[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65859-65863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-29202]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2003-15471; Airspace Docket No. 03-AWA-6]
RIN 2120-AA66


Proposed Modification of the Minneapolis Class B Airspace Area; 
MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the current Minneapolis, MN, 
Class B airspace area. Specifically, this action proposes airspace 
changes to contain large turbine-powered aircraft during operations to 
the new Runway 17/35 and to address an increase in aircraft operations 
to and from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) 
Airport (MSP). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance safety and 
improve the management of aircraft operations in the Minneapolis 
terminal area. Further, this effort supports the FAA's national 
airspace redesign goal of optimizing terminal and en route airspace 
areas to reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 23, 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 both docket 
numbers, FAA-2003-15471/Airspace Docket No. 03-AWA-6, at the beginning 
of your comments.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
http://dms.dot.gov">dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, 
any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the 
Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on 
the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at 
the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business 
hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules 
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, 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 and be submitted in 
triplicate to the address listed above. 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 Docket Nos. FAA-2003-15471/
Airspace Docket No. 03-AWA-6.'' 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 
notice 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 Superintendent of Documents Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    Additionally, any person may also obtain a copy of this notice by 
submitting a request to the FAA, Office of Air Traffic Airspace 
Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both 
docket numbers for this notice. 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.

Background

    In August 1979, the FAA issued a final rule establishing the 
Minneapolis, MN Terminal Control Area (TCA). This area was later re-
classified as a Class B airspace area as a result of the Airspace 
Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR 65638); however, this final rule did 
not alter the dimensions of the original TCA.
    Since its establishment, the Minneapolis terminal area has 
experienced a significant growth in aircraft operations from 233,000 in 
1979 to over 518,000 in 2002. An analysis of MSP aircraft operations 
indicates that this increase has resulted in aircraft (arriving and 
departing MSP) frequently flying outside the horizontal and vertical 
limits of the current MSP Class B airspace area.
    Further, in the first half of 2002, there were 17 traffic alert and 
collision avoidance system (TCAS) events reported in the area. These 
TCAS events occurred in the airspace areas proposed in this notice as a 
modification to the current MSP Class B airspace area. A TCAS event is 
defined as a situation where a pilot receives an alert on an aircraft 
in close proximity and is provided climb or descend instructions to 
avoid that aircraft. The TCAS sounds an alarm when it determines that

[[Page 65860]]

another aircraft will pass too closely to the subject aircraft. The 
referenced TCAS events were reported by air carrier aircraft and 
reflected possible conflicts with non-ATC controlled visual flight 
rules (VFR) aircraft.
    Other action taken outside of this proposal in an effort to better 
accommodate the increase in aircraft operations was the installation of 
a precision runway monitor (PRM). The PRM allows for simultaneous ILS 
approaches. In 1998, the PRM was installed to facilitate simultaneous 
ILS approaches to closely spaced parallel runways (Runway 12L/30R and 
30L/12R) using minimum separation between arriving aircraft. Although 
this has increased airport capacity, during peak operations, high 
performance aircraft must frequently intercept the localizers for ILS 
approaches to the above runways more than 20 nautical miles (NM) from 
MSP at 4,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and 5,000 feet MSL. This 
results in aircraft initiating approach procedures outside of the 
confines of the current MSP Class B airspace area. Also, a new runway, 
scheduled to be opened in November 2004, is under construction. The new 
runway (17/35) will provide increased airport capacity. However, 
aircraft conducting instrument operations to this new runway would also 
frequently need to intercept the instrument approaches outside the 
Class B airspace area if the current Class B airspace area is not 
expanded. The proposed Class B airspace modification will address this 
matter.

