Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58375

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103 

RIN 1506–AA67 

Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network; Amendment to the Bank 

Secrecy Act Regulations—Imposition 

of Special Measure against Infobank as 

a Financial Institution of Primary 

Money Laundering Concern

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2004, FinCEN 

requested public comment on a 

proposed rulemaking to impose a 

special measure against Infobank as a 

financial institution of primary money 

laundering concern, pursuant to the 

authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 5318A 

of the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN is 

extending the comment period on the 

proposal until November 1, 2004. This 

action will allow interested persons 

additional time to analyze the issues 

and prepare their comments.

DATES: Written comments on the notice 

of proposed rulemaking (69 FR 51973) 

must be submitted on or before 

November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1506–AA67, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

regcomments@fincen.treas.gov. Include 

RIN 1506–AA67 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: FinCEN, P.O. Box, 39, Vienna, 

VA 22183. Include RIN 1506–AA67 in 

the body of the text. 

Instructions: It is preferable for 

comments to be submitted by electronic 

mail because paper mail in the 

Washington, DC, area may be delayed. 

Please submit comments by one method 

only. All submissions received must 

include the agency name and the 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this proposed rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.fincen.gov, including any personal 

information provided. Comments may 

be inspected at FinCEN between 10 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room 

in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to 

inspect the comments submitted must 

request an appointment by telephoning 

(202) 354–6400 (not a toll-free number).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Regulatory Programs, FinCEN, 

at (202) 354–6400 or Office of Chief 

Counsel, FinCEN, at (703) 905–3590 

(not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

24, 2004, FinCEN requested comment 

on a proposal to impose the special 

measure authorized by 31 U.S.C. 

5318A(b)(5) against Infobank. That 

special measure authorizes the 

prohibition of the opening or 

maintaining of correspondent or 

payable-through accounts by any 

domestic financial institution or 

domestic financial agency for, or on 

behalf of, a foreign financial institution 

found to be of primary money 

laundering concern. 

The proposal was published for a 30-

day comment period, which closed 

September 23, 2004. In order to ensure 

that as many interested parties as 

possible have time to comment on the 

proposal, the comment period is being 

extended to November 1, 2004.

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

William J. Fox, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network.

[FR Doc. 04–21878 Filed 9–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 134–082; FRL–7819–9] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department 

(MCESD) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

solvent cleaning. We are proposing to 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 

or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical 

support documents (TSD), and public 

comments at our Region IX office during 

normal business hours by appointment. 

You may also see copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions by appointment 

at the following locations:

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. 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85007. 

Maricopa County Environmental Services 

Department, 1001 N. Central Avenue, Suite 

695, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

A copy of the rule may also be 

available via the Internet at http://

www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/AIR/

ruledesc.asp. 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:

Francisco Do ́n ̃ ez, EPA Region IX, 

(415)972–3956, 

Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 shows the rule addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

58376 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

MCESD ........................................................... 331 Solvent Cleaning ............................................ 04/21/04 07/28/04

On August 26, 2004, this rule 

submittal was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are There Other Versions of This 

Rule? 

We approved a version of Rule 331 

into the SIP on April 16, 2003. The 

MCESD adopted revisions to the SIPapproved version on April 21, 2004 and 

ADEQ submitted them to us on July 28, 

2004. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires states to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. This rule applies to all 

cleaning operations using solvents that 

contain VOCs. Submitted Rule 331 

makes the following changes to the SIPapproved rule. 

• Sections 102.2(a), 308.1(a) and 

308.1(c)(1) have been changed to specify 

that solvent cleaning operations must be 

subject to or specifically exempted by 

an EPA-approved version of another 

rule within Regulation III of the 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 

Rules, in order to qualify for an 

exemption to Rule 331. 

• A reference to EPA’s January 9, 

1995, guidance document, Guidelines 

for Determining Capture Efficiency, has 

been added to sections 502.1(c)(2), 

502.2(d), and 502.2(h). 

• Sections II(2) and III(2) of the 

appendix to Rule 331 have been added. 

These sections specify that batch vapor 

cleaning machines and in-line vapor 

cleaning machines shall not be 

operated, unless such machines have a 

vapor/air interface Fahrenheit 

temperature no greater than 30% of the 

solvent’s boiling point temperature or 

no greater than 40.0 degrees F (4.4 

degrees C), whichever is lower. 

• To correct a previous relaxation, the 

evaporative surface threshold for 

additional controls for certain batch 

vapor cleaning machines has been 

lowered to 10.75 square feet (1.0 square 

meter) in section II(3)(F) of the appendix 

to Rule 331. 

• Other revisions to the rule language 

have been made, to improve clarity and 

increase rule enforceability. 

The TSD has more information about 

this rule.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for major 

sources in nonattainment areas (see

section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The MCESD regulates 

an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 

CFR part 81), so Rule 331 must fulfill 

RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability and RACT requirements 

consistently include the following: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Control Technology for 

Organic Solvent Cleaning and 

Degreasing Operations,’’ California Air 

Resources Board, July 18, 1991. 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The rule revisions correct 

the deficiencies highlighted by EPA in 

its limited disapproval of the SIPapproved rule. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

EPA has no recommended changes for 

future revisions of Rule 331. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. This 

action would permanently terminate all 

sanction and FIP implications of our 

limited disapproval of a previous 

version of this rule. 

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 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58377

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 Clean 

Air Act. 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 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 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compound.

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

Dated: September 10, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 04–21825 Filed 9–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2004–CO–

0003; FRL–7822–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Longmont Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take 

direct final action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

April 12, 2004, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a revised 

maintenance plan for the Longmont 

carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance 

area for the CO National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised 

maintenance plan contains revised 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emission budgets for the years 2010 

through 2014 and 2015 and beyond. 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

Longmont CO revised maintenance plan 

and the revised transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emission 

budgets. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–200_–CO–000_, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

russ.tim@epa.gov.

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6479, and 

e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register.

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

Dated: September 22, 2004. 

Kerrigan G. Clough, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 04–21927 Filed 9–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 227 and 252

[DFARS Case 2001–D015] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Patent 

Rights—Ownership by the Contractor

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add 

a clause pertaining to patent rights 

under contracts awarded to large 

business concerns for experimental, 

developmental, or research work. The 

clause is substantially the same as a 

clause that is presently found in the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 

but has been proposed for removal from 

the FAR because it applies only to DoD.