67296 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. 

Paragraph (32)(e) excludes the 

promulgation of operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges from the 

environmental documentation 

requirements of NEPA. Since this 

proposed rule will alter the normal 

operating conditions of the drawbridges, 

it falls within this exclusion.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges.

Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039.

2. In § 117.451, paragraph (d) is 

revised to read as follows:

§ 117.451 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *

(d) The draw of the SR 319 (Louisa) 

bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, mile 134.0, near Cypremort, 

shall open on signal if at least 24 hours 

notice is given.

* * * * *

Dated: November 8, 2004. 

J.W. Stark, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist.

[FR Doc. 04–25490 Filed 11–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–3446; MB Docket No. 04–194, RM–

10729] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Creede, 

CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division dismisses 

a Petition for Rule Making filed by Jacor 

Broadcasting of Colorado, Inc., 

requesting the allotment of Channel 

261C2 to Creede, Colorado, as its first 

local service. See 67 FR 69703, 

November 19, 2002. Jacor Broadcasting 

of Colorado, Inc., or no other party, filed 

comments in support of the allotment of 

Channel 261C2 to Creede, Colorado. It is 

the Commission’s policy to refrain from 

making a new allotment to a community 

absent an expression of interest.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Proposed Rules 67297

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 04–194, 

adopted October 27, 2004, and released 

October 29, 2004. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 

http:www.BCPIWEB.com. This 

document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Report and 

Order to GAO, pursuant to the 

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

801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule 

was dismissed.)

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–25510 Filed 11–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–3444; MB Docket No. 04–378; RM–

11079] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Lake 

Charles, LA and West Orange, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: At the request of Apex 

Broadcasting, Inc., the Audio Division 

dismisses the petition for rule making 

proposing the reallotment of Channel 

258C0 from Lake Charles, Louisiana to 

West Orange, Texas, and the 

modification of Station KBXG(FM)’s 

license accordingly. See 69 FR 60344, 

October 8, 2004. A showing of 

continuing interest is required before a 

channel will be allotted. It is the 

Commission’s policy to refrain from 

making an allotment to a community 

absent an expression of interest. 

Therefore, we will grant the request to 

withdraw the instant proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 04–378, 

adopted October 27, 2004, and released 

October 29, 2004. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

The complete text of this decision may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1–

800–378–3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Report and 

Order to GAO, pursuant to the 

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

801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule 

was dismissed.)

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–25513 Filed 11–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P