Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 57241

1First and last sections of order.

2Appropriate Part number.

3Next consecutive section number.

4Appropriate representative period for the order.

proposed to be amended, regulating the 

handling of milk in the Appalachian, 

Florida, Southeast, Upper Midwest, 

Central, Pacific Northwest, Southwest, 

and Arizona Las Vegas marketing areas, 

is approved or favored by producers, as 

defined under the terms of the orders (as 

amended and as hereby proposed to be 

amended) who during such 

representative period were engaged in 

the production of milk for sale within 

the aforesaid marketing areas.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1000, 

1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 1032, 

1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131 

Milk marketing orders.

Dated: September 20, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

Order Amending the Orders Regulating 

the Handling of Milk in the Northeast 

and Other Marketing Areas 

(This order shall not become effective 

unless and until the requirements of 

§ 900.14 of the rules of practice and 

procedure governing proceedings to 

formulate marketing agreements and 

marketing orders have been met.) 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth supplement those 

that were made when the orders were 

first issued and when they were 

amended. The previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

confirmed, except where they may 

conflict with those set forth herein. 

(a) Findings. A public hearing was 

held upon certain proposed 

amendments to the tentative marketing 

agreements and to the orders regulating 

the handling of milk in the Northeast 

and other marketing areas. The hearing 

was held pursuant to the provisions of 

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–

674), and the applicable rules of 

practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900). 

Upon the basis of the evidence 

introduced at such hearing and the 

record thereof, it is found that: 

(1) The said orders as hereby 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

(2) The parity prices of milk, as 

determined pursuant to section 2 of the 

Act, are not reasonable in view of the 

price of feeds, available supplies of 

feeds, and other economic conditions 

which affect market supply and demand 

for milk in the aforesaid marketing 

areas. The minimum prices specified in 

the orders as hereby amended are such 

prices as will reflect the aforesaid 

factors, insure a sufficient quantity of 

pure and wholesome milk, and be in the 

public interest; and 

(3) The said orders as hereby 

amended regulate the handling of milk 

in the same manner as, and are 

applicable only to persons in the 

respective classes of industrial or 

commercial activity specified in, 

marketing agreements upon which a 

hearing has been held. 

Order Relative to Handling 

It is therefore ordered, that on and 

after the effective date hereof, the 

handling of milk in the Northeast and 

other marketing areas shall be in 

conformity to and in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the order, as 

amended, and as hereby amended, as 

follows: 

The provisions of the order amending 

the orders contained in the interim 

amendment of the orders issued by the 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, on April 19, 2004, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 23, 2004 (69 FR 21950), are 

adopted without change and, shall be 

the terms and provisions of this order.

[This marketing agreement will not 

appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.]

Marketing Agreement Regulating the 

Handling of Milk in Certain Marketing 

Areas 

The parties hereto, in order to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act, and in 

accordance with the rules of practice and 

procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR Part 

900), desire to enter into this marketing 

agreement and do hereby agree that the 

provisions referred to in paragraph I hereof 

as augmented by the provisions specified in 

paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the 

provisions of this marketing agreement as if 

set out in full herein. 

I. The findings and determinations, order 

relative to handling, and the provisions of 

§§ ______1 to_____ , all inclusive, of the order 

regulating the handling of milk in the (____

Name of order____) marketing area (7 CFR 

Part____2) which is annexed hereto; and

II. The following provisions: § ______3

Record of milk handled and authorization to 

correct typographical errors.

(a) Record of milk handled. The 

undersigned certifies that he/she handled 

during the month of ______4 ,____

hundredweight of milk covered by this 

marketing agreement.

(b) Authorization to correct typographical 

errors. The undersigned hereby authorizes 

the Deputy Administrator, or Acting Deputy 

Administrator, Dairy Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, to correct any 

typographical errors which may have been 

made in this marketing agreement. 

§ ______3 Effective date. This marketing 

agreement shall become effective upon the 

execution of a counterpart hereof by the 

Secretary in accordance with Section 

900.14(a) of the aforesaid rules of practice 

and procedure. 

In Witness Whereof, The contracting 

handlers, acting under the provisions of the 

Act, for the purposes and subject to the 

limitations herein contained and not 

otherwise, have hereunto set their respective 

hands and seals.

