Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

14,448 words·~66 min read·/register/2006/04/27/06-4016

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 76 RIN 1890-AA13 State-Administered Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations in 34 CFR part 76 governing State reporting requirements. States are required to submit their performance reports, financial reports, and any other required reports, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, including through electronic submission, if the Secretary has obtained approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The amendments proposed in this notice would provide that:

(1)Failure to submit these reports in the manner prescribed by the Secretary constitutes a failure, under section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, to comply substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the funds made available under the program for which the reports are submitted; and

(2)if the Secretary chooses to require submission of information electronically, the Secretary may establish a transition period during which a State would not be required to submit such information electronically in the format prescribed by the Secretary, if the State meets certain requirements. The Secretary proposes these changes to the regulations in 34 CFR part 76 to highlight that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) may require, through the PRA clearance process, that States report certain information electronically; and to establish that the Department may take administrative action against a State for failure to submit reports in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. The proposed changes will facilitate the use of the Department's electronic ED *Facts* data management system (ED *Fact* s) (Approved under OMB Control No. 1880-0541) for electronic submission of certain reports and provide the Department with more timely and accessible data for accountability and decision-making. The Department's goal in requiring electronic submission of information is to reduce State reporting burden significantly and to streamline dozens of data collections currently required by the Department. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed regulations to Bonny Long, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 7C110, Washington, DC 20202. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, you may address them to us at the U.S. Government Web site: *http://www.regulations.gov* or you may send your Internet comments to us at the following address: *StateReporting@ed.gov.* You must include the term “State Reporting/EDFacts Regulation” in the subject line of your electronic message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonny Long. Telephone:

(202)401-0325 or via Internet: *Bonny.Long@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. In particular, we invite specific comments on the Department's approach to implementing these regulations in regard to the following issues: • Whether the proposed two-year transition period discussed in both the background section of this preamble and in § 76.720(c)(3) is sufficient; and • Whether the Department's intent to require States to submit data electronically through ED *Facts* beginning with the 2006-07 school year, discussed in the background section of this preamble, is feasible and the effects of this action for States. We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should provide to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's State-administered programs. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations in room 7C110, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Background Complete, accurate, and reliable data are essential for effective decision-making and for implementing the requirements of the Nation's education laws. The Department's ability to collect, store, and manage education data efficiently through electronic means allows for easier submission by States and reduces duplication of collections and burdens on States. It also facilitates the efficient use of data for analysis by program officials and other interested parties. Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110)

(NCLB)requires that educators have accurate and reliable data to assess the Nation's progress in reaching the goal of ensuring that every child achieves high academic standards. These data help educators know where they need to focus their attention in order to improve the academic achievement of all students. In 2003, the Department launched the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI) to design an elementary and secondary education data collection system that would:

(1)Increase the analytical capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments in their efforts to improve outcomes for students;

