[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57375-57379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25149]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 030430107-3236-02; I.D. 040703A]
RIN 0648-AN87


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the Fishery 
Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic 
Region (FMP). This final rule limits the harvest or possession of 
pelagic sargassum in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the 
southern Atlantic states to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) annually, restricts 
fishing for pelagic sargassum in the South Atlantic EEZ to an area no 
less than 100 nautical miles offshore of North Carolina and to the 
months of November through June, requires vessel owners or operators to 
accommodate NMFS-approved observers on all pelagic sargassum fishing 
trips, and restricts the mesh and frame sizes of nets used to harvest 
pelagic sargassum. The FMP also defines the management unit, maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), and overfishing 
parameters. In addition, NMFS informs the public of the approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the collection-of-information 
requirements contained in this final rule and publishes the OMB control 
numbers for those collections. The intended effects are to conserve and 
manage pelagic sargassum and to protect essential fish habitat.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 3, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 
Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to Robert Sadler, Southeast Region, NMFS, 
at the above address, and by e-mail to [email protected], or 
fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, phone: 727-570-
5305, fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council (SAFMC) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
    On April 17, 2003, NMFS announced the availability of the FMP and 
requested comments on it (68 FR 18942). NMFS published a proposed rule 
to implement the FMP and requested comments on the proposed rule 
through June 30, 2003 (68 FR 32450, May 30, 2003). NMFS partially 
approved the FMP on July 11, 2003; the designation of essential fish 
habitat (EFH), EFH-habitat areas of particular concern (EFH-HAPCs), and 
the estimate of maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) were 
disapproved. The rationale for the measures in the FMP is provided in 
the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 22 letters on the FMP and proposed rule. Of those, 18 
were in general support of the actions identified in the FMP, 2 were 
opposed, and 2 letters focused on future research needs regarding the 
role of pelagic sargassum as habitat in the open ocean environment. A 
summary of those comments and NMFS's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: Sargassum is extremely important habitat for a variety 
of marine species. NMFS is urged to approve this FMP and its 
implementing regulations, which would limit the harvest of sargassum 
and protect the resource as essential fish habitat (EFH) and EFH 
habitat areas of particular concern (EFH-HAPC).
    Response: NMFS recognizes the importance of sargassum as EFH for 
managed species, and sargassum's general importance as habitat in the 
open ocean environment. NMFS has partially approved the FMP, and 
regulations implemented through this rule will prohibit the harvest of 
sargassum south of 34[deg] N. lat. in the SAFMC's area of jurisdiction, 
and restrict the allowable harvest to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) annually from 
waters greater than 100 nautical miles offshore of the North Carolina 
coast. These actions are intended to provide protection to sargassum 
habitat, which is designated as EFH for snappers, groupers, and coastal 
migratory pelagic fishes, and is known to be used by threatened and 
endangered sea turtles and large quantities of other marine life.
    Comment 2: Because of the importance of sargassum as habitat, and 
its designation as EFH and HAPC for several managed finfish species, 
all harvest of sargassum should be prohibited.
    Response: NMFS previously informed the SAFMC that there was 
insufficient justification to prohibit all harvest of sargassum. 
Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the 
Councils minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH 
caused by fishing, but clearly this does not, in every instance, 
preclude some loss or damage to EFH from fishing impacts. Given the 
suggested standing crop of sargassum is 9 to 24 billion lbs (4 to 11 
million mt) and there has been a documented harvest of 448,000 lb (203 
mt) over a 22-year period, NMFS determined that the administrative 
record does not provide sufficient evidence that there has been an 
adverse impact on sargassum as EFH, or that harvest should be 
prohibited.
    Comment 3: Quantities of sargassum found off of the east coast of 
Florida have declined in recent years. The ongoing harvest of sargassum 
is detrimental to Florida's offshore fisheries and should not be 
allowed.
    Response: Given that sargassum is dispersed northward from the 
Sargasso Sea to the north Atlantic Ocean via the Gulf Stream and 
prevailing winds,

[[Page 57376]]