Public Input

    As announced in Letter to Airmen No. 00-02 and in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 64642), informal airspace meetings were held on January 
9, 2001, at the Army Aviation Support Facility, St. Paul, MN, and on 
January 13, 2001, at the Flying Cloud Hennepin Technical College, Eden 
Prairie, MN.
    These meetings allowed interested airspace users an opportunity to 
present their views and offer suggestions regarding planned 
modifications to the MSP Class B airspace area. All comments received 
during the informal airspace meetings and the subsequent comment 
periods were considered in developing this proposal.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Seven commenters ask questions or volunteered to participate in the 
aeronautical study process.
    Four commenters, three general aviation pilots and Northwest 
Airlines, concurred with the proposal.
    Three commenters, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
(AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the Airline 
Pilot's Association suggested raising the base altitude between 20 NM 
and 30 NM from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-
Chamberlain) Airport Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) Antenna (I-MSP) 
and developing extensions at lower altitudes to the east and west of 
MSP to accommodate aircraft conducting simultaneous operations to the 
parallel runways. The FAA agrees with these comments and has changed 
the planned modifications to reflect these suggestions.
    Sixty-five commenters stated that the planned modifications would 
require pilots to fly farther to conduct training and would compress 
VFR aircraft operations into a smaller area. One of these commenters 
also stated an opposition to raising the ceiling from 8,000 feet MSL to 
10,000 feet MSL. The FAA has determined that some aircraft would have 
to fly farther or at lower (or higher) altitudes to remain clear of the 
planned MSP Class B airspace area; however, this is necessary to 
separate them from large turbine-powered aircraft arriving and 
departing MSP.
    One hundred and sixty-four commenters (including 130 signed form 
letters from glider pilots who operate out of Benson Municipal Airport 
or Stanton Airfield) opposed the planned base altitude of 4,000 feet 
over Benson Municipal Airport and Stanton Airfield. The Benson 
Municipal Airport (located 17 miles to the north of I-MSP) is within 
the lateral limits of the current MSP Class B airspace area and the 
planned expansion of the 4,000-foot base altitude to 30 NM from I-MSP 
would require aircraft departing the Benson Municipal Airport to fly 13 
miles farther to depart the lateral limits of the MSP Class B airspace 
area and may also interfere with glider operations at that airport. 
Glider operations may also be impacted at Stanton Airfield, which is 
located approximately 30 NM to the south of MSP on the edge of the 
planned MSP Class B airspace area. To address these concerns, the FAA 
has changed the planned modifications by raising the base altitude 
between 20 NM and 30 NM from I-MSP from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet 
MSL (with the exception of extensions to the east and west of MSP that 
must remain at 4,000 feet MSL to contain aircraft conducting 
simultaneous approaches. The planned modifications were also changed to 
include ``cut-outs'' 20 NM to the north and 25 NM to the south of I-
MSP. These changes mitigate the impact on glider operations at the 
Benson Municipal Airport and Stanton Airfield, respectively.

Ad Hoc Committee

    The Ad Hoc Committee was sponsored by Minnesota Department of 
Transportation, Office of Aeronautics and was comprised of 
representatives from the AOPA, EAA, Minnesota Soaring Clubs, 
International Aerobatics, Ultralight Association, Air National Guard, 
Life Flight, flight instructors, and skydivers. On May 14, 2002, the Ad 
Hoc Committee held the first of two meetings. During this meeting, 
representatives from the Minneapolis Airport Traffic Control Tower 
presented details of planned MSP Class B airspace area modifications, 
which reflected comments received as a result of informal airspace 
meetings. In general, the Ad Hoc Committee's comments on the planned 
modifications were favorable. However, several invited members of the 
Ad Hoc Committee were not present and the committee decided that an 
additional meeting was necessary to ensure that input was obtained from 
all members/organizations who had agreed to participate on the Ad Hoc 
Committee.
    On June 25, 2002, the Ad Hoc Committee held their second and final 
meeting. During this meeting, participants presented comments and 
recommendations regarding the planned modifications presented at the 
first Ad Hoc Committee meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee then reached a 
consensus and drafted a consolidated recommendation that was submitted 
to the FAA. The consolidated recommendation contained the following two 
suggestions and one comment pertaining to aerobatic waivers:
    1. Reduce the proposed expansion of Area E around the Stanton 
Airfield from the I-MSP 30-NM arc to the I-MSP 25-NM arc and raise the 
proposed floor in this area from 6,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The 
FAA has adopted this recommendation.
    2. Provide a cutout in Area D over Benson Municipal Airport, 
bounded by the Farmington (FGT) Very High Frequency Omnidirectional 
Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) 006[deg] radial, the FGT VORTAC 
015[deg] radial, and the Gopher (GEP) VORTAC 095[deg] radial. The FAA 
did not adopt this recommendation because the area is within the 
existing Class B airspace area and the published missed approach 
holding pattern used for the majority of MSP instrument approach 
procedures utilizes the Whisk intersection, which is located within the 
area that the recommendation suggests eliminating.