(2)improve the quality, timeliness, and accessibility of data; and

(3)reduce State reporting burden by streamlining data collections and eliminating duplication in reporting. Through this initiative, the Department developed the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN), a central repository and electronic data collection system for over 140 common data elements on student achievement, school characteristics, demographics, and program financial information. States have been submitting data to EDEN voluntarily for the past two years. The Department is now increasing the EDEN capabilities to include, in addition to the Web-based interface that allows States to submit data electronically into EDEN, a capability for States, Department staff, and, eventually, the public, to query the database and independently analyze the data, subject to all applicable privacy protections for disclosing statistical data. To signal the increased capabilities of the system, the Department is renaming EDEN and the expanded Web-based interface “ED *Facts.* ” Accordingly, unless otherwise noted, for purposes of this preamble, the expanded system will be referred to as “ED *Facts.* ” To date, submission of data through ED *Facts* has been voluntary and, therefore, regardless of whether States have reported data through ED *Facts,* they have been required to continue reporting data through dozens of existing data collections required by Congress and administered by the Department. These collections frequently request duplicative data, including, in particular, data on student achievement and school demographics. The Department has designed ED *Facts* to obtain the most commonly collected data elements so that States need only report these data once, through a centralized, electronic process. As ED *Facts* is implemented completely, the Department will retire dozens of separate data collections, either in full or in part, and reduce State reporting burden significantly. Nearly every State has submitted electronically some portion of the data that it eventually will be required to submit to the Department through ED *Facts* . However, ED *Facts* will only reach its full potential in reducing duplicative State reporting burden and increasing the ability of the Department and States to analyze and improve student achievement if all States provide their data through the system. Beginning with the data from the 2006-07 school year, the Department intends to obtain approval, pursuant to the PRA, of an information collection request that would require States to submit electronically through ED *Facts* the program and demographic information that States currently are required to report under separate and overlapping collections. This data collection request will eliminate the need for States to submit reports under current separate and overlapping collection instruments because the Department intends to discontinue any existing data collections that require submission of data that will be subject to the ED *Facts* information collection request. ED *Facts* has the capability to collect data at the State, district, and school levels and, for the 2006-2007 school year the Department plans to require States to submit electronically those data, including district and school level data, that States currently are required to provide under existing data collections. The Department will continue to work with States to collect the full range of data that can be collected through ED *Facts* , including data that are not currently subject to one of the Department's OMB-approved information collection requests if eventually approved through future PRA information collection requests. We plan to consolidate as many information requests in ED *Facts* as possible because it provides the best opportunity for efficient and effective data collection on key aspects of student achievement and program performance. In this regard, States will have the option to provide, through ED *Facts* , additional district- and school-level data that they are not currently required to provide under existing data collections. For example, when preparing other documents to submit to the Department (e.g., a performance report), a State and its subgrantees would be able to simply reference school- and district-level data already submitted through ED *Facts* rather than undertake the burden of reproducing the same data in multiple documents. Once data are submitted to ED *Facts* , ED would be able to prepopulate collection forms so that States would only have to provide the data that does not overlap with the ED *Facts* data. In general, the amount of burden reduction available to States would be correlated directly with the amount of data they would provide through ED *Facts* . If the voluntary submission of district- and school-level data to ED *Facts* proves successful, the Department will consider expanding ED *Facts* required reporting to cover those more detailed data elements. Accordingly, the Department welcomes comments on a State's capacity for, and interest in, electronic reporting of district- and school-level data through ED *Facts* as an efficient means to centralize reporting and reduce State paperwork burden. Two ways the Department will reduce State burden and reporting duplication in connection with ED *Facts* in the short term are as follows:

(1)The Department plans to eliminate existing collections that completely overlap with data required to be submitted through ED *Facts* . For reporting 2005-06 school year data, the Department is piloting this approach with four data collections for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA)programs. Under this pilot, States that submit specified ED *Facts* data files that meet current program reporting standards will be relieved of submitting those data through other means.

(2)For existing collections that partially overlap with data required to be submitted through ED *Facts* , the Department will pre-populate those collections with the data that States submitted through ED *Facts* so that States need not submit those data more than once. The Department is piloting this approach with the Consolidated State Performance Report

(CSPR)(Approved under OMB Collection No. 1810-0614), required under section 9303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by NCLB, for the 2004-05 school year data. Under this pilot, States will access a CSPR Web page that is pre-populated with the ED *Facts* data they already have submitted, decreasing significantly the number of CSPR questions they must answer. Both the Department and each State already have committed significant resources to the Department's data management initiative; the Department believes that requiring full participation in ED *Facts* , while eliminating, either completely or partially, the majority of the Department's existing annual elementary and secondary education data collections, is the only way to ensure that those investments deliver their intended benefits, including reducing State reporting burden. As part of the Department's efforts to streamline its data collection processes and elevate the importance of State compliance with reporting requirements, the Department proposes to amend the regulations in 34 CFR part 76. As more fully discussed in the Significant Proposed Regulations section of this notice, the proposed regulations in §§ 76.720 and 76.722 would provide the Department with enforcement capabilities that are not available under the PRA alone. The proposed regulations emphasize the critical need for accurate data reporting for the Department's programs, including those authorized under ESEA, by making failure to report data under a program administered by the Secretary, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary, a failure to comply substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the funds made available under that program. This standard comes from section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234c) and gives the Secretary the authority to take administrative action against a recipient that does not comply with a program requirement. Finally, in recognition of the fact that some States may not be able to submit data electronically in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, *e.g.* , through ED *Facts* , the Department proposes to amend 34 CFR 76.720 to provide the Secretary with discretion to establish a transition period of up to two years following the date a State otherwise would be required to report the data in the electronic format prescribed by the Secretary ( *i.e.* , two years following the first reporting deadline established for the data collection through the PRA process). During this period, a State would not be required to submit reports in the electronic format prescribed by the Secretary if the State meets certain requirements. However, the Secretary may require the State to submit data in an alternative electronic format within the State's current capacity. This provision would permit those States that meet the requirements specified in proposed 34 CFR 76.720(c)(3)(i) through

