‘recover’’ and ‘‘conserve’’ under the 

Act. ‘‘Conserve’’ is defined in the Act 

itself (section 3(3)) whereas ‘‘recovery’’

is defined in the Act’s implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. 

Conserve—defined, in part as ‘‘the use 

of all measures and procedures which 

are necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to this Act are no longer 

necessary.’’

Recovery—improvement in the status 

of listed species to the point at which 

listing is no longer appropriate under 

the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act. Essentially, ‘‘recover’’ and 

‘‘conserve’’ both mean to bring a species 

to the point at which it no longer needs 

the protections of the Act because the 

species is no longer threatened or 

endangered. 

The Service will determine whether a 

species is endangered or threatened 

only after assessing its status throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

A species does not have to be recovered 

throughout all of its historical range 

before it can be delisted; however, 

within its current range it must no 

longer be in danger of extinction or 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

F. Recovery Planning and Recovery 

Criteria for the Eastern Timber Wolf 

The Eastern Gray Wolf DPS was 

established on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 

15804). It is important to note that a 

DPS is a listed entity under the Act, and 

is treated the same as a listed species or 

subspecies. It is listed, protected, 

subject to interagency consultation, and 

recovered just as any other threatened or 

endangered species or subspecies. A 

DPS will have its own recovery plan 

and its own recovery goals. As with a 

species or subspecies, we are not 

required to seek restoration of the 

animal throughout the entire geographic 

area of the DPS, but only to the point 

at which it no longer meets the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species.

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for listed entities: Species, subspecies, 

or DPS. In some cases, we appoint 

recovery teams of experts to assist in the 

writing of recovery plans and to provide 

advice to the Service on subsequent 

recovery efforts. Recovery plans contain 

criteria that trigger our consideration of 

the need to either reclassify (from 

endangered to threatened) a species due 

to improvements in its status or to delist 

the species due to its recovery under the 

Act. Reclassification and recovery 

criteria are based on factors that can be 

measured or otherwise objectively 

evaluated to document improvements in 

a species’ status. Examples of the type 

of criteria typically used are numbers of 

individuals, numbers and distribution 

of subgroups or populations of the 

species, rates of productivity of 

individuals or populations, protection 

of habitat, and reduction or elimination 

of specific threats to the species and its 

habitat. 

We initiated recovery programs for 

the originally listed gray wolf 

subspecies by appointing recovery 

teams and developing and 

implementing recovery plans. In 

addition to containing the criteria to 

assess a species’ progress toward 

recovery, recovery plans describe and 

prioritize specific actions necessary to 

achieve the recovery criteria and 

objectives and identify appropriate 

parties to implement each action. 

Once a species has met its delisting 

criteria and no longer meets the 

definition of endangered or threatened, 

it is considered to be recovered and 

should be delisted. The restoration of a 

species throughout its historical range, 

or even throughout the entire remaining 

suitable habitat, may not be necessary 

for a species to be delisted. Recovery 

plans generally do not require 

restoration of the species throughout its 

historical range to achieve recovery 

under the Act. 

The 1978 Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan) 

was approved on May 2, 1978, (USFWS 

1978) and revised and approved on 

January 31, 1992 (USFWS 1992a). The 

1978 Recovery Plan and its 1992 

revision were intended to recover the 

eastern timber wolf, Canis lupus lycaon, 

thought at that time to be the gray wolf 

subspecies that historically inhabited 

the United States east of the Great 

Plains. Thus, this Recovery Plan covers 

a geographic triangle extending from 

Minnesota to Maine and into 

northeastern Florida, an area consistent 

with the geographic coverage of the 

EDPS (when corrected for the lack of 

historical gray wolf range in the 

southeastern United States). The 

Recovery Plan was based on the best 

available information on wolf taxonomy 

at the time of its original publication 

and subsequent revision. Since the 

publication of those recovery plans, 

various studies have produced 

conflicting results regarding the identity 

of the wolf that historically occupied 

the eastern States. Because this conflict 

is still unresolved, this recovery 

program has continued its original focus 

on recovering the gray wolf population 

that survived in, and has expanded 

outward from, northeastern Minnesota, 

regardless of its subspecific identity. 

(See the Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in 

the Northeastern United States section 

above). 

G. Recovery of the Eastern Gray Wolf 

The 1978 and the 1992 revised 

Recovery Plans each have two delisting 

criteria. The first delisting criterion 

states that the survival of the wolf in 

Minnesota must be assured. We, and the 

Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team 

(Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber Wolf 

Recovery Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, 

1999a, 1999b), believe that this first 

delisting criterion remains valid. It 

identifies a need for reasonable 

assurances that future State, tribal, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43669

Federal wolf management practices and 

protection will maintain a viable 

recovered population of gray wolves 

within the borders of Minnesota for the 

foreseeable future. The Recovery Plan’s 

subgoal for Minnesota is 1,251 to 1,400 

wolves (USFWS 1992a). 

The second delisting criterion in the 

Recovery Plan states that at least one 

viable wolf population should be 

reestablished within the historical range 

of the eastern timber wolf outside of 

Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. 

The Recovery Plan provides two options 

for reestablishing this second viable 

wolf population. If it is located more 

than 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf 

population, the second population 

should consist of at least 200 wolves for 

at least 5 years (based upon late-winter 

population estimates) to be considered 

viable. Alternatively, if the second 

population is located within 100 miles 

of a self-sustaining wolf population (for 

example, the Minnesota wolf 

population), a reestablished second 

population having a minimum of 100 

wolves for at least 5 years would be 

considered viable. 

The Recovery Plan does not specify 

where in the eastern United States the 

second population should be 

reestablished. Therefore, the second 

population could be located anywhere 

within the triangular Minnesota-MaineFlorida area covered by the Recovery 

Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) 

or within Minnesota. The 1978 

Recovery Plan identified potential gray 

wolf restoration areas throughout the 

eastern United States, including 

northern Wisconsin and Michigan and 

extending as far south as the Great 

Smoky Mountains and adjacent areas in 

Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. 

The revised 1992 Recovery Plan, 

however, dropped from consideration 

the more southern potential restoration 

areas, because recovery efforts for the 

red wolf were being initiated in those 

areas (USFWS 1978, 1992a). The 

recovery criteria do not suggest that 

either the restoration of the gray wolf 

throughout all or most of its historical 

range in the eastern United States are 

necessary to achieve recovery under the 

Act. 

In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf 

Recovery Team clarified the delisting 

criterion for the second population (i.e., 

the wolves in northern Wisconsin and 

the adjacent Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan) (Rolf Peterson, Eastern 

Timber Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 

1998). It stated that the numerical 

delisting criterion for the WisconsinMichigan population will be achieved 

when 6 consecutive late-winter wolf 

surveys documented that the population 

equaled or exceeded 100 wolves 

(excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 

consecutive years between the 6 surveys 

(Rolf Peterson, in litt. 1998). The 

Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population 

was first known to have exceeded 100 

wolves in the late-winter 1993–94 

survey and the numerical delisting 

criterion was satisfied in early 1999, 

based upon late-winter 1998–99 data 

(Beyer et al. 2001, Wydeven et al. 1999). 

The Recovery Plan has no goals or 

criteria for the gray wolf population on 

546 km2 (210 mi2) Isle Royale, 

Michigan. The wolf population of Isle 

Royale National Park, Michigan, is not 

considered to be an important factor in 

the recovery or long-term survival of 

wolves in the EDPS. This population is 

small, varying from 12 to 29 animals 

over the last 20 years, and is almost 

completely isolated from other wolf 

populations (Peterson et al. 1998, pers. 

comm. 1999, Peterson and Vucetich 

2004). For these reasons, the Eastern 

Plan does not include these wolves in 

its recovery criteria and recommends 

only the continuation of research and 

complete protection for these wolves 

(USFWS 1992a). Unless stated 

otherwise in this proposal, subsequent 

discussions of Michigan wolves do not 

refer to wolves on Isle Royale. 

Minnesota 

During the pre-1965 period of wolf 

bounties and legal public trapping, 

wolves persisted in the more remote 

northeastern areas of Minnesota, but 

were eliminated from the rest of the 

State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota 

wolves before their listing under the Act 

in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950–53 

(Fuller et al. 1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 

to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in 

1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in 

1971–72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and 500 to 

1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). 

Although these estimates were based 

upon different methodologies and are 

not directly comparable, each estimates 

pre-listing abundance of wolves in 

Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the 

only significant population in the 

United States outside Alaska during 

those time-periods. 

After the wolf was listed as 

endangered under the Act, population 

estimates in Minnesota indicated 

increasing numbers in the State (see 

Table 1 below). L. David Mech 

estimated the population to be 1,000 to 

1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978); Berg and 

Kuehn (1982) estimated that there were 

1,235 wolves in 138 packs in the winter 

of 1978–79. In 1988–89, the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (MN 

DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey and 

also used a second method to estimate 

wolf numbers in the State. The resulting 

independent estimates were 1,500 and 

1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs 

(Fuller et al. 1992).

TABLE 1.—GRAY WOLF POPULATION IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN FROM 1976 THROUGH 2004 

[Note that there are several years between the first three Minnesota surveys.] 

Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan 

1976 .............................................................................. 1,000–1,200 .................................................................. ........................ ........................

1978–79 ........................................................................ 1,235 ............................................................................. ........................ ........................

1988–89 ........................................................................ 1,500–1,750 .................................................................. ........................ ........................

1993–94 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 57 57 

1994–95 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 83 80 

1995–96 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 99 116 

1996–97 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 148 112 

1997–98 ........................................................................ 2,445 ............................................................................. 178 140 

1998–99 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 205 174 

1999–2000 .................................................................... ....................................................................................... 248 216 

2000–01 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 257 249 

2001–02 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 327 278 

2002–03 ........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 335 321 

2003–04 ........................................................................ Pending* ....................................................................... 373 360 

*Minnesota DNR conducted another survey of the State’s wolf population and range during the winter of 2003–04. A preliminary population estimate may be available for review by mid-July 2004. 

43670 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

During the winter of 1997–98, a 

statewide wolf population and 

distribution survey was repeated by MN 

DNR, using methods similar to those of 

the two previous surveys. Field staff of 

Federal, State, Tribal, and county land 

management agencies and wood 

products companies were queried to 

identify occupied wolf range in 

Minnesota. Data from five concurrent 

radio telemetry studies tracking 36 

packs, representative of the entire 

Minnesota wolf range, were used to 

determine average pack size and 

territory area. Those figures were then 

used to calculate a statewide estimate of 

pack numbers and the overall wolf 

population in the occupied range, with 

single (non-pack) wolves factored into 

the estimate (Berg and Benson 1999). 

The 1997–98 survey concluded that 

approximately 2,445 wolves existed in 

about 385 packs in Minnesota during 

that winter period. This figure indicates 

the continued growth of the Minnesota 

wolf population at an average rate of 

about 3.7 percent annually. The 

Minnesota wolf population has shown 

approximately this average annual rate 

of increase since 1970 (Berg and Benson 

1999, Fuller et al. 1992). No rigorous 

survey of the Minnesota wolf 

population has been conducted since 

the winter of 1997–98, but biologists 

generally accept that the population has 

increased (Mech 1998, Paul 2001). 

As wolves increased in abundance in 

Minnesota, they also expanded their 

distribution. During 1948–53, the major 

wolf range was estimated to be about 

31,080 km 2 (11,954 mi 2) (Stenlund 

1955). A 1970 questionnaire survey 

resulted in an estimated wolf range of 

38,400 km 2 (14,769 mi 2) (calculated by 

Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom 1970). 

Fuller et al. (1992), using data from Berg 

and Kuehn (1982), estimated that 

Minnesota primary wolf range included 

36,500 km 2 (14,038 mi 2) during winter 

1978–79. By 1982–83, pairs or breeding 

packs of wolves were estimated to 

occupy an area of 57,050 km 2 (22,000 

mi 2) in northern Minnesota (Mech et al.

1988). That study also identified an 

additional 40,500 km 2 (15,577 mi 2) of 

peripheral range, where habitat 

appeared suitable but no wolves or only 

lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study 

produced an estimate of 60,200 km 2

(23,165 mi 2) as the contiguous wolf 

range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller 

et al. 1992), an increase of 65 percent 

over the primary range calculated for 

1978–79. The 1997–98 study concluded 

that the contiguous wolf range had 

expanded to 88,325 km 2 (33,971 mi 2), 

a 47 percent increase in 9 years (Berg 

and Benson 1999). Thewolf population 

in Minnesota had recovered to the point 

that its contiguous range covered 

approximately 40 percent of the State 

during 1997–98. 

Minnesota DNR conducted another 

survey of the State’s wolf population 

and range during the winter of 2003–04 

using methodology similar to that used 

in 1988–89 and 1997–98 (John Erb, MN 

DNR, pers. comm. 2003). A preliminary 

population estimate may be available for 

review by mid-July 2004. The final 

results of that survey will be posted on 

our web site (http://midwest/fws.gov/

wolf) as soon as they are available. 

Those results will be used in our final 

decision on this proposal. 

Wisconsin 

Wolves were considered to have been 

extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No 

formal attempts were made to monitor 

the State’s wolf population from 1960 

until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, 

individual wolves and an occasional 

wolf pair were reported. There is no 

documentation, however, of any wolf 

reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, 

and the wolves that were reported may 

have been dispersing animals from 

Minnesota. 

Wolf population monitoring by the WI 

DNR began in 1979 and estimated a 

statewide population of 25 wolves at 

that time. This population remained 

relatively stable for several years, then 

declined slightly to approximately 15 to 

19 wolves in the mid-1980s. In the late 

1980s, the Wisconsin wolf population 

began an increase that has continued 

into 2004. 

Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys 

its wolf population annually using a 

combination of aerial, ground, and 

satellite radio telemetry, complemented 

by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys 

(Wydeven et al. 1995, 2003). Wolves are 

trapped from May through September 

and fitted with radio collars, with a goal 

of having at least one radio-collared 

wolf in about half of the wolf packs in 

Wisconsin. Aerial locations are obtained 

from each functioning radio collar about 

once per week, and pack territories are 

estimated from the movements of the 

individuals who exhibit localized 

patterns. From December through 

March, the pilots make special efforts to 

visually locate and count the individual 

wolves in each radio-tracked pack. 

Snow tracking is used to supplement 

the aerial sighting-based counts and to 

provide pack size estimates for packs 

lacking a radio-collared wolf. Tracking 

is done by assigning survey blocks to 

trackers who then drive snow-covered 

roads in their blocks and follow all wolf 

tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are 

used to locate wolf tracks in more 

remote areas with low road density. The 

results of the aerial and ground surveys 

are carefully compared to properly 

separate packs and to avoid overcounting (Wydeven et al. 2003). The 

number of wolves in each pack is 

estimated based on the aerial and 

ground observations made of the 

individual wolves in each pack over the 

winter. 

During the winter of 2002–03, 43 of 

Wisconsin’s 94 wolf packs (46 percent) 

had members carrying active radio 

transmitters much of the season. Thirtynine of the 66 monitored wolves were 

located 20 or more times during the 

mid-September to mid-April period, 

providing excellent information on 

home range boundaries and pack 

territory size (Wydeven et al. 2003). 

Minimum wolf population estimates 

(late-winter counts) for 1994 through 

2003 increased from 57 to 335 animals, 

comprising 14 to 94 packs respectively 

(Wydeven et al. 2003) (see Table 1 

above). An estimated 373 to 410 wolves 

in 109 packs, including 12 wolves on 

Native American reservations, were in 

the State in 2004, representing an 11 

percent increase from 2003 (WI DNR 

2004). 

Because the monitoring methods 

focus on wolf packs, it is believed that 

lone wolves are undercounted in 

Wisconsin, and, as a result, these 

population estimates are probably slight 

underestimates of the actual wolf 

population within the State during the 

late-winter period. Also, these estimates 

are made at the low point of the annual 

wolf population cycle—late-winter 

surveys produce an estimate of the wolf 

population at a time when most winter 

mortality has already occurred, but the 

birth of pups has yet to take place. The 

wolf population increases dramatically 

when pups are born, then decreases 

rapidly due to pup mortality, and with 

a subsequent slower decline as other 

mortality factors continue throughout 

the year. Thus, Wisconsin wolf 

population estimates are conservative in 

two respects: they undercount lone 

wolves and the count is made at the 

annual low point of the population. 

However, the recovery criteria 

established in 1992 are consistent with 

existing methodology, establishing 

numerical criteria based on late-winter 

surveys. 

In 1995, wolves were first 

documented in Jackson County, 

Wisconsin, an area well to the south of 

the northern Wisconsin area occupied 

by other Wisconsin wolf packs. The 

number of wolves in this central 

Wisconsin area has dramatically 

expanded since that time. During the 

winter of 2003–04, there were 

approximately 57 wolves in 16 to 17 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43671

packs in central Wisconsin (Wydeven 

pers. comm. 2004). 

During the winter of 2002–03, 7 

wolves occurred on Native American 

reservations in Wisconsin (Wydeven et 

al. 2003), and this increased to 12 

wolves in the winter of 2003–04 (WI 

DNR 2004). These animals were on the 

Bad River (10) and Lac Courte Oreilles 

Reservations (2) (Wydeven in litt. 2004). 

There also is evidence of individual 

wolves on the Lac du Flambeau and 

Menominee Reservations, with a high 

likelihood of wolf packs developing on 

these reservations in the near future 

(Wydeven pers. comm. 2002). 

Additionally, the Red Cliff and 

Stockbridge-Munsee Reservations and 

scattered Potawatomi and Ho-Chunk 

lands will likely support wolves in the 

near future (Wydeven in litt. 2003).

In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin 

alone surpassed the goal for a second 

population, as identified in the 

Recovery Plan (i.e., 100 wolves within 

100 miles for a minimum of 5 

consecutive years, as measured in 6 

consecutive late-winter counts). The 

Wisconsin wolf population continues to 

increase, although the slower rates of 

increase seen in the 2001 and 2003 

surveys (3.6 and 2.4 percent, 

respectively, above the previous year) 

may be the first indications that the 

State’s wolf population growth and 

geographic expansion are beginning to 

level off. The much higher rates of 

growth seen in 2000 and 2002 (20.9 and 

27.2 percent, respectively), however, 

indicate that it is too soon to conclude 

that wolf numbers in Wisconsin have 

reached a plateau. Over the last 10 

years, the Wisconsin wolf population 

grew at an annualized rate of 24 percent. 

Michigan 

Michigan wolves were extirpated as a 

reproducing population long before they 

were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior 

to 1991, and excluding Isle Royale, the 

last known breeding population of wild 

Michigan wolves occurred in the mid1950s. As wolves began to reoccupy 

northern Wisconsin, the MI DNR began 

noting single wolves at various locations 

in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In 

the late 1980s, a wolf pair was verified 

in the central Upper Peninsula, and it 

produced pups in 1991. Since that time, 

wolf packs have spread throughout the 

Upper Peninsula, with immigration 

occurring from both Wisconsin on the 

west and Ontario on the east. They now 

are found in every county of the Upper 

Peninsula. 

The MI DNR annually monitors the 

wolf population in the Upper Peninsula 

by intensive late-winter tracking surveys 

that focus on each pack. The Upper 

Peninsula is divided into seven 

monitoring zones, and specific 

surveyors are assigned to each zone. 

Pack locations are derived from 

previous surveys, citizen reports, and 

ground and aerial tracking of radiocollared wolves. During the winter of 

2002–03 at least 68 wolf packs were 

resident in the Upper Peninsula. 

Approximately 30 to 35 percent of these 

packs had members with active radiotracking collars (Dean Beyer, MI DNR, 

pers. comm. 2004). Care is taken to 

avoid double-counting packs and 

individual wolves, and a variety of 

evidence is used to distinguish adjacent 

packs and accurately count their 

members (Beyer et al. 2003). Surveys 

along the border of adjacent monitoring 

zones are coordinated to avoid doublecounting of wolves and packs occupying 

those border areas. In areas with a high 

density of wolves, ground surveys by 

four to six surveyors with concurrent 

aerial tracking are used to accurately 

identify adjacent packs and count their 

members (Potvin et al. submitted). 

From 1994 through 2003, annual 

surveys have documented minimum 

late-winter estimates of wolves 

occurring in the Upper Peninsula as 

increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to 

321 in 2003 (see Table 1 above). Over 

the last 10 years the annualized rate of 

increase has been 27 percent (MI DNR 

1997, 1999a, 2001, 2003). In 2004, the 

late winter population was at least 360 

wolves, up 12 percent from last year (MI 

DNR 2004b). The Michigan Upper 

Peninsula wolf population by itself has 

surpassed the recovery goal for a second 

population of 100 wolves within 100 

miles for a minimum of 5 consecutive 

years (6 late-winter estimates), as 

specified in the Recovery Plan. 

In 2003–04, no wolf packs were 

known to be primarily using tribalowned lands in Michigan (Beyer pers 

comm. 2004). Native American tribes in 

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan own 

small, scattered blocks of land. As such, 

no one tribal property would likely 

support a wolf pack. However, as 

wolves occur in all counties in the 

Upper Peninsula and range widely, 

tribal land is likely utilized periodically 

by wolves. 

As mentioned previously, the wolf 

population of Isle Royale National Park, 

Michigan, is not considered to be an 

important factor in the recovery or longterm survival of wolves in the EDPS. 

This small and isolated wolf population 

is not expected to make a significant 

numerical contribution to gray wolf 

recovery, although long-term research 

on this wolf population has added a 

great deal to our knowledge of the 

species. 

Although there have been reports of 

wolf sightings in the Lower Peninsula of 

Michigan, including a winter 1997 

report of 2 large canids believed to be 

wolves on the ice west of the Mackinaw 

Bridge, there is no evidence that there 

are resident wolves in the Lower 

Peninsula. Recognizing, however, the 

likelihood that small numbers of gray 

wolves will eventually move into the 

Lower Peninsula, MI DNR has begun a 

revision of its Wolf Management Plan to 

incorporate provisions for wolf 

management there. 

When the wolf population estimates 

of Wisconsin and Michigan are 

combined, the total population has 

exceeded the second population 

recovery goal of 200 wolves for 5 

consecutive years for a geographically 

isolated wolf population. The two-State 

wolf population, excluding Isle Royale 

wolves, has exceeded 200 wolves since 

late-winter 1995–96. 

Northeastern United States 

Wolves were extirpated from the 

northeastern United States by 1900. Few 

credible observations of wolves were 

reported in the Northeast during most of 

the 20th century. There has been a small 

number of remains or salvages of either 

wolves or wolf-like canids in the 

northeastern United States since 1993. 

Observations of ‘‘wolves’’ cannot be 

verified without physical evidence, 

because wolves may be confused with 

other canids such as large eastern 

coyotes, wolf-dog hybrids, and large 

domestic and feral dogs. As mentioned 

earlier and in the final reclassification 

rule (68 FR 15804), gray wolf-dog 

hybrids are not provided protection of 

the Act, regardless of the geographic 

location of the capture of their pure wolf 

ancestors. Therefore, only recent wolf or 

wolf-like canid remains in the 

northeastern United States and adjacent 

Quebec are summarized here. 

Recent reports and analyses 

confirmed the presence of four wolf-like 

canids in the northeastern United States 

and one in Canada just north of the 

United States border. Three of these 

wolves (including the Canadian wolf) 

were determined to be gray wolves, 

whereas the other two have been found 

to be hybrids of various lineages. Of the 

three gray wolf-like canids, two showed 

genetic linkages with wolves in 

Canada’s Algonquin Provincial Park 

area. However, there is no evidence of 

the presence of a self-sustaining wolf 

population in the northeastern United 

States. 

In 1993, a 63-pound female canid was 

killed in northwestern Maine. The 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 

and Wildlife concluded that this animal 

43672 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

was of captive origin because it 

reportedly visited a campsite the day 

before its death. The Service, however, 

found no evidence that this animal was 

captive held and determined it to be a 

gray wolf (consistent with DNA from an 

Algonquin Provincial Park area wolf). 

The animal was tested for distemper 

vaccine and evidence of vaccination 

was not found. Additionally, it had 

calloused foot pads typical of a wild 

animal. 

In 1996, an 86-pound male canid was 

killed in Aurora, Maine. The Service 

conducted a genetic evaluation to 

establish species identity, which was 

inconclusive. Canadian geneticist Dr. 

Brad White (in litt. 1999) states that, 

based on his analysis, the animal 

appeared 75 percent southeastern 

Canadian wolf (lycaon type) and 25 

percent coyote. The animal tested 

negative for routine vaccinations, 

exhibited worn foot pads, had beaver 

remains in its stomach, and otherwise 

appeared to be of wild origin. The 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 

and Wildlife initially referred to this 

canid as a ‘‘probable wolf,’’ but 

subsequently described it as a coyote (K. 

Elowe, in litt. August 2003). In 1997, the 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 

and Wildlife placed infrared cameras at 

carcasses and conducted howling 

surveys in this area. No further evidence 

of other large canids was obtained. We 

concluded that this animal was a hybrid 

between a coyote and southeastern 

Canadian wolf. 

In 1997, a 72-pound canid was shot in 

Glover, Vermont. Samples were sent to 

three labs for genetic analyses: The 

Service’s lab in Ashland, Oregon; the 

University of California at Los Angeles 

(UCLA); and the Wildlife Forensic DNA 

Lab at MacMaster University in Ontario, 

Canada. Thus far, results from UCLA 

indicate that the canid’s mitochondrial 

DNA match that of a wolf (Canis lupus 

lycaon); however, because this analysis 

only identifies maternal ancestry, it 

does not rule out the possibility that the 

animal may have been sired by a coyote 

or domestic dog. In contrast, the 

Service’s Ashland lab typed the animal 

using mitochondrial DNA as coyote, 

whereas the nuclear DNA suggests 

coyote/Alaskan malamute dog. The 

Service concluded that the animal was 

likely of hybrid origin.

In 2001, a male animal reported to be 

85 pounds was killed in Day (near 

Edinburg), Saratoga County, New York. 

The skin, carcass, and skull were 

examined by Dr. Robert Chambers 

(formerly of the College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry 

and authority on New York coyotes), 

who reported that the animal’s head was 

atypical in shape for either a coyote or 

a wolf. Dr. Chambers also noted that its 

teeth were not typical for a wild canid 

and more consistent with that of a 

domestic dog. The Service’s Ashland 

forensic lab, however, recently 

completed mitochondrial DNA and 

nuclear DNA analyses on this animal 

and determined that it was a gray wolf. 

No evidence was found to indicate that 

the animal was of captive origin. 

In 2002, a 64-pound male, wolf-like 

canid was trapped and killed north of 

the United States border near SanteMarguerite-de-Lingwick in southern 

Quebec Province, Canada. 

Mitochondrial DNA samples were 

consistent with Canis l. lycaon/C. 

latrans and the microsatellite genotype 

showed 95 percent ancestry with 

Eastern wolves from Algonquin 

Provincial Park (Villemure and Jolicoeur 

submitted 2003). The authors describe 

this animal as the first confirmed 

occurrence of a wolf, C. Lupus, [in 

Canada] south of the St. Lawrence River 

in over 100 years. 

For the past decade, the Service, the 

State of Maine, the National Wildlife 

Federation, and several other private 

organizations have conducted surveys 

and responded to sightings of large 

canids in an attempt to document the 

presence of wolves or wolf-like canids 

in the northeastern United States. These 

efforts have not documented the 

occurrence of wolves or wolf-like canids 

in addition to those discussed above, 

nor have they found evidence that a 

population of wolves is breeding in the 

northeastern United States. 

While the northeastern United States 

may contain a large area of historical 

range not currently occupied by 

breeding wolves, recovery of the EDPS 

is not contingent on a secure population 

of wolves being established in this area. 

It is appropriate to delist the EDPS even 

if a substantial amount of the historical 

range remains unoccupied if the 

population in its current range is 

recovered. For this reason, we believe 

that gray wolf recovery in the eastern 

United States has been achieved by 

restoring the species to its core areas 

within the EDPS, consisting of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

Although we believe that additional 

wolf restoration is not necessary within 

the eastern United States before 

delisting the EDPS, delisting will not 

preclude States and Tribes from 

undertaking additional wolf restoration 

programs. 

Other Areas in the Eastern DPS 

The increasing numbers of wolves in 

Minnesota and the accompanying 

expansion of their range westward and 

southwestward in the State have led to 

an increase in dispersing, mostly young 

wolves that have been documented in 

North and South Dakota in recent years. 

No surveys have been conducted to 

document the number of wolves present 

in North Dakota or South Dakota. The 

North Dakota Fish and Game 

Department (Phil Mastrangelo pers. 

comm. 2004), USDA Wildlife Services 

(John Paulson pers. comm. 2004), and 

the Service estimate the number of 

wolves in North Dakota to be 10 to 20 

animals; in South Dakota, single wolves 

have been sighted, but no resident 

wolves have been documented. 

An examination of skull morphology 

of North and South Dakota wolves 

indicates that of eight examined, seven 

likely had dispersed from Minnesota; 

the eighth probably came from 

Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 

1994). Genetic analysis of an additional 

gray wolf killed in 2001 in extreme 

northwestern South Dakota indicates 

that it, too, originated from the 

Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf 

population (Straughan and Fain 2002). 

Additionally, wolves from the 

Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan 

population are traveling to other States 

in the EDPS. In October 2001, a wolf 

was killed in north-central Missouri by 

a farmer who stated that he thought it 

was a coyote. The wolf’s ear tag 

identified it as having originated from 

the western portion of Michigan’s Upper 

Peninsula, where it had been captured 

as a juvenile in July 1999. Another wolf 

was shot and killed in Marshall County, 

Illinois, in December 2002, and in that 

same month a wolf was mistaken for a 

coyote and shot near Spalding, 

Nebraska. A fourth Great Lakes wolf was 

found dead in Randolph County in eastcentral Indiana (about 12 miles from the 

Ohio border) in June 2003. That wolf 

originated in Jackson County, 

Wisconsin. 

Wolf dispersal is expected to continue 

as wolves travel from the core recovery 

populations into areas where wolves are 

extremely sparse or absent. Unless they 

return to a core recovery population and 

join or start a pack there, they are 

unlikely to contribute to wolf recovery. 

Although it is possible for them to 

encounter another wolf, mate, and 

reproduce outside the core wolf areas, 

the lack of large expanses of 

unfragmented public land will make it 

difficult for wolf packs to persist in 

these areas. 

Gray wolf recovery in the eastern 

United States has been achieved by 

restoring the species to its core recovery 

areas within the EDPS, consisting of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, to 

the point where it is not in danger of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43673

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. We do not need to recover the 

wolf in other areas of the eastern United 

States to delist the EDPS. Once 

protection of the Act is removed, States 

and Tribes may undertake additional 

wolf recovery programs if they are 

interested. The Service does not intend 

to undertake any additional wolf 

recovery efforts within the States that 

are part of the EDPS, before or after 

delisting. We may, however, provide 

technical assistance to States and tribes 

who wish to develop wolf recovery 

plans beyond those that have already 

been undertaken. 

H. Principles of Conservation Biology 

Representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy are three principles of 

conservation biology that are generally 

recognized as being necessary to 

conserve the biodiversity of an area 

(Shaffer and Stein 2000). These 

principles apply when establishing 

goals for individual species’ recovery 

under the Act. 

The principle of representation is the 

need to preserve ‘‘some of all 

available’’—every species, every habitat, 

and every biotic community—so 

biodiversity can be maintained. At the 

species level, it also calls for preserving 

the genetic diversity that remains within 

a species to maximize its ability to adapt 

to its environment. 

Redundancy and resiliency both deal 

with preserving ‘‘enough to last,’’ but 

they address it at distinctly different 

levels. Redundancy addresses the need 

for a sufficient number of populations of 

a species, whereas resiliency deals with 

the necessary size and geographic range 

of individual populations necessary to 

ensure the species’ persistence over 

time. Resiliency increases in relation to 

the geographic range of a population. 

Therefore, populations with a broad 

geographic range are more likely to 

persist in the face of environmental 

changes and other threats to their 

existence. The redundancy provided by 

multiple populations of a species 

provides additional assurances for its 

survival. For example, a threat to one 

population may not affect other 

populations. If that threat leads to the 

extirpation of a population, the species 

would still persist due to the occurrence 

of more than one population that was 

not affected by the same set of factors.

Due to the vast array of life forms that 

are potentially subject to the protections 

of the Act and the variety of physical, 

biological, and cultural factors acting on 

them, these three principles should be 

applied on a species-by-species basis to 

determine the appropriate recovery 

goals. For example, addressing the need 

for redundancy and resiliency for 

nonmotile organisms, species of limited 

range (for example, island or insular 

species), or those species restricted to 

linear features of the environment 

(stream or shoreline species) should be 

expected to result in recovery goals that 

are quite different from goals developed 

for habitat generalist, widely 

distributed, and/or highly mobile 

species like the gray wolf. 

I. Application of Conservation Biology 

Principles to the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS 

In this proposed rule, we evaluate the 

current conditions and the conditions in 

the foreseeable future to determine 

whether the DPS still warrants listing 

under the Act. This includes an 

assessment of progress made to date 

toward the recovery of the Eastern Gray 

Wolf DPS. Because the wolf currently 

resides in only a portion of the DPS, we 

will determine if recovery has been 

achieved across a significant portion of 

the DPS to ensure long-term viability in 

the DPS. We use the principles of 

conservation biology discussed above 

and focus on the size, number, 

composition, distribution, and threats to 

wolves in the EDPS to answer the 

following key question: is the gray wolf 

in danger of extinction, or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future, 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range within the EDPS? 

The original Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf and the 1992 

revision of that plan (USFWS 1978, 

1992a) included criteria to identify 

whether long-term population viability 

of gray wolves would be assured in the 

eastern United States. The 1978 

Recovery Plan embodied conservation 

biology tenets in its recovery criteria 

that the 1992 revised recovery plan 

carried forward. The Eastern Timber 

Wolf Recovery Team (Eastern Team) 

reviewed these criteria in 1997 and 

found them to be adequate and 

sufficient to ensure long-term 

population viability (Peterson in litt.

1997). 

The principles of representation, 

resiliency, and redundancy are fully 

incorporated into the recovery criteria 

developed by the Eastern Team. 

Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf 

population is vital because the 

remaining genetic diversity of gray 

wolves in the eastern United States was 

carried by the several hundred wolves 

that survived in the State into the early 

1970s. The Eastern Team insisted that 

the remnant Minnesota wolf population 

be maintained and expanded to achieve 

wolf recovery in the eastern United 

States, and the successful growth of that 

remnant population has maximized the 

representation of that genetic diversity 

among gray wolves in the eastern 

United States. Furthermore, the Eastern 

Team specified that the Minnesota wolf 

population should increase to 1,250–

1,400 animals, which would increase 

the likelihood of maintaining its genetic 

diversity over the long term, and would 

provide the resiliency to reduce the 

adverse impacts of unpredictable 

chance demographic and environmental 

events. The Minnesota wolf population 

currently is estimated to be double that 

numerical goal. 