[[Page 65861]]

Altitudes utilized by aircraft holding at the Whisk intersection are 
3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL.
    Members of the Ad Hoc User Committee representing the aerobatic 
community also requested that currently held waivers for aerobatic 
activities remain in place. The FAA has determined that the planned 
Class B airspace area modifications would not require the cancellation 
of any existing waivers, nor would it interfere with the normal 
procedures required for authorizing future waivers.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to part 71 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify the MSP Class B 
airspace area. Specifically, this action (depicted on the attached 
chart) proposes to expand the upper limits of Area A, Area B, Area C, 
and Area D from 8,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL; expand 
the lateral limits of Area D to the northwest and southeast of MSP; and 
add an Area E within 30 NM of I-MSP (excluding areas to the north and 
south of MSP) to improve the containment of turbo-jet aircraft 
operating within the MSP Class B airspace area.
    Area A. The FAA proposes to expand the upper limit of Area A from 
8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The reason for this change is to 
provide additional airspace needed to ensure that aircraft departing 
and arriving MSP are contained within the MSP Class B airspace area.
    Area B. The FAA proposes to expand the upper limit of Area B from 
8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The reason for this change is to 
provide additional airspace needed to ensure that aircraft departing 
and arriving MSP are contained within the MSP Class B airspace area.
    Area C. The FAA proposes to expand the upper limit of Area C from 
8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The reason for this change is to 
provide additional airspace needed to ensure that aircraft departing 
and arriving MSP are contained within the MSP Class B airspace area.
    Area D. The FAA proposes to modify Area D by expanding the upper 
limit of Area D from 8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL and by expanding 
the boundaries of Area D to the northwest and southeast of MSP 
incorporating airspace that lies on the extended ILS localizer course 
and downwind legs for Runways 12L/30R and 30L/12R, between the I-MSP 
20-NM and 30-NM arcs. The reason for this change is to provide 
additional airspace needed to ensure that aircraft vectored for the ILS 
approaches to the above runways remain within the MSP Class B airspace 
area.
    Area E. The FAA is proposing to add an Area E between the I-MSP 20-
NM and 30-NM arcs, extending from 7,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, 
excluding certain areas to the north and southeast of MSP. The reason 
for this change is to provide additional airspace needed to ensure that 
aircraft departing and arriving MSP are contained within the MSP Class 
B airspace area.
    These modifications would improve the management of aircraft 
operations in the MSP terminal area and enhance safety by expanding the 
dimensions of the Class B airspace area to protect the aircraft 
conducting instrument approaches to MSP. Additionally, this proposed 
action supports various efforts to enhance the efficiency and capacity 
of the National Airspace System.
    The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North 
American Datum 83. Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 
3000 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, 
dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is 
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace 
area listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 
Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal Regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small businesses and other 
small entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs 
agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on international 
trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule: (1) Would generate benefits that justify its 
circumnavigation costs and is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is not significant as defined in 
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 
(3) would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities; (4) would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade; and (5) would not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate. These analyses are summarized here in the 
preamble, and the full Regulatory Evaluation is in the docket.
    This NPRM would modify the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, Class B 
airspace area. The proposed rule would reconfigure the sub-area lateral 
boundaries, and raise the altitude ceiling in certain segments of the 
airspace.
    The NPRM would generate benefits for system users and the FAA in 
the form of enhanced operational efficiency and simplified navigation 
in the MSP terminal area. These modifications would impose some 
circumnavigation costs on operators of non-compliant aircraft operating 
in the area around MSP. However, the cost of circumnavigation is 
considered to be small. Thus, the FAA has determined this proposed rule 
would be cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and informational requirements to the scale of the business, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' 
To achieve that principal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for 
their actions. The Act covers a widerange of small entities, including 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This proposed rule may impose some circumnavigation costs on 
individuals operating in the Minneapolis-St. Paul terminal area; but 
the proposed rule would not impose any costs on small business 
entities. Operators of general aviation aircraft are considered 
individuals, not small business entities