Signature

By (Name) lllllllllllllll

(Title) lllllllllllllllll

(Address) llllllllllllllll

(Seal)

Attest

[FR Doc. 04–21416 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Region II Docket No. R02—OAR–2004—

NY–0002, FRL–7818–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; Low 

Emission Vehicle Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

New York State State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision which adopts 

California’s second generation low 

emission vehicle program for light-duty 

vehicles, (LEV II). Clean Air Act Section 

177 allows states to adopt motor vehicle 

emissions standards that are identical to 

California’s and New York meets this 

requirement. Specifically, the State’s 

SIP revision adopts changes to its 

existing LEV rule by incorporating a 

non-methane hydrocarbon standard and 

various administrative and grammatical 

changes to make its existing LEV rule 

identical to California’s LEV II program.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R02–OAR–

2004–NY–0002 by one of the following 

methods: 

I. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

II. Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional 

57242 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

III. E-mail: 

Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.

IV. Fax: (212) 637–3901. 

V. Mail: ‘‘RME ID Number R02–OAR–

2004–NY–0002,’’ Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866. 

VI. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Regional Material in EDocket ID 

Number R02–OAR–2004–NY–0002. 

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://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise protected 

through Regional Material in EDocket, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

Regional Material in EDocket Web site 

and the federal regulations.gov Web site 

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 Regional 

Material in 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

Regional Material in EDocket index at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

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 Regional Material in 

EDocket or in hard copy at the Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. EPA requests that if 

at all possible, you contact the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew A. Bascue, Air Programs 

Branch, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4249 or bascue.andrew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Description of the SIP Revision 

A. Background 

B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA 

requirements? 

C. What is the California LEV Program? 

D. What is the History and Current Content 

of the New York LEV Program? 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Description of the SIP Revision 

A. Background

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990, the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island 

Nonattainment Area was designated as 

severe nonattainment of the 1-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The New York 

counties that are part of the 

Nonattainment Area include Bronx, 

Kings, Nassau, New York, Putnam, 

Queens, Richmond, Rockland and 

Westchester and the lower Orange 

County towns of Chester, Minisink, 

Monroe, Tuxedo, Warwick and 

Woodbury, which for the purposes of 

this proposed rulemaking will be 

referred to as the New York 

Metropolitan NAA. The ozone 

attainment deadline for this area is 

November 15, 2007. 

To bring the New York Metropolitan 

NAA into attainment New York 

adopted, among other measures, a Clean 

Fuel Fleet program, which was later 

replaced by a low emission vehicle 

(LEV) program identical to California’s 

LEV I program. New York first adopted 

its LEV program in 1994 and EPA issued 

a direct final rule to approve the New 

York LEV program effective as of 

February 6, 1995 (60 FR 2025). Since 

that time New York has modified its 

LEV program to be consistent with and 

to maintain identicality to California’s 

LEV program, which has undergone 

several changes over the years. The 

current version of the New York LEV 

program is intended to be identical to 

California’s current LEV program. 

B. What Are the Relevant EPA and CAA 

Requirements? 

Section 209(a) of the CAA preempts 

states from adopting or enforcing 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines. However, 

under section 209(b) of the CAA, EPA 

may grant a waiver to the State of 

California to adopt its own motor 

vehicle emissions standards. Section 

209(b) of the CAA states that California 

must show that its standards will be: 

‘‘* * * in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare 

as applicable Federal standards * * *’’. 

Section 209(b) goes on to state that EPA 

will grant a waiver unless it finds that: 

(1) The State’s determination is arbitrary 

and capricious, (2) the State ‘‘does not 

need such State standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions,’’ or (3) the State’s standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a) of the CAA. 

Section 177 of the CAA allows other 

states to adopt and enforce California 

motor vehicle emission standards. The 

state must show that the standards are 

identical to California’s and must adopt 

such standards at least two years prior 

to the commencement of the model year 

to which the standards will apply. New 

York has met both of these 

requirements. 

C. What Is the California LEV II 

Program? 