NMFS does not believe that the intermittent and limited harvest of 
sargassum off North Carolina between 1976 and 1997 affected the 
quantities of sargassum occurring off of more southerly coastlines. 
NMFS is unaware of any harvest of sargassum in the South Atlantic EEZ 
during the last 6 years (see also Comment 5). The abundance and density 
of sargassum off Florida would more likely be affected by changes in 
local currents and prevailing winds, such as occurred during the El 
Nino events of 1998 and 2002. Nevertheless, NMFS agrees that sargassum 
is important habitat to numerous fishes, and many fisheries operate by 
fishing near sargassum habitat. Regulations implemented by the 
promulgation of this rule will prohibit the harvest of any sargassum 
except from areas more than 100 nautical miles from shore off North 
Carolina.
    Comment 4: Excessive quantities of sargassum impede navigation for 
the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and merchant marine vessels, clogging 
cooling water intake ports. Given these issues, there does not appear 
to be a need to restrict or prohibit harvest. The total 22-year harvest 
of 448,000 lb (203 mt) is minuscule compared to the potential of the 
sargassum standing stock to increase its biomass by as much as 1 to 2.4 
billion lb (0.4 to 1.1 million mt) within a few day's time.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the biological potential for growth of 
sargassum makes it a highly renewable natural resource. Nevertheless, 
NMFS agrees with the SAFMC regarding the benefits of maintaining 
adequate quantities of sargassum as habitat for numerous marine 
species, including sea turtles, in an environment that is otherwise 
devoid of much structure and protective habitat. In addition, limiting 
harvest to areas offshore of North Carolina, during time periods when 
turtles and other marine life are expected to be least abundant in the 
sargassum, is intended to reduce the potential incidental capture and 
mortality of these species.
    Comment 5: Allowing a harvest of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) wet weight or 
500 lb (227 kg) dry weight of sargassum per year would put the one 
known processing firm out of business. The firm is currently processing 
twice that amount in a month's time, and anticipates an expansion of 
its sales that would require an annual harvest of 240,000 lb (108.9 mt) 
wet weight annually. Additionally, very little sargassum is found off 
North Carolina from November through June, thus year-round harvest 
would provide the firm with the flexibility to select times when 
sargassum was most abundant and weather conditions were conducive to 
taking a vessel offshore.
    Response: NMFS and the SAFMC were unaware that the one known 
processing firm was actively engaged in processing sargassum until the 
firm submitted these comments. NMFS and the SAFMC were under the 
impression that no harvesting activity had occurred since 1997. The 
SAFMC's choices for optimum yield (OY) and total allowable catch (TAC) 
were based on average annual harvest levels from the most recent data 
available. To ensure that the SAFMC's proposed actions, and NMFS' 
decisions, were based on the best available information, NMFS contacted 
the firm's owner to request updated information regarding the harvest 
of sargassum in the SAFMC's area of jurisdiction.
    The owner reported that the firm was not actively fishing for 
sargassum; the firm's fishing vessel had been sold. The firm was 
purchasing sargassum from vendors who had harvested the product from 
areas outside the SAFMC's area of jurisdiction. According to the firm's 
comment letter, its current monthly use of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) wet 
weight of sargassum is approximately half its historical (1976-1997) 
average annual harvest. Therefore, it appears that the proposed 
harvesting restrictions would not affect the firm's opportunity to 
continue its operations. There is no information available to evaluate 
the firm's current mode of operation of buying raw product compared to 
purchasing and operating its own vessel to harvest sargassum.
    Comment 6: Some of the preferred alternatives identified in the 
FMP, if modified to include additional considerations, would better 
address the conservation and management of sargassum.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act, at Section 304(a)(3), provides 
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), or NMFS as the Secretary's 
designee, with the authority to approve, disapprove, or partially 
approve the preferred alternative in any FMP or FMP amendment submitted 
by a fishery management council. The Secretary does not have 
discretionary authority to select a rejected alternative, or develop a 
substitute alternative, for approval and implementation.
    Comment 7: Several scientific studies have documented the use of 
sargassum by various forms of marine life, including sea turtles. NMFS 
is encouraged to develop better estimates of densities of sea turtle 
neonates in sargassum habitat. Additional questions that need to be 
addressed include: What quantity of harvest is acceptable, and what is 
too much? What seasons are least disruptive in regards to the use of 
sargassum by the various life stages of finfish and invertebrate 
species that associate with sargassum? The decision to establish a 
fishing season appears to be based entirely on an assumption of post-
hatchling turtle utilization of the habitat, without accounting for 
seasonal use of sargassum as a nursery ground by numerous fish species.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that there is a paucity of data 
regarding the abundance of turtles in sargassum habitat. Several 
studies, mostly focusing on the western edge of the Gulf Stream, have 
reported numbers of turtles seen during transect surveys, giving a 
rough estimate of densities of turtles along this western boundary. The 
western boundary would be the area that hatchling turtles first 
encounter during their migration from the nesting beach. Thus, it is 
likely that densities may decrease toward the eastern Gulf Stream 
boundary and beyond into the open ocean realm. The FMP notes (page 18) 
that ``Regional trends in the mean abundance of and biomass of young 
fish show a decrease in abundance across the continental shelf and into 
the Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea, and a decrease from spring through 
fall. Species richness is generally highest on the outer shelf during 
spring and summer and further offshore during the fall and winter.'' 
This same kind of distribution can be assumed for sea turtles as well. 
To that end, this final rule will prohibit the harvest of sargassum 
within 100 nautical miles of shore off North Carolina, and during the 
spring through fall period. The intent of this restriction is to limit 
the interaction with bycatch during harvesting efforts. The gear 
restrictions imposed by this final rule are intended to limit those 
impacts; harvesting nets must be constructed of 4-inch (10.2-cm) 
stretch mesh or larger fitted to a frame no larger than 4 ft by 6 ft 
(1.3 m by 2.0 m), which should allow many organisms to escape.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    NMFS prepared an FRFA, based on the Regulatory Impact Review, for 
this final rule. A summary of the FRFA follows:
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this 
final rule. The objectives of the FMP are: establish a management 
structure to manage sargassum habitat; reduce the impact of the 
sargassum fishery on essential fish habitat; reduce the potential for 
conflict;