The Eastern Team members 

recognized the need for redundancy, 

and specified that this need be 

accomplished by establishing a second 

population of gray wolves in the eastern 

United States. They identified several 

potential locations for the second 

population, including Wisconsin, 

Michigan, northern New York, and 

northern Maine. To ensure that the 

second population also had sufficient 

resiliency to survive normal and 

unexpected variations in population 

size, the Eastern Team specified a 

minimum size for the second 

population that would have to be 

maintained for a minimum of 5 years. If 

the second population was isolated from 

the larger Minnesota population, the 

recovery criteria requires that the 

second population contain at least 200 

wolves for a minimum of 5 years. If, 

however, the second population were 

near (i.e., less than 100 miles from) the 

Minnesota population, the two 

populations would function as a 

‘‘metapopulation’’ rather than as two 

separate and isolated populations; in 

that case the second population would 

be viable if it maintained 100 wolves for 

at least 5 years. Wolf populations near 

Minnesota were likely to be viable at 

this smaller size due to the potential 

immigration of wolves from Minnesota. 

Such a second wolf population has 

developed in Wisconsin and the 

adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

This second population is less than 200 

miles from the Minnesota wolf 

population, and it has had a late-winter 

population exceeding 100 animals since 

1994. 

The number of wolves in the EDPS 

greatly exceeds the recovery criteria 

(USFWS 1992a) for (1) a secure wolf 

population in Minnesota and (2) a 

second population of 100 wolves for 5 

successive years; thus, based on the 

criteria set by the recovery team in 1992, 

the DPS contains sufficient numbers 

and distribution (resiliency and 

redundancy) to ensure the long-term 

survival of gray wolves within the DPS. 

The wolf’s numeric and distributional 

recovery in the EDPS has been achieved. 

43674 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Next we will consider whether the 

significant reduction or removal of 

threats to the gray wolf’s continued 

existence within the DPS demonstrates 

that the species is not likely to become 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range within 

the DPS. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the Act set forth the 

procedures for listing, reclassifying, and 

delisting species. Species may be listed 

as threatened or endangered if one or 

more of the five factors described in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act threaten the 

continued existence of the species. A 

species may be delisted, according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and 

commercial data available substantiate 

that the species is neither endangered 

nor threatened because of (1) extinction, 

(2) recovery, or (3) error in the original 

data, or the data analysis, used for 

classification of the species. A 

determination of recovery must be based 

upon the same five threat factors 

specified in section 4(a)(1).

For species that are being considered 

for delisting, this analysis of threats is 

primarily an evaluation of the threats 

that would, with a reasonable degree of 

likelihood, affect the species in the 

foreseeable future after its delisting and 

the consequent removal of the Act’s 

protections. This may include currently 

existing threats whose impacts are 

sufficiently low so that recovery has 

been achieved despite their impacts; or 

they may be threats that are no longer 

existent, but that may have significant 

adverse effects after delisting. Although 

the latter threats are more difficult to 

identify and evaluate, their potential 

impacts may preclude the long-term 

viability of a species. 

Our evaluation of the threats to the 

gray wolf in the EDPS—especially those 

threats to wolves in the core recovery 

areas that would occur after removal of 

the protections of the Act—is 

substantially based on the wolf 

management plans and assurances of 

the States and Tribes. If the gray wolf is 

federally delisted, State and Tribal 

management plans will be the major 

determinant of wolf protection, will set 

and enforce limits on human take of 

wolves (e.g., for depredation control), 

and will determine the overall 

regulatory framework for the 

conservation and/or exploitation of gray 

wolves. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

A popular perception is that wolves 

inhabit only remote portions of pristine 

forests or mountainous areas, where 

human developments and other 

activities have produced negligible 

change to the natural landscape. Their 

extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, 

except for the heavily forested portions 

of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced 

this popular belief. Wolves, however, 

survived in those areas not because 

those were the only places with the 

necessary habitat conditions, but 

because only in those remote areas were 

they sufficiently free of the human 

persecution that elsewhere killed 

wolves faster than the species could 

reproduce (Mech 1995). 

In the upper Great Lakes region, 

wolves in the densely forested 

northeastern corner of Minnesota have 

expanded into the more agricultural 

portions of central and northwestern 

Minnesota, northern and central 

Wisconsin, and the entire Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. Habitats 

currently being used by wolves span the 

broad range from the mixed hardwoodconiferous forest wilderness area of 

northern Minnesota, through sparsely 

settled, but similar habitats in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 

northern Wisconsin, and into more 

intensively cultivated and livestockproducing portions of central and 

northwestern Minnesota and central 

Wisconsin; wolves even approach the 

fringes of the St. Paul, Minnesota, and 

Madison, Wisconsin, suburbs. Wolves 

also travel from Minnesota into the 

agricultural landscape of North and 

South Dakota in increasing numbers 

(Licht and Fritts 1994, Straughan and 

Fain 2002). Similarly, a radio-collared 

wolf from the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan was recently mistaken for a 

coyote and killed in north-central 

Missouri, presumably traveling through 

expanses of agricultural land along the 

way (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 2001). A wolf originating 

from the Minnesota-WisconsinMichigan population was shot and 

killed in central Illinois, and a young 

wolf from central Wisconsin was shot in 

extreme eastern Indiana, and likely 

traveled through areas of heavy human 

use as it journeyed south and east 

around the highly developed land 

bordering the southern tip of Lake 

Michigan. Similar long-distance 

movement of wolves is expected to 

continue from core areas as these 

animals attempt to disperse into 

unoccupied areas. These movements 

may result in the expansion of the 

population’s range when the wolves 

locate areas with sufficient prey and 

potential mates and where humancaused mortality is not too high to 

preclude their persistence. 

Wolf research and the expansion of 

wolf range over the last three decades 

have shown that wolves can 

successfully occupy a wide range of 

habitats, and they are not dependent on 

wilderness areas (i.e., areas essentially 

free of human disturbance) for their 

survival (Mech 1995). In the past, gray 

wolf populations occupied nearly every 

type of habitat north of mid-Mexico that 

contained large ungulate prey species, 

including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, 

mule deer, moose, and woodland 

caribou. An inadequate prey density 

and a high level of human persecution 

apparently are the only factors that limit 

wolf distribution (Mech 1995). 

Therefore, virtually any area that has 

sufficient prey and adequate protection 

from human-caused mortality could be 

considered potential gray wolf habitat. 

Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan contain large tracts of wolf 

habitat, estimated at 15,052 km2 (5,812 

mi2) and 29,348 km2 (11,331 mi2), 

respectively (Mladenoff et al. 1995; WI 

DNR 1999a). In those States, much of 

the suitable habitat is on public lands 

(national, State, and county forest 

lands). 

Hearne et al. (2003), determined that 

a viable wolf population (that is, having 

less than 10 percent chance of 

extinction over 100 years) should 

consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves, 

and they modeled various likely 

scenarios of habitat conditions in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan and 

northern Wisconsin through the year 

2020 to determine whether future 

conditions would support a wolf 

population of that size. Most scenarios 

of future habitat conditions resulted in 

viable wolf populations in each State 

through 2020. When the model analyzed 

the future conditions in the two States 

combined, all scenarios produced a 

viable wolf population through 2020. 

Three comparable surveys of wolf 

numbers and range in Minnesota have 

been carried out since 1979. These 

surveys estimated that there were 1,235, 

1,500–1,750, and 2,445 wolves in 

Minnesota in 1979, 1989, and 1998, 

respectively (Berg and Kuehn 1982, 

Fuller et al. 1992, Berg and Benson 

1999) (see Table 1 above). Based on 

these surveys, wolf numbers in 

Minnesota increased at annual rates of 

about 3 percent between 1979–89 and 

by about 4 to 5 percent between 1989–

98. As of the 1998 survey, the number 

of wolves in Minnesota was 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43675

approximately twice the planning goal 

for Minnesota, as specified in the 

Eastern Recovery Plan. (Refer to the 

Recovery of the Eastern Gray Wolf

section above, for additional details on 

the increase in numbers and range of 

Minnesota wolves.)

The MN DNR, in cooperation with the 

MN Department of Agriculture, 

completed a Wolf Management Plan 

(Minnesota Plan) in early 2001 (MN 

DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan’s stated 

goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term survival 

of wolves in Minnesota while 

addressing wolf-human conflicts that 

inevitably result when wolves and 

people live in the same vicinity.’’ It 

establishes a minimum goal of 1,600 

wolves, with provisions to monitor the 

population and to take prompt 

corrective action, including habitat 

protection, if wolf numbers drop below 

that threshold. The Minnesota Plan 

divides the State into two wolf 

management zones—Zones A and B (see 

Figure 2 below). Zone A corresponds to 

wolf management zones 1 through 4 (an 

approximately 30,000 mi2 area in 

northeastern Minnesota) in the Service’s 

Eastern Recovery Plan, whereas Zone B 

constitutes zone 5 in the Eastern 

Recovery Plan. Within Zone A, wolves 

would receive strong protection by the 

State, unless they were involved in 

attacks on domestic animals. The rules 

governing the take of wolves to protect 

domestic animals in Zone B would be 

less protective than in Zone A. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

43676 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


EP21JY04.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43677

The Wisconsin wolf population has 

increased at an average annual rate of 18 

percent since 1985. Wisconsin had at 

least 335 wild gray wolves in early 2003 

(Wydeven et al. 2003b), and an 

estimated 373–410 wolves in the State 

in 2004, an 11 percent increase from 

2003 (WI DNR 2004). The Michigan wolf 

population (excluding Isle Royale) has 

increased at an average annual rate of 

about 19 percent between 1995 and 

2002 and the 2003 wolf population was 

at least 321 wolves (Huntzinger et al.

2003). The early 2004 wolf population 

was at least 360 wolves, up 12 percent 

from last year (MI DNR 2004b). Wolf 

survey methods in both States focus on 

wolf packs and may miss many lone 

individuals, thus underestimating the 

actual wolf populations. It is safe to say, 

however, that the combined gray wolf 

population in the two States (excluding 

Isle Royale, MI) was over 700 animals in 

late-winter 2003–04. 

Final State wolf management plans 

for Michigan and Wisconsin have 

identified habitat protection as one of 

their top priorities for maintaining a 

viable wolf population. Both State wolf 

management plans emphasize the need 

to manage human access to wolf areas 

by avoiding increasing road densities, 

protecting habitat corridors between 

larger tracts of wolf habitat, avoiding 

disturbance and habitat degradation in 

the immediate vicinity of den and 

rendezvous sites, and maintaining 

adequate prey species for wolves by 

suitable habitat and prey harvest 

regulations. 

Both the Michigan Plan and the 

Wisconsin Plan establish wolf 

population goals that exceed the viable 

population threshold identified in the 

Federal recovery plan for isolated wolf 

populations, that is, a population of 200 

or more wolves for 5 consecutive years 

(USFWS 1992a). Each State adopted this 

‘‘isolated population’’ approach to 

ensure the continued existence of a 

viable wolf population within its 

borders regardless of the condition or 

existence of wolf populations in 

adjacent States or Canada. (For more 

information on State Management Plans, 

see the Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species section, factor ‘‘D. The 

adequacy or inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms’’ section, 

below.) 

Tribal Lands 

Native American tribes and multitribal organizations have indicated to 

the Service that they will continue to 

conserve wolves on most, and probably 

all, Native American reservations in the 

core recovery areas of the EDPS. The 

wolf retains great cultural significance 

and traditional value to many tribes and 

their members (Eli Hunt, Leech Lake 

Tribal Council, in litt. 1998; Mike 

Schrage, Fond du Lac Resource 

Management Division, in litt. 1998a). 

Some Native Americans view wolves as 

competitors for deer and moose, 

whereas others are interested in 

harvesting wolves as a furbearer 

(Schrage, in litt. 1998a). Many tribes 

intend to sustainably manage their 

natural resources, wolves among them, 

to ensure that they are available to their 

descendants. Traditional natural 

resource harvest practices, however, 

often include only a minimum amount 

of regulation by the tribal government 

(Hunt in litt. 1998).

To retain and strengthen cultural 

connections, some tribes oppose 

unnecessary killing of wolves on 

reservations and on ceded lands, even if 

wolves were to be delisted in the future. 

For example, because of the strong 

cultural significance of the wolf to their 

culture, the Ojibwe people support its 

protection (James Schlender, Great 

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, in litt. 1998). (For detailed 

discussion on tribal management of 

wolves in the EDPS, see the Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species section, 

factor ‘‘D. The adequacy or inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms’’

section, below.) 

Although no tribes have completed 

wolf management plans, based on 

communications with tribes and tribal 

organizations, wolves are likely to be 

adequately protected on tribal lands. 

Furthermore, the numerical recovery 

criteria in the Recovery Plan would be 

achieved (based on the numbers and 

range of off-reservation wolves) even 

without the protection of wolves on 

tribal lands. 

Federal Lands 

National forests, and the prey species 

found in their various habitats, are 

important to wolf conservation and 

recovery in the core areas of the EDPS. 

There are five national forests with 

resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and 

Hiawatha National Forests) in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Their wolf populations range from 

approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion 

of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National 

Forest in northeastern Wisconsin to an 

estimated 300–400 on the Superior 

National Forest in northeastern 

Minnesota. Nearly half of the wolves in 

Wisconsin currently use the 

Chequamegon portion of the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 

All of these national forests are operated 

in conformance with standards and 

guidelines in their management plans 

that follow the 1992 Recovery Plan’s 

recommendations for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992a). Delisting 

is not expected to lead to an immediate 

change in these standards and 

guidelines; in fact, the Regional Forester 

for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is 

expected to maintain the classification 

of the gray wolf as a sensitive species for 

at least 5 years after Federal delisting 

(Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, 

in litt. 2003). The continuation of 

current national forest management 

practices will be important in ensuring 

the long-term viability of gray wolf 

populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan. 

Gray wolves regularly use four units 

of the National Park System in the EDPS 

and may occasionally use three or four 

other units. Although the National Park 

Service (NPS) has participated in the 

development of some of the State wolf 

management plans in this area, NPS is 

not bound by States’ plans. Instead, the 

NPS Organic Act and the NPS 

Management Policy on Wildlife 

authorize the agency to conserve natural 

and cultural resources and the wildlife 

present within the parks. Generally, 

National Park Service management 

policies require that native species be 

protected against harvest, removal, 

destruction, harassment, or harm 

through human action, although certain 

parks may allow some harvest in 

accordance with State management 

plans. Management emphasis in 

National Parks after delisting would 

continue to minimize the human 

impacts on wolf populations. Thus, 

because of their responsibility to 

preserve all wildlife, units of the 

National Park System can be more 

protective of wildlife than are State 

plans and regulations. In the case of the 

gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS 

policies will continue to provide 

protection even after Federal delisting 

has occurred. 

Voyageurs National Park, along 

Minnesota’s northern border, has a land 

base of nearly 882 km2 (340 mi2). There 

are 40 to 55 wolves within 7 to 11 packs 

that exclusively or partially reside 

within the park. Management and 

protection of wolves in the park is not 

likely to change after delisting. The 

park’s management policies require that 

‘‘native animals will be protected 

against harvest, removal, destruction, 

harassment, or harm through human 

action.’’ To reduce human disturbance, 

temporary closures around wolf 

denning and rendezvous sites will be 

enacted whenever they are discovered 

in the park. Sport harvest of wolves 

within the park will be prohibited, 

43678 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

regardless of what may be allowed 

beyond park boundaries (Barbara West, 

National Park Service, in litt. 2004). A 

radiotelemetry study conducted 

between 1987–91 of wolves living in 

and adjacent to the park found that all 

mortality inside the park was due to 

natural causes (e.g., killing by other 

wolves), whereas all mortality outside 

the park was human induced (e.g., 

shooting and trapping) (Gogan et al.

1997). If there is a need to control 

depredating wolves outside the park, 

which seems unlikely due to the current 

absence of agricultural activities 

adjacent to the park, the park would 

work with the State to conduct control 

activities where necessary (West in litt.

2004). 

The wolf population in Isle Royale 

National Park is described above (see

the Recovery of the Eastern Gray Wolf

section). The NPS has indicated that it 

will continue to closely monitor and 

study these wolves. This wolf 

population is very small and isolated 

from the other EDPS gray wolf 

populations; it is not considered to be 

significant to the recovery or long term 

viability of the gray wolf (USFWS 

1992a). 

Two other units of the National Park 

System, Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a 

narrow strip of land along Michigan’s 

Lake Superior shoreline; lone wolves 

periodically use, but do not appear to be 

year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. 

If denning occurred after delisting, the 

Lakeshore would protect denning and 

rendezvous sites at least as strictly as 

the MI Plan recommends (Karen Gustin, 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, in 

litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the 

Lakeshore may be allowed (i.e., if the 

Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the 

State), but trapping would not be 

allowed. The St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, 

is also a mostly linear ownership. At 

least 18 wolves from 6 packs use the 

Riverway. The Riverway is likely to 

limit public access to denning and 

rendezvous sites and to follow other 

management and protective practices 

outlined in the respective State wolf 

management plans, although trapping 

will not be allowed on NPS lands except 

possibly by Native Americans (Robin 

Maercklein, National Park Service, in 

litt. 2003). 

In the EDPS, we currently manage 

seven units within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System with wolf activity. 

Primary among these are Agassiz 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and 

Tamarac NWR in Minnesota, Seney 

NWR in the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan, and Necedah NWR in central 

Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as 

many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in 

recent years, but in 1999 mange and 

illegal shootings reduced them to a 

single pack of five wolves and a separate 

lone wolf. Since 2001, however, two 

packs with a total of 10 to 12 wolves 

have been using the refuge. Tamarac 

NWR has 2 packs, with approximately 

18 wolves, using that refuge. In 2003, 

Seney NWR had one pack with two 

adults and two pups on the refuge. 

Necedah NWR currently has 3 packs 

with a total of 13 to 15 wolves in the 

packs. Rice Lake NWR, in Minnesota, 

has one pack of nine animals using the 

refuge in 2004; other single or paired 

wolves pass through the refuge 

frequently (M. Stefanski, USFWS, pers. 

comm. 2004). In the past ten years, 

Sherburne and Crane Meadows NWRs 

in central Minnesota have reliably had 

intermittent observations and signs of 

individual wolves each year. To date, no 

established packs have been 

documented on either of those refuges. 

The closest established packs are within 

15 miles of Crane Meadows NWR at 

Camp Ripley Military Installation and 

30 miles of Sherburne NWR at Mille 

Lacs State Wildlife Management Area (J. 

Holler, USFWS, pers. comm. 2004).

Gray wolves occurring on NWRs in 

the eastern United States will be 

monitored and refuge habitat 

management will maintain the current 

prey base for them for a minimum of 5 

years after delisting. Trapping or 

hunting by government trappers for 

depredation control will not be 

authorized on NWRs. Because of their 

relatively small size, however, most or 

all of these packs and individual wolves 

also spend significant amounts of time 

off of these NWRs. 

Gray wolves also occupy the Fort 

McCoy military installation in 

Wisconsin. In 2003, one pack containing 

five adult wolves occupied a territory 

that included the majority of the 

installation; in 2004, the installation 

had one pack with two adults. 

Management and protection of wolves 

on the installation will not change 

significantly after Federal and/or State 

delisting. Den and rendezvous sites 

would continue to be protected; nondeer hunting seasons (i.e. coyote) would 

be closed during the gun-deer season; 

and current surveys would continue, if 

resources are available. Fort McCoy has 

no plans to allow a public harvest of 

wolves on the installation. (Danny 

Nobles, Department of the Army, in litt.

2004). 

The protection afforded to resident 

and transient wolves, their den and 

rendezvous sites, and their prey by five 

national forests, four National Parks, 

and numerous National Wildlife 

Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan would further ensure the 

conservation of wolves in the three 

States after delisting. 

In summary, we find that the risk of 

gray wolf habitat destruction or 

degradation, a reduction in the range of 

the gray wolf, or related factors that may 

affect gray wolf abundance, will not by 

themselves or in combination with other 

factors cause the EDPS of the gray wolf 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. Ongoing 

effects of recovery efforts over the past 

decade, which resulted in a significant 

expansion of the range of wolves in the 

EDPS, in conjunction with State, Tribal, 

and Federal agency wolf management 

will be adequate to ensure the 

conservation of the EDPS. These 

activities are likely to maintain an 

adequate prey base, preserve denning 

sites and dispersal corridors, and keep 

wolf populations well above the 

numerical recovery criteria established 

in the Federal Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992a). 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Since their listing under the Act, no 

gray wolves have been legally killed or 

removed from the wild in the 

conterminous 48 States for either 

commercial or recreational purposes. 

Some wolves may have been illegally 

killed for commercial use of the pelts 

and other parts, but we think that illegal 

commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or 

parts and illegal capture of wolves for 

commercial breeding purposes is rare. 

We do not expect the use of wolves 

for scientific purposes to increase in 

proportion to total wolf numbers in the 

EDPS after delisting. Before delisting, 

the intentional or incidental killing, or 

capture and permanent confinement, of 

endangered or threatened gray wolves 

for scientific purposes has only legally 

occurred under permits issued by us (for 

example, under section 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act), under an 

incidental take statement issued by us 

in conjunction with a biological opinion 

completed under section 7(a)(2), under 

an incidental take permit issued by us 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), or by a 

State agency operating under a 

cooperative agreement with us pursuant 

to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 

17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although 

exact figures are not available, 

throughout the coterminous 48 States, 

such removals of wolves from the wild 

have been very limited and probably 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43679

comprise an average of fewer than two 

animals per year since the species was 

first listed as endangered. In the EDPS, 

these animals were either taken from the 

Minnesota wolf population during longterm research activities (about 15 gray 

wolves) or were accidental takings as a 

result of research activities in Wisconsin 

(4 to 5 mortalities and 1 long-term 

confinement) (William Berg, MN DNR, 

in litt. 1998; Mech, in litt. 1998; 

Wydeven 1998). 

The Minnesota DNR plans to 

encourage the study of wolves with 

radio-telemetry after delisting, with an 

emphasis on areas where they expect 

wolf-human conflicts and where wolves 

are expanding their range (MN DNR 

2001). The handling of animals, 

including the administration of drugs, 

may result in some accidental deaths of 

wolves. We assume that radio-telemetry 

will not increase significantly above the 

level observed before delisting in 

proportion to wolf abundance; adverse 

effects to wolves associated with such 

activities has been minimal (see below) 

and would not constitute a threat to the 

EDPS. 

We believe that no wolves have been 

legally removed from the wild for 

educational purposes in recent years. 

Wolves that are used for such purposes 

are the captive-reared offspring of 

wolves that were already in captivity for 

other reasons. 

Refer to the Depredation Control 

Programs section under the Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species section, 

factor D. The adequacy or inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms, below, 

for discussions of additional wolf 

mortalities associated with wolf 

depredation control programs. For a 

discussion on commercial and 

recreational hunting and trapping, refer 

to the Predation section under the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section, factor C. Disease or 

predation, below. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease. Many diseases and parasites 

have been reported for the gray wolf, 

and several of them have had significant 

impacts during the recovery of the 

species in the 48 conterminous United 

States (Brand et al. 1995). These 

diseases and parasites, and perhaps 

others, may significantly threaten gray 

wolf populations in the future. Thus, to 

avoid a decline caused by diseases or 

parasites, States and their partners will 

have to diligently monitor the 

prevalence of these pathogens and 

respond to significant outbreaks. 

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a 

relatively new disease that infects 

wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, 

skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the 

United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, 

it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based 

upon retrospective serologic evidence) 

live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et 

al. 1986). Minnesota wolves, however, 

may have been exposed to the virus as 

early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 1995). 

Serologic evidence of gray wolf 

exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent 

for a group of Minnesota wolves livetrapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993). 

In a captive colony of Minnesota 

wolves, pup and yearling mortality from 

CPV was 92 percent of the animals that 

showed indications of active CPV 

infections in 1983 (Mech and Fritts 

1987), demonstrating the substantial 

impacts this disease can have on young 

wolves. It is believed that the 

population impacts of CPV occur via 

diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to 

abnormally high pup mortality (WI DNR 

1999a). 

There is no evidence that CPV has 

caused a population decline or has had 

a significant impact on the recovery of 

the Minnesota gray wolf population. 

Mech and Goyal (1995), however, found 

that high CPV prevalence in the wolves 

of the Superior National Forest in 

Minnesota occurred during the same 

years in which wolf pup numbers were 

low. Because the wolf population did 

not decline during the study period, 

they concluded that CPV-caused pup 

mortality was compensatory, that is, it 

replaced deaths that would have 

occurred from other causes, especially 

starvation of pups. They theorized that 

CPV prevalence affects the amount of 

population increase and that a wolf 

population will decline when 76 

percent of the adult wolves consistently 

test positive for CPV exposure. Their 

data indicate that CPV prevalence in 

adult wolves in their study area 

increased by an annual average of 4 

percent during 1979–93 and was at least 

80 percent during the last 5 years of 

their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). 

Additional unpublished data gathered 

since 1995 indicate that CPV reduced 

wolf population growth in that area 

from 1979 to 1989, but not since that 

period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data 

provide strong justification for 

continuing population and disease 

monitoring. 

Canine parvovirus probably stalled 

wolf population growth in Wisconsin 

during the early and mid-1980s when 

numbers there declined or were static 

and 75 percent of 32 wolves tested 

positive for CPV. During the following 

years (1988–96) of population increase, 

only 35 percent of the 63 wolves tested 

positive for CPV (WI DNR 1999a). 

Exposure rates for CPV were 50 percent 

in live-captured Wisconsin wolves in 

1995–96 (WI DNR 1999a). Of the 13 

Wisconsin wolves that died and were 

examined in 2000, none of the deaths 

were attributed to CPV (Wydeven et al.

2001a). Similarly, CPV was not noted 

for the 22 wolves with a suspected 

cause of death identified in 2001 (WI 

DNR unpublished data). Recently, CPV 

has been confirmed as the cause of 

death for some pups (Wydeven pers. 

comm. 2004) and the difficulty of 

discovering CPV-killed pups, however, 

must be considered.

Canine parvovirus is considered to 

have been a major cause of the decline 

of the isolated Isle Royale, Michigan, 

population in the mid and late 1980s. 

The Isle Royale gray wolf population 

decreased from 23 and 24 wolves in 

1983 and 1984, respectively, to 12 and 

11 wolves in 1988 and 1989, 

respectively. The wolf population 

remained in the low to mid-teens 

through 1995. Factors other than 

disease, however, may be causing, or 

contributing to, a low level of 

reproductive success, including a low 

level of genetic diversity and a prey 

population composed of young healthy 

moose that may make it difficult to 

secure sufficient prey for pups. 

There are no data showing any CPVcaused population impacts to the larger 

gray wolf population on the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan (Peterson et al.

1998, Hammill pers. comm. 2002, Beyer 

pers. comm. 2003). Mortality data is 

primarily collected from collared 

wolves, however, which until recently 

received CPV inoculations. Therefore, 

mortality data for the Upper Peninsula 

should be interpreted cautiously. 

Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite 

infection of the skin. The irritation 

caused by the feeding and burrowing 

mites results in scratching and then 

severe fur loss, which in turn can lead 

to mortality from exposure during 

severe winter weather. In a long-term 

Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher wolf 

densities were correlated with increased 

incidence of mange, and pup survival 

decreased as the incidence of mange 

increased (Brand et al. 1995). 

From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of livetrapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited 

symptoms of mange. During the winter 

of 1992–93, 58 percent showed 

symptoms, and a concurrent decline in 

the Wisconsin wolf population was 

attributed to mange-induced mortality 

(WI DNR 1999a). Seven Wisconsin 

wolves died of mange from 1993 

through October 15, 1998, and severe 

fur loss affected five other wolves that 

died from other causes. During that 

period, mange was the third largest 

cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, 

43680 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

behind trauma (usually vehicle 

collisions) and shooting (Nancy Thomas 

in litt. 1998). 

The prevalence of mange and its 

impacts on the wolf population have 

increased in Wisconsin. During the 12-

month period from April 2002 through 

March 2003, mange caused the death of 

7 of the 63 Wisconsin wolves that were 

found dead, and 1 wolf was euthanized 

because of the disease. (Depredation 

control took 17 Wisconsin wolves 

during this same period, while 17 died 

from motor vehicle collisions, 15 were 

shot, 1 drowned, and 1 was killed by 

other wolves.) Wolves nearing death 

from mange generally crawl into dense 

cover and are difficult to discover if 

they are not radio-tracked (Shelley and 

Gehring 2002). During the winter of 

2002–03, approximately 36 percent of 

the radio-collared wolves being tracked 

by WI DNR died from mange (Wydeven 

et al. 2003a, 2004). Other observations 

showed that some mangy wolves are 

able to survive the winter (Wydeven et 

al. 2000b, 2001a). 

Pup survival during their first winter 

is believed to be strongly affected by 

mange. Wolf mortality from mange in 

Wisconsin was fairly high in 2003 and 

may have had more severe effects on 

pup survival than in previous years. The 

prevalence of the disease may have 

contributed to the relatively small 

population increase in 2003 (2.4 percent 

in 2003 as compared to the average 18 

percent since 1985). So far, though, 

mange has not caused a decline in the 

State’s wolf population, and even 

though the rate has slowed in recent 

years, the wolf population continues to 

increase despite the continued 

prevalence of mange in Wisconsin 

wolves (Wydeven et al. 2003b). 

Although mange mortality may not be 

the primary determinant of wolf 

population growth in the State, the 

impacts of mange in Wisconsin need to 

be closely monitored as identified in the 

State wolf management plan. 

At least seven wild Michigan wolves 

died from mange during 1993–97, 

making it the most common disease of 

Michigan wolves. From 1999–01, 

mange-induced hypothermia killed all 

seven Michigan wolves whose cause of 

death was attributed to disease 

(Hammill in litt. 2002). Before 2004, MI 

DNR treated all captured wolves with 

Ivermectin if they showed signs of 

mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated 

all captured wolves against CPV and 

canine distemper virus (CDV), and 

administered antibiotics to combat 

potential leptospirosis infections. These 

inoculations will be discontinued in 

2004 to provide more natural biotic 

conditions and to provide biologists 

with an unbiased estimate of diseasecaused mortality rates in the population 

(Beyer per. comm. 2004). 

Wisconsin wolves similarly had been 

treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated 

for CPV and CDV when captured, but 

the practice was stopped in 1995 to 

allow the wolf population to experience 

more natural biotic conditions. Since 

that time, Ivermectin has been 

administered only to captured wolves 

with severe cases of mange. In the 

future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be 

used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, 

but will be used to counter significant 

disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt.

1998). 

Mange has not been documented to be 

a significant disease problem in 

Minnesota. Several packs in the Ely and 

Park Rapids areas, however, are known 

to suffer from mange, and at Agassiz 

NWR in northwestern Minnesota wolves 

were reduced from as many as 20 

animals in 2 to 3 packs in the early 

1990s to a single pack of 5 wolves and 

a separate single wolf in 1999, primarily 

as a result of mange. 

Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete, 

is another relatively recently recognized 

disease, first documented in New 

England in 1975; it may have occurred 

in Wisconsin as early as 1969. It is 

spread by ticks that pass the infection to 

their hosts when feeding. Host species 

include humans, horses, dogs, whitetailed deer, white-footed mice, eastern 

chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves. The 

prevalence of Lyme disease in 

Wisconsin wolves averaged 70 percent 

of live-trapped animals in 1988–91, but 

dropped to 37 percent during 1992–97. 

Although there are no data showing 

wolf mortalities from Lyme disease, it 

may be suppressing population growth 

through decreased wolf pup survival.

Other diseases and parasites, 

including rabies, canine distemper, 

canine heartworm, blastomycosis, 

bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous 

pneumonia, brucellosis, leptospirosis, 

bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, dog 

lice, coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis, 

have been documented in wild gray 

wolves, but their impacts on future wild 

wolf populations are not likely to be 

significant (Brand et al. 1995, Hassett in 

litt. 2003, Johnson 1995, Mech and 

Kurtz 1999, Thomas in litt. 1998, WI 

DNR 1999a). Continuing wolf range 

expansion, however, likely will provide 

new avenues for exposure to several of 

these diseases, especially canine 

heartworm, rabies, and bovine 

tuberculosis (Thomas in litt. 2000), 

further emphasizing the need for disease 

monitoring programs. 

In aggregate, diseases and parasites 

were the cause of 9 percent of the 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves in Michigan from 1992 through 

2003 (MI DNR unpublished data 2004a) 

and 26 percent of the diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared wolves in 

Wisconsin from 1979 through June 2003 

(Hassett in litt. 2003). 

Several of the diseases and parasites 

are known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf 

contact. Therefore, their incidence may 

increase as wolf densities increase in 

newly colonized areas. Because wolf 

densities generally are relatively stable 

following the first few years of 

colonization, wolf-to-wolf contacts will 

not likely lead to a continuing increase 

in disease prevalence (Mech in litt.

1998). 

Disease and parasite impacts may 

increase because several wolf diseases 

are carried and spread by domestic 

dogs. This transfer of diseases and 

parasites from domestic dogs to wild 

wolves may increase as gray wolves 

continue to colonize non-wilderness 

areas (Mech in litt. 1998). Heartworm, 

CPV, and rabies are the main concerns 

(Thomas in litt. 1998). 

Disease and parasite impacts are a 

recognized concern of the Minnesota, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin State DNRs. 

The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan states that necropsies 

will be conducted on all dead wolves, 

and that all live wolves that are handled 

will be examined, with blood, skin, and 

fecal samples taken to provide disease 

information (MI DNR 1997). Similarly, 

the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 

states that as long as the wolf is Statelisted as a threatened or endangered 

species, the WI DNR will conduct 

necropsies of dead wolves and test a 

sample of live-captured wolves for 

diseases and parasites. The goal will be 

to capture and screen 10 percent of the 

State wolf population for diseases 

annually. After State delisting, disease 

monitoring will be scaled back because 

the percentage of the wolf population 

that is live-trapped each year will 

decline. The State will continue to test 

for disease and parasite loads through 

periodic necropsy and scat analyses. 

The plan also recommends that all 

wolves live-trapped for other studies 

should have their health monitored and 

reported to the WI DNR wildlife health 

specialists (WI DNR 1999a). 

The Minnesota Wolf Management 

Plan (MN DNR 2001) states that MN 

DNR ‘‘will collaborate with other 

investigators and continue monitoring 

disease incidence, where necessary, by 

examination of wolf carcasses obtained 

through depredation control programs, 

and also through blood/tissue 

physiology work conducted by DNR and 

the U.S. Geological Survey. DNR will 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43681

also keep records of documented and 

suspected incidence of sarcoptic 

mange.’’ In addition, it will initiate 

‘‘(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues 

of live captured or dead wolves’’ and 

periodically assess wolf health ‘‘when 

circumstances indicate that diseases or 

parasites may be adversely affecting 

portions of the wolf population.’’ Unlike 

Michigan and Wisconsin, Minnesota has 

not established minimum goals for the 

proportion of its wolves that will be 

assessed for disease nor does it plan to 

treat any wolves, although it does not 

rule out these measures. Minnesota’s 

less intensive approach to disease 

monitoring and management seems 

warranted in light of its much greater 

abundance of wolves than in the other 

two States. 

In summary, several diseases have 

had significant impacts on wolf 

population growth in the Great Lakes 

region in the past. These impacts have 

been both direct, resulting in mortality 

of individual wolves, and indirect, by 

reducing longevity and fecundity of 

individuals or entire packs or 

populations. Canine parvovirus stalled 

wolf population growth in Wisconsin in 

the early and mid-1980s and has been 

implicated as a contributing factor in 

declines of the isolated Isle Royale 

population in Michigan. Sarcoptic 

mange has affected wolf recovery in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and in 

Wisconsin over the last ten years, and 

is recognized as a continuing problem. 