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) adopted the first generation low 

emissions vehicle (LEV I) regulations in 

1990, which were effective through the 

2003 model year. CARB adopted 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 57243

California’s second generation LEV 

regulations (LEV II ) following a 

November 1998 hearing. Subsequent to 

the adoption of the LEV II program in 

February 2000, the U.S. EPA adopted its 

own standards known as the Tier 2 

regulations (65 FR 6698). In December 

2000, CARB modified the LEV II 

program to take advantage of some 

elements of the Federal Tier 2 

regulations to ensure that only the 

cleanest vehicle models would continue 

to be sold in California. EPA granted 

California a waiver for its LEV II 

program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 

19811).

The LEV II regulations expand the 

scope of the LEV I regulations by setting 

strict fleet-average emission standards 

for light-duty, medium-duty (including 

sport utility vehicles) and heavy-duty 

vehicles. The standards would begin 

with the 2004 model year and increase 

in stringency through 2010 and beyond. 

The LEV II regulations provide 

flexibility to auto manufacturers by 

allowing them to certify their vehicle 

models to one of several different 

emissions standards. The different tiers 

of increasingly stringent LEV II emission 

standards to which a manufacturer may 

certify a vehicle are: low-emission 

vehicle (LEV), ultra-low-emission 

vehicle (ULEV), super-ultra lowemission vehicle (SULEV), partial zeroemission vehicle (PZEV), advanced 

technology partial zero-emission vehicle 

(ATPZEV) and zero-emission vehicle 

(ZEV). 

The manufacturer must show that the 

overall fleet for a given model year 

meets the specified phase-in 

requirements according to the fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

requirement for that year. The fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

requirements are progressively lower 

with each model year. The program also 

requires auto manufacturers to include 

a ‘‘smog index’’ label on each vehicle 

sold, which is intended to inform 

consumers about the amount of 

pollution coming from that vehicle 

relative to other vehicles. 

In addition to the LEV II 

requirements, minimum percentages of 

passenger cars and the lightest lightduty trucks marketed in California by a 

large or intermediate volume 

manufacturer must be ZEVs; this is 

referred to as the ZEV mandate. The 

ZEV mandate has undergone several 

modifications through the years in 

California. Most recently, CARB has put 

in place an alternative compliance 

program (ACP) to provide auto 

manufacturers with several options to 

meet the ZEV mandate. The ACP 

established ZEV credit multipliers to 

allow auto manufacturers to take credit 

for meeting the ZEV mandate by selling 

more PZEVs and ATPZEVs than they 

are otherwise required. 

D. What Is the History and Current 

Content of the New York Low Emission 

Vehicle Program? 

Section 182(c)(4)(A) of the CAA 

requires certain states, including New 

York, to submit for EPA approval a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that 

includes measures to implement the 

Clean Fuel Fleet program (CFFP). 

Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows 

states to ‘‘opt out’’ of the CFFP by 

submitting for EPA approval a SIP 

revision consisting of a program or 

programs that will result in at least 

equivalent long term reductions in 

ozone precursors and toxic air 

emissions as achieved by the CFFP. In 

1994, New York opted out of the CFFP, 

promulgating its LEV program in New 

York State Code of Rules and 

Regulations Part 218, ‘‘Emission 

Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor 

Vehicle Engines’’. EPA approved the 

light-duty portion of New York’s LEV 

program on January 6, 1995 (60 FR 

2022), which was identical to 

California’s LEV program. 

Most recently, New York has 

amended its LEV program to be 

identical to California’s LEV II program. 

New York has adopted California’s LEV 

II program by reference, which includes 

provisions for light-duty, medium-duty 

and heavy-duty vehicles and an ACP 

identical to those in California’s 

program. New York has also adopted its 

own ACP, which is specific to New 

York State and gives auto manufacturers 

an additional level of flexibility in 

meeting the ZEV mandate beyond the 

flexibility provided by the ACP in 

California’s program.

In the current action, New York is 

requesting that EPA take action on the 

light-duty portion of its LEV program 

without the ZEV mandate or the 

associated ACP segments. The State has 

already taken emissions reduction credit 

for the light-duty portion of its LEV 

program; EPA approved that credit as 

part of our approval of New York’s 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

on February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5170). The 

State showed that its LEV program will 

meet necessary emissions reductions 

without relying on its ZEV sales 

mandate (i.e., since the emission 

reductions are already assured by the 

fleet average emissions standard). In the 

current SIP revision, New York is 

requesting Federal approval of the 

program regulation. EPA’s approval 

would make the program Federallyenforcable—further ensuring that 

planned emissions reductions will 

continue to take place. 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the lightduty vehicle portion of New York’s LEV 

program without the ZEV mandate or 

associated ACP segments, since the 

State has sought approval only for the 

light-duty portion of the program. 

