Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76417

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation because it is a safety 

zone. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 

as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. From December 8, 2004 to January 

31, 2005, add temporary § 165.T17–009 

to read as follows:

§ 165.T17–009 Alaska Aerospace 

Development Corporation, Sitkinak Island, 

Kodiak Island, AK: Safety Zones 

(a) Description. This safety zone 

includes an area in the Gulf of Alaska, 

west of Sitkinak Island, Alaska. 

Specifically, the zone includes the 

waters of the Gulf of Alaska that are 

within the area bounded by a line 

drawn from a point located at 56°40.50′

N, 153°42.50′ W, then southeast to a 

point located at 56°34.00′ N, 153°29.50′

W, then southwest to a point located at 

56°12.50′ N, 154°2.50′ W, and then 

northwest to a point located at 56°19.00′

N, 154°16.50′ W, and then northeast to 

the point located at 56°40.50′ N, 

153°42.50′ W. All coordinates reference 

Datum: NAD 1983.

(b) Enforcement periods. The safety 

zone in this section will be enforced 

from 1 p.m. 1 a.m. each day from 

December 8, 2004 to January 31, 2005. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the 

Port and the Duty Officer at Marine 

Safety Office, Anchorage, Alaska can be 

contacted at telephone number (907) 

271–6700. 

(2) The Captain of the Port may 

authorize and designate any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer to act on his behalf in enforcing 

the safety zone. 

(3) The general regulations governing 

safety zones contained in ? 165.23 

apply. No person or vessel may enter or 

remain in this safety zone, with the 

exception of attending vessels, without 

first obtaining permission from the 

Captain of the Port or his on-scene 

representative. 

The Captain of the Port, Western 

Alaska, or his on-scene representative 

may be contacted at the Kodiak Launch 

Complex via VHF marine channel 16.

Dated: December 2, 2004. 

T.D. Harrison, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port, Western Alaska, Acting.

[FR Doc. 04–27822 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD13–04–043] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Security and Safety Zone; Protection 

of Large Passenger Vessels, Portland, 

OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of suspension 

of enforcement. 

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port, 

Portland, OR, will suspend enforcement 

of the Large Passenger Vessel Security 

and Safety Zones that were created by 

a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on September 12, 2003. The 

zones provide for the security and safety 

of large passenger vessels in the 

navigable waters of Portland, OR, and 

adjacent waters. Enforcement of these 

security and safety zones will be 

suspended until further notice.

DATES: Enforcement of 33 CFR 165.1318 

will be suspended commencing 

December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTjg 

B. Audirsch, c/o Captain of the Port 

Portland, OR 6767 North Basin Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97217 at (503) 247–4015 to 

obtain information concerning 

enforcement of this rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 12, 2003, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule (68 FR 53677) 

establishing regulations in 33 CFR 

165.1318 for the security and safety of 

large passenger vessels in the navigable 

waters of Portland, OR, and adjacent 

waters, of Oregon and Washington. 

These security and safety zones provide 

for the regulation of vessel traffic in the 

vicinity of certain large passenger 

vessels (as defined in 33 CFR 

165.1318(b)) and exclude persons and 

vessels from the immediate vicinity of 

these large passenger vessels. Entry into 

these zones is prohibited unless 

otherwise exempted or excluded under 

33 CFR 165.1318 or unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port or his 

designee. The Captain of the Port, 

Portland, OR, will suspend enforcement 

of the Large Passenger Vessel Safety and 

Security Zones established in 33 CFR 

165.1318 on December 8, 2004.

Dated: December 8, 2004. 

Paul D. Jewell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Portland, OR.

[FR Doc. 04–27897 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 134–082, CA 250–0453, CA 310–0465; 

FRL–7847–6] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department; 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District; 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions, Monterey Bay Unified 

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department 

(MCESD) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and revisions 

to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California SIP. The revisions for 

MCESD were proposed in the Federal 

Register on September 30, 2004, and 

concern volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning. 

