67294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

8This provision does not affect any seller’s or 

telemarketer’s obligation to comply with relevant 

state and federal laws, including but not limited to 

the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227, and 47 CFR part 64.1200.

enforcement efforts against a seller or 

telemarketer who violates the TSR and 

claims falsely that it has an established 

business relationship with called 

consumers?

10. Is it appropriate that the proposed 

new safe harbor in § 310.4(b)(5) 

specifies that the seller or telemarketer 

must allow the telephone to ring for at 

least fifteen seconds or four rings before 

disconnecting an unanswered call? If 

not, is there some other more 

appropriate element that should be 

included in the safe harbor to preclude 

the problem of premature ‘‘hang-ups’’

before consumers can reach the 

telephone? 11. Is it appropriate that the proposed 

new safe harbor in § 310.4(b)(5) 

specifies that the seller or telemarketer 

must comply with all other 

requirements of the TSR and other 

applicable federal and state laws? If not, 

why not? 12. Is the burden on telemarketers in 

meeting the three percent maximum 

abandoned call level per day per 

telemarketing campaign outweighed by 

benefits to consumers in having call 

abandonment distributed evenly at a 

uniformly low level to all called 

consumers? What, if any, characteristics 

of the telemarketing equipment 

currently in use might make compliance 

with the ‘‘per day per campaign’’

standard problematic? What, if any, 

costs would result from having the 

equipment adjusted or replaced to 

eliminate problems? 13. According to DMA, ‘‘marketers 

who use predictive dialing technology 

are having difficulty configuring their 

software to comply with the FTC’s per 

day, per calling campaign 3% 

[maximum abandoned call] standard.’’

Is this statement accurate? If so, why? 

And if so, how widespread is this 

difficulty? If this statement is not 

accurate, why not? Were similar 

problems encountered in meeting the 

DMA’s former guideline of no more than 

five percent of calls abandoned per day 

per telemarketing campaign? Why or 

why not? 14. If the three percent maximum call 

abandonment rate were measured over a 

30-day period, instead of per day per 

telemarketing campaign, what effect, if 

any, would this change have on actual 

call abandonment rates? What would 

prevent a telemarketer from targeting 

call abandonments at certain less valued 

groups of consumers, resulting in their 

receipt of more than their share of 

abandoned calls? What would prevent 

setting predictive dialers to abandon 

calls at a higher rate to one subset of the 

population and a lower rate to another 

subset of the population? Is it 

appropriate that some segments of the 

population should be subjected to a 

higher rate of call abandonment than 

other segments of the population? If so, 

why? 15. Can telemarketing equipment be 

programmed to dynamically maintain a 

steady level of no more than three 

percent call abandonment for all calls 

being placed? What, specifically, is the 

equipment that has that capacity to be 

programmed in such a manner, if any? 

What are the costs associated with this 

equipment?

IX. Proposed Rule

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 310 

Telemarketing, Trade practices.

Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to amend title 16, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 310—TELEMARKETING SALES 

RULE 

1. The authority citation for part 310 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108.

2. Amend § 310.4 by adding a new 

paragraph (b)(5).

§ 310.4 Abusive telemarketing acts or 

practices. 

* * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) A seller or telemarketer initiating 

an outbound telephone call that delivers 

a prerecorded message to a person with 

whom the seller has an established 

business relationship will not be liable 

for violating § 310.4(b)(1)(iv) if: 

(i) The seller or telemarketer, for each 

such telemarketing call placed, allows 

the telephone to ring for at least fifteen 

(15) seconds or four (4) rings before 

disconnecting an unanswered call; (ii) Within two (2) seconds after the 

person’s completed greeting, the seller 

or telemarketer promptly plays a 

prerecorded message that: (A) Presents an opportunity to assert 

an entity-specific Do Not Call request 

pursuant to § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A) at the 

outset of the message, with only the 

prompt disclosures required by 

§ 310.4(d) or (e) preceding such 

opportunity; and (B) Complies with all other 

requirements of this part and other 

applicable federal and state laws.8 ***

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–25470 Filed 11–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 675–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD08–04–042] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, Cypremort, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

operation of the State Route 319 

(Louisa) bridge across the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 134.0 west 

of Harvey Lock, near Cypremort, 

Louisiana. A new high-level, double-leaf 

bascule bridge that will require limited 

openings is replacing the low-level 

swing bridge across the waterway. This 

proposed regulation change would 

remove the regulation governing the tobe-removed bridge and replace it with a 

regulation for the operation of the new 

bascule bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(obc), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 

Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70130–3310. The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Administration Branch maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Comments and material received from 

the public, as well as documents 

indicated in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, will become part 

of this docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying at the Bridge 

Administration office between 7 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Frank, Bridge Administration 

Branch, telephone 504–589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD08–04–042),

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Proposed Rules 67295

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. You may submit a request for 

a meeting by writing to Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Administration Branch at the address 

under ADDRESSES explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The U. S. Coast Guard, at the request 

of the State of Louisiana, Department of 

Transportation and Development 

(LDOTD), and supported by the Port of 

West St. Mary, proposes to establish a 

schedule of operation for the new SR 

319 movable bridge and eliminate the 

schedule of operation of the old SR 319 

bridge. Currently, the bridge opens on 

signal; except that from 15 August to 5 

June, the draw need not be opened from 

6:55 to 7:10 a.m. and from 3:50 to 4:10 

p.m. Monday through Friday except 

holidays. 

The new bridge is presently under 

construction and should be completed 

by the end of January 2005. Upon 

completion of the new bridge and the 

relocation of traffic to the new bridge, 

the old bridge will be removed. Removal 

of the old bridge should be completed 

within 90 days after the new bridge has 

been opened to traffic. The existing 

regulation will no longer be required. 

The new bridge will provide mariners 

with 73 feet of vertical clearance above 

mean high water in the closed to 

navigation position. The new bridge 

will only be required to open for vessels 

with vertical clearances of greater than 

73 feet. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

bridges to the east and to the west of this 

bridge are fixed bridges providing only 

73 feet of vertical clearance. Only 

vessels wishing to transit to the Port of 

West St. Mary will require openings as 

this facility is currently the only facility 

or waterway between the SR 319 bridge 

at mm 134.0 and the Bayou Sale bridge 

at mm 113.0. 

In an effort to assess and accurately 

determine the opening requirements of 

the new bridge, LDOTD supplied 

opening data for the present bridge and 

identified the number of openings that 

would have been required if the new 

bridge with 73 feet of vertical clearance 

were operating. In 2003, the existing 

bridge opened for the passage of vessels 

approximately 12,800 times. During that 

time period, the new bridge would have 

been required to open for marine traffic 

three times. Through mid-October of 

2004, the existing bridge opened for the 

passage of vessels approximately 11,000 

times. In 2004, during the final phases 

of construction of the new bridge (with 

the bascule leaves for the new bridge in 

place), vessels transiting the waterway 

only required 5 openings. 

Based upon the existing statistics for 

bridge openings and the limited number 

of openings that will be required for the 

passage of traffic for the new bridge, 

LDOTD has requested that the new 

bridge be required to open on signal if 

at least 24-hours advanced notice is 

given. The Port of West St. Mary is the 

only facility known to be affected by the 

new advanced notice requirement. They 

have stated by letter that this 

requirement is reasonable and have no 

objections. 

Navigation at the site of the bridge 

consists primarily of tugboats with 

barges. Alternate routes to the Port of 

West St. Mary are not available to 

marine traffic requiring vertical 

clearances of greater than 73 feet. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule change to 33 CFR 

117.451.d would require the SR 319 

(Louisa) bridge across the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 134.0, near 

Cypremort to open on signal if at least 

24-hours’ notice is given. This change 

would allow for the unimpeded flow of 

all vessels with vertical clearance 

requirements of less than 73 feet while 

providing for vessels with vertical 

clearances of greater than 73 feet.

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security. We 

expect the economic impact of this 

proposed rule to be so minimal that a 

full Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

This proposed rule provides advanced 

notification of opening requirements for 

vessels wishing to transit to the Port of 

West St. Mary. The facility has no 

objections to the requirement as vessel 

arrivals and departures are scheduled 

and the advanced notification 

requirement of the bridge will not affect 

these vessel movements. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels with vertical 

clearance requirements of greater than 

73 feet. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this proposed rule would economically 

affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the Eighth 

Coast Guard District Bridge 

Administration Branch at the address 

above. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the

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.