Approval of this program will further 

ensure that planned reductions 

attributable to this program, as detailed 

in New York’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration, will be achieved. The 

State adopted the program on December 

13, 2000, as noticed in the New York 

State Register. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

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 proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed 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 

proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 

57244 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

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

Dated: September 14, 2004. 

Jane M. Kenny, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 04–21497 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 431 and 457 

[CMS–6026–CN] 

RIN 0938–AM86 

Medicaid Program and State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); 

Payment Error Rate Measurement; 

Correction

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects an 

incorrect date for the close of the public 

comment period that appeared in the 

proposed rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on August 27, 2004 

entitled ‘‘Medicaid Program and State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP) Payment Error Rate 

Measurement.’’

DATES: The comment deadline for the 

proposed rule published on August 27, 

2004 at 69 FR 52620 is corrected to 

October 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Saxonis (410) 786–3722. Janet 

E. Reichert, (410) 786–4580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 27, 2004, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register

titled ‘‘Medicaid Program and State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP) Payment Error Rate 

Measurement’’ (69 FR 52620). That 

proposed rule would require State 

agencies to estimate improper payments 

in the Medicaid program and SCHIP 

program. The Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002 requires 

Federal agencies to annually review and 

identify those programs and activities 

that may be susceptible to significant 

erroneous payments, estimate the 

amount of improper payments and 

report those estimates to the Congress 

and, if necessary, submit a report on 

actions the agency is taking to reduce 

erroneous payments. 

The intended effect and expected 

results of that proposed rule would be 

for States to produce improper payment 

estimates for their Medicaid and SCHIP 

programs and to identify existing and 

emerging vulnerabilities that can be 

addressed by the States through actions 

taken to reduce the rate of improper 

payments and produce a corresponding 

increase in program savings at both the 

State and Federal levels. 

In FR Doc. 04–19603 of August 27, 

2004 (69 FR 52620), we erroneously 

incorporated an incorrect date for the 

close of the public comment period. The 

correct date for the close of the 

comment period should be October 27, 

2004. We had intended to provide a 60-

day public comment period since the 

regulation is complex. A 30-day 

comment period may not provide 

enough time for States to analyze the 

requirements and determine the impact 

on staffing, costs, technology, statistical 

support, and any other needs; develop 

comments, obtain internal clearances, 

and submit the comments for our 

consideration. 

In addition, States have expressed an 

interest in meeting among themselves 

and working with their Technical 

Advisory Groups to develop comments. 

The 30-day comment period may not 

accommodate this approach. 

Furthermore, the regulation is not 

detailed in terms of implementation. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

asked that we specifically request 

comments on this issue. A 30-day 

comment period may not give States 

time to analyze issues and problems 

concerning implementation, develop 

comments, obtain internal clearances, 

and submit them for our consideration. 

The error is corrected in the 

‘‘Correction of Errors’’ section below. 

II. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 04–19603 of August 27, 

2004 (69 FR 52620), make the following 

correction: 

On page 52621, in the first column; in 

the DATES section, correct the date 

‘‘September 27, 2004’’ to read ‘‘October 

27, 2004.’’

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.767, State Children’s Health 

Program)

Dated: September 15, 2004. 

Ann C. Agnew, 

Executive Secretary to the Department.

[FR Doc. 04–21198 Filed 9–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 04–256; DA 04–2996] 

Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements 

in Local Television Markets; Extension 

of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule, extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media 

Bureau extends the period for comment 

and reply comments in the Attribution 

of Joint Sales Agreements in Local 

Television Markets proceeding. The 

proposed rule seeks comment on 

whether to attribute certain TV Joint 

Sales Agreements for purposes of 

applying the broadcast ownership rules. 

The deadline to file comments is 

extended from September 27, 2004, to 

October 27, 2004, and the deadline to 

file reply comments is extended from 

October 12, 2004, to November 30, 2004.