Despite these and other diseases and 

parasites, however, the overall trend for 

wolf populations in the EDPS is 

upward. Wolf management plans for 

Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin 

include disease monitoring that we 

expect to identify future disease and 

parasite problems in time to allow 

corrective action to avoid a significant 

decline in overall population viability. 

We conclude that disease will not 

prevent the continuation of wolf 

recovery in these States. Delisting 

wolves in the EDPS will not change the 

incidence or impacts of disease on these 

wolves. 

Predation. No wild animals habitually 

prey on gray wolves. Large prey, such as 

deer or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989), 

or other predators, such as mountain 

lions (Felis concolor), occasionally kill 

wolves, but this has only been rarely 

documented. Humans, however, are 

highly effective predators of gray 

wolves. 

Wolves kill other wolves, most 

commonly when packs encounter and 

attack a dispersing wolf as an intruder 

or when two packs encounter each other 

along a territorial boundary. This form 

of mortality is likely to increase as more 

of the available wolf habitat becomes 

saturated with wolf pack territories, as 

is the case in northeastern Minnesota. 

From October 1979 through June 1998, 

7 (13 percent) of the diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin 

wolves resulted from wolves killing 

wolves (Wydeven 1998). Gogan et al.

(1997) studied 31 radio-collared wolves 

from 1987–91 and found that 3 (10 

percent) were killed by other wolves. 

This behavior is normal in healthy wolf 

populations and indicates that the wolf 

population is at, or approaching, its 

carrying capacity for the area. 

Humans have functioned as highly 

effective predators of the gray wolf. We 

attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely 

in earlier times and the United States 

Congress passed a wolf bounty that 

covered the Northwest Territories in 

1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently 

became the norm for States across the 

species’ range. In Michigan, an 1838 

wolf bounty became the ninth law 

passed by the First Michigan 

Legislature; this bounty remained in 

place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty 

was instituted in 1865 and then 

repealed about the time wolves were 

extirpated from the State in 1957. 

Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty 

until 1965. 

Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing 

as a federally endangered species, the 

Act and State endangered species 

statutes prohibited the killing of wolves 

except under extenuating 

circumstances, such as in defense of 

human life, for scientific or 

conservation purposes, or under several 

special regulations intended to reduce 

wolf depredations of livestock. This 

reduction in human-caused mortality is 

the main cause of the wolf’s 

reestablishment in parts of its historical 

range. It is clear, however, that illegal 

killing of wolves continued. 

If delisted, wolves in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan will continue 

to receive protection from general 

human persecution by State laws and 

regulations. In Michigan, wolves would 

continue to be protected under the 

State’s Endangered Species Protection 

Law after Federal delisting. Michigan 

has met the criteria established in their 

management plan for State delisting, 

and, during that delisting process, 

intends to amend the Wildlife 

Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected 

animal’’ status to the gray wolf. That 

status would ‘‘prohibit take, establish 

penalties and restitution for violations 

of the Order, and detail conditions 

under which lethal depredation control 

measures could be implemented’’

(Rebecca Humphries, MI DNR, in litt.

2004). Following State delisting in 

Wisconsin, the wolf will be classified as 

a ‘‘protected wild animal,’’ with 

protections that provide for fines of 

$1,000 to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. 

Minnesota DNR will consider 

population management measures, 

including public hunting and trapping, 

but not sooner than five years after 

Federal delisting (MN DNR 2001). In the 

meantime, wolves could only be legally 

taken in Minnesota for depredation 

management or public safety and 

Minnesota plans to increase its 

capability to enforce laws against take of 

wolves (MN DNR 2001). 

Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a 

number of reasons. Some of these 

killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are 

hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes 

and shot, or caught in traps set for other 

animals); some of these accidental 

killings are reported to State, Tribal, and 

Federal authorities. Most illegal killings, 

however, likely are intentional and are 

never reported to authorities. 

Radiotelemetry studies (e.g., Gogan et 

al. 1997) are necessary to accurately 

estimate illegal mortality (Fuller 1989).

In Wisconsin, human-caused 

mortalities accounted for 58 percent of 

the diagnosed mortalities on radiocollared wolves from October 1979 

through June 1998. One-third of all the 

diagnosed mortalities, and 55 percent of 

the human-caused mortalities, were 

from shooting. Another 12 percent of all 

the diagnosed mortalities resulted from 

vehicle collisions. Vehicle collisions 

have increased as a percentage of radiocollared wolf mortalities. During the 

October 1979 through June 1995 period, 

only 1 of 27 known mortalities was from 

that cause; but from July 1995 through 

June 1998, 5 of the 26 known mortalities 

resulted from vehicle collisions (WI 

DNR 1999a, Wydeven 1998); and from 

April 2000 through March 2001, 10 of 

23 known mortalities were from that 

cause (Wydeven et al. 2000b, 2001a). 

Only 2 of those 23 mortalities were from 

shootings, but an additional 4 

Wisconsin wolves were shot during the 

State’s 2001 deer hunting season (WI 

DNR 2001). 

In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

human-caused mortalities accounted for 

75 percent of the diagnosed mortalities, 

based upon 34 wolves recovered from 

1960 to 1997. Twenty-eight percent of 

all the diagnosed mortalities and 38 

percent of the human-caused mortalities 

were from shooting. In the Upper 

Peninsula during that period, about onethird of all the known mortalities were 

from vehicle collisions (MI DNR 1997). 

During the 1998 Michigan deer hunting 

season, 3 radio-collared wolves were 

shot and killed, resulting in one arrest 

and conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, 

43682 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Michigan DNR 1999b). During the 

subsequent 3 years, 8 additional wolves 

were killed in Michigan by gunshot, and 

the cut-off radio-collar from a ninth 

animal was located, but the animal was 

never found. These incidents resulted in 

6 guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining 

open. Data from 1992 to 2002 show that 

human-caused mortalities still account 

for the majority of the diagnosed 

mortalities (66 percent) in Michigan. 

Deaths from vehicular collisions, 

however, now greatly outnumber 

shootings. Twenty-four percent of the 

diagnosed mortalities were from 

shootings (37 percent of the humancaused mortalities), while 41 percent of 

the diagnosed Michigan mortalities 

were from vehicular collisions (Beyer in 

litt. 2004). When viewing these figures, 

it is important to remember that there is 

a much greater likelihood of finding a 

vehicle-killed wolf than there is of 

finding a wolf that has been illegally 

shot, unless the animal was being radiotracked. 

A continuing increase in wolf 

mortalities from vehicle collisions, both 

in actual numbers and as a percent of 

total diagnosed mortalities, is expected 

as wolves continue their colonization of 

areas with more human developments 

and a denser network of roads and 

vehicle traffic. 

Minnesota (MN DNR 2001) plans to 

reduce or control illegal mortality of 

wolves through education, increased 

enforcement of the State’s wolf laws and 

regulations, by discouraging new road 

access in some areas, and by 

maintaining a depredation control 

program that includes compensation for 

livestock losses. MN DNR plans to use 

a variety of methods to encourage and 

support education of the public about 

the effects of wolves on livestock, wild 

ungulate populations, and human 

activities and the history and ecology of 

wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001:30–

31). These are all measures that have 

been in effect for years in Minnesota, 

although ‘‘increased enforcement’’ of 

State laws against take of wolves (MN 

DNR 2001) would replace enforcement 

of the Endangered Species Act’s take 

prohibitions. We do not expect the 

State’s efforts to reduce illegal take of 

wolves from existing levels, but these 

measures may be crucial in ensuring 

that illegal mortality does not increase. 

The likelihood of illegal take 

increases in relation to road density and 

human population density, but 

changing attitudes towards wolves may 

allow them to survive in areas where 

road and human densities were 

previously thought to be too high (Fuller 

et al. 2003). MN DNR does not plan to 

reduce current levels of road access, but 

would encourage managers of land areas 

large enough to sustain one or more 

wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious about adding 

new road access that could exceed a 

density of one mile of road per square 

mile of land, without considering the 

potential effect on wolves’ (MN DNR 

2001). 

MN DNR acknowledges that increased 

enforcement of the State’s wolf laws and 

regulations would be dependent on 

increases in staff and resources, 

additional cross-deputization of tribal 

law enforcement officers, and continued 

cooperation with Federal law 

enforcement officers. They specifically 

propose the addition of three 

Conservation Officers ‘‘strategically 

located within current gray wolf range 

in Minnesota’’ whose priority duty 

would be to implement the gray wolf 

management plan (MN DNR 2001). In 

2000, MN DNR had 78 conservation 

officer stations in the State’s wolf range 

(MN DNR in litt. 2000). 

Two Minnesota studies provide 

insight into the extent of human-caused 

wolf mortality before and after the 

species’ listing. On the basis of bounty 

data from a period that predated wolf 

protection under the Act by 20 years, 

Stenlund (1955) found an annual 

human-caused mortality rate of 41 

percent. Fuller (1989) provided 1980–86 

data from a north-central Minnesota 

study area and found an annual humancaused mortality rate of 29 percent, a 

figure which includes 2 percent 

mortality from legal depredation control 

actions. Drawing conclusions from 

comparisons of these two data sets, 

however, is difficult due to the 

confounding effects of habitat quality, 

exposure to humans, prey density, 

differing time periods, and vast 

differences in study design. Although 

these figures provide support for the 

contention that human-caused mortality 

decreased after the wolf’s protection 

under the Act, it is not possible at this 

time to determine if human-caused 

mortality (apart from mortalities from 

depredation control) has significantly 

changed over the 25-year period that the 

gray wolf has been listed as threatened 

or endangered. 

Interestingly, when compared to his 

1985 survey, Kellert’s 1999 public 

attitudes survey showed an overall 

increase in the number of northern 

Minnesota residents who reported 

having killed, or knowing someone who 

had killed, a wolf. However, members of 

groups that are more likely to encounter 

wolves—farmers, hunters, and 

trappers—reported a decrease in the 

number of such incidents (Kellert 1985, 

1999). Because of these apparently 

conflicting results, and differences in 

the methodology of the two surveys, 

drawing any clear conclusions on this 

issue is difficult. 

It is important to note that, despite the 

difficulty in measuring the extent of 

illegal killing of wolves, all sources of 

wolf mortality, including legal (e.g., 

depredation control) and illegal humancaused mortality, have not been of 

sufficient magnitude to stop the 

continuing growth of the wolf 

population. Since 1993, wolf numbers 

have increased annually by about 4 

percent in Minnesota and by about 28 

percent in Wisconsin and Michigan. 

This indicates that total gray wolf 

mortality continues to be exceeded by 

wolf recruitment (that is, reproduction 

and immigration) in these areas. 

The wolf population in Wisconsin 

and Michigan will stop growing at some 

point when it has saturated the suitable 

habitat and is checked in less suitable 

areas by depredation management, 

incidental mortality (e.g., road kill), 

illegal killing, and other means. At that 

time, we should expect to see 

population declines in some years that 

reflect short-term fluctuations in birth 

and mortality rates. Adequate wolf 

monitoring programs, however, as 

described in the Michigan, Wisconsin, 

and Minnesota wolf management plans 

are likely to identify mortality rates and/

or low birth rates that are high enough 

to warrant corrective action. The goals 

of all three State wolf management 

plans are to maintain wolf populations 

well above the numbers recommended 

in the Federal Eastern Recovery Plan to 

ensure long-term viable wolf 

populations (the State management 

plans recommend a minimum wolf 

population of 1,600 in Minnesota, 350 

in Wisconsin, and 200 in Michigan).

In Wisconsin and Michigan, the 

rapidly expanding wolf population is 

beginning to cause more depredation 

problems. From 1979 through 1989, 

there were only 5 cases (an average of 

0.4/year) of verified wolf depredations 

in Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 1997, 

there were 27 depredation incidents in 

the State (an average of 3.4/year), and 82 

incidents (an average of 16.4 per year) 

occurred from 1998–02. Data from 

Michigan show a similar increase in 

confirmed wolf depredations on 

livestock and dogs: 1 in 1996, 3 in 1998, 

3 in 1999, 5 in 2000, 6 in 2001, and 22 

in 2003 (MI DNR unpublished data). 

The WI DNR compensates livestock 

and pet owners for confirmed losses to 

depredating wolves. The compensations 

have been funded from the endangered 

resources tax check-off and sales of the 

endangered resources license plates. 

Likewise, in Michigan, livestock owners 

are compensated when they lose 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43683

livestock as a result of a confirmed wolf 

depredation. Currently there are two 

compensation programs in Michigan, 

one implemented by Michigan 

Department of Agriculture (MI DA) and 

another set up through donations and 

held by the International Wolf Center 

(IWC), a non-profit organization. From 

the inception of the program to 2000, MI 

DA paid 90 percent of full market value 

of depredated livestock value at the time 

of loss. The IWC account was used to 

pay the remaining 10 percent from 2000 

to 2002 when MI DA began paying 100 

percent of the full market value of 

depredated livestock. This MI DA 

program is funded annually through 

State appropriations. The MI DNR plans 

to continue cooperating with MI DA and 

other organizations to maintain the wolf 

depredation compensation program (Pat 

Lederle, MI DNR, pers. comm. 2004). 

Under a Minnesota statute, the 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

(MDA) compensates livestock owners 

for full market value of livestock that 

wolves have killed or severely injured. 

A university extension agent or 

conservation officer must confirm that 

wolves were responsible for the 

depredation. The agent or officer also 

evaluates the livestock operation for 

conformance to a set of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) designed 

to minimize wolf depredation and 

provides operators with an itemized list 

of any deficiencies relative to the BMPs. 

The Minnesota statute also requires 

MDA to periodically update its BMPs to 

incorporate new practices that it finds 

would reduce wolf depredation. 

Wolves were largely eliminated from 

the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and 

were rarely reported from the mid-1940s 

through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were 

killed in these two States from 1981 to 

1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994). Six more 

were killed in North Dakota since 1992, 

with four of these mortalities occurring 

in 2002 and 2003; in 2001, one wolf was 

killed in Harding County in extreme 

northwestern South Dakota. The 

number of reported sightings of gray 

wolves in North Dakota is increasing. 

From 1993–98, six wolf depredation 

reports were investigated in North 

Dakota, and adequate signs were found 

to verify the presence of wolves in two 

of the cases. A den with pups was also 

documented in extreme north-central 

North Dakota near the Canadian border 

in 1994. From 1999–2003, 16 wolf 

sightings/depredation incidents in 

North Dakota were reported to USDA/

APHIS-Wildlife Services, and 9 of these 

incidents were verified. Additionally, 

one North Dakota wolf sighting was 

confirmed in early 2004. USDA/APHISWildlife Services also confirmed a wolf 

sighting along the Minnesota border 

near Gary, South Dakota, in 1996, and 

a trapper with the South Dakota Game, 

Fish, and Parks Department sighted a 

lone wolf in the western Black Hills in 

2002. Several other unconfirmed 

sightings have been reported from these 

States, including two reports in South 

Dakota in 2003. Wolves killed in North 

and South Dakota are most often shot by 

hunters after being mistaken for coyotes, 

or were killed by vehicles. The 2001 

mortality in South Dakota and one of 

the 2003 mortalities in North Dakota 

were caused by M–44 ‘‘coyote getter’’

devices that had been legally set in 

response to complaints about coyotes. 

Additional discussion of past and 

future wolf mortalities in the EDPS 

arising from depredation control actions 

is found under the Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species section, factor D, 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms.

Despite human-caused mortalities of 

wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan, these wolf populations have 

continued to increase in both numbers 

and range. If wolves in the EDPS are 

delisted, as long as other mortality 

factors do not increase significantly and 

monitoring is adequate to document, 

and if necessary counteract, the effects 

of excessive human-caused mortality, 

the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan 

wolf population will not decline to 

nonviable levels in the foreseeable 

future as a result of human-caused 

killing or other forms of predation. 

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

Human activities may affect wolf 

abundance and population viability by 

degrading or reducing the wolf habitat 

and range (Factor A); by excessive 

mortality via commercial or recreational 

harvest (Factor B); by acting as a 

predator of wolves and killing them for 

other reasons such as depredation 

control, to reduce perceived 

competition for wild ungulates, or in the 

interests of human safety (Factor C); by 

acting as a vector for wolf-impacting 

diseases or parasites (Factor C); and in 

other ways (Factor E). Following Federal 

delisting under the Act, however, many 

of these human activities would be 

regulated or prohibited by various 

regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, with 

only a few exceptions, human activities 

with the potential to impact wolf 

populations are primarily discussed 

under this factor. 

State Wolf Management Planning. In 

late 1997 the Michigan Wolf 

Management Plan was completed and 

received the necessary State approvals. 

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board 

approved the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan in October 1999. Our 

biologists have participated on the 

teams that developed these two State 

plans and will continue to participate in 

revising the plans, so we are familiar 

with their evolution and likely future 

direction. We think these plans provide 

sufficient information for us to analyze 

the future threats to the gray wolf 

population in Wisconsin and Michigan 

after Federal delisting.

The MN DNR prepared a Wolf 

Management Plan and an accompanying 

legislative bill in early 1999 and 

submitted them to the Minnesota 

legislature. The legislature, however, 

failed to approve the Minnesota Plan in 

the 1999 session. In early 2000, the MN 

DNR drafted a second bill that would 

result in somewhat different wolf 

management and protection than the 

1999 bill. The legislature did not pass 

the 2000 Minnesota wolf management 

bill, but instead passed separate 

legislation directing the DNR to prepare 

a new management plan based upon 

various new provisions that addressed 

wolf protection and the take of wolves. 

The MN DNR completed the Minnesota 

Wolf Management Plan (MN Plan) in 

early 2001 (MN DNR 2001). Although 

the Minnesota legislation and the MN 

Plan were not available in time to play 

a role in our 2003 reclassification, they 

were carefully evaluated in preparation 

of this proposal to delist gray wolves in 

the EDPS. 

The MN Plan is based, in part, on the 

recommendations of a wolf management 

roundtable and on a State wolf 

management law enacted in 2000. This 

law and the Minnesota Game and Fish 

Laws constitute the basis of the State’s 

authority to manage wolves. Key 

components of the plan are population 

monitoring and management, 

management of wolf depredation of 

domestic animals, management of wolf 

habitat and prey, enforcement of laws 

regulating take of wolves, public 

education, and increased staffing. 

MN DNR plans to allow wolf numbers 

and distribution to naturally expand 

and if any winter population estimate is 

below 1,600 wolves it would take 

actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to 1,600 

wolves. MN DNR will continue to 

monitor wolves in Minnesota to 

determine whether such intervention is 

necessary. It is currently conducting a 

statewide population survey (winter of 

2003–04) and plans to repeat the survey 

in the fifth year after delisting and at 

subsequent five-year intervals. 

Preliminary results of the 2003–04 

survey may be available in early 

summer 2004 (J. Erb, MN DNR, pers. 

comm. 2004). 

43684 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Following delisting, Minnesota’s 

management of wolves would differ 

from their current management under 

the Act. To guide wolf management 

under the Act, the Service divided 

Minnesota into five zones and 

established specific population goals for 

each of Zones 1–4 (The 1992 Recovery 

Plan’s numeric goal for Minnesota was 

1,251–1,400); the Service’s goal for Zone 

5, which consists of all of Minnesota 

outside of Zones 1–4, was ‘‘no wolves’’

(USFWS 1992a:28). Currently no control 

of depredating wolves is allowed in 

Zone 1, whereas in Zones 2–5 

employees or agents of the Service or 

MN DNR may take wolves in response 

to depredations of domestic animals 

within one-half mile of the depredation 

site. Young-of-the-year captured on or 

before August 1 of that year must be 

released. The regulations that allow for 

this take [50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)] do 

not specify a maximum duration for 

depredation control, but USDA-Wildlife 

Services follows informal guidelines 

under which they trap for no more than 

10–15 days, except at sites with 

repeated or chronic depredation, where 

they may trap for up to 30 days (William 

Paul, USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, 

pers. comm., 2004). 

The Minnesota plan divides the State 

into Zones A and B. Zone A comprises 

the current Zones 1–4 and Zone B is 

identical to the current Zone 5 (i.e., it 

comprises the rest of the State). The 

most recent statewide survey conducted 

during the winter of 1997–98 found that 

there were approximately 2,025 wolves 

in Zone A and 425 in Zone B (M. 

DonCarlos, MN DNR, in litt. 2000). 

Government control of wolf 

depredation would be modified under 

Minnesota’s Wolf Management Plan, 

especially in Zone B. In Zone A, if DNR 

verifies that a wolf destroyed any 

livestock, domestic animal, or pet, 

trained and certified predator 

controllers may take wolves within a 

one-mile radius of the depredation site 

for up to 60 days. In Zone B, predator 

controllers may take wolves for up to 

214 days after MN DNR opens a 

depredation control area, depending on 

the time of year. The DNR may open a 

control area in Zone B anytime within 

five years of a verified depredation loss. 

The Minnesota plan would also allow 

for private wolf depredation control. 

Statewide, persons may shoot or destroy 

a gray wolf that poses an immediate 

threat to their livestock, guard animals, 

or domestic animals on lands that they 

own, lease, or occupy. Immediate threat 

is defined as ‘‘stalking, attacking, or 

killing.’’ To protect their domestic 

animals in Zone B, however, persons do 

not have to wait for an immediate threat 

to take wolves. At anytime in Zone B, 

persons who own, lease, or manage 

lands may take wolves on those lands. 

They may also employ a predator 

controller to trap a gray wolf on their 

land or within one mile of their land to 

protect their livestock, domestic 

animals, or pets. The State will continue 

to provide compensation for livestock 

taken by wolves. The MN Plan would 

also allow persons to harass wolves 

anywhere in the State within 500 yards 

of ‘‘people, buildings, dogs, livestock, or 

other domestic pets or animals’’ (MN 

DNR 2001:23). Harassment may not 

include physical injury to a wolf. 

Owners of domestic pets may also kill 

wolves posing an immediate threat to 

pets under their supervision on lands 

that they do not own or lease, although 

such actions are subject to local 

ordinances, trespass law, and other 

applicable restrictions. MN DNR will 

investigate any private taking of wolves 

in Zone A. 

In summary, the key differences 

between the current management of 

wolves in Minnesota under the ESA and 

their proposed management under MN 

DNR’s wolf plan are: 

• Activities to control depredating 

wolves would be allowed within one 

mile of depredation sites instead of onehalf mile of these sites. 

• Persons would be allowed to harass 

wolves within 500 yards of persons, 

buildings, and domestic animals 

anywhere in the State.

• Persons would be allowed to 

destroy wolves posing an immediate 

threat to domestic animals on lands that 

they own, manage, or lease. 

• Persons would be allowed to 

destroy wolves posing an immediate 

threat to domestic pets under the 

supervision of the owner statewide, 

subject to other restrictions. 

• Persons may destroy wolves in 

absence of an immediate threat in Zone 

B to ‘‘protect their domestic animals.’’

• Minnesota DNR will consider 

population management measures, 

including public hunting and trapping, 

but not sooner than five years after 

Federal delisting. 

The Wisconsin Wolf Management 

Plan (WI Plan) sets a management goal 

of 350 wolves, well above the 200 

wolves specified in the Federal recovery 

plan for a viable isolated wolf 

population. The WI Plan allows for 

differing levels of management within 

four separate management zones (see 

figure 3 below). The two zones that now 

contain most of the wolf population 

would be managed to allow limited 

lethal control on problem wolves when 

the population exceeds 250, but 

generally lethal control would not be 

exercised on wolves inhabiting large 

blocks of public land. In the other two 

zones, liberal controls would be allowed 

for problem wolves, with the least 

restrictive zone allowing for almost no 

protections; one of these zones had five 

packs of wolves in 2003, and the other 

had only lone wolves confirmed. Other 

components of the WI Plan include 

monitoring, education, reimbursement 

for depredation losses, citizen 

stakeholder involvement, habitat 

management, coordination with the 

Tribes, and the development of new 

legal protections. If the population 

exceeds 350, a proactive depredation 

control program would be allowed in all 

four zones, and public harvest would be 

considered.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43685


EP21JY04.007</GPH>
43686 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

The Wisconsin Plan sets a goal of 250 

wolves as the trigger for State delisting, 

a process that is nearly complete. The 

Plan calls for re-listing as State 

threatened if the population falls to less 

than 250 for three years, and 

reclassification as endangered if the 

population falls below 80 for one year. 

Given the likely decline and ultimate 

termination in Federal funding for 

monitoring in the future, it is imperative 

that an effective, yet cost-efficient 

method for detecting wolf population 

changes be put in place. A methodology 

similar to that implemented in 

Minnesota was tested in Wisconsin 

during the winter of 2003–04, but its 

efficacy remains unknown at this time. 

Some members of the Wisconsin 

public have already advocated that the 

wolf be subject to public harvest 

following State and Federal delisting. 

The Wisconsin Plan indicates that any 

public harvest would require a separate 

action by the Wisconsin State 

legislature, and significant public input. 

The fact that the Wisconsin Plan calls 

for State listing as threatened if the 

population falls to less than 250 for 

three years provides reasonable 

assurance that public harvest is not 

likely to threaten the persistence of the 

population. 

The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery 

and Management Plan (MI Plan) details 

wolf management actions needed and 

wolf recovery goals in Michigan. 

Necessary wolf management activities 

detailed in the plan include wolf 

education and outreach, population and 

health monitoring, research, 

depredation control, and habitat 

management. The MI Plan contains a 

long-term minimum goal of 200 wolves 

(excluding Isle Royale wolves) and 

identifies 800 wolves as the estimated 

carrying capacity of suitable areas on 

the Upper Peninsula (MI DNR 1997). 

(‘‘Carrying capacity’’ is the number of 

animals that an area is able to support 

over the long term; for wolves it is 

primarily based on the availability of 

prey animals and competition from 

other wolf packs.) Under the MI Plan, 

wolves in the State would be considered 

recovered when a minimal sustainable 

population of 200 wolves is maintained 

for 5 consecutive years. The Upper 

Peninsula has had more than 200 

wolves since the winter of 1999–2000. 

Therefore, the gray wolf is eligible for 

State delisting under the MI Plan in 

2004. In Michigan, however, State 

delisting cannot occur until after 

Federal delisting. During the State 

delisting process, Michigan intends to 

amend its Wildlife Conservation Order 

to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status to the 

gray wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit 

take, establish penalties and restitution 

for violations of the Order, and detail 

conditions under which lethal 

depredation control measures could be 

implemented’’ (Rebecca Humphries, MI 

DNR, in litt. 2004). Population 

management, except for depredation 

control, is not addressed in the MI Plan 

beyond statements that the wolf 

population may need to be controlled by 

lethal means at some future time, when 

the cultural carrying capacity is reached 

or approached. The MI Plan calls for reevaluation of the plan at 5-year 

intervals. The MI DNR is currently 

evaluating the Plan’s direction and 

developing recommendations for 

revisions (Beyer pers. comm.).

The complete text of the Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management plans, as well as our 

summaries of those plans, can be found 

on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above). 

Depredation Control Programs in the 

Core Recovery Areas. Wolves that are 

injuring and/or killing domestic animals 

in the core recovery areas have been 

controlled in different ways, depending 

upon their listing status under the Act 

and their importance to our gray wolf 

recovery programs. In Minnesota, 

depredating wolves have been lethally 

controlled under a special regulation 

since they were listed as threatened in 

1978. (Details on the Minnesota 

depredation control program are 

provided later in this subsection.) 

Until 2003, when wolves in 

Wisconsin and Michigan were 

reclassified to threatened (and therefore 

eligible for a section 4(d) special 

regulation), depredating wolves in those 

States had been trapped and released in 

a suitable and unoccupied area some 

distance from the depredation location. 

Lethal depredation control is now in 

effect in Wisconsin and Michigan under 

special management regulations and 

section 4(d) of the Act (68 FR 15804). 

The decreasing effectiveness of, and 

increasing opposition to, translocation 

of depredating wolves, as well as the 

high monetary and labor costs of such 

attempts, led to the adoption of lethal 

control. 

With the Wisconsin and Michigan 

(Upper Peninsula) late-winter wolf 

populations at about 250–350 wolves in 

each State, in our April 2003 final 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804) we 

estimate that an average of about 2 to 3 

percent of those wolves will be taken 

annually through lethal depredation 

control actions in response to attacks on 

livestock. This will be about 6 to 10 

adult and subadult wolves in each State. 

Given the average annual population 

increases of 19 to 24 percent over recent 

years in each of these States, the effect 

of such levels of lethal depredation 

control will not prevent the continued 

growth of the wolf population in either 

State and will probably be so small that 

it does not noticeably slow that growth 

over the next few years. Wolf recovery 

will not be affected in either State. 

Reporting (within 15 days) and 

monitoring requirements in State 

management plans will ensure that the 

level of lethal depredation control is 

evaluated promptly and can be curtailed 

if necessary. Therefore, we think that 

lethal depredation control will not be a 

significant threat to the future of wolves 

in either Michigan or Wisconsin and 

that it will not result in a need to 

reclassify those wolves back to 

threatened or endangered status in the 

foreseeable future. 

In recent years the number of dogs 

attacked by gray wolves in Wisconsin 

has increased, with 33 dogs killed and 

9 dogs injured in 2001–03. In almost all 

cases, these have been hunting dogs that 

were being used for, or being trained for, 

hunting bears and bobcats at the time 

they were attacked. It is believed that 

the dogs entered the territory of a wolf 

pack and may have been close to a den, 

rendezvous site, or feeding location, 

thus triggering an attack by wolves 

defending their territory or pups. The 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan states 

that ‘‘generally only wolves that are 

habitual depredators on livestock will 

be euthanized’’ (WI DNR 1999a). 

Furthermore, the State’s guidelines for 

conducting depredation control actions 

on wolves currently listed as federally 

threatened say that no control trapping 

will be conducted on wolves that kill 

‘‘dogs that are free-roaming or roaming 

at large.’’ Lethal control will only be 

conducted on wolves that kill dogs that 

are ‘‘leashed, confined, or under the 

owner’s control on the owner’s land’’

(Wisconsin Wolf Technical Committee 

2002). Because of these State-imposed 

limitations, we do not believe that lethal 

control of wolves depredating on 

hunting dogs will be a significant 

additional source of mortality in 

Wisconsin. 

Michigan has not experienced as high 

a level of attacks on dogs by wolves, 

although a slight increase in such 

attacks has occurred over the last 

decade. The number of dogs killed in 

the State was one in 1996, one in 1999, 

three in 2001, four in 2002, and eight in 

2003. Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has 

guidelines for their depredation control 

program. The Michigan guidelines state 

that lethal control will not be used 

when wolves kill dogs that are freeroaming, hunting, or training on public 

lands. Lethal control of wolves, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43687

however, would be considered if wolves 

have killed confined pets and remain in 

the area where more pets are being held 

(MI DNR 2003). 

Between the time that wolves were 

protected under the Act and downlisted 

to threatened in 2003, only one wolf 

was killed for depredation control 

purposes in Wisconsin and Michigan. 

That adult wolf was killed by the WI 

DNR in 1999, under the provisions of a 

permit that we issued to deal with that 

specific instance. This was done to end 

a chronic depredation problem at a 

private deer farm after the failure of 

extensive efforts to live-trap and remove 

the wolf (WI DNR 1999b). Since the 

2003 downlisting and implementation 

of the 4(d) rule, which allows some 

lethal take in those States, a total of 17 

wolves have been killed in Wisconsin 

and 4 in Michigan in response to 

depredations. Nine of the 17 Wisconsin 

wolves were adults, whereas the 

remaining 8 were juveniles. The four 

Michigan wolves, all from one pack, 

were killed near Engadine where 

chronic depredation problems had 

occurred. A fifth pack member, 

identified for removal, was killed as the 

result of a vehicle collision (Donald 

Lonsway, Michigan Wildlife Service, 

pers. comm. 2004). These four 

individuals represented about one 

percent of the Michigan wolf population 

in 2003. Despite the recent 

implementation of the 4(d) rule 

allowing lethal control of depredating 

wolves, preliminary estimates indicate 

that wolf populations in Wisconsin and 

Michigan have continued to increase 

(Wydeven per. comm. 2004, Beyer pers. 

comm. 2004). 

Before the 2003 downlisting of wolves 

to threatened, we anticipated that North 

Dakota and South Dakota would have 

potential wolf depredation problems 

associated with mostly single, 

dispersing wolves from the Minnesota 

and Manitoba populations. To cope 

with these anticipated depredations we 

had a ‘‘Contingency Plan for 

Responding to Gray Wolf Depredations 

of Livestock’’ in place for each State for 

several years, although in neither State 

has it been necessary to implement the 

control measures authorized under the 

contingency plans (USFWS 1992b, 

1994). The implementation of the 4(d) 

rule in 2003 replaced the contingency 

plans for those States. Since 1993, three 

incidents of verified wolf depredations 

occurred in North Dakota, with the most 

recent occurring in September 2003. 

Wildlife Services attempted to remove 

the wolf responsible for the 2003 

depredation, but the wolf was not 

sighted again and no further livestock 

losses were reported. There have been 

no verified wolf depredations in South 

Dakota in recent decades. 

North Dakota and South Dakota are 

recognized as lacking significant 

potential for restoration of the gray wolf, 

and our Eastern Recovery Plan does not 

include those States in its list of 

possible locations for restoration of gray 

wolf populations (USFWS 1987, 1992a). 

Therefore, lethal control of depredating 

wolves in these two States will not 

adversely affect recovery in the EDPS. 

During the period from 1980–2003, 

the Federal Minnesota wolf depredation 

control program euthanized from 20 (in 

1982) to 216 (in 1997) gray wolves 

annually. Annual averages (percentage 

of statewide populations) were 30 (2.2 

percent) wolves killed from 1980 to 

1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985 to 

1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990 to 

1994, and 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 

to 1999. During the most recent 4-year 

period, 2000–03, an average of 132 

wolves—about 5 percent of the wolf 

population, based on the most recent 

(1997–98) statewide estimate—were 

killed under the program annually. The 

lowest annual percentage of Minnesota 

wolves destroyed by USDA/APHISWildlife Services was 1.5 percent in 

1982; the highest percentage was 9.4 in 

1997 (Paul 2004).

This level of wolf removal for 

depredation control has not halted the 

increase in wolf numbers or range 

expansion in Minnesota, although it 

may have slowed the increase in wolf 

numbers in the State, especially since 

the late-1980s. Minnesota wolf numbers 

grew at an average annual rate of nearly 

4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while 

depredation control was in effect. 

MN DNR proposes to expand the 

control of depredating wolves upon 

delisting (see above), but this expansion 

is not likely to threaten the conservation 

of wolves in the State. Significant 

changes in wolf depredation control 

under State management would 

primarily be restricted to Zone B, which 

is outside of the area that the Service 

found was necessary for wolf recovery 

(USFWS 1992a), and wolves may still 

persist in Zone B despite increased take 

for depredation control. The Eastern 

Timber Wolf Recovery Team concluded 

that the changes in wolf management in 

the State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’

and would not likely result in 

‘‘significant change in overall wolf 

numbers in Zone A.’’ They found that, 

despite an expansion in the control area 

from approximately 1 to 3 square miles 

and an extension of the control period 

to 60 days, depredation control will 

remain ‘‘very localized’’ in Zone A. The 

requirement that control activities are 

conducted only in response to verified 

wolf depredation in Zone A played a 

key role in the team’s evaluation (R. 

Peterson, Michigan Tech University/

Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team 

Leader, in litt. 2001). Depredation 

control would be allowed throughout 

Zone A, which includes an area (Zone 

1) where such control has not been 

permitted under Federal management. 

