60 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6.—TOTAL NOX-EQUIVALENT INCREASE FROM VET PROGRAM CLOSURE—Continued

% 2005w/2004

NOX/VOC ratio 

2005w/2005

NOX/VOC ratio 

2008w/2008

NOX/VOC ratio 

2012w/2012

NOX/VOC ratio 

Total increase NOX + VOC as NOX (tpsd) ............................................. 4.34 4.32 4.24 4.10 

Total increase NOX + VOC as NOX (ppsd) ............................................ 8,671 8,643 8,482 8,205 

V. What Is EPA’s Proposed Action? 

EPA is proposing to move Regulation 

8.01, ‘‘Mobile Source Emissions Control 

Requirements,’’ Regulation 8.02, 

‘‘Vehicle Emissions Testing Procedure,’’

and Regulation 8.03, ‘‘Commuter 

Vehicle Testing Requirements,’’ from 

the active control measure portion of the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP. These regulations will be 

moved to the contingency measures 

section of the Kentucky portion of the 

Louisville 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan. EPA is also proposing to approve 

a source-specific SIP revision amending 

the NOX emission rate for Kosmos’

cement kiln as adopted into the May 3, 

2004, Board Order with the Kosmos 

Cement Company. 

VI. 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 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

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

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

J.I. Palmer Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 04–28702 Filed 12–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02–278; DA 04–3835] 

Rules and Regulations Implementing 

the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act of 1991

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for declaratory ruling; 

comments requested. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on a Petition for Declaratory 

Ruling filed by the Consumer Bankers 

Association (CBA), asking the 

Commission to preempt certain sections 

of the Indiana Revised Statutes and 

Indiana Administrative Code as it 

relates to interstate telephone calls.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 2, 2005, and reply comments 

are due on or before February 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelli Farmer, Consumer Policy Division, 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, (202) 418–2512 (voice), 

Kelli.Farmer@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, CG Docket No. 02–278, DA 

04–3835, released December 7, 2004. On 

July 3, 2003, the Commission released a 

Report and Order (2003 TCPA Order),

68 FR 44144, July 25, 2003. In the 2003 

TCPA Order, the Commission stated its 

belief that any state regulation of 

interstate telemarketing calls that 

differed from our rules under section 

227 almost certainly would conflict 

with and frustrate the federal scheme 

and would be preempted. The 

Commission will consider any alleged 

conflicts between state and federal 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61

requirements and the need for 

preemption on a case-by-case basis. 

Accordingly, any party that believes a 

state law is inconsistent with section 

227 or our rules may seek a Declaratory 

Ruling from the Commission. When 

filing comments, please reference CG 

Docket No. 02–278. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 

of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

Comments filed through the ECFS can 

be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

In completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 

should include the following words in 

the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

must send an original and four (4) 

copies of each filing. Filings can be sent 

by hand or messenger delivery, by 

electronic media, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). The Commission’s contractor, 

Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings or 

electronic media for the Commission’s 

Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

The filing hours at this location are 8 

a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must 

be held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

Commercial and electronic media sent 

by overnight mail (other than U.S. 

Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 

Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room TW–B204, Washington, DC 

20554. 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit but disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200. Persons 

making oral ex parte presentations are 

reminded that memoranda summarizing 

the presentations must contain 

summaries of the substances of the 

presentations and not merely a listing of 

the subjects discussed. More than a one 

or two sentence description of the views 

and arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclosed proceedings are set forth in 

section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

The full text of this document and 

copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, 

(202) 418–0270. This document may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing (BCPI), Inc., Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site: 

http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 

1–800–378–3160. To request materials 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format) send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). This document 

can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.

Synopsis 

On November 19, 2004, Consumer 

Bankers Association (CBA) filed a 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling asking 

the Commission to preempt certain 

sections of the Indiana Revised Statutes 

and Indiana Administrative Code as it 

relates to interstate telephone calls. 

Specifically, CBA requests that the 

Commission preempt the Indiana laws 

to the extent they prohibit telemarketing 

calls to persons and entities with which 

the caller has an established business 

relationship as defined in the 

Commission’s rules. CBA indicates that 

the Indiana laws provide that a 

telephone solicitor may not make a 

telephone sales call to a telephone 

number if that number appears on the 

state’s do-not-call list. According to 

CBA, Indiana’s prohibition on calls to 

numbers on the Indiana do-not-call list 

is subject to exceptions that partially 

overlap with, but are substantially 

narrower than the ‘‘established business 

relationship’’ (‘‘EBR’’) of the 

Commission’s telemarketing rules. CBA 

contends that, unlike the Commission’s 

EBR definition, the Indiana exceptions: 

(1) Do not include relationships based 

upon a consumer’s past inquiry or 

application, during the three months 

preceding the call, regarding the party’s 

products or services; (2) do not include 

calls to persons with whom the caller 

has engaged, within 18 months prior to 

the call, in a purchase or transaction as 

to which payment has been made or 

performance completed; and (3) do not 

expressly permit an EBR to extend to 

any affiliated entities that the consumer 

reasonably would expect to be included 

within that category.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jay Keithley, 

Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–28417 Filed 12–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02–278; DA 04–3836] 

Rules and Regulations Implementing 

the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act of 1991

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for declaratory ruling; 

comments requested. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on a Petition for Declaratory 

Ruling filed by the Consumer Bankers 

Association asking the Commission to 

preempt certain sections of the 

Wisconsin Statutes and Wisconsin 

Administrative Code as applied to 

interstate telephone calls.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 2, 2005, and reply comments 

are due on or before February 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See 

supplementary information for further 

filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelli Farmer, Consumer Policy Division, 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, (202) 418–2512 (voice), 

Kelli.Farmer@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, CG Docket No. 02–278, DA 

04–3836, released December 7, 2004. On 

July 3, 2003, the Commission released a 

Report and Order (2003 TCPA Order),

68 FR 44144, July 25, 2003. In the 2003