The revisions for SCAQMD were 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 2004, and concern oxides 

of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur 

(SOX) emissions from facilities emitting 

4 tons or more per year of NOX and/or 

SOX under the SCAQMD Regional Clean 

Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM). We 

are approving local rules that regulate 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

EPA is also finalizing disapproval of 

a revision to the Monterey Bay Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

76418 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 1, 2004, and concerns 

excess emissions during breakdown. 

There are no sanctions associated with 

this disapproval.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours by appointment. You 

can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revisions by appointment at the 

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

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 Sttreet, 

Phoenix, AZ 85007. 

Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department, 1001 N. Central 

Avenue, Suite 695, Phoenix, AZ 

85004.

A copy of MCESD Rule 331 may also 

be available via the Internet at http://

www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/AIR/

ruledesc.asp. Copies of SCAQMD Rule 

2015 and MBUAPCD Rule 214 may be 

available via the Internet at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.

Please be advised that these are not EPA 

websites and may not contain the same 

versions of the rules that were 

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. 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 20, 2004 (69 FR 58375), 

and September 14, 2004 (69 FR 55386), 

respectively, EPA proposed to approve 

the following rules into the Arizona SIP 

(MCESD 331) and the California SIP 

(SCAQMD 2015).

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

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

SCAQMD ................................ 2015 Backstop Provisions ............................................................... 06/04/04 07/29/04

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

On June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30845), EPA 

proposed to disapprove the following 

rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted 

MBUAPCD .............................. 214 Breakdown Condition ............................................................. 03/21/01 10/30/01

We proposed to disapprove this rule 

because some rule provisions conflict 

with section 110 and part D of the Act. 

These provisions deal with district 

enforcement discretion. EPA considers 

it unproductive and potentially 

confusing to approve an enforcement 

discretion rule into the SIP. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period for each of 

these actions. We received no comments 

on any of these actions during the 

respective comment periods. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that MCESD 

Rule 331 and SCAQMD Rule 2015 

comply with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Therefore, as authorized 

in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is 

fully approving these rules into the 

Arizona SIP (MCESD Rule 331) and the 

California SIP (SCAQMD Rule 2015). 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of MBUAPCD 

Rule 214 as described in our proposed 

action. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a full disapproval of the 

submitted rule. Because this is not a 

required submittal, there are no 

sanctions associated with this 

disapproval. Note that the submitted 

rule has been adopted by the 

MBUAPCD, and EPA’s final disapproval 

does not prevent the local agency from 

enforcing it. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This 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.) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the States are already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP action does not create any 

new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76419

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

and disapproval actions promulgated do 

not include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

approves or disapproves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation.

This rule will 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, because it 

merely approves or disapproves state 

rules implementing federal standards, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective January 20, 2005. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 22, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

76420 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: November 18, 2004. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—Arizona

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(117) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(117) Amended regulation was 

submitted on July 28, 2004, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department. 

(1) Rule 331 adopted on April 21, 

2004.

* * * * *

Subpart F—California

■ 3. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(333) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(333) New and amended regulations 

for the following AQMD were submitted 

on July 29, 2004, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 2015 adopted on October 15, 

1993 and amended on June 4, 2004.

■ 4. Section 52.271 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.271 Malfunction, startup, and 

shutdown regulations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(i) Rule 214, Breakdown Condition, 

submitted on October 30, 2001.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–27883 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93–48] 

Broadcast Services; Children’s 

Television

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission has received Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for rules published at 61 FR 

43981 (August 27, 1996). Therefore, the 

Commission announces that 47 CFR 

73.673 and 47 CFR 73.3500 are effective 

January 2, 1997.

DATES: The rules in 47 CFR 73.673 and 

47 CFR 73.3500 published at 61 FR 

43981 (August 27, 1996) are effective 

January 2, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Communications Commission 

has received OMB approval for rules 

published at 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 

1996). Through this document, the 

Commission announces that it received 

this approval on December 30, 1996. 

The effective date for rules 47 CFR 

73.673 and 47 CFR 73.3500 is January 

2, 1997. 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of law, no person shall be 

subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) that does not display a valid 

control number. Questions concerning 

the OMB control numbers and 

expiration dates should be directed to 

Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission, (202) 

418–2918 or via the Internet at 

cathy.williams@fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–27875 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P