Depredation in Zone 1, however, has 

been limited to 3 to 6 reported incidents 

per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs 

(William Paul, USDA/APHIS-Wildlife 

Services, pers. comm. 2004), although 

many dog kills in this zone probably go 

unreported. There are few livestock in 

Zone 1; therefore, the number of 

reported depredation incidents in that 

zone is expected to be low. 

The proposed changes in the control 

of depredating wolves in Minnesota 

under State management emphasize the 

need for robust post-delisting 

monitoring. Minnesota will continue to 

monitor wolf populations throughout 

the State and will also monitor all 

depredation control activities in Zone 

A. These and other activities contained 

in their plan would be essential in 

meeting their population goal of a 

minimum statewide winter population 

of 1,600 wolves, which exceeds the 

Recovery Plan’s criteria of 1,251 to 

1,400 wolves. 

State Management and Protection of 

Wolves. Both the Wisconsin and 

Michigan Wolf Management Plans 

recommend managing wolf populations 

as isolated populations that are not 

dependent upon immigration of wolves 

from an adjacent State or Canada. Thus, 

even after Federal wolf delisting, each 

State will be managing for a wolf 

population at, or in excess of, the 200 

wolves identified in the Federal 

Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber 

Wolf as necessary for an isolated wolf 

population to be viable. We support this 

approach and believe it provides further 

assurance that the gray wolf will remain 

a viable component of the EDPS 

ecosystem in the foreseeable future. 

At the time the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan was completed, it 

recommended immediate 

reclassification from State-endangered 

to threatened status because the State’s 

wolf population had already exceeded 

its reclassification criterion of 80 wolves 

for 3 years; that State reclassification 

has already occurred (http://

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/

working_list/taxalists/TandE.htm). The 

Plan further recommends the State 

manage for a gray wolf population of 

350 wolves outside of Native American 

reservations, and states that the species 

should be delisted by the State once the 

population reaches 250 animals outside

43688 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

of reservations. The species was 

proposed for State delisting in late 2003; 

this process is expected to be completed 

in 2004. Upon State delisting, the 

species would be classified as a 

‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a 

designation that would continue State 

prohibitions on sport hunting and 

trapping of the species. The Wisconsin 

Plan includes criteria that would trigger 

State relisting as threatened (a decline to 

fewer than 250 wolves for 3 years) or 

endangered (a decline to fewer than 80 

wolves for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan 

will be reviewed annually by the 

Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee 

and will be reviewed by the public 

every 5 years. Any public harvest could 

be considered only if the population 

exceeds 350 wolves outside of Native 

American reservations, and would 

require authorization by the legislature 

following major public input. 

Michigan reclassified wolves to 

threatened in June 2002. Under the 

Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan (MI Plan), wolves in 

Michigan would be considered 

recovered when a minimum sustainable 

population of 200 wolves is maintained 

for 5 consecutive years. The Upper 

Peninsula has had more than 200 

wolves since the winter of 1999–2000. 

Therefore, the wolf is eligible for State 

delisting under the MI Plan in 2004. In 

Michigan, however, State delisting 

cannot occur until after Federal 

delisting. During the State delisting 

process, Michigan intends to amend its 

Wildlife Conservation Order to grant 

‘‘protected animal’’ status to the gray 

wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit take, 

establish penalties and restitution for 

violations of the Order, and detail 

conditions under which lethal 

depredation control measures could be 

implemented’’ (Rebecca Humphries, MI 

DNR, in litt. 2004). The MI Plan will be 

re-evaluated at 5-year intervals. The MI 

DNR is currently evaluating the MI 

Plan’s direction and developing 

recommendations for revisions (Beyer, 

pers. comm. 2004). 

The Wisconsin and Michigan wolf 

management plans recommend similar 

high levels of protection for wolf den 

and rendezvous sites, whether on public 

or private land. Both State plans 

recommend that most land uses be 

prohibited at all times within 100 

meters (330 feet) of active sites. 

Seasonal restrictions (March through 

July) should be enforced within 0.8 km 

(0.5 mi) of these sites, to prevent highdisturbance activities such as logging 

from disrupting pup-rearing activities. 

These restrictions should remain in 

effect even after State delisting occurs.

The Wisconsin Plan provides for legal 

protections of wolves following State 

delisting, through designation as a 

Protected Wild Animal in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code NR 10.02(1). 

Penalties for illegally killing wolves 

would include fines in the range of 

$1,000 to $2,000, as well as revocation 

of hunting privileges for 3 to 5 years, 

and possibly up to 6 months 

imprisonment. 

Tribal Management and Protection of 

Gray Wolves 

Although the tribes with wolves that 

visit or reside on their Reservations do 

not yet have management plans specific 

to the gray wolf, several tribes have 

informed us that they have no plans or 

intentions to allow commercial or 

recreational hunting or trapping of the 

species on their lands after Federal 

delisting. We are working with the 

States and several tribes to assist them 

to develop wolf management plans for 

the Reservations. 

The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake 

Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) 

supports a recent resolution that 

describes the sport and recreational 

harvest of gray wolves as an 

inappropriate use of the animal (Peter 

White, Leech Lake Tribal Council, in 

litt. 2003). That resolution supports 

limited harvest of wolves to be used for 

traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled 

tribal members if it would not 

negatively affect the wolf population. 

Based on the Council’s request, we will 

help them to obtain wolf pelts and parts 

that become available from other 

sources, such as depredation control 

activities. The Council is currently 

revising the Reservation Conservation 

Code to allow tribal members to harvest 

some wolves (P. White in litt. 2003). The 

Leech Lake Reservation is home to an 

estimated 65 gray wolves, the largest 

population of wolves on a Native 

American reservation in the 48 

coterminous States (P. White in litt.

2003). 

The Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians (Minnesota) has indicated that it 

is likely to develop a wolf management 

plan that will be very similar in scope 

and content to the plan developed by 

the MN DNR. The Band’s position on 

wolf management is ‘‘wolf preservation 

through effective management,’’ and the 

Band is confident that wolves will 

continue to thrive on their lands 

(Lawrence Bedeau, Red Lake Band of 

Chippewa Indians, in litt. 1998). The 

Reservation has an estimated six to eight 

packs within its boundaries (George 

King, Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians, in litt. 2003). 

The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) 

believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf 

is intimately connected to the well 

being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage 

in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed 

a resolution opposing Federal delisting 

and any other measure that would 

permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning 

of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b, 

in litt. 2003). If this prohibition is 

rescinded, the Band’s Resource 

Management Division will coordinate 

with State and Federal agencies to 

ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping 

would be ‘‘conducted in a biologically 

sustainable manner’’ (Schrage in litt.

2003). 

The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) 

strongly opposes State and Federal 

delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal 

law protects gray wolves from harvest, 

although harvest for ceremonial 

purposes would likely be permitted 

after delisting (Matt Symbol, Red Cliff 

Natural Resources Department, in litt.

2003). 

The Keweenaw Bay Indian 

Community, Michigan, will continue to 

list the gray wolf as a protected animal 

under the Tribal Code even if it is 

federally delisted, with hunting and 

trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio, 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 

Biological Services, pers. comm. 1998). 

Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay 

Community plans to develop a 

Protected Animal Ordinance in the next 

few years that will address gray wolves 

(Donofrio in litt. 2003). 

Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the 

Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians and the Little 

Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians) 

have expressed concern regarding the 

possibility of Federal delisting resulting 

in increased mortality of gray wolves on 

reservation lands, in the areas 

immediately surrounding the 

reservations, and in lands ceded by 

treaty to the Federal Government by the 

tribes (Kiogama in litt. 2000). At the 

request of the Bad River Tribe of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians, we are 

currently working with their Natural 

Resource Department and WI DNR to 

develop a wolf management agreement 

for lands adjacent to the Bad River 

Reservation. The tribe’s intent is to 

reduce the threats to reservation wolf 

packs when they are temporarily off the 

reservation. Under the draft agreement, 

the WI DNR would consult with the 

tribe before using lethal depredation 

control methods in those areas and 

would defer to the tribe’s 

recommendations for wolves known to 

be part of a reservation pack. This 

agreement is still being developed, 

however, so its protective measures may 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43689

change somewhat. Other tribes have 

expressed interest in such an agreement. 

If this and similar agreements are 

implemented they will provide 

additional protection to certain wolf 

packs in the eastern United States. 

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has 

stated its intent to work closely with the 

States to cooperatively manage wolves 

in the ceded territories in the core areas, 

and will not develop a separate wolf 

management plan (Schlender in litt.

1998). 

According to the 1854 Authority, 

‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in 

the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut 

from a desire to see total protection to 

unlimited harvest opportunity.’’

Because of these diverse attitudes, the 

management of wolves in the 1854 

Ceded Territory is speculative, but the 

1854 Authority would not ‘‘implement 

a harvest system that would have any 

long-term negative impacts to wolf 

populations’’ (Andrew Edwards, 1854 

Authority Biological Services, in litt.

2003). 

In addition, on the basis of 

information received from other Federal 

land management agencies in the 

eastern United States where wolves 

occur (as discussed in Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species section, 

factor A, The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range, 

above), we expect National Forests, 

units of the National Park System, and 

National Wildlife Refuges will provide 

protections to gray wolves after delisting 

beyond the protections provided by 

State wolf management plans and State 

protective regulations.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray 

Wolf. The primary determinant of the 

long-term status of gray wolf 

populations in the United States will be 

human attitudes toward this large 

predator. These attitudes are based on 

the conflicts between human activities 

and wolves, concern with the perceived 

danger the species may pose to humans, 

its symbolic representation of 

wilderness, the economic effect of 

livestock losses, the emotions regarding 

the threat to pets, the conviction that the 

species should never be a target of sport 

hunting or trapping, wolf traditions of 

Native American tribes, and other 

factors. 

We have seen a change in public 

attitudes toward the wolf over the last 

few decades. Public attitude surveys in 

Minnesota and Michigan (Kellert 1985, 

1990, 1999), as well as the citizen input 

into the wolf management plans of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, 

have indicated strong public support for 

wolf recovery if the adverse impacts on 

recreational activities and livestock 

producers can be minimized (MI DNR 

1997, MN DNR 1998, WI DNR 1999a). 

In Michigan, another public attitude 

survey was conducted since the wolf 

population has expanded. This survey 

suggested that the majority of Michigan 

residents still support wolf recovery 

efforts. Although Upper Peninsula 

residents’ support for wolf recovery has 

gone down slightly since the 1990 

Kellert survey, the majority of Upper 

Peninsula residents are still supportive 

of wolf recovery (Angela Mertig, 

Michigan State University, pers. comm. 

2004). 

The Minnesota DNR recognizes that to 

maintain public support for wolf 

conservation it must work to ensure that 

the people are well informed about 

wolves and wolf management in the 

State. Therefore, MN DNR plans to 

provide ‘‘timely and accurate 

information about wolves to the public, 

to support and facilitate wolf education 

programs, and to encourage wolf 

ecotourism,’’ among other activities. 

This increased public acceptance of 

wolves during the last 25 years also has 

reduced illegal persecution and killing 

of wolves. 

It is unclear whether increased 

flexibility of depredation control after 

delisting would affect public attitudes 

towards wolves (i.e., decrease 

opposition to the local presence of 

wolves), due to the strong influence of 

other factors. A survey of 535 rural 

Wisconsin residents, for example, found 

that attitudes towards wolves were 

largely dependent on social group, and 

persons who were compensated for 

losses to wolves were not more tolerant 

toward wolf presence than those refused 

compensation for reported losses 

(Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Although 

social group was the overriding factor in 

determining tolerance for wolves, 

previous history with depredation also 

negatively affected tolerance: persons 

who had lost an animal to a wolf or 

other predator were less tolerant of 

wolves (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). In 

an analysis of data collected in 37 

surveys of public attitudes toward 

wolves, Williams et al. (2002) found 

that hunters and trappers had 

significantly more positive attitudes 

towards wolves than farmers and 

ranchers. In Wisconsin, however, where 

bear hunters have lost hounds to 

wolves, they were clearly less tolerant of 

wolves than livestock producers 

(Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). In 

addition to social group and previous 

losses of animals to wolves or other 

predators, education level, gender, age, 

rural residence, and income have all 

been found to influence attitudes 

towards wolves (Williams et al. 2002). 

Attitudes appear to have become more 

tolerant between about 1920–70, but 

appear to have stabilized since then 

(Williams et al. 2002). 

Prey. Wolf density is heavily 

dependent on prey availability (e.g., 

expressed as ungulate biomass, Fuller 

1989), but prey availability is not likely 

to threaten wolves in the EDPS. 

Conservation of primary wolf prey in 

the EDPS, white-tailed deer and moose, 

is clearly a high priority for State 

conservation agencies. As Minnesota 

DNR points out in its wolf management 

plan (MN DNR 2001:25), it manages 

ungulates to ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive 

users, and to minimize conflicts with 

humans. To ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, MN DNR must 

account for all sources of natural 

mortality, including loss to wolves, and 

adjust hunter harvest levels when 

necessary. For example, after severe 

winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR 

modified hunter harvest levels to allow 

for the recovery of the local deer 

population (MN DNR 2001). In addition 

to regulation of human harvest of deer 

and moose, MN DNR also plans to 

continue to monitor and improve 

habitat for these species. Land 

management carried out by other public 

agencies and by private companies in 

Minnesota’s wolf range, including 

timber harvest and prescribed fire, 

incidentally improves habitat for deer, 

the primary prey for wolves in the State. 

There is no indication that harvest of 

deer and moose or management of their 

habitat will significantly depress 

abundance of these species in 

Minnesota’s core wolf range. Therefore, 

prey availability is not likely to 

endanger gray wolves in the foreseeable 

future in the State. 

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), a 

nervous system disease known to affect 

deer and elk, was confirmed in 

Wisconsin in 2002 (three deer from a 

2001 deer harvest tested positive). 

Although it is not yet known if 

transmission from deer and elk to other 

species is possible (Glenn DelGiudice, 

MN DNR, in litt. 2003), it has never been 

detected in predators, even in areas 

where the disease has been known for 

more than 40 years (Hassett, in litt.

2003). The most likely effect of the 

disease on gray wolves would be 

indirect, potentially significantly 

reducing the prey base in some areas. In 

Wisconsin, CWD has been detected in a 

relatively restricted area in the southern

43690 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

part of the State. The Wisconsin DNR, 

in cooperation with landowners and 

other State agencies, initiated an 

intensive program to eradicate the 

disease. CWD has not spread to deer 

populations within wolf range; the 

closest packs to the CWD area in 

Wisconsin are located approximately 70 

miles to the north (Hassett in litt. 2003). 

Minnesota DNR tests harvested deer for 

CWD. In 2003 it tested 9,988 deer and 

all were negative, although a captive elk 

tested positive in 2002. CWD has not 

been detected in Michigan, although MI 

DNR plans to test 60 deer from each 

county in 2004. The DNRs in 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan 

will continue to monitor for outbreaks 

of CWD in their States. 

Conclusion 

While we recognize that gray wolves 

in the EDPS do not occupy all portions 

of their historical range, including what 

may be suitable areas with low human 

density and a healthy prey base within 

the EDPS, they no longer meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species. We have based our 

determinations on the current status of, 

and threats likely to be faced by, 

existing wolf populations within the 

EDPS. This approach is consistent with 

the 9th Circuit Court’s decision in 

Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton et 

al., where the Court noted that ‘‘[a] 

species with an exceptionally large 

historical range may continue to enjoy 

healthy population levels despite the 

loss of a substantial amount of suitable 

habitat.’’ Similarly, when a threatened 

species has recovered to the point where 

it is not likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its current range in the 

foreseeable future, it is appropriate to 

delist the species even if a substantial 

amount of the historical range remains 

unoccupied if the population in its 

current range is secure. The wolf’s 

recovery in numbers and distribution in 

the EDPS, together with the status of the 

threats that remain to, and are likely to 

be experienced by, the wolf within the 

DPS, indicates that the gray wolf is not 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

nor likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range within the DPS. 

Since the 2003 reclassification of gray 

wolves in the eastern United States to 

threatened (68 FR 15804), we have 

received additional data that the 

conservation of gray wolves in the EDPS 

will be assured if delisted. Most 

importantly, in February 2001, the MN 

DNR completed their Minnesota Wolf 

Management Plan. With that completed 

plan, in addition to the previously 

existing plans for Wisconsin and 

Michigan, we were better able to assess 

the management of gray wolves if 

delisted. Furthermore, since the 

implementation of more flexible wolf 

management in Wisconsin and 

Michigan, resulting from the initiation 

of the 4(d) special rule in 2003, wolf 

numbers in those States have continued 

to increase (Wydeven per. comm. 2004, 

Beyer pers. comm. 2004). 

After a thorough review of all 

available information and an evaluation 

of the previous five factors specified in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as 

consideration of the definitions of 

threatened and endangered contained in 

the Act and the reasons for delisting as 

specified in 50 CFR 424.11(d), we 

conclude that removing the Eastern 

Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment 

from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is 

appropriate. Gray wolves have 

recovered in the EDPS as a result of the 

reduction of threats as described in the 

analysis of the five categories of threats. 

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we designate critical 

habitat at the time we list a species. 

Critical habitat was designated for the 

gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March 

9, 1978). That rule (50 CFR 17.95(a)) 

identifies Isle Royale National Park, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management zones 1, 2, and 3, as 

delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as 

critical habitat. Wolf management zones 

1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately 

25,500 km2 (9,845 mi2) in northeastern 

and north-central Minnesota. This 

proposed rule, if finalized, would 

remove the designation of critical 

habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota 

and on Isle Royale, Michigan. 

Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) 

for Threatened Species 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 

forth a series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to all endangered 

wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

take (includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

endangered wildlife species. It is also 

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that 

has been taken illegally. Certain 

exceptions apply to our agents and 

agents of State conservation agencies. 

Section 4(d) of the Act provides that 

whenever a species is listed as a 

threatened species, we shall issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. Section 4(d) 

also states that we may, by regulation, 

extend to threatened species the 

prohibitions provided for endangered 

species under section 9. The 

implementing regulations for threatened 

wildlife under the Act incorporate the 

section 9 prohibitions for endangered 

wildlife (50 CFR 17.31), except when a 

special regulation promulgated pursuant 

to section 4(d) applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). 

This proposal, if finalized, would 

remove the special regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act for wolves in 

Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, 

Indiana, and Ohio. These regulations are 

found at 50 CFR 17.40 (d) and (o). 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g) of the Act requires postdelisting monitoring (PDM) for a 

minimum of five years after a species is 

delisted. The goal of post-delisting 

monitoring is to confirm that a delisted 

species does not require relisting as 

threatened or endangered after removal 

of the Act’s protections. To do this, 

PDM generally focuses on evaluating (1) 

demographic characteristics of the 

species, (2) threats to the species, and 

(3) implementation of legal and/or 

management commitments that have 

been identified as important in reducing 

threats to the species or maintaining 

threats at sufficiently low levels. If at 

any time during the 5-year monitoring 

program data indicate that protective 

status under the Act should be 

reinstated, we can initiate listing 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43691

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

A monitoring plan for the gray wolf 

EDPS is being developed to detect 

whether factors that might threaten its 

existence have arisen or increased 

unexpectedly after delisting. In the 

EDPS, PDM will be conducted in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

These States comprise the recovery 

areas within the DPS and were the only 

States with numerical recovery criteria 

in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992a). The 

monitoring plan is being developed by 

Service biologists and the Eastern 

Timber Wolf Recovery Team. 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

DNRs have monitored wolves for several 

decades with significant assistance from 

numerous partners, including the U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, 

USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, tribal 

natural resource agencies, and the 

Service. To maximize comparability of 

PDM data with data obtained before 

delisting, all three State DNRs intend to 

continue their previous wolf population 

monitoring methodology with only 

minor changes. Additionally, in the 

winter of 2003–04, the Wisconsin and 

Michigan DNRs began implementing a 

‘‘Minnesota-type’’ survey on a trial 

basis, to compare the results of that 

method to their current method, which 

is more labor-intensive. If found to be 

sufficiently accurate in estimating 

smaller wolf populations, the 

Minnesota-type method will be 

considered for adoption in Wisconsin 

and Michigan. 

In addition to monitoring population 

numbers and trends, the PDM will 

evaluate post-delisting threats, in 

particular human-caused mortality, 

disease, and implementation of legal 

and management commitments. If at any 

time during the monitoring period we 

detect a significant downward change in 

the populations or an increase in threats 

to the degree that population viability 

may be threatened, we will evaluate and 

change (intensify, extend, and/or 

otherwise improve) the monitoring 

methods, if appropriate, and/or consider 

relisting the DPS, if warranted. Changes 

to the monitoring methods, for example, 

might include increased emphasis on a 

potentially important threat or a 

particular geographic area. At the end of 

the monitoring period, we will decide if 

relisting, continued monitoring, or 

ending monitoring is appropriate. If data 

show a significant population decline or 

increased threats, but not to the level 

that relisting is warranted, we will 

consider continuing monitoring beyond 

the specified period and may modify the 

monitoring program based on an 

evaluation of the results of the initial 

monitoring. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

current or likely future threat, or lack 

thereof, to gray wolves in the EDPS; 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, population size, 

and population trends of gray wolves in 

the EDPS;

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

EDPS and their possible impacts on the 

gray wolf and its habitat; 

(4) Information concerning the 

adequacy of the recovery criteria 

described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for 

the Eastern Timber Wolf; 

(5) The extent of State and Tribal 

protection and management that would 

be provided to the gray wolf in the core 

areas of the EDPS as a delisted species; 

(6) Information regarding taxonomy of 

canids in the northeastern United 

States. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit Internet 

comments to ‘‘egwdelist@fs.fed.us’’ in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

Gray Wolf Delisting’’ in your e-mail 

subject header and your name and 

return address in the body of your 

message. You will receive a responding 

message verifying receipt of your 

comments; if you do not receive 

notification of receipt, please resend 

your comments by the alternative 

methods mentioned above. Please note 

that the Internet address 

‘‘egwdelist@fs.fed.us’’ will be closed out 

at the termination of the public 

comment period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their home 

addresses from the rulemaking record, 

which we will honor to the extent 

allowable by law. There also may be 

circumstances in which we may 

withhold from the rulemaking record a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comment. We will not consider 

anonymous comments, however. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

We anticipate a large public response to 

this proposed rule. After the comment 

period closes, we will organize the 

comments and materials received and 

make them available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the following 

Ecological Services offices: 

• Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological 

Services Field Office, 4101 E. 80th 

Street, Bloomington, MN. 

• Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower 

Dr., New Franken, WI. 

• East Lansing, Michigan Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge 

Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI. 

• Pierre, South Dakota Ecological 

Services Field Office, 420 South 

Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD. 

• Bismarck, North Dakota Ecological 

Services Field Office, 3425 Miriam 

Avenue, Bismarck, ND. 

• Hadley, Massachusetts Regional 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 

01035–9589. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our delisting decision is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

delisting. 

Public Hearings 

We will hold public hearings 

throughout the geographic area of the 

43692 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

EDPS. The dates and locations of these 

hearings will be announced in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers. 

For a list of dates and locations, contact 

the Fort Snelling, MN Regional Office 

(See ADDRESSES section for contact 

information.) 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful to your understanding of the 

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the proposal (groupings and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? What else could we do to make 

the proposal easier to understand? Send 

a copy of any comments on how we 

could make this rule easier to 

understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C. Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may also email the comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

define a collection of information as the 

obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal Government 

are not included. The Service may not 

conduct or sponsor, and you are not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This rule does not include any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. As proposed under the 

Post-delisting Monitoring section above, 

gray wolf populations in the Eastern 

Gray Wolf DPS will be monitored by the 

States of Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin in accordance with their 

Gray Wolf State Management Plans. We 

do not anticipate a need to request data 

or other information from 10 or more 

persons during any 12-month period to 

satisfy monitoring information needs. If 

it becomes necessary to collect 

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or 

organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this 

proposed rule is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use, this action is not a 

significant energy action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

coordinated this proposed rule with the 

affected tribes. Throughout 

development of this proposed rule, we 

endeavored to consult with Native 

American tribes and Native American 

organizations in order both to provide 

them with a complete understanding of 

the proposed changes and also to enable 

ourselves to gain an appreciation of 

their concerns with those changes. We 

will fully consider all of their comments 

on the proposed EDPS gray wolf 

delisting submitted during the public 

comment period and will attempt to 

address those concerns to the extent 

allowed by the Act, the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and other Federal 

statutes. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above). 

Author 

The primary author of this rule is 

Laura J. Ragan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 

Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Substantial contributions were also 

made by Service employees Ron 

Refsnider (Ft. Snelling, Minnesota), Phil 

Delphey (Bloomington, Minnesota), Joel 

Trick (Green Bay, Wisconsin), Christie 

Deloria (Marquette, Michigan), and 

Michael Amaral (Concord, New 

Hampshire).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray [Eastern Distinct 

Population Segment] (Canis lupus)’’

under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 

reserving paragraphs (d) and (o).

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the 

critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf 

(Canis lupus).’’

Dated: June 4, 2004. 

Steve Williams, 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–16535 Filed 7–16–04; 11:12 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Wednesday,

July 21, 2004

Part III

Department of the 

Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory 

Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of 

Meetings; Proposed Rule

43694 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AT53

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

Frameworks for Early-Season 

Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; 

Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (hereinafter Service or we) is 

proposing to establish the 2004–05 

early-season hunting regulations for 

certain migratory game birds. We 

annually prescribe frameworks, or outer 

limits, for dates and times when hunting 

may occur and the maximum number of 

birds that may be taken and possessed 

in early seasons. Early seasons may 

open as early as September 1, and 

include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

These frameworks are necessary to 

allow State selections of specific final 

seasons and limits and to allow 

recreational harvest at levels compatible 

with population status and habitat 

conditions.

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee will meet to 

consider and develop proposed 

regulations for late-season migratory 

bird hunting and the 2005 spring/

summer migratory bird subsistence 

seasons in Alaska on July 28 and 29, 

2004. All meetings will commence at 

approximately 8:30 a.m. You must 

submit comments on the proposed 

migratory bird hunting-season 

frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other early 

seasons by August 2, 2004, and for the 

forthcoming proposed late-season 

frameworks by August 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee will meet in 

room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Arlington Square Building, 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 

Virginia. Send your comments on the 

proposals to the Chief, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior, MS MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 

C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

All comments received, including 

names and addresses, will become part 

of the public record. You may inspect 

comments during normal business 

hours at the Service’s office in room 

4107, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 

Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Millsap, Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 

358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations Schedule for 2004

On March 22, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 13440) a 

proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The 

proposal provided a background and 

overview of the migratory bird hunting 

regulations process, and dealt with the 

establishment of seasons, limits, the 

proposed regulatory alternatives for the 

2004–05 duck hunting season, and other 

regulations for migratory game birds 

under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, 

and 20.110 of subpart K. On June 9, 

2004, we published in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 32418) a second 

document providing supplemental 

proposals for early- and late-season 

migratory bird hunting regulations 

frameworks and the regulatory 

alternatives for the 2004–05 duck 

hunting season. The June 9 supplement 

also provided detailed information on 

the 2004–05 regulatory schedule and 

announced the Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee (SRC) and 

Flyway Council meetings. 

This document, the third in a series 

of proposed, supplemental, and final 

rulemaking documents for migratory 

bird hunting regulations, deals 

specifically with proposed frameworks 

for early-season regulations. It will lead 

to final frameworks from which States 

may select season dates, shooting hours, 

and daily bag and possession limits for 

the 2004–05 season. We have 

considered all pertinent comments 

received through June 25, 2004, on the 

March 22 and June 9, 2004, rulemaking 

documents in developing this 

document. In addition, new proposals 

for certain early-season regulations are 

provided for public comment. Comment 

periods are specified above under 

DATES. We will publish final regulatory 

frameworks for early seasons in the 

Federal Register on or about August 20, 

2004.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations 

Committee Meetings 

Participants at the June 23–24, 2004, 

meetings reviewed information on the 

current status of migratory shore and 

upland game birds and developed 2004–

05 migratory game bird regulations 

recommendations for these species plus 

regulations for migratory game birds in 

Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands; special September waterfowl 

seasons in designated States; special sea 

duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; 

and extended falconry seasons. In 

addition, we reviewed and discussed 

preliminary information on the status of 

waterfowl. Participants at the previously 

announced July 28–29, 2004, meetings 

will review information on the current 

status of waterfowl and develop 

recommendations for the 2004–05 

regulations pertaining to regular 

waterfowl seasons and other species and 

seasons not previously discussed at the 

early-season meetings. In accordance 

with Department of the Interior policy, 

these meetings are open to public 

observation and you may submit written 

comments to the Director of the Service 

on the matters discussed. 

Population Status and Harvest 

The following paragraphs provide 

preliminary information on the status of 

waterfowl and information on the status 

and harvest of migratory shore and 

upland game birds. 

May Breeding Waterfowl and Habitat 

Survey 

Most of the U.S. and Canadian 

prairies were much drier in May of 2004 

than they were in May of 2003. The 

return of water to short-grass prairies of 

southern Alberta and Saskatchewan we 

saw last year did not continue, and 

habitat in these areas went from good 

last year to fair or poor this year. The 

Manitoba survey area ranges from poor 

in the east to good in the west, similar 

to conditions observed last year. The 

Dakotas have continued the slow drying 

trend that we have seen over the past 

few years, and much of eastern South 

Dakota is in poor condition. Conditions 

in the Dakotas improve to the north. 

Eastern Montana is a mosaic of habitat 

conditions ranging from poor to good, 

and production potential is thought to 

be only fair in this region. Although 

many areas received considerable 

moisture in the form of over-winter 

snow, with even a late snowstorm in the 

southern portions in middle May, the 

snow melted and went right into the 

parched ground. Snow and cold during 

the May storm probably adversely 

impacted early nesters and young 

broods. Water received after the May 

surveys likely did not alleviate dry 

conditions, because much of it soaked 

into the grounds. Therefore, waterfowl 

production in the prairies is only poor 

to fair this year. 

When there are dry conditions in the 

prairies, many prairie nesting ducks will 

typically over-fly these areas into the 

bush. This year, the Canadian Bush 

(Northwest Territories, Northern 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43695

Alberta, Northern Saskatchewan and 

Northern Manitoba) was exceptionally 

late in thawing so the birds that did 

over-fly the dry prairies encountered 

winter-like conditions and will be even 

less successful than in a normal overflight year. This is especially true for 

mallard and pintails; late nesters will 

have better success. Overall, the bush, 

including the parklands and boreal 

forest, will be only fair to marginally 

good for production because of the latest 

spring thaw in at least 20 years. 

However, Alaska birds should produce 

well because of excellent habitat 

conditions. Areas south of Alaska’s 

Brooks Range experienced a 

widespread, record-setting early spring 

breakup, and flooding due to rapid thaw 

was minor. 

Breeding habitat conditions were 

generally good to excellent in the 

eastern U.S. and Canada. Although 

spring was late in most areas, it is 

thought that nesting was not 

significantly affected because of 

abundant spring rain and mild 

temperatures. Production in the East is 

expected to be better this year than last 

year. 

Unfortunately, we will have no 

traditional July Production Survey this 

year to verify the early predictions of 

our biologists in the field, due to a 

severe budget situation within the 

migratory bird program. However, the 

pilot-biologists responsible for several 

survey areas (Southern Alberta, 

Southern Saskatchewan, the Dakotas, 

and Montana) will return in early July 

for a brief over-flight of a representative 

portion of their areas to assess 

significant habitat changes since May 

and provide a brief snapshot of 

production. This information and 

reports from local biologists in the field 

will help us with our overall 

perspective on duck production this 

year. 

Status of Teal 

The estimate of blue-winged teal 

numbers from the Traditional Survey 

Area is 4.07 million. This represents a 

26.2 percent decline from 2003 and 9.6 

percent below the long-term average. 

The estimate suggests that a 9-day 

September teal season is appropriate in 

2004. 

Sandhill Cranes 

The Mid-Continent Population of 

Sandhill Cranes has generally stabilized 

at comparatively high levels, following 

increases in the 1970s. The Central 

Platte River Valley, Nebraska, spring 

index for 2004, uncorrected for 

visibility, was 356,850 cranes. The most 

recent photo-corrected 3-year average 

(for 2001–2003) was 370,300, which is 

within the established populationobjective range of 343,000–465,000 

cranes. All Central Flyway States, 

except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting 

in portions of their respective States in 

2003–04. About 7,700 hunters 

participated in these seasons, which is 

similar to the number that participated 

during the previous year. An estimated 

18,527 cranes were harvested in the 

Central Flyway during 2003–04 seasons, 

which was 42% higher than the 

previous year’s estimate. Retrieved 

harvests in the Pacific Flyway, Canada, 

and Mexico were estimated to be about 

13,109 cranes for the 2003–04 period. 

The total North American sport harvest, 

including crippling losses, was 

estimated at 35,706, which is similar to 

the previous year’s estimate. The longterm trend analysis for the MidContinent Population during 1982–2000 

indicates that harvests have been 

increasing at a higher rate than the trend 

in population growth over the same 

period. 

The fall 2003 pre-migration survey 

estimate for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of sandhill cranes was 

19,523, which was similar to the 

previous year’s estimate of 18,803. 

Limited special seasons were held 

during 2003 in portions of Arizona, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming, resulting in a harvest of 528 

cranes, which was 17% below the 

previous year’s harvest of 639 cranes. 

Woodcock 

Singing-ground and Wing-collection 

Surveys were conducted to assess the 

population status of the American 

woodcock (Scolopax minor). Singingground Survey data for 2004 indicate 

that the numbers of displaying 

woodcock in the Eastern and Central 

Regions were unchanged from 2003 

(P>0.10). There was no significant trend 

in woodcock heard on the Singingground Survey in either the Eastern or 

Central Regions during the 10 years 

between 1995 and 2004 (P>0.10). This 

represents the first time since 1992 that 

the 10-year trend estimate for either 

region was not a significant decline. 

There were long-term (1968–2004) 

declines (P<0.01) of 2.1 percent per year 

in the Eastern Region and 1.8 percent 

per year in the Central Region. Wingcollection survey data indicate that the 

2003 recruitment index for the U.S. 

portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 

immatures per adult female) was 

slightly higher than the 2002 index, but 

was 12 percent below the long-term 

average. The recruitment index for the 

U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.4 

immatures per adult female) was 19 

percent below the 2002 index and 16 

percent below the long-term average. 

Band-Tailed Pigeons and Doves 

A significant decline in the Coastal 

population of band-tailed pigeons 

occurred during 1968–2003, as 

indicated by the Breeding Bird Survey 

(BBS); however, no trend was noted 

over the most recent 10 years. 

Additionally, mineral-site counts at 10 

selected sites in Oregon indicate a 

general increase since the late 1980s. 

Numbers have declined the past 4 years, 

but the count of 3,195 in 2003 is still 

well above the total of 1,462 in 1986. 

Call-count surveys conducted in 

Washington showed no significant 

trends during 1975–2003 or between 

1999–2003. A rangewide (British 

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 

California) mineral-site survey for the 

Coastal Population was established in 

2003, but it will be several years before 

trend information will be available. The 

Interior band-tailed pigeon population 

is stable, with no trend indicated by the 

BBS over the short- or long-term 

periods.