[[Page 65862]]

and are not included when performing a regulatory flexibility analysis. 
Flight schools are considered small business entities. However, the FAA 
assumes that they provide instruction in aircraft equipped to navigate 
in Class B airspace given they currently provide instruction in the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul terminal area. Air taxis are also considered small 
business entities, but are assumed to be properly equipped to navigate 
Class B airspace because it is part of their current practice. 
Therefore, these small entities should not incur any additional costs 
as a result of the proposed rule. Accordingly, pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation 
Administration certifies this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA 
solicits comments from affected entities with respect to this finding 
and determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    The proposed rule is not expected to affect trade opportunities for 
U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business 
in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Public Law 0104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (when 
adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Section 
204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
(or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal 
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local, and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that, 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall 
have developed a plan, which, among other things, must provide for 
notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity for these small governments to 
provide input in the development of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

Conclusion

    In view of the minimal or zero cost of compliance of the proposed 
rule and the enhancements to operational efficiency that do not reduce 
aviation safety, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule would be 
cost-beneficial.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES, AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 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.


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    1. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 
2003, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B-Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MN B Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Revised)

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport 
(MSP)(Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'83'' N., long. 93[deg]13'02'' W.)
Gopher VORTAC (GEP)
    (Lat. 45[deg]08'45'' N., long. 93[deg]22'24'' W.)
Flying Cloud VOR/DME (FCM)
    (Lat. 44[deg]49'33'' N., long. 93[deg]27'24'' W.)
Point of Origin: Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-
Chamberlain) Airport DME Antenna (I-MSP)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'26.25'' N., long. 93[deg]12'19.5'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 6-mile radius of I-MSP.
    Area B. That airspace extending from 2,300 feet MSL to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I-MSP, 
excluding Area A previously described.
    Area C. That airspace extending from 3,000 feet MSL to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 12-mile radius of I-MSP, 
excluding Area A and Area B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending from 4,000 feet MSL to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I-MSP and 
including that airspace within a 30-mile radius from the Flying 
Cloud 295[deg] radial clockwise to the Gopher 295[deg] radial and 
from the Gopher 115[deg] radial clockwise to the Flying Cloud 
115[deg] radial, excluding Area A, Area B, and Area C previously 
described.
    Area E. That airspace extending from 7,000 feet MSL to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 30-mile radius of I-MSP from the 
Gopher 295[deg] radial clockwise to the Gopher 352[deg] radial, and 
from the Gopher 085[deg] radial clockwise to the Gopher 115[deg] 
radial, and from the Flying Cloud 115[deg] radial clockwise to the 
Flying Cloud 295[deg] radial excluding that airspace between a 25-
mile radius and a 30-mile radius between the Flying Cloud 115[deg] 
radial clockwise to the Gopher 170[deg] radial and excluding Area A, 
Area B, Area C, and Area D previously described.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2003.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.

[[Page 65863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24NO03.000

[FR Doc. 03-29202 Filed 11-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C