[[Page 57377]]

and direct needed research to better determine distribution, 
production, and ecology of sargassum habitat. The final rule prohibits 
all harvest and possession of sargassum from the South Atlantic EEZ 
south of 34[deg] N. lat., the latitude line representing the North 
Carolina/South Carolina border; prohibits all harvest of sargassum from 
the South Atlantic EEZ within 100 nautical miles of shore between 
34[deg] N. lat. and the latitude line representing the North Carolina/
Virginia border; limits harvest of sargassum from the South Atlantic 
EEZ to the months of November through June; establishes an annual total 
allowable catch (TAC) of 5,000 lbs (2,268 kg) landed wet weight; 
requires that a NMFS-approved observer be present on each sargassum 
harvesting trip; and requires that nets used to harvest sargassum be 
constructed of 4-inch (10.2-cm) stretch mesh or larger fitted to a 
frame no longer than 4 ft by 6 ft (1.3 m by 2.0 m). This action is 
being considered because sargassum harvest represents removal of 
essential fish habitat or important developmental or foraging habitat 
for other federally managed species including threatened/endangered sea 
turtles; no management structure exists to protect sargassum; potential 
conflicts could arise if harvest occurs where recreational fishing is 
occurring; and limited information on distribution, production, and 
ecology of sargassum exists. The rule establishes strict limits on 
allowable harvest of sargassum.
    This final rule will require an observer on board the vessel to 
monitor harvest of sargassum and associated bycatch. No other projected 
reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirements are 
proposed. No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have 
been identified.
    No directed fishery for sargassum currently exists in the South 
Atlantic. Therefore, no small business entities will be impacted by 
this final rule. One small business entity was a historical participant 
in the fishery. This firm harvested an average annual harvest of 14,333 
lb (6,501 kg) wet weight (1995-1997 average harvest), valued at $43,000 
per year, and employed three persons on a full-time basis and other 
workers on a part-time basis as needed. A total of 52 trips were made 
between 1976 and 1997 resulting in the harvest of 448,000 lb (203,209 
kg) wet weight (44,800 lb (20,321 kg) dry weight) of sargassum. Harvest 
peaked at 200,000 lb (90,718 kg) wet weight in 1990. The average 
harvest over the entire 1976-1997 harvest period was 8,615 lb (3,908 
kg) wet weight per trip. Harvest was conducted either through contract 
with commercial finfish fishing vessels that harvested sargassum in 
conjunction with their regular fishing trip, or through the use of a 
converted 63-ft (19.2-m) snapper-grouper vessel acquired to conduct 
directed harvest trips. No information on harvesting or processing 
costs is available. Since a small business entity in the commercial 
fishery is defined as a firm that has annual gross receipts not in 
excess of $3.5 million, the historical firm, had it remained in the 
fishery, would be classified as a small business entity. However, no 
harvest by this firm or any other business entity has been recorded 
since 1997. The sole historical participant in the fishery has 
maintained the processing side of the business operation through the 
purchase of product from vendors harvesting outside the SAFMC's area of 
jurisdiction. There is no known harvest, therefore, within the SAFMC's 
area of jurisdiction that would be adversely impacted.
    No significant issues were raised by public comments in response to 
the IRFA. Therefore, no changes were made in the final rule as a result 
of such comments.
    The determination of significant economic impact can be ascertained 
by examining two criteria, disproportionality and profitability. The 
disproportionality question is: Will the regulations place a 
substantial number of small business entities at a significant 
competitive disadvantage to large business entities? Since no directed 
fishery for sargassum currently exists, no business entities, large or 