Analyses of Mourning Dove Callcount Survey data indicated no 

significant trend in doves heard in any 

management unit over the most recent 

10 years. Between 1966 and 2004, all 

three units exhibited significant 

declines (P<0.05). In contrast, for doves 

seen over the 10-year period, a 

significant increase was found in the 

Eastern Unit (P<0.05), while no trends 

were found in the Central and Western 

Units. Over 39 years, no trend was 

found for doves seen in the Eastern and 

Central Units, while a decline was 

indicated in the Western Unit (P<0.05). 

A project is under way to develop 

mourning dove population models for 

each unit to provide guidance for 

improving our decision-making process 

with respect to harvest management. 

Additionally, a small-scale banding 

study was initiated in 2003 to obtain 

additional information. 

In Arizona, the white-winged dove 

population has shown a significant 

decline between 1962 and 2004. 

However, the number of whitewings has 

been fairly stable since the 1970s. 

Estimated harvests in recent years 

(145,000 in 2003) are low compared to 

those occurring several decades ago. In 

Texas, white-winged doves are now 

found throughout most of the state. In 

2004, the whitewing population in 

Texas was estimated to be 2,387,000 

birds, a decrease of 5.5 percent from 

2003. A more inclusive count in San 

Antonio documented more than 1.3 

million birds. An estimated 130,900 

whitewings were taken during the 

43696 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

special whitewing season in south 

Texas, with an additional 1,224,000 

birds taken statewide during the regular 

mourning dove season. The expansion 

of whitewings northward and eastward 

from Texas has led to whitewings being 

sighted in most of the Great Plains and 

Midwestern states and as far north as 

Ontario. Nesting has been reported in 

Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, 

and Missouri. They have been sighted in 

Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, and 

Minnesota. Additionally, whitewings 

are believed to be expanding northward 

from Florida and have been seen along 

the eastern seaboard as far north as 

Newfoundland. 

White-tipped doves are maintaining a 

relatively stable population in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They 

are most abundant in cities and, for the 

most part, are not available to hunting 

because of their urban location. The 

count in 2004 averaged 0.84 birds per 

stop, an 11.6 percent decrease over the 

count in 2003. The estimated harvest 

during the special 4-day whitewing 

season is less than 3,000 birds. 

Review of Public Comments 

The preliminary proposed rulemaking 

(March 22 Federal Register) opened the 

public comment period for migratory 

game bird hunting regulations and 

announced the proposed regulatory 

alternatives for the 2004–05 duck 

hunting season. Comments concerning 

early-season issues and the proposed 

alternatives are summarized below and 

numbered in the order used in the 

March 22 Federal Register document. 

Only the numbered items pertaining to 

early-seasons issues and the proposed 

regulatory alternatives for which written 

comments were received are included. 

Consequently, the issues do not follow 

in consecutive numerical or 

alphabetical order. 

We received recommendations from 

all four Flyway Councils. Some 

recommendations supported 

continuation of last year’s frameworks. 

Due to the comprehensive nature of the 

annual review of the frameworks 

performed by the Councils, support for 

continuation of last year’s frameworks is 

assumed for items for which no 

recommendations were received. 

Council recommendations for changes 

in the frameworks are summarized 

below. We seek additional information 

and comments on the recommendations 

in this supplemental proposed rule. 

New proposals and modifications to 

previously described proposals are 

discussed below. Wherever possible, 

they are discussed under headings 

corresponding to the numbered items in 

the March 22, 2004, Federal Register

document. 

1. Ducks 

Categories used to discuss issues 

related to duck harvest management are: 

(A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) 

Regulatory Alternatives, including 

specification of framework dates, season 

length, and bag limits, (C) Zones and 

Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/

Species Management. The categories 

correspond to previously published 

issues/discussions, and only those 

containing substantial recommendations 

are discussed below. 

D. Special Seasons/Species 

Management 

i. September Teal Seasons 

Council Recommendations: The 

Central Flyway Council recommended 

that the Service change the status of the 

Nebraska September teal season from 

experimental to operational beginning 

with the 2004–05 hunting season. 

Criteria for Nebraska’s September teal 

season would be the same as for other 

non-production Central Flyway states 

and confined to that area opened to teal 

hunting during the experimental phase. 

The Council believes that pre-sunrise 

shooting hours are justified given results 

from evaluation of non-target attempt 

rates.

Service Response: We concur. 

iv. Canvasbacks 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upperand Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended modifying the 

current Canvasback Harvest Strategy to 

allow partial seasons within the regular 

duck season. The harvest management 

strategy would include 3 levels: closed, 

‘‘restrictive’’ season length, and full 

season. 

The Central Flyway Council 

recommended managing canvasbacks 

with the ‘Hunters Choice Bag Limit’

(aggregate daily bag limit of 1 hen 

mallard, mottled duck, pintail, or 

canvasback). The Council further 

recommends that until the ‘Hunter 

Choice Bag Limit’ becomes available the 

current strategy should be modified to 

include three levels of harvest 

opportunity: full, closed, and partial 

seasons. The partial season would 

consist of the ‘‘restrictive’’ season length 

(39 days in the Central Flyway). 

The Pacific Flyway Council 

recommended modifying the current 

canvasback harvest management 

strategy to allow partial canvasback 

seasons within regular duck season 

frameworks. The harvest management 

strategy would include four levels for 

the Pacific Flyway: ‘‘liberal’’—107 days, 

‘‘moderate’’—86 days, ‘‘restrictive’’—60 

days, and closed seasons. The Council 

also recommended that the strategy 

include a statement specifying that 

Alaska’s season will maintain a fixed 

restriction of 1 canvasback daily in lieu 

of the annual prescriptions from the 

strategy. 

Service Response: The Service 

concurs with the Atlantic, Mississippi, 

and Central Flyway Council 

recommendations for modification of 

the canvasback harvest strategy to allow 

for two potential levels of canvasback 

seasons: 

(1) An open season with daily bag and 

possession limits of 1 and 2, 

respectively, for the entire regular duck 

season whenever the allowable harvest 

projects a breeding population in the 

subsequent year of more than 500,000 

canvasbacks; 

(2) A partial season at the 

‘‘restrictive’’ package level (30 days in 

the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, 

39 days in the Central Flyway, and 60 

in the Pacific Flyway) within the regular 

duck season whenever a full season 

projects a breeding population in the 

subsequent year of less than 500,000 but 

a partial season projects a breeding 

population over 500,000 birds; and 

Whenever the allowable harvest 

under both the full and partial seasons 

project a breeding population in the 

subsequent year of less than 500,000, 

the season will be closed season in all 

Flyways. Season splits must conform to 

each State’s zone/split configuration for 

duck hunting. If a State is authorized to 

split its regular duck season and 

chooses not to do so, the partial season 

may still be split into two segments. In 

Alaska, a 1-bird daily bag limit for the 

entire regular duck season length will be 

used in all years unless we determine 

that a complete season closure is in the 

best interest of the canvasback resource 

and believe it necessary to close the 

season in Alaska as well as in the lower 

48 states. 

v. Pintails 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 

modifying the Interim Strategy for 

Northern Pintail Harvest Management to 

allow partial seasons within the regular 

duck season. The Council recommended 

using partial seasons to allow hunting 

opportunity for this species when (1) a 

full season is predicted to return a 

breeding population below 1.5 million 

(the threshold for season closure) and 

(2) when a partial season is expected to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43697

return a breeding population at or above 

1.5 million. 

The Upper- and Lower-Region 

Regulations Committees of the 

Mississippi Flyway Council 

recommended that the current interim 

pintail harvest management strategy be 

modified to allow partial seasons within 

the regular duck hunting season. The 

harvest management strategy would 

include 3 levels: closed, ‘‘restrictive’’

season length, and full season. 

The Central Flyway Council 

recommended that the interim pintail 

harvest strategy be revised as follows:

In the Central Flyway, pintails will be 

included in a ‘Hunters Choice’ daily bag limit 

(hen mallard, or mottled duck, or pintail, or 

canvasback—daily bag of 1). When the 

interim pintail harvest strategy model 

projections allow for a daily bag of =2, 

pintails will be removed from the 1-bird 

aggregate bag and the prescribed daily bag 

limit will be selected.

If this recommendation is not 

approved, the Council recommended 

the following modification to the 

existing harvest strategy:

When the May Breeding Population Survey 

in the traditional survey areas is below 1.5 

million or the projected fall flight is 

predicted to be below 2 million (as calculated 

by the models in the interim strategy), adopt 

the ‘‘restrictive’’ AHM package season length 

(39 days in the Central Flyway) with a daily 

bag limit of 1, if these regulations are 

projected to produce harvest at levels that 

would provide for the 6% annual growth 

identified as an objective in the strategy. If 

the Restrictive package regulations are 

expected to provide for <6% population 

growth, the season on pintails will be closed.

The Pacific Flyway Council 

recommended maintaining the Interim 

Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy as 

originally adopted by the Service. 

Service Response: In 1997, the Service 

formally adopted the use of the interim 

pintail harvest strategy (62 FR 39712). 

The interim harvest strategy is based on 

a mathematical model of the continental 

pintail population and predicts 

allowable harvest of pintails in the 

lower 48 States based on the current 

size of the pintail breeding population, 

anticipated recruitment, anticipated 

natural mortality, anticipated mortality 

due to hunting, and the desired size of 

the population in the following spring. 

In 2002, we updated the harvest 

prediction equations with the 

concurrence of all four Flyway Councils 

(67 FR 40128). 

In the March 12 Federal Register, we 

requested that the Flyway Councils 

consider a modification to the interim 

harvest strategy because for the 2002–03 

and 2003–04 hunting seasons we had 

departed from the interim strategy by 

implementing partial seasons (67 FR 

59110 and 68 FR 55784). We concur 

with the recommendations of the 

Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyway Councils to include the use of 

partial seasons when circumstances 

warrant, and propose to modify the 

interim harvest strategy to provide for 

partial seasons under the following 

conditions:

When the current-year breeding population 

estimate for northern pintails is lower than 

2.5 million and the population projection of 

the model in the harvest strategy predicts 

that the breeding population will decline in 

the following year.

The partial season will consist of the 

number of days currently allowed in all 

Flyways under the ‘‘restrictive’’

packages with a 1-bird daily bag limit. 

Under all other circumstances, all 

existing provisions and conditions of 

the current harvest strategy will 

continue to apply. Season splits must 

conform to each State’s zone/split 

configuration for duck hunting. If a 

State is authorized to split its regular 

duck season and chooses not to do so, 

the partial season may still be split into 

two segments. 

4. Canada Geese 

A. Special Seasons 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 

that Connecticut’s September goose 

season framework dates of September 1 

to September 25 become operational. 

The Upper- and Lower-Region 

Regulations Committees of the 

Mississippi Flyway Council 

recommended that Michigan be granted 

operational status for the September 1–

10 early Canada goose season with a 5-

bird daily limit within Huron, Tuscola, 

and Saginaw Counties. 

The Central Flyway Council 

recommended allowing a 3-year 

experimental late September Canada 

goose season in eastern Nebraska. The 

Council also recommended that South 

Dakota’s 2000–02 3-year Experimental 

Late-September Canada Goose Hunting 

Season (September 16–30) become 

operational in 20 eastern South Dakota 

counties beginning with the September 

2004 hunting season. 

The Pacific Flyway Council 

recommended expanding the September 

season in Wyoming to include the entire 

Pacific Flyway portion of Wyoming, 

reducing the daily bag limit from 3 to 

2, and eliminating the quota on the 

number of geese harvested. 

Service Response: We concur with the 

recommendations regarding 

Connecticut, Michigan, Nebraska, South 

Dakota, and Wyoming’s September 

goose seasons. 

B. Regular Seasons 

Council Recommendations: The 

Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended that the 

framework opening date for all species 

of geese for the regular goose seasons be 

September 16 in 2004 and future years. 

If this recommendation is not approved, 

the Council recommended that the 

framework opening date for all species 

of geese for the regular goose seasons in 

Michigan and Wisconsin be September 

16, 2004. 

Service Response: We concur with the 

objective to increase harvest pressure on 

resident Canada geese in the Mississippi 

Flyway, and a Michigan evaluation of 

an earlier framework opening indicates 

that a September 16 opening date would 

accomplish that objective. However, a 

September 16 opening date Flywaywide would require that the regular 

season be established during the earlyseason regulations process, which 

presents a number of administrative 

problems. In addition, a September 16 

opening date has implications beyond 

the Mississippi Flyway, and the other 

Flyway Councils have not had a chance 

to consider the advisability of such an 

early opening in their respective 

Flyways. Therefore, we propose that a 

decision on a September 16 opening be 

deferred until next year so that we and 

the Mississippi Flyway Council can 

consider the administrative 

ramifications of establishing regular 

goose season frameworks during the 

early-season process and to provide an 

opportunity for the other Flyway 

Councils to consider such a change. 

Regarding the recommendations for a 

September 16 framework opening date 

in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2004, we 

concur. However, we propose that the 

opening dates in both States continue to 

be considered exceptions to the general 

Flyway opening date, to be reconsidered 

annually, until the issue of an earlier 

Flyway-wide opening date is addressed. 

9. Sandhill Cranes 

Council Recommendations: The 

Central Flyway Council recommended 

using the 2004 Rocky Mountain 

Population sandhill crane harvest 

allocation of 656 birds as proposed in 

the allocation formula using the 2001–

2003 3-year running average. 

Service Response: We concur. 

16. Mourning Doves 

Council Recommendations: The 

Pacific Flyway Council recommended 

that the daily bag limit in Utah be 

43698 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

changed from 10 mourning doves to 10 

mourning and white-winged doves in 

the aggregate.

Written Comments: The Alabama 

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

Division requested moving Conecuh 

County from the South zone to the 

North Zone for the 2004 season. 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department requested that a portion of 

the South Zone be moved to the Central 

Zone to allow greater hunter utilization 

of the white-winged dove population 

around San Antonio. Texas also 

requested clarification regarding the 

framework opening date in its southern 

zone. 

An individual from Louisiana 

requested a split dove season in the 

South Zone with the opening split 

earlier than September 20. 

Service Response: We concur with the 

Pacific Flyway Council’s 

recommendation concerning Utah’s 

daily bag limit. 

Regarding the requests by Texas and 

Alabama, the nature of the requests 

made us realize that we need to work 

with the States to review our current 

policy regarding zoning for dove 

hunting. In particular, we ask the 

Flyway Councils and Mourning Dove 

Management Unit Technical 

Committees to review the current 

policies regarding the use of zones and 

split seasons for dove hunting, with a 

view toward establishing guidelines for 

the use of these harvest-management 

tools, as has been done for waterfowl. 

Items to be considered should include 

the number of zone/split-season 

configurations that could be used, the 

frequency with which those 

configurations could be changed, and 

the need for a restricted framework 

opening date in south zones. 

Regarding the specific zoning requests 

this year, we concur with the requests 

by Alabama and Texas to modify their 

existing zone boundaries. Our approval 

is based largely on our past history of 

approving these types of requests and 

the fact that we anticipate no adverse 

biological impact by these proposed 

changes. In the future, however, we will 

be very reluctant to approve any request 

for zone boundary changes until the 

development and approval of a new 

policy on zoning. Additionally, we ask 

that all future zoning requests come 

through the appropriate Technical 

Committees and Flyway Councils. 

Regarding the issue of framework 

opening dates in south zones prior to 

September 20, there is no precedent for 

the requested change and we desire to 

wait for Flyway Council and Dove 

Technical Committee review of the 

current zoning policies and the 

cooperative development of guidelines 

for the use of zones and split seasons 

before departing from the current 

policy. 

18. Alaska 

Council Recommendations: The 

Pacific Flyway Council recommends 

that the tundra swan season in Unit 17 

become operational. 

Service Response: We concur. 

Public Comment Invited 

The Department of the Interior’s 

policy is, whenever practicable, to 

afford the public an opportunity to 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

We intend that adopted final rules be as 

responsive as possible to all concerned 

interests and, therefore, seek the 

comments and suggestions of the public, 

other concerned governmental agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

other private interests on these 

proposals. Accordingly, we invite 

interested persons to submit written 

comments, suggestions, or 

recommendations regarding the 

proposed regulations to the address 

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Special circumstances involved in the 

establishment of these regulations limit 

the amount of time that we can allow for 

public comment. Specifically, two 

considerations compress the time in 

which the rulemaking process must 

operate: (1) The need to establish final 

rules at a point early enough in the 

summer to allow affected State agencies 

to adjust their licensing and regulatory 

mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, 

before mid-June, of specific, reliable 

data on this year’s status of some 

waterfowl and migratory shore and 

upland game bird populations. 

Therefore, we believe that to allow 

comment periods past the dates 

specified in DATES is contrary to the 

public interest. 

Before promulgation of final 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will take into 

consideration all comments received. 

Such comments, and any additional 

information received, may lead to final 

regulations that differ from these 

proposals. You may inspect comments 

received on the proposed annual 

regulations during normal business 

hours at the Service’s office in room 

4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, 

Arlington, Virginia. For each series of 

proposed rulemakings, we will establish 

specific comment periods. We will 

consider, but possibly may not respond 

in detail to, each comment. However, as 

in the past, we will summarize all 

comments received during the comment 

period and respond to them in the final 

rule. 

NEPA Consideration 

NEPA considerations are covered by 

the programmatic document, ‘‘Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport 

Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–

14),’’ filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We 

published Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 

FR 22582). We published our Record of 

Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 

31341). In addition, an August 1985 

environmental assessment entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting 

Regulations on Federal Indian 

Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is 

available from the address indicated 

under the caption ADDRESSES.

In a proposed rule published in the 

April 30, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 

21298), we expressed our intent to begin 

the process of developing a new 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the migratory bird hunting 

program. We plan to begin the public 

scoping process in 2005. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Prior to issuance of the 2004–05 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will consider provisions 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 

hereinafter the Act) to ensure that 

hunting is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

designated as endangered or threatened, 

or modify or destroy its critical habitat, 

and is consistent with conservation 

programs for those species. 

Consultations under Section 7 of this 

Act may cause us to change proposals 

in this and future supplemental 

proposed rulemaking documents. 

Executive Order 12866 

The migratory bird hunting 

regulations are economically significant 

and were reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/

benefit analysis was initially prepared 

in 1981. This analysis was subsequently 

revised annually from 1990–1996, and 

then updated in 1998. We have updated 

again this year. It is further discussed 

below under the heading Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Results from the 2004 

analysis indicate that the expected 

welfare benefit of the annual migratory 

bird hunting frameworks is on the order 

of $734 million to $1.064 billion, with 

a midpoint estimate of $899 million. 

Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43699

available upon request from the address 

indicated under ADDRESSES or from our 

Web site at http://

www.migratorybirds.gov.

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are easy 

to understand. We invite 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? 

(5) Is the description of the rule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the rule? 

(6) What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand to: Office of the 

Executive Secretariat and Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may also email comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

These regulations have a significant 

economic impact on substantial 

numbers of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). We analyzed the economic 

impacts of the annual hunting 

regulations on small business entities in 

detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit 

analysis discussed under Executive 

Order 12866. This analysis was revised 

annually from 1990 through 1995. In 

1995, the Service issued a Small Entity 

Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which 

was subsequently updated in 1996, 

1998, and 2004. The primary source of 

information about hunter expenditures 

for migratory game bird hunting is the 

National Hunting and Fishing Survey, 

which is conducted at 5-year intervals. 

The 2004 Analysis was based on the 

2001 National Hunting and Fishing 

Survey and the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s County Business Patterns, 

from which it was estimated that 

migratory bird hunters would spend 

between $481 million and $1.2 billion at 

small businesses in 2004. Copies of the 

Analysis are available upon request 

from the address indicated under 

ADDRESSES or from our Web site at 

http://www.migratorybirds.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is a major rule under 5 

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

For the reasons outlined above, this rule 

has an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more. However, because 

this rule establishes hunting seasons, we 

do not plan to defer the effective date 

required by 5 U.S.C. 801 under the 

exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The various recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements imposed under 

regulations established in 50 CFR part 

20, subpart K, are utilized in the 

formulation of migratory game bird 

hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB 

has approved the information collection 

requirements of the Migratory Bird 

Harvest Information Program and 

assigned clearance number 1018–0015 

(expires 10/31/2004). This information 

is used to provide a sampling frame for 

voluntary national surveys to improve 

our harvest estimates for all migratory 

game birds in order to better manage 

these populations. OMB has also 

approved the information collection 

requirements of the Sandhill Crane 

Harvest Questionnaire and assigned 

clearance number 1018–0023 (expires 

10/31/2004). The information from this 

survey is used to estimate the 

magnitude and the geographical and 

temporal distribution of the harvest, and 

the portion it constitutes of the total 

population. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

We have determined and certify, in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking 

will not impose a cost of $100 million 

or more in any given year on local or 

State government or private entities. 

Therefore, this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

The Department, in promulgating this 

proposed rule, has determined that this 

rule will not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12988. 

Takings Implication Assessment 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this proposed rule, authorized by 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not 

have significant takings implications 

and does not affect any constitutionally 

protected property rights. This rule will 

not result in the physical occupancy of 

property, the physical invasion of 

property, or the regulatory taking of any 

property. In fact, these rules allow 

hunters to exercise otherwise 

unavailable privileges and, therefore, 

reduce restrictions on the use of private 

and public property.

Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. While this 

proposed rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, it 

is not expected to adversely affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Federalism Effects 

Due to the migratory nature of certain 

species of birds, the Federal 

Government has been given 

responsibility over these species by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually 

prescribe frameworks from which the 

States make selections regarding the 

hunting of migratory birds, and we 

employ guidelines to establish special 

regulations on Federal Indian 

reservations and ceded lands. This 

process preserves the ability of the 

States and tribes to determine which 

seasons meet their individual needs. 

Any State or tribe may be more 

restrictive than the Federal frameworks 

at any time. The frameworks are 

developed in a cooperative process with 

the States and the Flyway Councils. 

This process allows States to participate 

in the development of frameworks from 

which they will make selections, 

thereby having an influence on their 

own regulations. These rules do not 

have a substantial direct effect on fiscal 

capacity, change the roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments, or intrude on State policy 

or administration. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

these regulations do not have significant 

federalism effects and do not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

43700 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

assessment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be 

promulgated for the 2004–05 hunting 

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 

703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

Proposed Regulations Frameworks for 

2004–05 Early Hunting Seasons on 

Certain Migratory Game Birds 

Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and delegated authorities, the 

Department of the Interior approved the 

following proposed frameworks, which 

prescribe season lengths, bag limits, 

shooting hours, and outside dates 

within which States may select hunting 

seasons for certain migratory game birds 

between September 1, 2004, and March 

10, 2005. 

General 

Dates: All outside dates noted below 

are inclusive. 

Shooting and Hawking (Taking by 

Falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise 

specified, from one-half hour before 

sunrise to sunset daily. 

Possession Limits: Unless otherwise 

specified, possession limits are twice 

the daily bag limit. 

Flyways and Management Units 

Waterfowl Flyways: Atlantic Flyway—

includes Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. 

Mississippi Flyway—includes 

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, 

Tennessee, and Wisconsin. 

Central Flyway—includes Colorado 

(east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, 

Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, 

Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, 

Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties 

east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico 

(east of the Continental Divide except 

the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), 

North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, and Wyoming (east of the 

Continental Divide). 

Pacific Flyway—includes Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those 

portions of Colorado, Montana, New 

Mexico, and Wyoming not included in 

the Central Flyway. 

Management Units 

Mourning Dove Management Units:

Eastern Management Unit—All States 

east of the Mississippi River, and 

Louisiana. 

Central Management Unit—Arkansas, 

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. 

Western Management Unit—Arizona, 

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

and Washington. 

Woodcock Management Regions:

Eastern Management Region—

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, Vermont, 

Virginia, and West Virginia.

Central Management Region—

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. 

Other geographic descriptions are 

contained in a later portion of this 

document. 

Compensatory Days in the Atlantic 

Flyway: In the Atlantic Flyway States of 

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia, where Sunday hunting is 

prohibited statewide by State law, all 

Sundays are closed to all take of 

migratory waterfowl (including 

mergansers and coots). 

Special September Teal Season 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and September 30, an open season on 

all species of teal may be selected by the 

following States in areas delineated by 

State regulations: 

Atlantic Flyway—Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Virginia. 

Mississippi Flyway—Alabama, 

Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, 

and Tennessee. 

Central Flyway—Colorado (part), 

Kansas, Nebraska (part), New Mexico 

(part), Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not to exceed 9 consecutive 

days. The daily bag limit is 4 teal. 

Shooting Hours:

Atlantic Flyway—One-half hour 

before sunrise to sunset except in 

Maryland, where the hours are from 

sunrise to sunset. 

Mississippi and Central Flyways—

One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, 

except in the States of Arkansas, 

Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio, 

where the hours are from sunrise to 

sunset. 

Special September Duck Seasons 

Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee: In 

lieu of a special September teal season, 

a 5-consecutive-day season may be 

selected in September. The daily bag 

limit may not exceed 4 teal and wood 

ducks in the aggregate, of which no 

more than 2 may be wood ducks. 

Iowa: Iowa may hold up to 5 days of 

its regular duck hunting season in 

September. All ducks that are legal 

during the regular duck season may be 

taken during the September segment of 

the season. The September season 

segment may commence no earlier than 

the Saturday nearest September 20 

(September 18). The daily bag and 

possession limits will be the same as 

those in effect last year, but are subject 

to change during the late-season 

regulations process. The remainder of 

the regular duck season may not begin 

before October 10. 

Special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days

Outside Dates: States may select two 

consecutive days (hunting days in 

Atlantic Flyway States with 

compensatory days) per duck-hunting 

zone, designated as ‘‘Youth Waterfowl 

Hunting Days,’’ in addition to their 

regular duck seasons. The days must be 

held outside any regular duck season on 

a weekend, holidays, or other nonschool days when youth hunters would 

have the maximum opportunity to 

participate. The days may be held up to 

14 days before or after any regular duckseason frameworks or within any split 

of a regular duck season, or within any 

other open season on migratory birds. 

Daily Bag Limits: The daily bag limits 

may include ducks, geese, mergansers, 

coots, moorhens, and gallinules and 

would be the same as those allowed in 

the regular season. Flyway species and 

area restrictions would remain in effect. 

Shooting Hours: One-half hour before 

sunrise to sunset. 

Participation Restrictions: Youth 

hunters must be 15 years of age or 

younger. In addition, an adult at least 18 

years of age must accompany the youth 

hunter into the field. This adult may not 

duck hunt but may participate in other 

seasons that are open on the special 

youth day. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43701

Scoter, Eider, and Oldsquaw Ducks 

(Atlantic Flyway) 

Outside Dates: Between September 15 

and January 31. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not to exceed 107 days, with a 

daily bag limit of 7, singly or in the 

aggregate of the listed sea-duck species, 

of which no more than 4 may be scoters. 

Daily Bag Limits During the Regular 

Duck Season: Within the special sea 

duck areas, during the regular duck 

season in the Atlantic Flyway, States 

may choose to allow the above sea duck 

limits in addition to the limits applying 

to other ducks during the regular duck 

season. In all other areas, sea ducks may 

be taken only during the regular open 

season for ducks and are part of the 

regular duck season daily bag (not to 

exceed 4 scoters) and possession limits. 

Areas: In all coastal waters and all 

waters of rivers and streams seaward 

from the first upstream bridge in Maine, 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, and New York; in 

any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in 

any tidal waters of any bay which are 

separated by at least 1 mile of open 

water from any shore, island, and 

emergent vegetation in New Jersey, 

South Carolina, and Georgia; and in any 

waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any 

tidal waters of any bay which are 

separated by at least 800 yards of open 

water from any shore, island, and 

emergent vegetation in Delaware, 

Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia; 

and provided that any such areas have 

been described, delineated, and 

designated as special sea-duck hunting 

areas under the hunting regulations 

adopted by the respective States. 

Special Early Canada Goose Seasons 

Atlantic Flyway 

General Seasons 

Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days 

during September 1–15 may be selected 

for the Eastern Unit of Maryland and 

Delaware. Seasons not to exceed 30 days 

during September 1–30 may be selected 

for the Northeast Hunt Unit of North 

Carolina, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. 

Except for experimental seasons 

described below, seasons may not 

exceed 25 days during September 1–25 

in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas 

open to the hunting of Canada geese 

must be described, delineated, and 

designated as such in each State’s 

hunting regulations. 

Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 8 

Canada geese. 

Experimental Seasons 

Experimental Canada goose seasons of 

up to 25 days during September 1–25 

may be selected for the Montezuma 

Region of New York and the Lake 

Champlain Region of New York and 

Vermont. Experimental seasons of up to 

30 days during September 1–30 may be 

selected by Connecticut, Florida, 

Georgia, New York (Long Island Zone), 

North Carolina (except in the Northeast 

Hunt Unit), and South Carolina. Areas 

open to the hunting of Canada geese 

must be described, delineated, and 

designated as such in each State’s 

hunting regulations. 

Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 8 

Canada geese. 

Mississippi Flyway 

General Seasons 

Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days 

during September 1–15 may be selected, 

except in the Upper Peninsula in 

Michigan, where the season may not 

extend beyond September 10, and in 

Minnesota (except in the Northwest 

Goose Zone), where a season of up to 22 

days during September 1–22 may be 

selected. The daily bag limit may not 

exceed 5 Canada geese. Areas open to 

the hunting of Canada geese must be 

described, delineated, and designated as 

such in each State’s hunting regulations. 

A Canada goose season of up to 10 

consecutive days during September 1–

10 may be selected by Michigan for 

Huron, Saginaw, and Tuscola Counties, 

except that the Shiawassee National 

Wildlife Refuge, Shiawassee River State 

Game Area Refuge, and the Fish Point 

Wildlife Area Refuge will remain 

closed. The daily bag limit may not 

exceed 5 Canada geese. 

Central Flyway 

General Seasons 

Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days 

during September 1–15 may be selected. 

The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 

Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting 

of Canada geese must be described, 

delineated, and designated as such in 

each State’s hunting regulations. 

A Canada goose season of up to 15 

consecutive days during September 16–

30 may be selected by South Dakota. 

The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 

Canada geese. 

Experimental Seasons 

An experimental Canada goose season 

of up to 9 consecutive days during 

September 22–30 may be selected by 

Oklahoma. The daily bag limit may not 

exceed 5 Canada geese.

An experimental Canada goose season 

of up to 15 consecutive days during 

September 16–30 may be selected by 

Nebraska. The daily bag limit may not 

exceed 5 Canada geese. 

Pacific Flyway 

General Seasons 

California may select a 9-day season 

in Humboldt County during the period 

September 1–15. The daily bag limit is 

2. 

Colorado may select a 9-day season 

during the period of September 1–15. 

The daily bag limit is 3. 

Oregon may select a special Canada 

goose season of up to 15 days during the 

period September 1–15. In addition, in 

the NW goose management zone in 

Oregon, a 15-day season may be selected 

during the period September 1–20. 

Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 

Canada geese. 

Idaho may select a 7-day season in the 

special East Canada Goose Zone, as 

described in State regulations, during 

the period September 1–15. All 

participants must have a valid State 

permit, and the total number of permits 

issued is not to exceed 110 for this zone. 

The daily bag limit is 2. 

Idaho may select a 7-day Canada 

goose season during the period 

September 1–15 in Nez Perce County, 

with a bag limit of 4. 

Washington may select a special 

Canada goose season of up to 15 days 

during the period September 1–15. 

Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 

Canada geese. 

Wyoming may select an 8-day season 

on Canada geese between September 1–

15. This season is subject to the 

following conditions: 

1. Where applicable, the season must 

be concurrent with the September 

portion of the sandhill crane season. 

2. All participants must have a valid 

State permit for the special season. 

3. A daily bag limit of 2, with season 

and possession limits of 4, will apply to 

the special season. 

Areas open to hunting of Canada 

geese in each State must be described, 

delineated, and designated as such in 

each State’s hunting regulations. 

Regular Goose Seasons 

Regular goose seasons may open as 

early as September 16 in Wisconsin and 

Michigan. Season lengths, bag and 

possession limits, and other provisions 

will be established during the lateseason regulations process. 

Sandhill Cranes 

Regular Seasons in the Central Flyway 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and February 28. 

Hunting Seasons: Seasons not to 

exceed 37 consecutive days may be 

selected in designated portions of North 

Dakota (Area 2) and Texas (Area 2). 

43702 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Seasons not to exceed 58 consecutive 

days may be selected in designated 

portions of the following States: 

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

Seasons not to exceed 93 consecutive 

days may be selected in designated 

portions of the following States: New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Daily Bag Limits: 3 sandhill cranes, 

except 2 sandhill cranes in designated 

portions of North Dakota (Area 2) and 

Texas (Area 2). 

Permits: Each person participating in 

the regular sandhill crane seasons must 

have a valid Federal sandhill crane 

hunting permit and/or, in those States 

where a Federal sandhill crane permit is 

not issued, a State-issued Harvest 

Information Survey Program (HIP) 

certification for game bird hunting in 

their possession while hunting. 

Special Seasons in the Central and 

Pacific Flyways 

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may 

select seasons for hunting sandhill 

cranes within the range of the Rocky 

Mountain Population (RMP) subject to 

the following conditions:

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 31. 

Hunting Seasons: The season in any 

State or zone may not exceed 30 days. 

Bag limits: Not to exceed 3 daily and 

9 per season. 

Permits: Participants must have a 

valid permit, issued by the appropriate 

State, in their possession while hunting. 

Other provisions: Numbers of permits, 

open areas, season dates, protection 

plans for other species, and other 

provisions of seasons must be consistent 

with the management plan and 

approved by the Central and Pacific 

Flyway Councils with the following 

exceptions: 

1. In Utah, the requirement for 

monitoring the racial composition of the 

harvest in the experimental season is 

waived, and 100 percent of the harvest 

will be assigned to the RMP quota; 

2. In Arizona, the annual requirement 

for monitoring the racial composition of 

the harvest is changed to once every 3 

years; 

3. In Idaho, seasons are experimental, 

and the requirement for monitoring the 

racial composition of the harvest is 

waived; 100 percent of the harvest will 

be assigned to the RMP quota; and 

4. In New Mexico, the season in the 

Estancia Valley is experimental, with a 

requirement to monitor the level and 

racial composition of the harvest; 

greater sandhill cranes in the harvest 

will be assigned to the RMP quota. 

Common Moorhens and Purple 

Gallinules 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 20 in the Atlantic Flyway, 

and between September 1 and the 

Sunday nearest January 20 (January 23) 

in the Mississippi and Central Flyways. 

States in the Pacific Flyway have been 

allowed to select their hunting seasons 

between the outside dates for the season 

on ducks; therefore, they are late-season 

frameworks, and no frameworks are 

provided in this document. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Seasons may not exceed 70 days 

in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyways. Seasons may be split into 2 

segments. The daily bag limit is 15 

common moorhens and purple 

gallinules, singly or in the aggregate of 

the two species. 

Zoning: Seasons may be selected by 

zones established for duck hunting. 

Rails 

Outside Dates: States included herein 

may select seasons between September 

1 and January 20 on clapper, king, sora, 

and Virginia rails. 

Hunting Seasons: The season may not 

exceed 70 days, and may be split into 

2 segments. 

Daily Bag Limits: Clapper and King 

Rails—In Rhode Island, Connecticut, 

New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, 

10, singly or in the aggregate of the two 

species. In Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, 

South Carolina, North Carolina, and 

Virginia, 15, singly or in the aggregate 

of the two species. 