(iii)with a transition period, not to exceed two years following the reporting deadline for the data collection, to comply with any requirement to submit reports electronically in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. Regardless of whether a State has been authorized a transition period, the Secretary appreciates that from time to time a State may have temporary technical circumstances that would prevent it from making timely submission of data to ED *Facts* . Such a situation would not trigger the Secretary taking enforcement action against a State. Significant Proposed Regulations Section 76.720 State Reporting Requirements Current § 76.720(a) states that § 76.720 applies to State reports required under 34 CFR 80.40 (Monitoring and reporting of program performance) and 34 CFR 80.41 (Financial reporting). Proposed § 76.720(a) would clarify that § 76.720 applies to reports required under 34 CFR 80.40 and 34 CFR 80.41, as well as other State reports that the Secretary requires under program statutes or regulations if the reports are approved by OMB under the PRA. Pursuant to the PRA, the Department must give interested parties an opportunity to comment on, and must obtain OMB approval for, any data collection that requests data from more than nine entities, unless the collection meets one of the narrow exceptions to the PRA. Proposed § 76.720(b)(1) and

(2)would not substantively change current § 76.720(b) and (c), which specify the frequency with which States must submit reports to the Secretary. Proposed § 76.720(c)(1) would be added to § 76.720 to clarify that States must submit any reports required under § 76.720 in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, including, if so prescribed, through electronic submission. Proposed § 76.720(c)(1) is necessary because it states in very clear terms that States must comply with the Secretary's requirements concerning the manner in which reports are submitted to the Department. The Secretary establishes submission requirements for Departmental data collection requests through the PRA clearance process. The language in proposed § 76.720(c)(1), therefore, essentially states in a single regulatory provision that States must comply with requirements established through the PRA clearance process. Proposed § 76.720(c)(2) would be added to § 76.720 to provide that a State's failure to submit reports in the manner prescribed by the Secretary (such as electronic submission) constitutes a failure to comply substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the funds made available under the program for which the reports are submitted. Under section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, if the Secretary has reason to believe that any recipient of funds under an applicable program is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law applicable to those funds, the Secretary may take administrative action to compel compliance. Proposed § 76.720(c)(2) is necessary because it establishes that reporting requirements, such as electronic submission of reports, are substantial requirements of law such that failure to comply with these requirements would constitute a violation of section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234c). The Department proposes § 76.720(c)(2) because failure of a recipient to comply with the Department's reporting requirements, including submitting reports electronically, harms the Federal interest in establishing what the Department deems is an efficient and effective means of obtaining accurate, reliable, and valid information on the performance of the Department's programs and the success of States in meeting their goals under such laws as NCLB. The Federal interest would be harmed because States would not be using a system that was specifically designed to reduce their burden and the Department would not be able to collect and use data as efficiently and easily. In addition, the data would not be in the form and of the quality necessary for the Department to assess program effectiveness. Moreover, States that do not comply with the Department's submission requirements would be using funds to submit reports that do not meet the Department's needs for accurate, reliable, and valid data. Proposed § 76.720(c)(3) would be added to § 76.720 to address difficulties that States may have in reporting data electronically in a manner prescribed by the Secretary on the date States otherwise would be required to report the data electronically. Proposed § 76.720(c)(3) would provide that the Secretary has the discretion to establish a transition period of up to two years following the date by which a State otherwise would be required to report the data in the electronic manner prescribed by the Secretary. During this transition period, a State would not be required to comply with the electronic submission requirement as prescribed by the Secretary, such as the requirement to submit electronic reports through ED *Facts* , if the State submits the following to the Secretary:

(a)Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the State is unable to comply with the electronic submission requirement specified by the Secretary in the data collection instrument on the first date the State otherwise would be required to report the data electronically;

(b)any information requested in the report through an alternative means that is deemed acceptable to the Secretary, which may require submission in an alternative electronic format that is better suited to a State's current capacity; and

(c)a plan showing how the State would come into compliance with the electronic submission and data quality requirements specified in the data collection instrument no later than two years following the date by which the State otherwise would be required to submit the data in the electronic manner prescribed by the Secretary. The following example describes how this regulatory provision would work. *Example:* The Department obtains approval for a new data collection instrument through the PRA process that would, for the first time, require States to submit data in an electronic format prescribed by the Secretary. The first date that States would be required to submit reports in this electronic format would be November 1, 2007. A State does not have the capacity to submit reports in the electronic format prescribed by the Secretary by November 1, 2007. The State would submit to the Secretary the following:

(1)A request for a transition period, that includes evidence that the State is not able to comply with the electronic submission requirements;

(2)the information requested in the report in an alternative means that is acceptable to the Secretary; and

(3)a plan explaining the steps the State will take to submit the report in the electronic format prescribed by the Secretary no later than November 1, 2009. The Department proposes § 76.720(c)(3) because, while it believes requiring electronic submission of reports ultimately will help reduce State reporting burden and streamline the Department's data management system, it recognizes that, at this time, States have varying capabilities to report information through electronic means. Therefore, with respect to ED *Facts,* the Department plans to use the discretion established under proposed § 76.720(c)(3) to allow States that demonstrate that they do not have the capability to submit reports as specified through ED *Facts,* a period of up to two years following the dates the States otherwise would be required to report data through ED *Facts* ( *i.e.* , until the reporting deadlines established for the 2008-09 school year data through the PRA process) to phase in their compliance with the reporting requirements. For those States, the Department plans to accept the required data through alternative means approved by the Department, which may include alternative electronic submissions, if those States provide the Department with, and the Department approves, a plan to submit the required reports through ED *Facts* no later than the reporting deadlines established for the 2008-09 school year reports through the PRA process. With respect to proposed § 76.720(c)(3), the Department is particularly interested in receiving comment on:

(a)Whether the proposed two-year transition period to phase in the electronic submission requirements prescribed by the Secretary for ED *Facts* is a sufficient period of time for States that cannot comply with these requirements to come into compliance; and

(b)what kind of alternative electronic collection format would most help States that cannot comply with the requirement to submit reports electronically through ED *Facts.* Section 76.722 Subgrantee Reporting Requirements Current § 76.722 allows States to require subgrantees to furnish reports to the States that the States need to carry out their obligations under the program for which the subgrantees receive funds. Proposed § 76.722 would add language to § 76.722 to allow States to require subgrantees to submit, in the format and manner designated by the States, any reports that the States need to comply with the requirements under proposed § 76.720 and to carry out other responsibilities under the program. The proposed changes to current § 76.722 are intended to make it easier for States to comply with the requirements under proposed § 76.720 that the States submit reports to the Department in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. Executive Order 12866 1. Potential Costs and Benefits The Department has determined that these proposed regulations are a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and OMB has reviewed them. In accordance with the Executive Order, the Department has also assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to be necessary for administering the Department's State-administered programs effectively and efficiently. These regulations are generally not expected to require undue additional State resources because they do not require States to report more data than they currently are required to report to the Department. However, a potential new cost related to these regulations is the acquisition of the necessary technology for those States that do not currently have the capability to report information through electronic means. The Department expects that most States currently have this technology and that this cost would apply to very few (if any) States. For those States to which the cost is applicable, the cost is likely to be minimal. The potential benefits of these proposed regulations have been identified above, but briefly include: more timely and accessible data for accountability and decision-making; reduced State reporting burden; and, ultimately, improved implementation of the requirements of the Nation's education laws. In assessing the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits would justify the costs. The potential costs and benefits of the Department's information collection requests are identified in notices published in accordance with the PRA. 2. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: • Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated? • Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity? • Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? • Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how? • What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand? Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the regulation would affect only States and State agencies, the regulations would not have an impact on small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 These proposed regulations do not contain any new information collection requirements. Intergovernmental Review These proposed regulations affect State-administered programs of the Department that are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for these programs. Assessment of Educational Impact The Secretary requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at this site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site listed above. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 76 Elementary and secondary education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 24, 2006. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend part 76 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 76—STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 76 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 76.720 is revised to read as follows: § 76.720 State reporting requirements.