small, currently participate in the fishery. The sole historical 
participant, however, qualified as a small business entity. Since no 
participants in the fishery currently exist, and the sole historical 
participant was a small business entity, the issue of 
disproportionality does not arise.
    The profitability question is: Will the regulations significantly 
reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? Since no 
directed fishery for sargassum currently exists, the regulations do not 
significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities. 
Had the sole historical participant in the fishery continued operation 
and been dependent upon product harvested from areas within the 
Council's jurisdiction, the allowable TAC would have reduced average 
harvest and revenues by 65 percent, from 14,333 lb (6,501 kg) wet 
weight (1995-1997 average harvest) to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), valued at 
from $43,000 to $15,000. Although profit figures are not available, it 
is obvious that the reduction in profit would also be significant. 
However, as previously stated, no directed fishery exists, so no 
reduction in profits will occur for any small business entities.
    Since there is no directed fishery for sargassum, this final rule 
does not generate any negative economic impacts on small entities. 
Therefore, the issue of significant alternatives to mitigate economic 
impacts is not relevant. However, in the event that directed harvest is 
attempted, only the harvest restrictions will result in direct economic 
impacts. The harvest restrictions are not believed to be sufficient to 
allow sustained participation in a directed fishery for sargassum since 
the allowable harvest is only 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) wet weight per year. 
Two other alternatives, allowing no harvest and prohibiting harvest 
after January 1, 2001, would similarly not support sustained 
participation in the fishery and are, therefore, not relevant 
significant alternatives in that they would not mitigate the negative 
economic impacts of the proposed rule.
    The no action alternative and an alternative establishing the TAC 
at 100,000 metric tons wet weight would allow unrestricted harvest. 
Additional alternatives would specify TAC at 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) wet 
weight and 200,000 lb (90,718 kg) wet weight, which would allow 
harvests greater than the historic average harvest per year (8,615 lb 
(3,908 kg) wet weight for 1976-1997 or 14,333 lb (6,501 kg) wet weight 
for 1995-1997). Any of these alternatives would, therefore, eliminate 
all negative economic impacts on a directed fishery. These 
alternatives, however, are inconsistent with the Council's intent to 
both discontinue unregulated harvest of sargassum and limit expansion 
of a sargassum fishery. The Council concluded that severe limitation on 
harvest is likely to increase the productivity of marine life in the 
ecosystem and, thus, increase consumptive, non-consumptive, and in-
direct (value to other species as habitat) use values. Furthermore, the 
Council concluded that maintaining these consumptive, non-consumptive, 
and indirect use benefits greatly outweigh the costs resulting from 
severely limiting harvest. In addition, there was overwhelming public 
support for a measure to prohibit the directed harvest of sargassum.
    Copies of the FRFA are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that

[[Page 57378]]

collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.
    This final rule contains the collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. These requirements 
have been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0205 for 
notification prior to a fishing trip and OMB control number 0648-0358 
for vessel identification requirements. The public reporting burden is 
estimated to be 45 minutes per vessel for vessel identification 
requirements and 5 minutes for notification prior to a trip, per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 
regarding these burden estimates, or any other aspects of the 
collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Virgin Islands.