Sora and Virginia Rails—In the 

Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyways and the Pacific-Flyway 

portions of Colorado, Montana, New 

Mexico, and Wyoming, 25 daily and 25 

in possession, singly or in the aggregate 

of the two species. The season is closed 

in the remainder of the Pacific Flyway. 

Common Snipe 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and February 28, except in Maine, 

Vermont, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 

where the season must end no later than 

January 31. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Seasons may not exceed 107 

days and may be split into two 

segments. The daily bag limit is 8 snipe. 

Zoning: Seasons may be selected by 

zones established for duck hunting. 

American Woodcock 

Outside Dates: States in the Eastern 

Management Region may select hunting 

seasons between October 1 and January 

31. States in the Central Management 

Region may select hunting seasons 

between the Saturday nearest September 

22 (September 25) and January 31. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Seasons may not exceed 30 days 

in the Eastern Region and 45 days in the 

Central Region. The daily bag limit is 3. 

Seasons may be split into two segments. 

Zoning: New Jersey may select 

seasons in each of two zones. The 

season in each zone may not exceed 24 

days. 

Band-Tailed Pigeons 

Pacific Coast States (California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Nevada) 

Outside Dates: Between September 15 

and January 1. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not more than 9 consecutive 

days, with a daily bag limit of 2 bandtailed pigeons. 

Zoning: California may select hunting 

seasons not to exceed 9 consecutive 

days in each of two zones. The season 

in the North Zone must close by October 

3.

Four-Corners States (Arizona, Colorado, 

New Mexico, and Utah) 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and November 30. 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not more than 30 consecutive 

days, with a daily bag limit of 5 bandtailed pigeons. 

Zoning: New Mexico may select 

hunting seasons not to exceed 20 

consecutive days in each of two zones. 

The season in the South Zone may not 

open until October 1. 

Mourning Doves 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 15, except as otherwise 

provided, States may select hunting 

seasons and daily bag limits as follows: 

Eastern Management Unit 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not more than 70 days with a 

daily bag limit of 12, or not more than 

60 days with a daily bag limit of 15. 

Zoning and Split Seasons: States may 

select hunting seasons in each of two 

zones. The season within each zone may 

be split into not more than three 

periods. The hunting seasons in the 

South Zones of Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, and Louisiana may commence 

no earlier than September 20. 

Regulations for bag and possession 

limits, season length, and shooting 

hours must be uniform within specific 

hunting zones. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43703

Central Management Unit 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits: Not more than 70 days with a 

daily bag limit of 12, or not more than 

60 days with a daily bag limit of 15 

mourning and white-winged doves in 

the aggregate. 

Zoning and Split Seasons: States may 

select hunting seasons in each of two 

zones. The season within each zone may 

be split into not more than three 

periods. 

Texas may select hunting seasons for 

each of three zones subject to the 

following conditions: 

A. The hunting season may be split 

into not more than two periods, except 

in that portion of Texas in which the 

special white-winged dove season is 

allowed, where a limited mourning 

dove season may be held concurrently 

with that special season (see whitewinged dove frameworks). 

B. A season may be selected for the 

North and Central Zones between 

September 1 and January 25; and for the 

South Zone between September 20 and 

January 25. 

C. Daily bag limits are aggregate bag 

limits with mourning, white-winged, 

and white-tipped doves (see whitewinged dove frameworks for specific 

daily bag limit restrictions). 

D. Except as noted above, regulations 

for bag and possession limits, season 

length, and shooting hours must be 

uniform within each hunting zone. 

Western Management Unit 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits:

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington—Not 

more than 30 consecutive days with a 

daily bag limit of 10 mourning doves. 

Utah—Not more than 30 consecutive 

days with a daily bag limit that may not 

exceed 10 mourning doves and whitewinged doves in the aggregate. 

Nevada—Not more than 30 

consecutive days with a daily bag limit 

of 10 mourning doves, except in Clark 

and Nye Counties, where the daily bag 

limit may not exceed 10 mourning and 

white-winged doves in the aggregate. 

Arizona and California—Not more 

than 60 days, which may be split 

between two periods, September 1–15 

and November 1–January 15. In 

Arizona, during the first segment of the 

season, the daily bag limit is 10 

mourning and white-winged doves in 

the aggregate, of which no more than 6 

may be white-winged doves. During the 

remainder of the season, the daily bag 

limit is 10 mourning doves. In 

California, the daily bag limit is 10 

mourning doves, except in Imperial, 

Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, 

where the daily bag limit may not 

exceed 10 mourning and white-winged 

doves in the aggregate. 

White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves 

Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag 

Limits:

Except as shown below, seasons must 

be concurrent with mourning dove 

seasons. 

Eastern Management Unit 

In Florida, the daily bag limit may not 

exceed 12 mourning and white-winged 

doves (15 under the alternative) in the 

aggregate, of which no more than 4 may 

be white-winged doves. 

In the remainder of the Eastern 

Management Unit, the season is closed. 

Central Management Unit 

In Texas, the daily bag limit may not 

exceed 12 mourning, white-winged, and 

white-tipped doves (15 under the 

alternative) in the aggregate, of which 

no more than 2 may be white-tipped 

doves. In addition, Texas also may 

select a hunting season of not more than 

4 days for the special white-winged 

dove area of the South Zone between 

September 1 and September 19. The 

daily bag limit may not exceed 10 

white-winged, mourning, and whitetipped doves in the aggregate, of which 

no more than 5 may be mourning doves 

and 2 may be white-tipped doves. 

In the remainder of the Central 

Management Unit, the daily bag limit 

may not exceed 12 (15 under the 

alternative) mourning and white-winged 

doves in the aggregate.

Western Management Unit 

Arizona may select a hunting season 

of not more than 30 consecutive days, 

running concurrently with the first 

segment of the mourning dove season. 

The daily bag limit may not exceed 10 

mourning and white-winged doves in 

the aggregate, of which no more than 6 

may be white-winged doves. 

In Utah, the Nevada Counties of Clark 

and Nye, and in the California Counties 

of Imperial, Riverside, and San 

Bernardino, the daily bag limit may not 

exceed 10 mourning and white-winged 

doves in the aggregate. 

In the remainder of the Western 

Management Unit, the season is closed. 

Alaska 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 26. 

Hunting Seasons: Alaska may select 

107 consecutive days for waterfowl, 

sandhill cranes, and common snipe in 

each of five zones. The season may be 

split without penalty in the Kodiak 

Zone. The seasons in each zone must be 

concurrent. 

Closures: The season is closed on 

Canada geese from Unimak Pass 

westward in the Aleutian Island chain. 

The hunting season is closed on 

emperor geese, spectacled eiders, and 

Steller’s eiders. 

Daily Bag and Possession Limits:

Ducks—Except as noted, a basic daily 

bag limit of 7 and a possession limit of 

21 ducks. Daily bag and possession 

limits in the North Zone are 10 and 30, 

and in the Gulf Coast Zone, they are 8 

and 24, respectively. The basic limits 

may include no more than 1 canvasback 

daily and 3 in possession and may not 

include sea ducks. 

In addition to the basic duck limits, 

Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 

daily, 20 in possession, singly or in the 

aggregate, including no more than 6 

each of either harlequin or long-tailed 

ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, 

common and king eiders, harlequin 

ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common 

and red-breasted mergansers. 

Light Geese—A basic daily bag limit 

of 3 and a possession limit of 6. 

Dark Geese—A basic daily bag limit of 

4 and a possession limit of 8. 

Dark-goose seasons are subject to the 

following exceptions: 

1. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of 

Canada geese is permitted from 

September 28 through December 16. A 

special, permit-only Canada goose 

season may be offered on Middleton 

Island. No more than 10 permits can be 

issued. A mandatory goose 

identification class is required. Hunters 

must check in and check out. The bag 

limit is 1 daily and 1 in possession. The 

season will close if incidental harvest 

includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky 

Canada goose is any dark-breasted 

Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color 

value five or less) with a bill length 

between 40 and 50 millimeters. 

2. In Unit 10 (except Unimak Island), 

the taking of Canada geese is prohibited. 

3. In Unit 9(D) and the Unimak Island 

portion of Unit 10, the limits for dark 

geese are 6 daily and 12 in possession. 

Brant—A daily bag limit of 2. 

Common snipe—A daily bag limit of 

8. 

Sandhill cranes—Bag and possession 

limits of 2 and 4, respectively, in the 

Southeast, Gulf Coast, Kodiak, and 

Aleutian Zones, and Unit 17 in the 

Northern Zone. In the remainder of the 

Northern Zone (outside Unit 17), bag 

and possession limits of 3 and 6, 

respectively. 

Tundra Swans—Open seasons for 

tundra swans may be selected subject to 

the following conditions: 

1. All seasons are by registration 

permit only. 

43704 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2. All season framework dates are 

September 1—October 31. 

3. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 

17, no more than 200 permits may be 

issued during this operational season. 

No more than 3 tundra swans may be 

authorized per permit with no more 

than 1 permit issued per hunter per 

season. 

4. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 

18, no more than 500 permits may be 

issued during the operational season. 

Up to 3 tundra swans may be authorized 

per permit. No more than 1 permit may 

be issued per hunter per season. 

5. In GMU 22, no more than 300 

permits may be issued during the 

operational season. Each permittee may 

be authorized to take up to 3 tundra 

swan per permit. No more than 1 permit 

may be issued per hunter per season. 

6. In GMU 23, no more than 300 

permits may be issued during the 

operational season. No more than 3 

tundra swans may be authorized per 

permit with no more than 1 permit 

issued per hunter per season. 

Hawaii 

Outside Dates: Between October 1 and 

January 31. 

Hunting Seasons: Not more than 65 

days (75 under the alternative) for 

mourning doves. 

Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 (12 

under the alternative) mourning doves.

Note: Mourning doves may be taken in 

Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours 

and other regulations set by the State of 

Hawaii, and subject to the applicable 

provisions of 50 CFR part 20.

Puerto Rico 

Doves and Pigeons 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 15. 

Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 

days. 

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not 

to exceed 15 Zenaida, mourning, and 

white-winged doves in the aggregate, of 

which not more than 3 may be 

mourning doves. Not to exceed 5 scalynaped pigeons. 

Closed Areas: There is no open season 

on doves or pigeons in the following 

areas: Municipality of Culebra, 

Desecheo Island, Mona Island, El Verde 

Closure Area, and Cidra Municipality 

and adjacent areas. 

Ducks, Coots, Moorhens, Gallinules, and 

Snipe 

Outside Dates: Between October 1 and 

January 31. 

Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 

days may be selected for hunting ducks, 

common moorhens, and common snipe. 

The season may be split into two 

segments. 

Daily Bag Limits 

Ducks—Not to exceed 6. 

Common moorhens—Not to exceed 6. 

Common snipe—Not to exceed 8. 

Closed Seasons: The season is closed 

on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked 

pintail, West Indian whistling duck, 

fulvous whistling duck, and masked 

duck, which are protected by the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 

season also is closed on the purple 

gallinule, American coot, and Caribbean 

coot. 

Closed Areas: There is no open season 

on ducks, common moorhens, and 

common snipe in the Municipality of 

Culebra and on Desecheo Island. 

Virgin Islands 

Doves and Pigeons 

Outside Dates: Between September 1 

and January 15. 

Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 

days for Zenaida doves. 

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not 

to exceed 10 Zenaida doves. 

Closed Seasons: No open season is 

prescribed for ground or quail doves, or 

pigeons in the Virgin Islands. 

Closed Areas: There is no open season 

for migratory game birds on Ruth Cay 

(just south of St. Croix). 

Local Names for Certain Birds:

Zenaida dove, also known as mountain 

dove; bridled quail-dove, also known as 

Barbary dove or partridge; Common 

ground-dove, also known as stone dove, 

tobacco dove, rola, or tortolita; scalynaped pigeon, also known as red-necked 

or scaled pigeon. 

Ducks 

Outside Dates: Between December 1 

and January 31. 

Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 

consecutive days. 

Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 6. 

Closed Seasons: The season is closed 

on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked 

pintail, West Indian whistling duck, 

fulvous whistling duck, and masked 

duck. 

Special Falconry Regulations 

Falconry is a permitted means of 

taking migratory game birds in any State 

meeting Federal falconry standards in 

50 CFR 21.29(k). These States may 

select an extended season for taking 

migratory game birds in accordance 

with the following: 

Extended Seasons: For all hunting 

methods combined, the combined 

length of the extended season, regular 

season, and any special or experimental 

seasons must not exceed 107 days for 

any species or group of species in a 

geographical area. Each extended season 

may be divided into a maximum of 3 

segments. 

Framework Dates: Seasons must fall 

between September 1 and March 10. 

Daily Bag and Possession Limits:

Falconry daily bag and possession limits 

for all permitted migratory game birds 

must not exceed 3 and 6 birds, 

respectively, singly or in the aggregate, 

during extended falconry seasons, any 

special or experimental seasons, and 

regular hunting seasons in all States, 

including those that do not select an 

extended falconry season. 

Regular Seasons: General hunting 

regulations, including seasons and 

hunting hours, apply to falconry in each 

State listed in 50 CFR 21.29(k). Regularseason bag and possession limits do not 

apply to falconry. The falconry bag limit 

is not in addition to gun limits.

Area, Unit, and Zone Descriptions 

Mourning and White-Winged Doves 

Alabama 

South Zone—Baldwin, Barbour, 

Coffee, Covington, Dale, Escambia, 

Geneva, Henry, Houston, and Mobile 

Counties. 

North Zone—Remainder of the State. 

California 

White-winged Dove Open Areas—

Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino 

Counties. 

Florida 

Northwest Zone—The Counties of 

Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, 

Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, 

Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, 

Washington, Leon (except that portion 

north of U.S. 27 and east of State Road 

155), Jefferson (south of U.S. 27, west of 

State Road 59 and north of U.S. 98), and 

Wakulla (except that portion south of 

U.S. 98 and east of the St. Marks River). 

South Zone—Remainder of State. 

Georgia 

Northern Zone—That portion of the 

State lying north of a line running west 

to east along U.S. Highway 280 from 

Columbus to Wilcox County, thence 

southward along the western border of 

Wilcox County; thence east along the 

southern border of Wilcox County to the 

Ocmulgee River, thence north along the 

Ocmulgee River to Highway 280, thence 

east along Highway 280 to the Little 

Ocmulgee River; thence southward 

along the Little Ocmulgee River to the 

Ocmulgee River; thence southwesterly 

along the Ocmulgee River to the western 

border of Jeff Davis County; thence 

south along the western border of Jeff 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43705

Davis County; thence east along the 

southern border of Jeff Davis and 

Appling Counties; thence north along 

the eastern border of Appling County, to 

the Altamaha River; thence east to the 

eastern border of Tattnall County; 

thence north along the eastern border of 

Tattnall County; thence north along the 

western border of Evans to Candler 

County; thence east along the northern 

border of Evans County to U.S. Highway 

301; thence northeast along U.S. 

Highway 301 to the South Carolina line. 

South Zone—Remainder of the State. 

Louisiana 

North Zone—That portion of the State 

north of Interstate Highway 10 from the 

Texas State line to Baton Rouge, 

Interstate Highway 12 from Baton Rouge 

to Slidell and Interstate Highway 10 

from Slidell to the Mississippi State 

line. 

South Zone—The remainder of the 

State. 

Nevada 

White-winged Dove Open Areas—

Clark and Nye Counties. 

Texas 

North Zone—That portion of the State 

north of a line beginning at the 

International Bridge south of Fort 

Hancock; north along FM 1088 to TX 20; 

west along TX 20 to TX 148; north along 

TX 148 to I–10 at Fort Hancock; east 

along I–10 to I–20; northeast along I–20 

to I–30 at Fort Worth; northeast along I–

30 to the Texas-Arkansas State line. 

South Zone—That portion of the State 

south and west of a line beginning at the 

International Bridge south of Del Rio, 

proceeding east on U.S. 90 to State Loop 

1604 west of San Antonio; then south, 

east and north along Loop 1604 to 

Interstate Highway 10 east of San 

Antonio; then east on I–10 to Orange, 

Texas. 

Special White-winged Dove Area in 

the South Zone—That portion of the 

State south and west of a line beginning 

at the International Bridge south of Del 

Rio, proceeding east on U.S. 90 to 

Uvalde; south on U.S. 83 to TX 44; east 

along TX 44 to TX 16 at Freer; south 

along TX 16 to TX 285 at Hebbronville; 

east along TX 285 to FM 1017; 

southwest along FM 1017 to TX 186 at 

Linn; east along TX 186 to the Mansfield 

Channel at Port Mansfield; east along 

the Mansfield Channel to the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Area with additional restrictions—

Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy 

Counties. 

Central Zone—That portion of the 

State lying between the North and South 

Zones. 

Band-Tailed Pigeons 

California 

North Zone—Alpine, Butte, Del Norte, 

Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, 

Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, 

Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties. 

South Zone—The remainder of the 

State. 

New Mexico 

North Zone—North of a line following 

U.S. 60 from the Arizona State line east 

to I–25 at Socorro and then south along 

I–25 from Socorro to the Texas State 

line. 

South Zone—Remainder of the State. 

Washington 

Western Washington—The State of 

Washington excluding those portions 

lying east of the Pacific Crest Trail and 

east of the Big White Salmon River in 

Klickitat County. 

Woodcock 

New Jersey 

North Zone—That portion of the State 

north of NJ 70.

South Zone—The remainder of the 

State. 

Special September Canada Goose 

Seasons 

Atlantic Flyway 

Connecticut 

North Zone—That portion of the State 

north of I–95. 

South Zone—Remainder of the State. 

Maryland 

Eastern Unit—Anne Arundel, Calvert, 

Caroline, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, 

Harford, Kent, Queen Anne’s, St. 

Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, 

and Worcester Counties, and those 

portions of Baltimore, Howard, and 

Prince George’s Counties east of I–95. 

Western Unit—Allegany, Carroll, 

Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, and 

Washington Counties, and those 

portions of Baltimore, Howard, and 

Prince George’s Counties west of I–95. 

Massachusetts 

Western Zone—That portion of the 

State west of a line extending south 

from the Vermont border on I–91 to MA 

9, west on MA 9 to MA 10, south on MA 

10 to U.S. 202, south on U.S. 202 to the 

Connecticut border. 

Central Zone—That portion of the 

State east of the Berkshire Zone and 

west of a line extending south from the 

New Hampshire border on I–95 to U.S. 

1, south on U.S. 1 to I–93, south on I–

93 to MA 3, south on MA 3 to U.S. 6, 

west on U.S. 6 to MA 28, west on MA 

28 to I–195, west to the Rhode Island 

border; except the waters, and the lands 

150 yards inland from the high-water 

mark, of the Assonet River upstream to 

the MA 24 bridge, and the Taunton 

River upstream to the Center St.-Elm St. 

bridge will be in the Coastal Zone. 

Coastal Zone—That portion of 

Massachusetts east and south of the 

Central Zone. 

New York 

Lake Champlain Zone—The U.S. 

portion of Lake Champlain and that area 

east and north of a line extending along 

NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 

9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of 

Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west 

shore of South Bay, along and around 

the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on 

the east shore of South Bay; southeast 

along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along 

U.S. 4 to the Vermont border. 

Long Island Zone—That area 

consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk 

County, that area of Westchester County 

southeast of I–95, and their tidal waters. 

Western Zone—That area west of a 

line extending from Lake Ontario east 

along the north shore of the Salmon 

River to I–81, and south along I–81 to 

the Pennsylvania border, except for the 

Montezuma Zone. 

Montezuma Zone—Those portions of 

Cayuga, Seneca, Ontario, Wayne, and 

Oswego Counties north of U.S. Route 

20, east of NYS Route 14, south of NYS 

Route 104, and west of NYS Route 34. 

Northeastern Zone—That area north 

of a line extending from Lake Ontario 

east along the north shore of the Salmon 

River to I–81, south along I–81 to NY 49, 

east along NY 49 to NY 365, east along 

NY 365 to NY 28, east along NY 28 to 

NY 29, east along NY 29 to I–87, north 

along I–87 to U.S. 9 (at Exit 20), north 

along U.S. 9 to NY 149, east along NY 

149 to U.S. 4, north along U.S. 4 to the 

Vermont border, exclusive of the Lake 

Champlain Zone. 

Southeastern Zone—The remaining 

portion of New York. 

North Carolina 

Northeast Hunt Unit—Counties of 

Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, 

Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, 

Tyrrell, and Washington. 

Vermont 

Lake Champlain Zone: The U.S. 

portion of Lake Champlain and that area 

north and west of the line extending 

from the New York border along U.S. 4 

to VT 22A at Fair Haven; VT 22A to U.S. 

7 at Vergennes; U.S. 7 to the Canadian 

border. 

Interior Zone: That portion of 

Vermont west of the Lake Champlain 

43706 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Zone and eastward of a line extending 

from the Massachusetts border at 

Interstate 91; north along Interstate 91 to 

U.S. 2; east along U.S. 2 to VT 102; 

north along VT 102 to VT 253; north 

along VT 253 to the Canadian border.

Connecticut River Zone: The 

remaining portion of Vermont east of 

the Interior Zone. 

Mississippi Flyway 

Illinois 

Northeast Canada Goose Zone—Cook, 

Du Page, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, 

Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will 

Counties. 

North Zone: That portion of the State 

outside the Northeast Canada Goose 

Zone and north of a line extending east 

from the Iowa border along Illinois 

Highway 92 to Interstate Highway 280, 

east along I–280 to I–80, then east along 

I–80 to the Indiana border. 

Central Zone: That portion of the 

State outside the Northeast Canada 

Goose Zone and south of the North Zone 

to a line extending east from the 

Missouri border along the Modoc Ferry 

route to Modoc Ferry Road, east along 

Modoc Ferry Road to Modoc Road, 

northeasterly along Modoc Road and St. 

Leo’s Road to Illinois Highway 3, north 

along Illinois 3 to Illinois 159, north 

along Illinois 159 to Illinois 161, east 

along Illinois 161 to Illinois 4, north 

along Illinois 4 to Interstate Highway 70, 

east along I–70 to the Bond County line, 

north and east along the Bond County 

line to Fayette County, north and east 

along the Fayette County line to 

Effingham County, east and south along 

the Effingham County line to I–70, then 

east along I–70 to the Indiana border. 

South Zone: The remainder of Illinois. 

Iowa 

North Zone: That portion of the State 

north of a line extending east from the 

Nebraska border along State Highway 

175 to State 37, southeast along State 37 

to U.S. Highway 59, south along U.S. 59 

to Interstate Highway 80, then east along 

I–80 to the Illinois border. 

South Zone: The remainder of Iowa. 

Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Goose Zone.

Includes portions of Linn and Johnson 

Counties bounded as follows: Beginning 

at the intersection of the west border of 

Linn County and Linn County Road 

E2W; thence south and east along 

County Road E2W to Highway 920; 

thence north along Highway 920 to 

County Road E16; thence east along 

County Road E16 to County Road W58; 

thence south along County Road W58 to 

County Road E34; thence east along 

County Road E34 to Highway 13; thence 

south along Highway 13 to Highway 30; 

thence east along Highway 30 to 

Highway 1; thence south along Highway 

1 to Morse Road in Johnson County; 

thence east along Morse Road to Wapsi 

Avenue; thence south along Wapsi 

Avenue to Lower West Branch Road; 

thence west along Lower West Branch 

Road to Taft Avenue; thence south along 

Taft Avenue to County Road F62; thence 

west along County Road F62 to Kansas 

Avenue; thence north along Kansas 

Avenue to Black Diamond Road; thence 

west on Black Diamond Road to Jasper 

Avenue; thence north along Jasper 

Avenue to Rohert Road; thence west 

along Rohert Road to Ivy Avenue; 

thence north along Ivy Avenue to 340th 

Street; thence west along 340th Street to 

Half Moon Avenue; thence north along 

Half Moon Avenue to Highway 6; 

thence west along Highway 6 to Echo 

Avenue; thence north along Echo 

Avenue to 250th Street; thence east on 

250th Street to Green Castle Avenue; 

thence north along Green Castle Avenue 

to County Road F12; thence west along 

County Road F12 to County Road W30; 

thence north along County Road W30 to 

Highway 151; thence north along the 

Linn-Benton County line to the point of 

beginning. 

Des Moines Goose Zone. Includes 

those portions of Polk, Warren, Madison 

and Dallas Counties bounded as follows: 

Beginning at the intersection of 

Northwest 158th Avenue and County 

Road R38 in Polk County; thence south 

along R38 to Northwest 142nd Avenue; 

thence east along Northwest 142nd 

Avenue to Northeast 126th Avenue; 

thence east along Northeast 126th 

Avenue to Northeast 46th Street; thence 

south along Northeast 46th Street to 

Highway 931; thence east along 

Highway 931 to Northeast 80th Street; 

thence south along Northeast 80th Street 

to Southeast 6th Avenue; thence west 

along Southeast 6th Avenue to Highway 

65; thence south and west along 

Highway 65 to Highway 69 in Warren 

County; thence south along Highway 69 

to County Road G24; thence west along 

County Road G24 to Highway 28; thence 

southwest along Highway 28 to 43rd 

Avenue; thence north along 43rd 

Avenue to Ford Street; thence west 

along Ford Street to Filmore Street; 

thence west along Filmore Street to 10th 

Avenue; thence south along 10th 

Avenue to 155th Street in Madison 

County; thence west along 155th Street 

to Cumming Road; thence north along 

Cumming Road to Badger Creek 

Avenue; thence north along Badger 

Creek Avenue to County Road F90 in 

Dallas County; thence east along County 

Road F90 to County Road R22; thence 

north along County Road R22 to 

Highway 44; thence east along Highway 

44 to County Road R30; thence north 

along County Road R30 to County Road 

F31; thence east along County Road F31 

to Highway 17; thence north along 

Highway 17 to Highway 415 in Polk 

County; thence east along Highway 415 

to Northwest 158th Avenue; thence east 

along Northwest 158th Avenue to the 

point of beginning. 

Michigan 

North Zone: The Upper Peninsula. 

Middle Zone: That portion of the 

Lower Peninsula north of a line 

beginning at the Wisconsin border in 

Lake Michigan due west of the mouth of 

Stony Creek in Oceana County; then due 

east to, and easterly and southerly along 

the south shore of, Stony Creek to 

Scenic Drive, easterly and southerly 

along Scenic Drive to Stony Lake Road, 

easterly along Stony Lake and Garfield 

Roads to Michigan Highway 20, east 

along Michigan 20 to U.S. Highway 10 

Business Route (BR) in the city of 

Midland, east along U.S. 10 BR to U.S. 

10, east along U.S. 10 to Interstate 

Highway 75/U.S. Highway 23, north 

along I–75/U.S. 23 to the U.S. 23 exit at 

Standish, east along U.S. 23 to Shore 

Road in Arenac County, east along 

Shore Road to the tip of Point Lookout, 

then on a line directly east 10 miles into 

Saginaw Bay, and from that point on a 

line directly northeast to the Canada 

border. 

South Zone: The remainder of 

Michigan.

Minnesota 

Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada 

Goose Zone—

A. All of Hennepin and Ramsey 

Counties. 

B. In Anoka County, all of Columbus 

Township lying south of County State 

Aid Highway (CSAH) 18, Anoka 

County; all of the cities of Ramsey, 

Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, Spring 

Lake Park, Fridley, Hilltop, Columbia 

Heights, Blaine, Lexington, Circle Pines, 

Lino Lakes, and Centerville; and all of 

the city of Ham Lake except that portion 

lying north of CSAH 18 and east of U.S. 

Highway 65. 

C. That part of Carver County lying 

north and east of the following 

described line: Beginning at the 

northeast corner of San Francisco 

Township; thence west along the north 

boundary of San Francisco Township to 

the east boundary of Dahlgren 

Township; thence north along the east 

boundary of Dahlgren Township to U.S. 

Highway 212; thence west along U.S. 

Highway 212 to State Trunk Highway 

(STH) 284; thence north on STH 284 to 

County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 10; 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43707

thence north and west on CSAH 10 to 

CSAH 30; thence north and west on 

CSAH 30 to STH 25; thence east and 

north on STH 25 to CSAH 10; thence 

north on CSAH 10 to the Carver County 

line. 

D. In Scott County, all of the cities of 

Shakopee, Savage, Prior Lake, and 

Jordan, and all of the Townships of 

Jackson, Louisville, St. Lawrence, Sand 

Creek, Spring Lake, and Credit River. 

E. In Dakota County, all of the cities 

of Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, 

Mendota, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove 

Heights, Apple Valley, Lakeville, 

Rosemount, Farmington, Hastings, 

Lilydale, West St. Paul, and South St. 

Paul, and all of the Township of 

Nininger. 

F. That portion of Washington County 

lying south of the following described 

line: Beginning at County State Aid 

Highway (CSAH) 2 on the west 

boundary of the county; thence east on 

CSAH 2 to U.S. Highway 61; thence 

south on U.S. Highway 61 to State 

Trunk Highway (STH) 97; thence east 

on STH 97 to the intersection of STH 97 

and STH 95; thence due east to the east 

boundary of the State. 

Northwest Goose Zone—That portion 

of the State encompassed by a line 

extending east from the North Dakota 

border along U.S. Highway 2 to State 

Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along 

STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 

to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 

in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to 

CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north 

along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along 

STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington 

County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 

54 in Marshall County, north along 

CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, 

north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west 

along STH 11 to STH 310, and north 

along STH 310 to the Manitoba border. 

Southeast Goose Zone—That part of 

the State within the following described 

boundaries: beginning at the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 52 and the 

south boundary of the Twin Cities 

Metro Canada Goose Zone; thence along 

the U.S. Highway 52 to State Trunk 

Highway (STH) 57; thence along STH 57 

to the municipal boundary of Kasson; 

thence along the municipal boundary of 

Kasson County State Aid Highway 

(CSAH) 13, Dodge County; thence along 

CSAH 13 to STH 30; thence along STH 

30 to U.S. Highway 63; thence along 

U.S. Highway 63 to the south boundary 

of the State; thence along the south and 

east boundaries of the State to the south 

boundary of the Twin Cities Metro 

Canada Goose Zone; thence along said 

boundary to the point of beginning. 

Five Goose Zone—That portion of the 

State not included in the Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Canada Goose Zone, the 

Northwest Goose Zone, or the Southeast 

Goose Zone. 

West Zone—That portion of the State 

encompassed by a line beginning at the 

junction of State Trunk Highway (STH) 

60 and the Iowa border, then north and 

east along STH 60 to U.S. Highway 71, 

north along U.S. 71 to Interstate 

Highway 94, then north and west along 

I–94 to the North Dakota border. 

Tennessee 

Middle Tennessee Zone—Those 

portions of Houston, Humphreys, 

Montgomery, Perry, and Wayne 

Counties east of State Highway 13; and 

Bedford, Cannon, Cheatham, Coffee, 

Davidson, Dickson, Franklin, Giles, 

Hickman, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, 

Macon, Marshall, Maury, Moore, 

Robertson, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, 

Trousdale, Williamson, and Wilson 

Counties. 

East Tennessee Zone—Anderson, 

Bledsoe, Bradley, Blount, Campbell, 

Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, 

Cumberland, DeKalb, Fentress, 

Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, 

Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, 

Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, 

Marion, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, 

Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, 

Rhea, Roane, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, 

Sullivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, 

Warren, Washington, and White 

Counties. 

Wisconsin 

Early-Season Subzone A—That 

portion of the State encompassed by a 

line beginning at the intersection of U.S. 

Highway 141 and the Michigan border 

near Niagara, then south along U.S. 141 

to State Highway 22, west and 

southwest along State 22 to U.S. 45, 

south along U.S. 45 to State 22, west 

and south along State 22 to State 110, 

south along State 110 to U.S. 10, south 

along U.S. 10 to State 49, south along 

State 49 to State 23, west along State 23 

to State 73, south along State 73 to State 

60, west along State 60 to State 23, 

south along State 23 to State 11, east 

along State 11 to State 78, then south 

along State 78 to the Illinois border. 

Early-Season Subzone B—The 

remainder of the State. 

Central Flyway 

Kansas 

September Canada Goose Kansas City/

Topeka Unit—That part of Kansas 

bounded by a line from the KansasMissouri State line west on KS 68 to its 

junction with KS 33, then north on KS 

33 to its junction with U.S. 56, then 

west on U.S. 56 to its junction with KS 

31, then west-northwest on KS 31 to its 

junction with KS 99, then north on KS 

99 to its junction with U.S. 24, then east 

on U.S. 24 to its junction with KS 63, 

then north on KS 63 to its junction with 

KS 16, then east on KS 16 to its junction 

with KS 116, then east on KS 116 to its 

junction with U.S. 59, then northeast on 

U.S. 59 to its junction with the KansasMissouri line, then south on the KansasMissouri line to its junction with KS 68. 

September Canada Goose Wichita 

Unit—That part of Kansas bounded by 

a line from I–135 west on U.S. 50 to its 

junction with Burmac Road, then south 

on Burmac Road to its junction with 279 

Street West (Sedgwick/Harvey County 

line), then south on 279 Street West to 

its junction with KS 96, then east on KS 

96 to its junction with KS 296, then 

south on KS 296 to its junction with 247 

Street West, then south on 247 Street 

West to its junction with U.S. 54, then 

west on U.S. 54 to its junction with 263 

Street West, then south on 263 Street 

West to its junction with KS 49, then 

south on KS 49 to its junction with 90 

Avenue North, then east on 90 Avenue 

North to its junction with KS 55, then 

east on KS 55 to its junction with KS 15, 

then east on KS 15 to its junction with 

U.S. 77, then north on U.S. 77 to its 

junction with Ohio Street, then north on 

Ohio to its junction with KS 254, then 

east on KS 254 to its junction with KS 

196, then northwest on KS 196 to its 

junction with I–135, then north on I–

135 to its junction with U.S. 50. 

Nebraska 

September Canada Goose Unit—That 

part of Nebraska bounded by a line from 

the Nebraska-Iowa State line west on 

U.S. Highway 30 to NE Highway 15, 

then south on NE Highway 15 to NE 

Highway 41, then east on NE Highway 

41 to NE Highway 50, then north on NE 

Highway 50 to NE Highway 2, then east 

on NE Highway 2 to the Nebraska-Iowa 

State line.

South Dakota 

September Canada Goose North 

Unit—Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, 

Grant, Hamlin, Marshall, and Roberts 

County. 

September Canada Goose South 

Unit—Beadle, Brookings, Hanson, 

Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, McCook, 

Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Sanborn, 

and Turner Counties. 

Pacific Flyway 

Idaho 

East Zone—Bonneville, Caribou, 

Fremont, and Teton Counties. 

43708 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Oregon 

Northwest Zone—Benton, Clackamas, 

Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, Multnomah, Tillamook, 

Washington, and Yamhill Counties. 

Southwest Zone—Coos, Curry, 

Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, and 

Klamath Counties. 

East Zone—Baker, Gilliam, Malheur, 

Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, and 

Wasco Counties. 

Washington 

Area 1—Skagit, Island, and 

Snohomish Counties. 

Area 2A (SW Quota Zone)—Clark 

County, except portions south of the 

Washougal River; Cowlitz, and 

Wahkiakum Counties. 

Area 2B (SW Quota Zone)—Pacific 

and Grays Harbor Counties. 

Area 3—All areas west of the Pacific 

Crest Trail and west of the Big White 

Salmon River that are not included in 

Areas 1, 2A, and 2B. 

Area 4—Adams, Benton, Chelan, 

Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, 

Lincoln, Okanogan, Spokane, and Walla 

Walla Counties. 