(a)This section applies to a State's reports required under 34 CFR 80.40 (Monitoring and reporting of program performance) and 34 CFR 80.41 (Financial reporting), and other reports required by the Secretary and approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

(b)A State must submit these reports annually unless—

(1)The Secretary allows less frequent reporting; or

(2)The Secretary requires a State to report more frequently than annually, including reporting under 34 CFR 80.12 (Special grant or subgrant conditions for “high-risk” grantees) or 34 CFR 80.20 (Standards for financial management systems). (c)(1) A State must submit these reports in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, including submitting any of these reports electronically and at the quality level specified in the data collection instrument.

(2)Failure by a State to submit reports in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section constitutes a failure, under section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, to comply substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the funds made available under that program.

(3)For reports that the Secretary requires to be submitted in an electronic manner, the Secretary may establish a transition period of up to two years following the date the State otherwise would be required to report the data in the electronic manner, during which time a State will not be required to comply with that specific electronic submission requirement, if the State submits to the Secretary—

(i)Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the State will not be able to comply with the electronic submission requirement specified by the Secretary in the data collection instrument on the first date the State otherwise would be required to report the data electronically;

(ii)Information requested in the report through an alternative means that is acceptable to the Secretary, such as through an alternative electronic means; and

(iii)A plan for submitting the reports in the required electronic manner and at the level of quality specified in the data collection instrument no later than the date two years after the first date the State otherwise would be required to report the data in the electronic manner prescribed by the Secretary. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474) 3. Section 76.722 is revised to read as follows: § 76.722 Subgrantee reporting requirements. A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474) [FR Doc. E6-6355 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2006-2] Electronic Payment of Royalties AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its rules governing the submission of royalty fees to the Copyright Office to require such payments to be made by electronic funds transfer. DATES: Written comments are due June 12, 2006. Reply comments are due July 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000. If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at 2nd and D Streets, NE, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Comments and reply comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:

(202)707-8380. Telefax:

(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cable systems and satellite carriers that retransmit broadcast signals in accordance with the provisions governing the statutory licenses set forth in sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, respectively, are required to pay royalty fees to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office also receives statutory fees from manufacturers and importers of digital audio recording devices and media who distribute these products in the United States. 17 U.S.C. chapter 10. Payments made under the cable and satellite carrier statutory licenses are remitted semiannually to the Copyright Office. Payments made under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 are made quarterly. The Copyright Office invests the royalties in United States Treasury securities pending distribution of these funds to those copyright owners who are entitled to receive a share of the fees. The current Copyright Office regulations permit payment by three different methods: electronic funds transfer (“EFT”), certified or cashier's check, or money order. 37 CFR 201.11 (f),

(g)and (h); 37 CFR 201.17

(i)and (j); and 37 CFR 201.28 (e). A mechanism for electronic payments was added in 1991, since it was thought that use of electronic payments would facilitate the process and lessen the administrative burden on the Office and on the filer. *See* 56 FR 29588 (June 28, 1991). An electronic payment option provides advantages to the payor and the Copyright Office as the agency responsible for the collection and distribution of the royalty fees. EFTs can be transmitted either as an Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) credit or a Fedwire (“Wire”) transaction depending upon how you arrange the transfer through your financial institution, or as an ACH debit by using the U. S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service's web based remittance system, Pay.gov. In an ACH credit, your financial institution sends the remittance to the U. S. Treasury; whereas, in an ACH debit, you authorize the U. S. Treasury to take the funds out of the account at your financial institution. Use of an electronic payment option offers specific advantages over payment via a check or money order. First, the remitters gain more time to transfer funds without fear of incurring interest assessments for late payments. In the case of a Wire transaction, the remitter may make a payment up until and including the due date (provided the financial institution is open that day and is still processing wire transfers), whereas an ACH transaction requires more time. It must be completed one or two banking days before the due date to ensure interest for late payments are not assessed. Second, electronic payments avoid the problems associated with lost checks or delays in processing mail. Third, copyright owners, the ultimate recipients of the funds, accrue more interest on the funds because the monies go directly to the Department of the Treasury instead of being diverted to the Copyright Office for processing first. And finally, the Copyright Office benefits from the use of the electronic payment option because it lessens the Office's administrative workload by reducing paperwork and related administrative costs. Currently, electronic funds transfers