    Dated: September 29, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as 
follows:

PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  622.1, table 1, the following entry is added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  622.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

                Table 1.--FMPs Implemented Under Part 622
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Responsible
                                       fishery
            FMP title                 management      Geographical  area
                                      council(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
FMP for Pelagic Sargassum         SAFMC              South Atlantic
 Habitat of the South Atlantic
 Region.
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  622.2, the definition of ``Pelagic sargassum'' is added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  622.2  Definitions and acronyms.

* * * * *
    Pelagic sargassum means the species Sargassum natans or S. 
fluitans, or a part thereof.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  622.6, paragraph (a)(1)(i) introductory text is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  622.6  Vessel and gear identification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Official number. A vessel for which a permit has been issued 
under Sec.  622.4, and a vessel that fishes for or possesses pelagic 
sargassum in the South Atlantic EEZ, must display its official number--
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  622.8, paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (c) 
introductory text are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  622.8  At-sea observer coverage.

    (a) Required coverage--(1) Pelagic sargassum. A vessel that 
harvests or possesses pelagic sargassum on any trip in the South 
Atlantic EEZ must carry a NMFS-approved observer.
    (2) Golden crab. A vessel for which a Federal commercial permit for 
golden crab has been issued must carry a NMFS-approved observer, if the 
vessel's trip is selected by the SRD for observer coverage.
    (b) Notification to the SRD. When observer coverage is required, an 
owner or operator must advise the SRD in writing not less than 5 days 
in advance of each trip of the following:
* * * * *
    (c) Observer accommodations and access. An owner or operator of a 
vessel on which a NMFS-approved observer is embarked must:
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  622.35, paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.35  South Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *
    (g) Pelagic sargassum area and seasonal restrictions--(1) Area 
limitations. (i) No person may harvest pelagic sargassum in the South 
Atlantic EEZ between 36[deg]34'55 '' N. lat. (directly east from the 
Virginia/North Carolina boundary) and 34[deg] N. lat., within 100 
nautical miles east of the North Carolina coast.
    (ii) No person may harvest or possess pelagic sargassum in or from 
the South Atlantic EEZ south of 34[deg] N. lat.
    (2) Seasonal limitation. No person may harvest or possess pelagic 
sargassum in or from the South Atlantic EEZ during the months of July 
through October. This prohibition on possession does not apply to 
pelagic sargassum that was harvested and landed ashore prior to the 
closed period.

0
7. In Sec.  622.41, paragraph (k) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.41  Species specific limitations.

* * * * *
    (k) Pelagic sargassum. The minimum allowable mesh size for a net 
used to fish for pelagic sargassum in the South Atlantic EEZ is 4.0 
inches (10.2 cm), stretched mesh, and such net must be attached to a 
frame no larger than 4 ft by 6 ft (1.2 m by 1.8 m). A vessel in the 
South Atlantic EEZ with a net on board that does not meet these 
requirements may not possess any pelagic sargassum.

0
8. In Sec.  622.42, paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.42  Quotas.

* * * * *
    (g) Pelagic sargassum. The quota for all persons who harvest 
pelagic sargassum in the South Atlantic EEZ is 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), 
wet, landed weight. See Sec.  622.35(g)(1) for area limitations on the 
harvest of pelagic sargassum.

0
9. In Sec.  622.43, paragraph (a)(7) is added and paragraph (b)(2) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  622.43  Closures.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) Pelagic sargassum. Pelagic sargassum may not be fished for or 
possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ and the sale or purchase of pelagic 
sargassum in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The prohibition on sale/purchase during a closure for allowable 
octocoral in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or for pelagic sargassum 
in paragraph (a)(7) of this section does not apply to allowable 
octocoral or pelagic sargassum that was

[[Page 57379]]

harvested and landed ashore prior to the effective date of the closure.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-25149 Filed 10-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P