Area 5—All areas east of the Pacific 

Crest Trail and east of the Big White 

Salmon River that are not included in 

Area 4. 

Wyoming 

Bear River Area—That portion of 

Lincoln County described in State 

regulations. 

Salt River Area—That portion of 

Lincoln County described in State 

regulations. 

Farson-Eden Area—Those portions of 

Sweetwater and Sublette Counties 

described in State regulations. 

Teton Area—Those portions of Teton 

County described in State regulations. 

Bridger Valley Area—The area 

described as the Bridger Valley Hunt 

Unit in State regulations. 

Little Snake River—That portion of 

the Little Snake River drainage in 

Carbon County. 

Ducks 

Atlantic Flyway 

New York 

Lake Champlain Zone: The U.S. 

portion of Lake Champlain and that area 

east and north of a line extending along 

NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 

9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of 

Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west 

shore of South Bay, along and around 

the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on 

the east shore of South Bay; southeast 

along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along 

U.S. 4 to the Vermont border. 

Long Island Zone: That area 

consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk 

County, that area of Westchester County 

southeast of I–95, and their tidal waters. 

Western Zone: That area west of a line 

extending from Lake Ontario east along 

the north shore of the Salmon River to 

I–81, and south along I–81 to the 

Pennsylvania border. 

Northeastern Zone: That area north of 

a line extending from Lake Ontario east 

along the north shore of the Salmon 

River to I–81, south along I–81 to NY 49, 

east along NY 49 to NY 365, east along 

NY 365 to NY 28, east along NY 28 to 

NY 29, east along NY 29 to I–87, north 

along I–87 to U.S. 9 (at Exit 20), north 

along U.S. 9 to NY 149, east along NY 

149 to U.S. 4, north along U.S. 4 to the 

Vermont border, exclusive of the Lake 

Champlain Zone. 

Southeastern Zone: The remaining 

portion of New York. 

Mississippi Flyway 

Indiana 

North Zone: That portion of the State 

north of a line extending east from the 

Illinois border along State Road 18 to 

U.S. Highway 31, north along U.S. 31 to 

U.S. 24, east along U.S. 24 to 

Huntington, then southeast along U.S. 

224 to the Ohio border. 

Ohio River Zone: That portion of the 

State south of a line extending east from 

the Illinois border along Interstate 

Highway 64 to New Albany, east along 

State Road 62 to State 56, east along 

State 56 to Vevay, east and north on 

State 156 along the Ohio River to North 

Landing, north along State 56 to U.S. 

Highway 50, then northeast along U.S. 

50 to the Ohio border. 

South Zone: That portion of the State 

between the North and Ohio River Zone 

boundaries.

Iowa 

North Zone: That portion of the State 

north of a line extending east from the 

Nebraska border along State Highway 

175 to State 37, southeast along State 37 

to U.S. Highway 59, south along U.S. 59 

to Interstate Highway 80, then east along 

I–80 to the Illinois border. 

South Zone: The remainder of Iowa. 

Central Flyway 

Colorado 

Special Teal Season Area: Lake and 

Chaffee Counties and that portion of the 

State east of Interstate Highway 25. 

Kansas 

High Plains Zone: That portion of the 

State west of U.S. 283. 

Low Plains Early Zone: That portion 

of the State east of the High Plains Zone 

and west of a line extending south from 

the Nebraska border along KS 28 to U.S. 

36, east along U.S. 36 to KS 199, south 

along KS 199 to Republic County Road 

563, south along Republic County Road 

563 to KS 148, east along KS 148 to 

Republic County Road 138, south along 

Republic County Road 138 to Cloud 

County Road 765, south along Cloud 

County Road 765 to KS 9, west along KS 

9 to U.S. 24, west along U.S. 24 to U.S. 

281, north along U.S. 281 to U.S. 36, 

west along U.S. 36 to U.S. 183, south 

along U.S. 183 to U.S. 24, west along 

U.S. 24 to KS 18, southeast along KS 18 

to U.S. 183, south along U.S. 183 to KS 

4, east along KS 4 to I–135, south along 

I–135 to KS 61, southwest along KS 61 

to KS 96, northwest on KS 96 to U.S. 56, 

west along U.S. 56 to U.S. 281, south 

along U.S. 281 to U.S. 54, then west 

along U.S. 54 to U.S. 283. 

Low Plains Late Zone: The remainder 

of Kansas. 

Nebraska 

Special Teal Season Area: That 

portion of the State south of a line 

beginning at the Wyoming State line; 

east along U.S. 26 to Nebraska Highway 

L62A; east to U.S. 385; south to U.S. 26; 

east to NE 92; east along NE 92 to NE 

61; south along NE 61 to U.S. 30; east 

along U.S. 30 to the Iowa border. 

New Mexico (Central Flyway Portion) 

North Zone: That portion of the State 

north of I–40 and U.S. 54. 

South Zone: The remainder of New 

Mexico. 

Pacific Flyway 

California 

Northeastern Zone: In that portion of 

California lying east and north of a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 

Klamath River with the CaliforniaOregon line; south and west along the 

Klamath River to the mouth of Shovel 

Creek; along Shovel Creek to its 

intersection with Forest Service Road 

46N05 at Burnt Camp; west to its 

junction with Forest Service Road 

46N10; south and east to its Junction 

with County Road 7K007; south and 

west to its junction with Forest Service 

Road 45N22; south and west to its 

junction with Highway 97 and Grass 

Lake Summit; south along to its junction 

with Interstate 5 at the town of Weed; 

south to its junction with Highway 89; 

east and south along Highway 89 to 

Main Street Greenville; north and east to 

its junction with North Valley Road; 

south to its junction of Diamond 

Mountain Road; north and east to its 

junction with North Arm Road; south 

and west to the junction of North Valley 

Road; south to the junction with 

Arlington Road (A22); west to the 

junction of Highway 89; south and west 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43709

to the junction of Highway 70; east on 

Highway 70 to Highway 395; south and 

east on Highway 395 to the point of 

intersection with the California-Nevada 

State line; north along the CaliforniaNevada State line to the junction of the 

California-Nevada-Oregon State lines 

west along the California-Oregon state 

line to the point of origin. 

Colorado River Zone: Those portions 

of San Bernardino, Riverside, and 

Imperial Counties east of a line 

extending from the Nevada border south 

along U.S. 95 to Vidal Junction; south 

on a road known as ‘‘Aqueduct Road’’

in San Bernardino County through the 

town of Rice to the San BernardinoRiverside County line; south on a road 

known in Riverside County as the 

‘‘Desert Center to Rice Road’’ to the 

town of Desert Center; east 31 miles on 

I–10 to the Wiley Well Road; south on 

this road to Wiley Well; southeast along 

the Army-Milpitas Road to the Blythe, 

Brawley, Davis Lake intersections; south 

on the Blythe-Brawley paved road to the 

Ogilby and Tumco Mine Road; south on 

this road to U.S. 80; east 7 miles on U.S. 

80 to the Andrade-Algodones Road; 

south on this paved road to the Mexican 

border at Algodones, Mexico.

Southern Zone: That portion of 

southern California (but excluding the 

Colorado River Zone) south and east of 

a line extending from the Pacific Ocean 

east along the Santa Maria River to CA 

166 near the City of Santa Maria; east on 

CA 166 to CA 99; south on CA 99 to the 

crest of the Tehachapi Mountains at 

Tejon Pass; east and north along the 

crest of the Tehachapi Mountains to CA 

178 at Walker Pass; east on CA 178 to 

U.S. 395 at the town of Inyokern; south 

on U.S. 395 to CA 58; east on CA 58 to 

I–15; east on I–15 to CA 127; north on 

CA 127 to the Nevada border. 

Southern San Joaquin Valley 

Temporary Zone: All of Kings and 

Tulare Counties and that portion of 

Kern County north of the Southern 

Zone. 

Balance-of-the-State Zone: The 

remainder of California not included in 

the Northeastern, Southern, and 

Colorado River Zones, and the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley Temporary Zone. 

Canada Geese 

Michigan 

North Zone: The Upper Peninsula. 

Middle Zone: That portion of the 

Lower Peninsula north of a line 

beginning at the Wisconsin border in 

Lake Michigan due west of the mouth of 

Stony Creek in Oceana County; then due 

east to, and easterly and southerly along 

the south shore of, Stony Creek to 

Scenic Drive, easterly and southerly 

along Scenic Drive to Stony Lake Road, 

easterly along Stony Lake and Garfield 

Roads to Michigan Highway 20, east 

along Michigan 20 to U.S. Highway 10 

Business Route (BR) in the city of 

Midland, east along U.S. 10 BR to U.S. 

10, east along U.S. 10 to Interstate 

Highway 75/U.S. Highway 23, north 

along I–75/U.S. 23 to the U.S. 23 exit at 

Standish, east along U.S. 23 to Shore 

Road in Arenac County, east along 

Shore Road to the tip of Point Lookout, 

then on a line directly east 10 miles into 

Saginaw Bay, and from that point on a 

line directly northeast to the Canada 

border. 

South Zone: The remainder of 

Michigan. 

Sandhill Cranes 

Central Flyway 

Colorado—The Central Flyway 

portion of the State except the San Luis 

Valley (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, 

Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, and 

Saguache Counties east of the 

Continental Divide) and North Park 

(Jackson County). 

Kansas—That portion of the State 

west of a line beginning at the 

Oklahoma border, north on I–35 to 

Wichita, north on I–135 to Salina, and 

north on U.S. 81 to the Nebraska border. 

New Mexico—Regular-Season Open 

Area—Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Eddy, 

Lea, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties. 

Middle Rio Grande Valley Area—The 

Central Flyway portion of New Mexico 

in Socorro and Valencia Counties. 

Estancia Valley Area—Those portions 

of Santa Fe, Torrance and Bernallilo 

Counties within an area bounded on the 

west by New Mexico Highway 55 

beginning at Mountainair north to NM 

337, north to NM 14, north to I–25; on 

the north by I–25 east to U.S. 285; on 

the east by U.S. 285 south to U.S. 60; 

and on the south by U.S. 60 from U.S. 

285 west to NM 55 in Mountainair. 

Southwest Zone—Sierra, Luna, Dona 

Ana Counties, and those portions of 

Grant and Hidalgo Counties south of I–

10. 

Oklahoma—That portion of the State 

west of I–35. 

Texas—Area 1—That portion of the 

State west of a line beginning at the 

International Bridge at Laredo, north 

along I–35 to the Oklahoma border. 

Area 2—That portion of the State east 

and south of a line from the 

International Bridge at Laredo northerly 

along I–35 to U.S. 290; southeasterly 

along U.S. 290 to I–45; south and east 

on I–45 to State Highway 87, south and 

east on TX 87 to the channel in the Gulf 

of Mexico between Galveston and Point 

Bolivar; except: That portion of the State 

lying within the area bounded by the 

Corpus Christi Bay Causeway on U.S. 

181 at Portland; north and west on U.S. 

181 to U.S. 77 at Sinton; north and east 

along U.S. 77 to U.S. 87 at Victoria; east 

and south along U.S. 87 to Texas 

Highway 35; north and east on TX 35 to 

the west end of the Lavaca Bay Bridge; 

then south and east along the west 

shoreline of Lavaca Bay and Matagorda 

Island to the Gulf of Mexico; then south 

and west along the shoreline of the Gulf 

of Mexico to the Corpus Christi Bay 

Causeway. 

North Dakota—Area 1—That portion 

of the State west of U.S. 281. 

Area 2—That portion of the State east 

of U.S. 281. 

South Dakota—That portion of the 

State west of U.S. 281. 

Montana—The Central Flyway 

portion of the State except that area 

south of I–90 and west of the Bighorn 

River. 

Wyoming—Regular-Season Open 

Area—Campbell, Converse, Crook, 

Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, Platte, and 

Weston Counties. 

Riverton-Boysen Unit—Portions of 

Fremont County. 

Park and Big Horn County Unit—

Portions of Park and Big Horn Counties.

Pacific Flyway 

Arizona—Special-Season Area—Game 

Management Units 30A, 30B, 31, and 

32. 

Montana—Special-Season Area—see

State regulations. 

Utah—Special-Season Area—Rich, 

Cache, and Unitah Counties and that 

portion of Box Elder County beginning 

on the Utah-Idaho State line at the Box 

Elder-Cache County line; west on the 

State line to the Pocatello Valley County 

Road; south on the Pocatello Valley 

County Road to I–15; southeast on I–15 

to SR–83; south on SR–83 to Lamp 

Junction; west and south on the 

Promontory Point County Road to the 

tip of Promontory Point; south from 

Promontory Point to the Box ElderWeber County line; east on the Box 

Elder-Weber County line to the Box 

Elder-Cache County line; north on the 

Box Elder-Cache County line to the 

Utah-Idaho State line. 

Wyoming—Bear River Area—That 

portion of Lincoln County described in 

State regulations. 

Salt River Area—That portion of 

Lincoln County described in State 

regulations. 

Farson-Eden Area—Those portions of 

Sweetwater and Sublette Counties 

described in State regulations. 

All Migratory Game Birds in Alaska 

North Zone—State Game Management 

Units 11–13 and 17–26. 

43710 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Gulf Coast Zone—State Game 

Management Units 5–7, 9, 14–16, and 

10 (Unimak Island only). 

Southeast Zone—State Game 

Management Units 1–4. 

Pribilof and Aleutian Islands Zone—

State Game Management Unit 10 (except 

Unimak Island). 

Kodiak Zone—State Game 

Management Unit 8. 

All Migratory Game Birds in the Virgin 

Islands 

Ruth Cay Closure Area—The island of 

Ruth Cay, just south of St. Croix. 

All Migratory Game Birds in Puerto Rico 

Municipality of Culebra Closure 

Area—All of the municipality of 

Culebra. 

Desecheo Island Closure Area—All of 

Desecheo Island. 

Mona Island Closure Area—All of 

Mona Island. 

El Verde Closure Area—Those areas 

of the municipalities of Rio Grande and 

Loiza delineated as follows: (1) All 

lands between Routes 956 on the west 

and 186 on the east, from Route 3 on the 

north to the juncture of Routes 956 and 

186 (Km 13.2) in the south; (2) all lands 

between Routes 186 and 966 from the 

juncture of 186 and 966 on the north, to 

the Caribbean National Forest Boundary 

on the south; (3) all lands lying west of 

Route 186 for 1 kilometer from the 

juncture of Routes 186 and 956 south to 

Km 6 on Route 186; (4) all lands within 

Km 14 and Km 6 on the west and the 

Caribbean National Forest Boundary on 

the east; and (5) all lands within the 

Caribbean National Forest Boundary 

whether private or public. 

Cidra Municipality and adjacent 

areas—All of Cidra Municipality and 

portions of Aguas Buenas, Caguas, 

Cayey, and Comerio Municipalities as 

encompassed within the following 

boundary: beginning on Highway 172 as 

it leaves the municipality of Cidra on 

the west edge, north to Highway 156, 

east on Highway 156 to Highway 1, 

south on Highway 1 to Highway 765, 

south on Highway 765 to Highway 763, 

south on Highway 763 to the Rio 

Guavate, west along Rio Guavate to 

Highway 1, southwest on Highway 1 to 

Highway 14, west on Highway 14 to 

Highway 729, north on Highway 729 to 

Cidra Municipality boundary to the 

point of the beginning.

[FR Doc. 04–16550 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Wednesday,

July 21, 2004

Part IV

Department of 

Defense

General Services 

Administration

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration

48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 16, 37, and 39 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Performance-Based Service Acquisition; 

Proposed Rule

43712 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 16, 37, 39

[FAR Case 2003–018]

RIN 9000–AK00

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Performance-Based Service 

Acquisition

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

by: changing the terms ‘‘performancebased contracting (PBC) and 

performance-based service contracting 

(PBSC)’’ to ‘‘performance-based 

acquisition (PBA) or performance-based 

service acquisition (PBSA)’’ in areas of 

the FAR where appropriate; adding 

applicable PBSA definitions clarifying 

the order of precedence for 

requirements; modifying the regulation 

to broaden the scope of PBA and give 

agencies more flexibility in applying 

PBSA methods to contracts and orders 

of varying complexity and reduce the 

burden of force-fitting contracts and 

orders into PBA, when it is not 

appropriate.

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments in writing on or before 

September 20, 2004, to be considered in 

the formulation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2003–018 by any 

of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments.

• Agency Web Site: http://

www.acqnet.gov/far/ProposedRules/

proposed.htm. Click on the FAR case 

number to submit comments.

• E-mail: farcase.2003–018@gsa.gov. 

Include FAR case 2003–018 in the 

subject line of the message.

• Fax: 202–501–4067.

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 

20405.

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2003–018 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.acqnet.gov/far/ProposedRules/

proposed.htm, including any personal 

information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755 for 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules. For clarification 

of content, contact Ms. Julia Wise, 

Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208–

1168. Please cite FAR case 2003–018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Since the 1980s, performance-based 

contracting (PBC) and performancebased service contracting (PBSC) (now 

performance-based acquisition (PBA) 

and performance-based service 

acquisition (PBSA)) has been articulated 

in regulation, guidance, and policy. The 

intent has always been for agencies to 

contract for results describing their 

needs in terms of what is to be achieved, 

not how it is to be done. Law and 

regulation established a preference for 

PBA.

There are many laws and policies that 

impact how PBA methods are applied to 

contracts and orders. Among the most 

important of these reforms are the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, the Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), and 

the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Section 

821(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–398), and 

Section 1431 and 1433 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (P.L. 108–136). All of these 

laws send an important message about 

performance in federal programs and 

acquisitions and that is that agencies 

should: (1) use PBA methods to the 

maximum extent practicable when 

acquiring services, and (2) carefully 

select acquisition and contract 

administration strategies, methods, and 

techniques that best accommodate the 

requirements.

Over the last two decades, agencies 

have made moderate progress in 

implementing PBA methods on service 

contracts but have experienced 

difficulties in applying PBA techniques 

effectively. In April 2002, the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) 

convened an interagency working group 

to establish a broader understanding of 

the requirements of PBSA, and identify 

ways to increase agency use of PBSA. 

The group focused their efforts on three 

areas of change:

(1) Modifying the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to give agencies 

flexibility in applying PBSA;

(2) Modifying reporting requirements 

to ensure that PBSA is applied 

appropriately; and

(3) Improving the quality, currency, 

and availability of guidance.

In the interim, General Accounting 

Office (GAO) conducted an audit on 

performance-based service contracting 

and issued a report dated September 

2002, ‘‘Contract Management: Guidance 

Needed for Using Performance-Based 

Service Contracting (GAO–02–1049),’’ 

that raised concerns as to whether 

agencies have a good understanding of 

performance-based contracting and how 

to take full advantage of it. The audit 

findings stated, that some agency 

officials said they would like better 

guidance on performance-based 

contracting, particularly with respect to 

how it can be applied in more complex 

situations. It further states that agency 

officials said that there is a need for 

better criteria on which contracts should 

be labeled as performance-based.

In July 2003, OFPP issued a report, 

‘‘Performance-Based Service 

Acquisition: Contracting for the 

Future,’’ that captured the interagency 

working group’s PBA concerns, issues, 

and recommendations. The report 

includes recommendations to change 

current regulations and guidance to give 

agencies more flexibility in applying 

PBSA effectively, appropriately, and 

consistently (see www.acqnet.gov for the 

complete report). Most of the 

recommended FAR revisions are 

adopted in this proposed rule because 

the changes will make PBA more 

flexible, thus increasing agency use of 

PBA methods on services contracts and 

orders.

In addition, the OFPP is working with 

an interagency team to incorporate 

current policy, regulations, and vetted 

samples into the GovernmentwidePBSA guide, Seven Steps to PBSA (see 

www.acqnet.gov for the online guide); 

and interagency working group to 

develop appropriate guidance for 

reporting PBAs in the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG).

The proposed rule amends the FAR to 

modify—

• FAR Part 2 to include the 

definitions ‘‘performance work 

statement’’ and ‘‘statement of 

objectives’’ to support changes to FAR 

Part 37;

• FAR Parts 2, 7, 11, 16, 37 and 39 

to incorporate the new PBA and PBSA 

terms, where applicable; and

• FAR Parts 11 and 37 to broaden the 

scope of PBSA, reduce the burden of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 43713

force-fitting requirements into PBAs 

when it does not apply, and give 

agencies more flexibility in applying 

PBSA techniques to contracts and 

orders of varying complexity.

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Councils do not expect this 

proposed rule to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this 

rule affects the Government’s use of 

PBA methods on service contracts and 

intends to give agencies more flexibility 

in applying PBA methods to service 

contracts and orders of varying 

complexity. An Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not 

been performed. The Councils invite 

comments from small businesses and 

other interested parties. We will 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the affected FAR Parts 2, 7, 

11, 16, 37, and 39 in accordance with 

5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must 

submit such comments separately and 

should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR 

Case 2003–018), in correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the proposed changes 

to the FAR do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 

16, 37, and 39

Government procurement.

Dated: July 13, 2004.

Laura Auletta,

Director, Contract Policy Division.

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 11, 

16, 37, and 39 as set forth below: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 2, 7, 11, 16, 37, and 39 is revised 

to read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS

2. Amend section 2.101 by revising 

the definition ‘‘performance-based 

contracting,’’ and adding in alphabetical 

order, the definitions ‘‘performance 

work statement’’ and ‘‘statement of work 

objectives’’ to read as follows:

2.101 Definitions.

* * * * *

Performance-based acquisition (PBA)

means structuring all aspects of an 

acquisition around the purpose of the 

work to be performed with the contract 

or order requirements set forth in clear, 

specific, and objective terms with 

measurable outcomes as opposed to 

either the manner by which the work is 

to be performed or broad and imprecise 

statements of work. For services, a 

performance-based acquisition is 

commonly referred to as a performancebased service acquisition (PBSA).

Performance Work Statement (PWS)

means a statement that identifies the 

agency’s requirements in clear, specific 

and objective terms that describe 

technical, functional and performance 

characteristics.

* * * * *

Statement of Objectives (SOO) means 

a statement that identifies the agency’s 

high-level requirements by summarizing 

key agency objectives, desired 

outcomes, or both.

* * * * *

PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING

3. Amend section 7.103 by revising 

paragraph (r) to read as follows:

7.103 Agency-head responsibilities.

* * * * *

(r) Ensuring that knowledge gained 

from prior acquisitions is used to further 

refine requirements and acquisition 

strategies. For services, greater use of 

performance-based service acquisition 

(PBSA) methods and, therefore, fixedprice contracts (see 37.602–4) should 

occur for follow-on acquisitions.

* * * * *

4. Amend section 7.105 by revising 

the last sentences of the introductory 

paragraph and paragraph (b)(4)(i); and 

by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as 

follows:

7.105 Contents of written acquisition 

plans.

* * * Acquisition plans for service 

contracts or orders must describe the 

strategies for implementing PBSA 

methods or must provide rationale for 

not using those methods (see Subpart 

37.6).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Acquisition considerations. (i) 

* * * Provide rationale if a PBSA will 

not be used or if a PBSA is 

contemplated on other than a firmfixed-price basis (see 37.102(a), 

16.103(d), and 16.505(a)(3)).

* * * * *

(6) Product or service descriptions.

Explain the choice of product or service 

description types (including PBSA 

descriptions) to be used in the 

acquisition.

* * * * *

PART 11—DESCRIBING AGENCY 

NEEDS

5. Amend section 11.101 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

11.101 Order of precedence for 

requirements documents.

(a) * * *

(2) Performance or function-oriented 

documents.

* * * * *

PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

6. Amend section 16.505 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

16.505 Ordering.

(a) * * *

(3) Performance work statements must 

be used to the maximum extent 

practicable, if the contract or order is for 

services (see 37.102(a) and 37.602–1).

* * * * *

PART 37—SERVICE CONTRACTING

7. Amend section 37.000 by revising 

the third sentence to read as follows:

37.000 Scope of part.

* * * This part requires the use of 

performance-based service acquisition 

(PBSA) to the maximum extent 

practicable and prescribes policies and 

procedures for use of PBSA methods 

(see Subpart 37.6). * * * 

8. Amend section 37.102 by revising 

the introductory text of paragraphs (a) 

and (a)(1) to read as follows:

37.102 Policy.

(a) Performance-based service 

acquisition (see Subpart 37.6) is the 

preferred method for acquiring services 

(Public Law 106–398, section 821). 

When acquiring services, including 

those acquired under supply contracts 

or orders, agencies must—

(1) Use performance-based service 

acquisition methods to the maximum 

extent practicable, except for—

* * * * *

9. Revise subpart 37.6 to read as 

follows:

Subpart 37.6—Performance-Based 

Service Acquisition

Sec.

43714 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

37.600 Scope of subpart.

37.601 General.

37.602 Elements of a performance-based 

service acquisition.

37.602–1 Performance work statements 

(PWSs) and statements of objectives 

(SOOs).

37.602–2 Quality assurance.

37.602–3 Selection procedures.

37.602–4 Contract type.

37.602–5 Follow-on and repetitive 

requirements.

Subpart 37.6—Performance-Based 

Service Acquisition

37.600 Scope of subpart. 

This subpart prescribes policies and 

procedures for use of performance-based 

service acquisition (PBSA) methods. 

PBSA includes performance-based 

contracts and performance-based task 

orders.

37.601 General.

(a) The principal objective of PBSA is 

to obtain optimal performance by 

expressing Government needs in terms 

of required performance objectives and/

or desired outcomes, rather than the 

method of performance, to encourage 

industry-driven, competitive solutions.

(b) Solicitations for PBSA may use 

either a performance work statement 

(PWS) or a statement of objectives (see 

37.602–1).

(c) PBSA contracts or orders shall 

include—

(1) A PWS (see 37.602–1); and

(2) Measurable performance 

standards. These standards may be 

objective (e.g., response time) or 

subjective (e.g., customer satisfaction), 

but shall reflect the level of service 

required by the Government to meet 

mission objectives. Standards shall 

enable assessment of contractor 

performance to determine whether 

performance objectives and/or desired 

outcomes are being met.

(d) PBSA contracts or orders may 

include performance incentives to 

promote contractor achievement of the 

desired outcomes and/or performance 

objectives articulated in the contract or 

order. Performance incentives may be of 

any type, including positive, negative, 

monetary, or non-monetary. 

Performance incentives, if used, shall 

correspond to the performance 

standards set forth in the contract or 

order.

37.602 Elements of a performance-based 

service acquisition.

37.602–1 Performance work statements 

(PWSs) and statements of objectives 

(SOOs).

(a) A PWS may be prepared by the 

Government or resultfrom a SOO 

prepared by the Government where the 

offeror proposes the PWS.

(b) A PWS shall describe the work in 

terms of the purpose of the work to be 

performed rather than either ‘‘how’’ the 

work is to be accomplished or the 

number of hours to be provided (see 

11.002(a)(2) and 11.101);

(c) When a SOO is used in lieu of a 

PWS in a solicitation, the SOO shall, at 

a minimum, include the following 

information with respect to the 

acquisition:

(1) Purpose.

(2) Scope or mission.

(3) Period and place of performance.

(4) Background.

(5) Performance objectives and/or 

desired outcomes.

(6) Any operating constraints.

37.602–2 Quality assurance. 

(a) Quality assurance surveillance 

plans shall address the means for 

assessing contractor accomplishment of 

the Government’s performance 

objectives and/or desired outcomes 

stated in the contract and compliance 

with the appropriate inspection clauses. 

Agencies shall develop quality 

assurance surveillance plans when 

acquiring services (see 46.103 and 

46.401(a)) or, as appropriate, rely on a 

contractor’s commercial quality 

assurance system (see 46.102). These 

plans shall recognize the responsibility 

of the contractor (see 46.105) to carry 

out its quality control obligations and 

shall contain measurable inspection and 

acceptance criteria corresponding to the 

performance standards contained in the 

contract. The quality assurance 

surveillance plans shall focus on the 

level of performance required by the 

PWS, rather than the methodology used 

by the contractor to achieve that level of 

performance.

(b) The level of surveillance described 

in the plan should be commensurate 

with the dollar value, risk, and 

complexity of the acquisition and 

should utilize commercial practices to 

the maximum extent practicable. For 

example, in some simplified 

acquisitions the Government may 

decide that the inspection clauses in the 

contract or order provide adequate 

means of surveillance, without requiring 

a detailed quality assurance surveillance 

plan.

(c) Plans shall enable the contracting 

officer to take appropriate action in 

accordance with the contract or order 

and 46.407, as appropriate.

37.602–3 Selection procedures.

Agencies shall use competitive 

negotiations, when appropriate, to 

ensure selection of services that offer 

the best value to the Government, cost 

and other factors considered (see 

15.304).

37.602–4 Contract type. 

Agencies shall follow the order of 

precedence set forth in 37.102(a)(2) for 

selecting contract and order types. 

Fixed-price contracts or orders are 

generally appropriate for services that 

can be defined objectively and for 

which the risk of performance is 

manageable (see Subpart 16.1).

37.602–5 Follow-on and repetitive 

requirements. 

When acquiring services that 

previously have been provided by 

contract or order, agencies shall rely on 

the experience gained from the prior 

contract or order to incorporate PBSA 

methods to the maximum extent 

practicable. This will facilitate the use 

of fixed-price contracts or orders for 

such requirements for services. (See 

7.105 for requirement to address PBSA 

strategies in acquisition plans. See also 

16.104(k)).

PART 39—ACQUISITION OF 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

10. Amend 39.104 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

39.104 Information technology services.

* * * * *

(b) Require the use of other than a 

performance-based service acquisition 

(see Subpart 37.6).

[FR Doc. 04–16534 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S

Wednesday,

July 21, 2004

Part V

Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration 

20 CFR Part 656

Labor Certification for the Permanent 

Employment of Aliens in the United 

States; Backlog Reduction; Interim Final 

Rule

43716 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 6 U.S.C. 236(b), 552(d), and 557.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 656

RIN 1205–AB37

Labor Certification for the Permanent 

Employment of Aliens in the United 

States; Backlog Reduction

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

Department of Labor (Department or 

DOL) is issuing this interim final rule to 

address an existing backlog in pending 

applications for labor certification for 

the permanent employment of aliens in 

the United States. This amendment to 

the regulations governing labor 

certification applications for permanent 

employment will allow the National 

Certifying Officer to transfer to a 

centralized ETA processing center(s) 

applications now awaiting processing 

by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) or 

ETA Regional Offices. This interim final 

rule does not affect the pending 

proposal to streamline procedures for 

permanent labor certification under 20 

CFR part 656, which was published in 

the Federal Register of May 6, 2002, and 

which is expected to be finalized in 

2004. This interim final rule affects only 

applications filed under existing 

regulations, while the streamlined 

certification regulation will govern 

processing of new applications filed 

after that regulation takes effect.

DATES: This interim final rule is 

effective August 20, 2004. Interested 

persons are invited to submit written 

comments on this interim final rule. To 

ensure consideration, comments must 

be received on or before August 20, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1205–AB37, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

website instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be 

submitted by e-mail to 

blrcomments@dol.gov. Include RIN 

1205–AB37 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

the Assistant Secretary for Employment 

and Training Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room C–4312, 

Washington, DC 20210, Attention: 

William Carlson, Chief, Division of 

Foreign Labor Certification. Because of 

security measures, mail directed to 

Washington, DC is sometimes delayed. 

We will only consider comments 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

other delivery service on or before the 

deadline for comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the RIN 1205–AB37 for 

this rulemaking. Receipt of submissions, 

whether by U.S. mail or e-mail will not 

be acknowledged. Because DOL 

continues to experience delays in 

receiving postal mail in the Washington, 

DC area, commenters are encouraged to 

submit any comments by mail early. 

Comments will be available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the address listed above for 

mailed comments. Persons who need 

assistance to review the comments will 

be provided with appropriate aids such 

as readers or print magnifiers. Copies of 

this interim final rule may be obtained 

in alternative formats (e.g., large print, 

Braille, audiotape, or disk) upon 

request. To schedule an appointment to 

review the comments and/or to obtain 

the proposed rule in an alternative 

format, contact the Division of Foreign 

Labor Certification at 202–693–3010 

(this is not a toll-free number).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Denis Gruskin, Senior 

Specialist, Division of Foreign Labor 

Certification, Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room C–4312, 

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 

(202) 693–2953 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

Individuals with hearing or speech 

impairments may access the telephone 

numbers above via TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Information Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Standard 

Before the United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (CIS) of the 

Department of Homeland Security 1 may 

approve petition requests and the 

Department of State may issue visas and 

admit certain immigrant aliens to work 

permanently in the United States, the 

Secretary of Labor first must certify to 

the Secretary of State and to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security that:

(a) There are not sufficient United 

States workers who are able, willing, 

qualified, and available at the time of 

the application for a visa and admission 

into the United States and at the place 

where the alien is to perform the work; 

and 

(b) The employment of the alien will 

not adversely affect the wages and 

working conditions of similarly 

employed United States workers. See 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A). 

If the Secretary of Labor, through 

ETA, determines that there are no able, 

willing, qualified, and available U.S. 

workers and that employment of the 

alien will not adversely affect the wages 

and working conditions of similarly 

employed U.S. workers, DOL so certifies 

to CIS and to the Department of State by 

issuing a permanent alien labor 

certification. 

If DOL cannot make one or both of the 

above findings, the application for 

permanent alien employment 

certification is denied. 

II. Current Department of Labor 

Regulations 

DOL has promulgated regulations, at 

20 CFR part 656, governing the labor 

certification process for the permanent 

employment of immigrant aliens in the 

United States. Part 656 was promulgated 

under section 212(a)(5)(A) of the INA. 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A). 

Part 656 sets forth the responsibilities 

of employers who desire to employ 

immigrant aliens permanently in the 

United States. Under current 

regulations, employers file an 

‘‘Application for Alien Employment 

Certification’’ with the State Workforce 

Agency (SWA) serving the area of 

intended employment. The SWA is 

responsible for various processing steps, 

including date stamping the application, 

calculating the appropriate prevailing 

wage, and placing the job opening into 

the state’s employment recruitment 

system. 

The current process for obtaining a 

labor certification requires employers to 

actively recruit U.S. workers in good 

faith for a period of at least 30 days for 

the job openings for which aliens are 

sought. The employer’s job 

requirements must conform to the 

regulatory standards.

Job applicants either are referred 

directly to the employer or their 

re ́sume ́s are sent to the employer. The 

employer has 45 days to report to the 

SWA the lawful job-related reasons for 

not hiring any referred U.S. worker. If 

the employer hires a U.S. worker for the 

job opening, the process stops at that 

point, unless the employer has more 

than one opening, in which case the 

application may continue to be 

processed. If, however, the SWA 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43717

believes that able, willing, and qualified 

U.S. workers are not available to take 

the job, the application, together with 

the documentation of the recruitment 

results and prevailing wage information, 

is sent to the appropriate ETA Regional 

Office. There, it is reviewed and a 

determination made as to whether to 

issue the labor certification based upon 

the employer’s compliance with 

program regulations. If DOL/ETA 

determines that there is no able, willing, 

qualified, and available U.S. worker, 

and that the employment of the alien 

will not adversely affect the wages and 

working conditions of similarly 

employed U.S. workers, DOL/ETA so 

certifies to the CIS and the Department 

of State by issuing a permanent labor 

certification. See 20 CFR part 656; see 

also section 212(a)(5)(A) of the INA, as 

amended. 

On May 6, 2002, the Department 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to substantially 

streamline part 656, which governs the 

permanent labor certification program. 

The proposed streamlined certification 

regulation, which is expected to be 

finalized in 2004, will ‘‘implement a 

new system for filing and processing’’

permanent labor certification 

applications. Among other things, State 

Workforce Agencies will no longer 

receive or process applications as they 

do under the current system, and 

employers will be required to conduct 

recruitment before filing applications. 

The new processing system will apply 

to all applications for permanent labor 

certifications filed on or after the 

revised regulation’s effective date. 

The interim final rule in this 

document does not alter the separate 

streamlined certification regulation, but 

rather is focused on reduction of the 

backlog of labor certification 

applications filed under existing 

regulations with State Workforce 

Agencies, as described in the next 

section. The streamlined certification 

regulation, once finalized, will stabilize 

the backlog volume, since applications 

will no longer be filed with a SWA on 

or after that regulation’s effective date 

and streamlined procedures will govern. 

III. Background 

ETA’s Permanent Labor Certification 

Program is currently experiencing an 

enormous backlog in pending 

applications for permanent employment 

of alien immigrants. This backlog 

largely stems from amendments enacted 

in December 2000 to section 245(i) of 

the INA. The amendments allow aliens 

who entered the United States without 

inspection or who fall within certain 

statutory categories to adjust their status 

to that of a lawful permanent resident if 

a labor certification application was 

filed on their behalf with a SWA on or 

before April 30, 2001. See 8 U.S.C. 

1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). We estimate that 

approximately 236,000 applications 

were filed to meet the deadline of April 

30, 2001, at a time when less than 

100,000 applications were filed in an 

entire year. At the start of April 2003, 

over 280,000 permanent labor 

certification applications were in the 

SWA processing queues throughout the 

nation, with another 30,000 applications 

in the various ETA Regional Office 

queues. 

To address the backlog, ETA funded 

a study to identify strategic options and 

estimate costs. The study recommended 

establishing centralized processing 

centers to achieve the economies of 

scale inherent in processing large 

numbers of applications in one location 

and in consolidating the functions 

currently performed separately by the 

SWAs and the ETA Regional Offices. 

Building upon this recommendation, 

ETA initiated a pilot program testing the 

feasibility of centralized processing, 

which indicated that substantial time 

and economic savings could be 

achieved. 

Accordingly, this interim final rule 

amends part 656 by adding a new 

section 656.24a to provide that the 

National Certifying Officer (Chief, 

Division of Foreign Labor Certification) 

has the discretion to direct SWAs and 

ETA Regional Offices to transfer 

pending labor certification applications 

to centralized processing centers for 

completion of processing. The 

centralized processing centers will 

perform the required functions of the 

SWAs and ETA Regional Certifying 

Officers, consolidating steps now 

performed separately by the SWAs and 

the ETA Regional Offices to achieve 

efficiencies and economies of scale. The 

Chief will issue a directive to SWAs and 

the ETA Regional Offices stating how 

pending applications are to be identified 

for centralized processing, and where 

they are to be sent. The extent of 

centralized processing and the speed 

with which the current backlog will be 

reduced may vary based upon program 

priorities. 

IV. Administrative Information 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review: We have 

determined that this interim final rule is 

not an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of Executive Order 12866. The 

procedures for backlog reduction will 

not have an economic impact of $100 

million or more because they will not 

add to or change requirements for 

employers applying for permanent labor 

certification, but rather create a means 

for consolidated processing at 

centralized locations. While it is not 

economically significant, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

reviewed this interim final rule because 

of the novel legal and policy issues 

raised by this rulemaking. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: We have 

notified the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration, and made the 

certification pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

that this interim final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for that certification 

is as follows: The interim final rule will 

affect only a portion of those employers 

whose applications for permanent 

employment certification are among the 

approximately 310,000 currently 

backlogged applications, or who file an 

application prior to the effective date of 

the regulations streamlining permanent 

labor certification. The interim final rule 

will not add to or change paperwork 

requirements for employer applicants, 

including small entities, but rather 

create a means for consolidated 

processing at centralized locations. 

Consequently, the Department believes 

there will be no additional economic 

burden on employer applicants, 

including small entities within that 

group. However, even assuming some 

impact on employers from the proposed 

changes, this impact will not fall ‘‘on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’

As noted, the universe of pending 

applications is approximately 310,000. 

Based on Department experience, we 

estimate that about forty percent of 

permanent labor certification 

applications are filed by employers who 

have submitted multiple applications. 

Thus, the number of different employers 

submitting applications is 

approximately 186,000 (310,000 × 60%). 

We do not inquire about the size of 

employer applicants, however, the 

number of small entities applying is 

certainly less than the applicant total 

and significantly below the potential 

universe of small businesses to which 

the program is open. Because 

applications come from employers in all 

industry segments, we consider all 

small businesses as the appropriate 

universe for comparison purposes. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration’s publication The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act—An 

Implementation Guide for Federal 

Agencies, there were 22,900,000 small 

businesses in the United States in 2002. 

43718 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

In comparison to the universe of all 

small businesses, the approximately 

186,000 employers with pending 

applications would represent at most 

0.8 percent of all small businesses 

[(186,000 ) 22,900,000 = 0.008; 0.008 ×

100 = 0.8%)]. DOL asserts that 0.8% of 

small businesses does not represent a 

significant proportion of small entities. 

The Department welcomes comments 

on this RFA certification. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995: This interim final rule will not 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996: This 

interim final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 

1996 (SBREFA). The standards for 

determining whether a rule is a major 

rule as defined by section 804 of 

SBREFA are similar to those used to 

determine whether a rule is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ within the meaning of Executive 

Order 12866. Because we certified that 

this interim final rule is not an 

economically significant rule under 

Executive Order 12866, we certify that 

it also is not a major rule under 

SBREFA. It will not result in an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more; a major increase in costs or 

prices; or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism:

This interim final rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

we have determined that this interim 

final rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a summary impact 

statement. 

Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families: This interim 

final rule does not affect family wellbeing. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The 

collection of information under part 656 

is currently approved under OMB 

control number 1205–0015. This interim 

final rule does not include a substantive 

or material modification of that 

collection of information, because it will 

not add to or change paperwork 

requirements for employers applying for 

permanent labor certification, but rather 

creates a means for consolidated 

processing at centralized locations. 

Accordingly, the Department believes 

the Paperwork Reduction Act is 

inapplicable to this interim final rule. 

The Department invites the public to 

comment on its Paperwork Reduction 

Act analysis. 

Publication as an Interim Final Rule:

The Department has determined that it 

is unnecessary and contrary to the 

public interest to publish this technical 

amendment to the permanent labor 

certification regulations as a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, with the delays 

inherent to the process of publishing a 

proposed rule, receiving and reviewing 

comments, and clearing and publishing 

a final rule. This interim final rule will 

allow ETA’s Division of Foreign Labor 

Certification to take more rapid action to 

reduce the serious backlog in permanent 

labor certification applications through 

transfer of applications from the SWAs 

and ETA Regional Offices to centralized 

processing sites. This processing change 

is based on results of a pilot program 

that demonstrated that centralized 

processing would create economic and 

time-saving efficiencies and speed 

reduction of the backlog. Centralized 

processing will not alter substantive 

requirements for certification. It will not 

impose an additional burden on 

employers who have filed permanent 

labor certification applications or on the 

immigrant aliens on whose behalf 

applications have been filed. Rather, 

centralized processing is expected to 

benefit applicants by reducing 

anticipated processing time. For these 

reasons, it would be contrary to the 

public interest, as well as unnecessary; 

to delay implementation of this 

technical regulatory amendment to 

establish centralized processing 

procedures. Therefore, the Department 

finds pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) 

that good cause exists for publishing 

this regulatory amendment as an interim 

final rule. While notice of proposed 

rulemaking is being waived, the 

Department is interested in comments 

and advice regarding this interim final 

rule. 

Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: This program is 

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance at Number 17.203, ‘‘Labor 

Certification for Alien Workers.’’

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 656 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Aliens, 

Crewmembers, Employment, 

Employment and training, Enforcement, 

Forest and forest products, Fraud, 

Guam, Health professions, Immigration, 

Labor, Longshore and harbor work, 

Migrant labor, Passports and visas, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Students, Unemployment, 

Wages, and Working conditions.

■ For the reasons stated in the Preamble, 

the Employment and Training 

Administration, Department of Labor, 

amends 20 CFR part 656 as follows:

PART 656—LABOR CERTIFICATION 

PROCESS FOR PERMANENT 

EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS IN THE 

UNITED STATES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 656 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) and 

1182(p); 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; sec. 122, Pub. 

L. 101–649, 109 Stat. 4978.

■ 2. Part 656, subpart C, is amended by 

adding section 656.24a, to be placed 

immediately after section 656.24, to read 

as follows:

§ 656.24a Centralized processing. 

(a) To facilitate processing of 

applications and elimination of 

backlogs, the National Certifying Officer 

(Chief, Division of Foreign Labor 

Certification) may direct a SWA or an 

ETA Regional Office to transfer to a nonState centralized processing site some or 

all pending applications filed under part 

656. The Chief will issue a directive to 

the SWAs and ETA Regional Offices 

stating how pending applications are to 

be identified for centralized processing 

and where they are to be transferred. For 

each transferred application, the 

centralized processing site will perform 

all required functions of the SWA (as 

described in § 656.21) and the Regional 

Certifying Officer (as described in 

§ 656.21 and § 656.24). 

(b) If the labor certification presents a 

special or unique problem, the 

centralized processing site, in 

consultation with or at the direction of 

the National Certifying Officer, may 

refer the application to the National 

Certifying Officer for determination. If 

the National Certifying Officer has 

directed that certain types of 

applications or specific applications be 

handled in the national office, the 

centralized processing site shall refer 

such applications to the National 

Certifying Officer.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43719

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

July, 2004. 

Emily Stover DeRocco, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–16536 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

Wednesday,

July 21, 2004

Part VI

The President

Memorandum of July 2, 2004—Delegation 

of Certain Reporting Authority 

Memorandum of July 8, 2004—Delegation 

of Responsibility Under Section 1523 of 

the Strom Thurmond National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, as 

Amended 

Proclamation 7802—Captive Nations 

Week, 2004

Presidential Documents

43723

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of July 2, 2004

Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws 

of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, 

I hereby delegate to you the functions and authority conferred upon the 

President by section 4 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 

Iraq Resolution of 2002, Public Law 107–243, and by section 3 of the 

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, Public Law 

102–1, to make the specified reports to the Congress. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

[FR Doc. 04–16755

Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 

Register

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, July 2, 2004. 

.

W

Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Presidential Documents 43725

Memorandum of July 8, 2004

Delegation of Responsibility under Section 1523 of the Strom 

Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1999, As Amended 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of 

the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States 

Code, I hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the President 

by section 1523 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261), as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). 

Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of any Act shall be 

deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provision of law 

that is the same or substantially the same as such provision. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

[FR Doc. 04–16756

Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 

Register

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, July 8, 2004. 

.

W

Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Presidential Documents 43727

Proclamation 7802 of July 16, 2004

Captive Nations Week, 2004

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation

Each year during Captive Nations Week, the United States reaffirms our 

commitment to building a world where human rights, democracy, and freedom are respected and protected by the rule of law. As Americans, we 

believe the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity must be upheld without 

regard to race, gender, creed, or nationality. We stand in solidarity with 

those living under repressive regimes who seek democracy and peaceful 

changes in their homelands. 

Throughout our Nation’s history, our brave men and women in uniform 

have fought for the freedom of those suffering under authoritarian governments. From Nazi Germany to Bosnia, and Afghanistan to Iraq, American 

service members have fought to remove brutal leaders. The American people 

and their generous contributions have helped to rebuild traumatized nations 

and given the oppressed hope for the future. More than a year ago, American 

service members and our coalition partners freed the Iraqi people from 

a dictatorship that routinely tortured and executed innocent civilians. Since 

then, Americans have helped the Iraqi people establish institutions for the 

protection of human rights, based on democratic principles, to ensure that 

freedom will endure in the new Iraq. 

Earlier this summer, as our Nation paid respect to President Ronald Reagan, 

we recognized his contributions to ending the Cold War and advancing 

freedom around the world. In his first Inaugural Address, President Reagan 

said: ‘‘Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the 

arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of 

free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world 

do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have.’’ These words 

carry forward today as we continue to push for democratic freedoms and 

human rights around the world. 

The Congress, by Joint Resolution approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), 

has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week in July of each year as ‘‘Captive Nations Week.’’

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim July 18 through July 24, 2004, as Captive 

Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this 

week with appropriate ceremonies and activities and to reaffirm their commitment to all those seeking liberty, justice, and self-determination. 

43728 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day 

of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence 

Billing code 3195

Filed 7

[FR Doc. 04

–20–04; 8:45 am] 

–16757

–01–P 

of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

W

i

Reader Aids Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 139

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION 

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations 

General Information, indexes and other finding 

aids 

202–741–6000

Laws 741–6000

Presidential Documents 

Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000

The United States Government Manual 741–6000

Other Services 

Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020

Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064

Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043

TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide Web 

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 

is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 

Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 

Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 

http://www.archives.gov/federallregister/

E-mail

FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 

an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 

form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 

of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 

PDF links to the full text of each document. 

To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 

Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 

(orchange settings); then follow the instructions. 

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 

service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html

and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 

the instructions.

FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 

respond to specific inquiries. 

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 

Federal Register system to: fedreg.info@nara.gov 

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 

regulations. 

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JULY 

39811–40304......................... 1

40305–40532......................... 2

40533–40762......................... 6

40763–41178......................... 7

41179–41374......................... 8

41375–41748......................... 9

41749–41900.........................12

41901–42086.........................13

42087–42328.........................14

42329–42548.........................15

42549–42848.........................16

42849–43282.........................19

43283–43510.........................20

43511–43728.........................21

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY 

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register 

publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which 

lists parts and sections affected by documents published since 

the revision date of each title. 

3 CFR 

Proclamations: 

7800.................................40299

7801.................................41179

7802.................................43727

Executive Orders: 

11269 (See EO 

13345)..........................41901

12163 (Amended by 

EO 13346)....................41905

12757 (Revoked by 

EO 13345)....................41901

12823 (Revoked by 

EO 13345)....................41901

13028 (Revoked by 

EO 13345)....................41901

13131 (Revoked by 

EO 13345)....................41901

13227 (Amended by 

EO 13346)....................41905

13261 (Amended by 

EO 13344)....................41747

13344...............................41747 

13345...............................41901

13346...............................41905

Administrative Orders: 

Memorandums: 

Memorandum of June 

29, 2004.......................40531

Memorandum of July 

5, 2004.........................42087

Memorandum of July 

2, 2004.........................43723

Memorandum of July 

8, 2004.........................43725

Presidential 

Determinations: 

No. 2004–38 of June 

24, 2004.......................40305

No. 2004–39 of June 

25, 2004.......................40761

7 CFR 

16.....................................41375

301 .........40533, 41181, 42849, 

43511

916...................................41120

917...................................41120

930...................................41383

958...................................42850

981.......................40534, 41907

989...................................41385

1435.................................39811

Proposed Rules: 

39.....................................40819

924...................................42899

1030.................................43538

3402.................................41763

8 CFR 

103...................................39814

214.......................39814, 41388

299...................................39814

Proposed Rules: 

236...................................42901

241...................................42901

1236.................................42901

1240.................................42901

1241.................................42901

9 CFR 

1.......................................42089

2.......................................42089

51.....................................41909

78.....................................40763

93.....................................43283

94.....................................41915

Proposed Rules: 

2.......................................43538

3.......................................43538

50.....................................42288

51.........................41909, 42288

52.....................................42288

53.....................................42288

54.....................................42288

55.....................................42288

56.....................................42288

57.....................................42288

58.....................................42288

59.....................................42288

60.....................................42288

61.....................................42288

62.....................................42288

63.....................................42288

64.....................................42288

65.....................................42288

66.....................................42288

67.....................................42288

68.....................................42288

69.....................................42288

70.....................................42288

71.....................................42288

72.....................................42288

73.....................................42288

74.....................................42288

75.....................................42288

76.....................................42288

77.........................40329, 42288

78.........................40556, 42288

79.....................................42288

80.....................................42288

81.....................................42288

82.....................................42288

83.....................................42288

84.....................................42288

85.....................................42288

309...................................42288

310...................................42288

311...................................42288

318...................................42288

319...................................42288

10 CFR 

2.......................................41749

ii Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Reader Aids 

12 CFR 

25.....................................41181

201...................................41388

228...................................41181

345...................................41181

563e.................................41181

609...................................42852

611...................................42852

612...................................42852

613...................................43511

614 ..........42852, 42853, 43511

615...................................42852

617...................................42852

618...................................43511

703...................................39827

704...................................39827

Proposed Rules: 

Ch. I.................................43347

Ch. II................................43347

Ch. III...............................43347

Ch. V................................43347

Ch. VII..............................41202

41.....................................42502

222...................................42502

303...................................43060

325...................................43060

327...................................43060

334...................................42502

347...................................43060

571...................................42502

701...................................39871

717...................................42502

723...................................39873

1412.................................41606

13 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

121...................................39874

14 CFR 

25 ...........40307, 40520, 40537, 

42329

36.....................................41573

39 ...........39833, 39834, 39835, 

40309, 40539, 40541, 40764, 

41189, 41389, 41391, 41394, 

41396, 41398, 41401, 41403, 

41405, 41407, 41410, 41411, 

41413, 41414, 41417, 41418, 

41419, 41421, 41920, 41923, 

41925, 41926, 41928, 41930, 

42549, 42855, 42858, 42860, 

42861

71 ...........39837, 40310, 40542, 

41189, 42331

97.....................................41934

383...................................41423

1260.................................41935

1274.................................41935

1275.................................42102

Proposed Rules: 

39 ...........39875, 39877, 40819, 

40821, 40823, 41204, 41207, 

41209, 41211, 41213, 41985, 

41987, 41990, 41992, 41994, 

41997, 42356, 42358, 42360, 

42363, 42365, 42368, 41612, 

42912

71 ...........40330, 40331, 41215, 

41216, 41218

73.....................................43539

121...................................42324

125...................................42324

135...................................42324

243...................................43540

15 CFR 

736...................................42332

738...................................41879

742...................................42862

744...................................42332

748...................................42862

770...................................42862

774...................................42862

16 CFR 

305...................................42107

315...................................40482

456...................................40482

Proposed Rules: 

680...................................43546

682...................................41219

698...................................41616

17 CFR 

1.......................................41424

4.......................................41424

31.....................................41424

36.....................................43285

140...................................41424

145...................................41424

190...................................41424

200.......................41060, 41936

230...................................43295

240...................................41060

249...................................41060

270...................................41696

275...................................41696

279...................................41696

Proposed Rules: 

1.......................................39880

38.....................................39880

247...................................42302

18 CFR 

388...................................41190

Proposed Rules: 

5.......................................40332

16.....................................40332

156...................................40332

157...................................40332

385...................................40332

19 CFR 

101...................................41749

20 CFR 

656...................................43716

667...................................41882

670...................................41882

Proposed Rules: 

404...................................40338

416...................................40338

667...................................41769

1001.................................40724

21 CFR 

17.....................................43299

110...................................40312

172...................................40765

189...................................42256

510.......................40765, 41427

520...................................41427

522...................................40765

524.......................40766, 41427

700...................................42256

Proposed Rules: 

56.....................................40556

189...................................42275

312...................................43351

314...................................43351

589...................................42288

600...................................43351

601...................................43351

700...................................42275

22 CFR 

41.....................................43515

121...................................40313

123...................................40313

Proposed Rules: 

22.....................................42913

24 CFR 

5.......................................41712

25.....................................43504

35.....................................40474

203...................................43504

570...................................41712

Proposed Rules: 

81.....................................39886

570...................................41434

583...................................43488

25 CFR 

170...................................43090

Proposed Rules: 

Ch. 1....................39887, 43546

30.....................................43547

36.....................................41770

37.....................................43547

39.....................................43547

42.....................................43547

44.....................................43547

47.....................................43547

48.....................................41770

26 CFR 

1 .............41192, 42551, 42559, 

43302, 43304

31.....................................41938

157...................................41192

301.......................41938, 43317

602.......................41192, 41938

Proposed Rules: 

1 .............42370, 42919, 43366, 

43367

26.....................................42000

49.....................................40345

301...................................43369

27 CFR 

9.......................................41750

28 CFR 

302...................................41943

506...................................40315

540...................................40315

Proposed Rules: 

550...................................39887

29 CFR 

2.......................................41882

37.........................41882, 41894

4022.................................42333

4044.................................42333

Proposed Rules: 

37.....................................41769

1910.................................41221

1915.................................41221

1917.................................41221

1918.................................41221

1926.....................41221, 42379

30 CFR 

3.......................................42112

913...................................42870

Proposed Rules: 

18.....................................42812

48.....................................42842

75.....................................42812

902...................................42920

914 ..........42927, 42931, 42937

917...................................42939

920...................................42943

943...................................42948

32 CFR 

61.....................................43318

260...................................42114

Proposed Rules: 

635...................................41626

33 CFR 

100 ..........41196, 42870, 43516

107...................................41367

110...................................42335

117 .........41196, 41944, 42872, 

42874, 42876

151...................................40767

161...................................39837

165 .........40319, 40542, 40768, 

41196, 41367, 41944, 42115, 

42335, 42876

Proposed Rules: 

165.......................40345, 42950

34 CFR 

75.....................................41200

36 CFR 

228...................................41428

242...................................40174

251...................................41946

261...................................41946

295...................................41946

701...................................39837

702...................................39837

704...................................39837

705...................................39837

800...................................40544

Proposed Rules: 

7.......................................40562

212...................................42381

251...................................42381

261...................................42381

294...................................41636

295...................................42381

37 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

202...................................42004

211...................................42004

212...................................42004

270...................................42007

38 CFR 

1.......................................39844

3.......................................42879

17.....................................39845

39 CFR 

3.......................................42340

265...................................39851

40 CFR 

9.......................................41576

51 ............40274, 40278, 42560

52 ...........39854, 39856, 39858, 

39860, 40274, 40278, 40321, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Reader Aids iii

40324, 41336, 41431, 42340, 

42560, 42880, 43319, 43518, 

43520, 43522

60 ............40770, 41346, 42117

61.....................................43322

62.....................................42117

63 ............39862, 41757, 42885

81 ............39860, 41336, 43522

93.........................40004, 43325

122...................................41576

123...................................41576

124...................................41576

125...................................41576

147...................................42341

152...................................39862

154...................................39862

158...................................39862

159...................................39862

168...................................39862

178...................................39862

180 .........40774, 40781, 42560, 

43525

194...................................42571

239...................................42583

257...................................42583

710...................................40787

Proposed Rules: 

51.....................................41225

52 ...........39892, 40824, 41344, 

41441, 43370, 43371

60 ...........40824, 40829, 42123, 

43371

62.........................42123, 41641

63.........................41779, 42954

81.....................................41344

131...................................41720

180 ..........40831, 41442, 43548

239...................................41644

257...................................41644

261...................................42395

271...................................40568

42 CFR 

414...................................40288

43 CFR 

3830.................................40294

3834.................................40294

Proposed Rules: 

1600.................................43378

44 CFR 

64.........................40324, 42584

Proposed Rules: 

67.........................40836, 40837

45 CFR 

74.....................................42586

87.....................................42586

92.....................................42586

96.....................................42586

Proposed Rules: 

30.....................................42010

33.....................................42022

46.....................................40584

46 CFR 

296...................................43328

47 CFR 

0.......................................41130

1 .............39864, 40326, 41028, 

41130

27.....................................39864

64.....................................40325

73 ...........39868, 39869, 40791, 

41432, 42345, 42897, 43533, 

43534

90.....................................39864

95.....................................39864

Proposed Rules: 

54.....................................40839

64.....................................42125

73 ...........39893, 41444, 42956, 

42957, 43552, 43553

101...................................40843

48 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

2.......................................43712

7.......................................43712

11.....................................43712

16.........................40514, 43712

37.....................................43712

39.........................40514, 43712

45.....................................42544

52.....................................42544

533...................................40730

552...................................40730

49 CFR 

37.....................................40794

172...................................41967

193...................................41761

544...................................41974

571...................................42595

572...................................42595

Proposed Rules: 

571...................................42126

50 CFR 

17.........................40084, 40796

100...................................40174

216...................................41976

223...................................40734

229...................................43338

622...................................41433

635.......................40734, 43535

648 ..........40850, 41980, 43535

660 .........40805, 40817, 42345, 

43345

679 .........41984, 42122, 42345, 

43536, 43537

Proposed Rules: 

17 ...........41445, 43058, 43554, 

43664

20.....................................43694

32.....................................42127

224...................................41446

300...................................41447

402...................................40346

648...................................41026

660.......................40851, 43383

679.......................41447, 42128

iv Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Reader Aids 

REMINDERS 

The items in this list were 

editorially compiled as an aid 

to Federal Register users. 

Inclusion or exclusion from 

this list has no legal 

significance.

RULES GOING INTO 

EFFECT JULY 21, 2004

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Pesticides; tolerances in food, 

animal feeds, and raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Acequinocyl, etc.; published 

7-21-04

HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT 

Lead-based paint hazards in 

federally owned residential 

property and housing 

receiving Federal 

assistance; notification, 

evaluation, and reduction; 

published 6-21-04

STATE DEPARTMENT 

Visas; nonimmigrant 

documentation: 

Crew list visas; elimination; 

published 7-21-04

TRANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Airworthiness directives: 

Boeing; published 6-16-04

Correction; published 7-8-

04

Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER); published 6-

16-04

TRANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Engineering and traffic 

operations: 

Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices Manual for 

streets and highways; 

revision; published 5-10-

04

COMMENTS DUE NEXT 

WEEK 

AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT 

Agricultural Marketing 

Service 

Cotton classing, testing and 

standards: 

Classification services to 

growers; 2004 user fees; 

Open for comments until 

further notice; published 

5-28-04 [FR 04-12138] 

Nectarines and fresh pears 

and peaches grown in—

California; comments due by 

7-27-04; published 5-28-

04 [FR 04-12137] 

Raisins produced from grapes 

grown in—

California; comments due by 

7-26-04; published 5-25-

04 [FR 04-11742] 

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 

International Trade 

Administration 

Watches, watch movements, 

and jewelry: 

Duty-exemption allocations—

Virgin Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and 

Northern Mariana 

Islands; comments due 

by 7-30-04; published 

6-30-04 [FR 04-14854] 

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Fishery conservation and 

management: 

West Coast States and 

Western Pacific 

fisheries—

Pacific Coast groundfish; 

comments due by 7-28-

04; published 6-29-04 

[FR 04-14717] 

Marine mammals: 

Incidental taking—

U.S. Navy; operations of 

Surveillance Towed 

Array Sensor System 

Low Frequency Active 

Sonar; comments due 

by 7-29-04; published 

6-29-04 [FR 04-14718] 

COURT SERVICES AND 

OFFENDER SUPERVISION 

AGENCY FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Semi-annual agenda; Open for 

comments until further 

notice; published 12-22-03 

[FR 03-25121] 

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR): 

Payment withholding; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 5-25-04 [FR 

04-11736] 

ENERGY DEPARTMENT 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Electric rate and corporate 

regulation filings: 

Virginia Electric & Power 

Co. et al.; Open for 

comments until further 

notice; published 10-1-03 

[FR 03-24818] 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Air pollution control: 

Fuel economy testing and 

calculation procedures; 

Bluewater Network 

petition; comments due by 

7-27-04; published 3-29-

04 [FR 04-06827] 

Air programs: 

Ambient air quality 

standards, national—

Fine particulate matter 

and ozone; interstate 

transport control 

measures; comments 

due by 7-26-04; 

published 6-10-04 [FR 

04-11923] 

Air quality implementation 

plans; √A√approval and 

promulgation; various 

States; air quality planning 

purposes; designation of 

areas: 

Missouri; comments due by 

7-30-04; published 6-30-

04 [FR 04-14701] 

Air quality implementation 

plans; approval and 

promulgation; various 

States: 

Illinois; comments due by 7-

28-04; published 6-28-04 

[FR 04-14382] 

Maryland; comments due by 

7-29-04; published 6-29-

04 [FR 04-14602] 

New Jersey; comments due 

by 7-28-04; published 6-

28-04 [FR 04-14605] 

Virginia; comments due by 

7-26-04; published 6-24-

04 [FR 04-14214] 

Environmental statements; 

availability, etc.: 

Coastal nonpoint pollution 

control program—

Minnesota and Texas; 

Open for comments 

until further notice; 

published 10-16-03 [FR 

03-26087] 

Pesticides; tolerances in food, 

animal feeds, and raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Imidacloprid; comments due 

by 7-26-04; published 5-

26-04 [FR 04-11780] 

Isoxadifen-ethyl; comments 

due by 7-26-04; published 

5-26-04 [FR 04-11561] 

Ultramarine blue; comments 

due by 7-26-04; published 

5-26-04 [FR 04-11672] 

Superfund program: 

National oil and hazardous 

substances contingency 

plan—

National priorities list 

update; comments due 

by 7-26-04; published 

6-24-04 [FR 04-14218] 

National priorities list 

update; comments due 

by 7-26-04; published 

6-24-04 [FR 04-14217] 

Water pollution; effluent 

guidelines for point source 

categories: 

Meat and poultry products 

processing facilities; Open 

for comments until further 

notice; published 12-30-99 

[FR 04-12017] 

FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Common carrier services: 

International 

telecommunications; U.S. 

providers; reporting 

requirements; comments 

due by 7-26-04; published 

5-25-04 [FR 04-10837] 

Radio broadcasting: 

Broadcast and cable EEO 

rules and policies—

Revision; comments due 

by 7-29-04; published 

7-22-04 [FR 04-16602] 

Radio frequency devices: 

Unlicensed operation in 

3650-3700 MHz band; 

comments due by 7-28-

04; published 5-14-04 [FR 

04-11007] 

FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act; implementation: 

Coordinated and 

independent expenditures 

by party committees; 

comments due by 7-30-

04; published 6-30-04 [FR 

04-14817] 

FEDERAL RESERVE 

SYSTEM 

Collection of checks and other 

items by Federal Reserve 

banks and funds transfers 

through Fedwire (Regulation 

J): 

Check Clearing for the 21st 

Century Act—

Check processing service 

options; collection of 

substitute checks and 

items converted to 

electronic form; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 6-18-04 

[FR 04-13147] 

FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act; 

implementation: 

Consumer report information 

and records; disposal; 

comments due by 7-30-

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Reader Aids v

04; published 7-8-04 [FR 

04-15579] 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR): 

Payment withholding; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 5-25-04 [FR 

04-11736] 

HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES DEPARTMENT 

Food and Drug 

Administration 

Public Health Security and 

Bioterrorism: 

Food importation; sampling 

services and private 

laboratories requirements; 

comments due by 7-28-

04; published 4-29-04 [FR 

04-09699] 

Reports and guidance 

documents; availability, etc.: 

Evaluating safety of 

antimicrobial new animal 

drugs with regard to their 

microbiological effects on 

bacteria of human health 

concern; Open for 

comments until further 

notice; published 10-27-03 

[FR 03-27113] 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

DEPARTMENT 

Coast Guard 

Anchorage regulations: 

Maryland; Open for 

comments until further 

notice; published 1-14-04 

[FR 04-00749] 

Ports and waterways safety: 

Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal, 

Delaware Bay, Delaware 

River, et al.; security 

zone; comments due by 

7-28-04; published 6-28-

04 [FR 04-14562] 

Port Valdez and Valdez 

Narrows, AK; security 

zones; comments due by 

7-30-04; published 5-19-

04 [FR 04-11232] 

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered and threatened 

species: 

Beluga sturgeon; comments 

due by 7-29-04; published 

6-29-04 [FR 04-14795] 

Findings on petitions, etc.—

Greater sage-grouse; 

comments due by 7-30-

04; published 7-9-04 

[FR 04-15588] 

Endangered Species Act: 

Incidental take permit 

revocation regulations; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 5-25-04 [FR 

04-11741] 

Hunting and fishing: 

Refuge-specific regulations; 

comments due by 7-30-

04; published 6-30-04 [FR 

04-13897] 

Correction; comments due 

by 7-30-04; published 

7-14-04 [FR 04-15860] 

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 

Watches, watch movements, 

and jewelry: 

Duty-exemption allocations—

Virgin Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and 

Northern Mariana 

Islands; comments due 

by 7-30-04; published 

6-30-04 [FR 04-14854] 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR): 

Payment withholding; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 5-25-04 [FR 

04-11736] 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Environmental statements; 

availability, etc.: 

Fort Wayne State 

Developmental Center; 

Open for comments until 

further notice; published 

5-10-04 [FR 04-10516] 

SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Disaster loan areas: 

Maine; Open for comments 

until further notice; 

published 2-17-04 [FR 04-

03374] 

OFFICE OF UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Trade Representative, Office 

of United States 

Generalized System of 

Preferences: 

2003 Annual Product 

Review, 2002 Annual 

Country Practices Review, 

and previously deferred 

product decisions; 

petitions disposition; Open 

for comments until further 

notice; published 7-6-04 

[FR 04-15361] 

TRANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Airworthiness directives: 

Raytheon; comments due by 

7-26-04; published 5-26-

04 [FR 04-11877] 

Class E airspace; comments 

due by 7-26-04; published 

5-25-04 [FR 04-11788] 

Restricted areas; comments 

due by 7-26-04; published 

6-9-04 [FR 04-12969] 

TRANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT 

National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 

Motor vehicle safety 

standards: 

Potential defects; quarterly 

early warning reports; 

submission due dates; 

comments due by 7-29-

04; published 6-29-04 [FR 

04-14699] 

Registration of importers 

and importation of motor 

vehicles not certified as 

conforming to Federal 

standards; fees schedule; 

comments due by 7-26-

04; published 6-9-04 [FR 

04-12722] 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

Fiscal Service 

Treasury certificates of 

indebtedness, notes, and 

bonds; State and local 

government series: 

Securities; electronic 

submission of 

subscriptions, account 

information, and 

redemption; updates; 

comments due by 7-27-

04; published 7-12-04 [FR 

04-15607]

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS 

This is a continuing list of 

public bills from the current 

session of Congress which 

have become Federal laws. It 

may be used in conjunction 

with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws 

Update Service) on 202–741–

6043. This list is also 

available online at http://

www.archives.gov/

federal—register/public—laws/

public—laws.html.

The text of laws is not 

published in the Federal 

Register but may be ordered 

in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual 

pamphlet) form from the 

Superintendent of Documents, 

U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC 20402 

(phone, 202–512–1808). The 

text will also be made 

available on the Internet from 

GPO Access at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/

index.html. Some laws may 

not yet be available.

H.R. 4103/P.L. 108–274

AGOA Acceleration Act of 

2004 (July 13, 2004; 118 Stat. 

820) 

H.R. 1731/P.L. 108–275

Identity Theft Penalty 

Enhancement Act (July 15, 

2004; 118 Stat. 831) 

Last List July 9, 2004

Public Laws Electronic 

Notification Service 

(PENS) 

PENS is a free electronic mail 

notification service of newly 

enacted public laws. To 

subscribe, go to http://

listserv.gsa.gov/archives/

publaws-l.html

Note: This service is strictly 

for E-mail notification of new 

laws. The text of laws is not 

available through this service. 

PENS cannot respond to 

specific inquiries sent to this 

address.