(EFTs)are used primarily by the larger cable systems and account for more than 95% of the royalty fees collected by the Office, whereas smaller systems tend to still send checks through the mail. As a result, the Office still receives a relatively high number of checks and other paper remittances for a disproportionately small amount of the royalty fees. Consequently, the Office is taking steps to increase further the number of payments made by EFTs by amending its rules to require remitters to use an EFT when making royalty fee payments. In addition, the proposed rules would require that parties submit specific identifying and linking information as part of the EFT and/or as part of a “remittance advice” which will accompany the Statement(s) of Account and be faxed or emailed to the Licensing Division. This information would include:

(1)the remitter's name and address;

(2)the name of a contact person, telephone number and extension, and email address;

(3)the actual or anticipated date that the EFT will be transmitted;

(4)the type of royalty payment ( *i.e.* , cable, satellite, or DART);

(5)the total amount to be submitted via an EFT;

(6)the total amount to be paid by year and period;

(7)the number of statements of account that the EFT covers;

(8)ID number(s) assigned by the Licensing Division;

(9)the legal name of the owner for each Statement of Account; and

(10)identification of the first community served (city and state) (for cable systems only). The information to be sent as part of the EFT and the information that needs to be included in the remittance advice will be detailed in circulars issued by the Copyright Office with respect to a specific type of EFT. Frequently, with multiple filings and a single payment to cover them all, Office staff find that an overpayment or underpayment of the fee results after they have apportioned the fee to each statement based on the amount indicated therein. The “remittance advice” form helps avoid this type of problem by providing the Office with the information needed to match the EFT with the appropriate Statements of Account. Currently, the Office requests similar identifying and linking information, but in many cases the information is wholly or partially omitted. In these cases, Office staff must tediously search through the bundles of statements of account submitted in an effort to match the correct statements with a payment. Considerable efforts have been made to contact remitters and advise them of these errors and omissions. Failure to provide this information creates delays in processing and undercuts the advantages gained by submitting an electronic payment. Because of the burden imposed upon the Office in attempting to process payments which lack sufficient identifying information, the proposed rules would allow the Office to return any EFT which fails to properly identify statements to which they relate and would require the remitter to resubmit the EFT correctly. Should this occur, the remitter will then be responsible for any assessed interest charge that accrues as a result of a late payment. Also, the rules would require that “remittance advice” information be included with the statements of account in order to accurately identify what is submitted and how the fees are to be allocated among the statements. The Office is further amending its regulations to include a waiver provision in cases where there may be circumstances which would make it virtually impossible for a remitter to use the electronic payment option or would work a financial or other hardship. Requests for a waiver must include a statement setting forth the reasons why the waiver should be granted and the statement must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment, certifying that the information provided is true and correct. Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement Although the Copyright Office, as a department of the Library of Congress and part of the Legislative Branch, it is not an “agency” subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the Register of Copyrights has considered the effect of the proposed amendment on small businesses. The Register has determined that the amendments would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses because they may request a waiver from the requirement to submit payment via an electronic funds transfer in the event compliance with the requirement would create a financial or other hardship for the remitter. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 Copyright. Proposed Regulations For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 201 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 2. Amend § 201.11 to revise paragraph

(f)to read as follows: § 201.11 Satellite carrier statements of account covering statutory licenses for secondary transmissions.>

(f)*Royalty fee payment* .

(1)All royalty fees shall be paid by a single electronic funds transfer and payment must be received in the designated bank by the filing deadline for the relevant accounting period. The following information shall be provided as part of the EFT and/or as part of the remittance advice as provided for in circulars issued by the Copyright Office:

(i)Remitter's name and address;

(ii)Name of a contact person, telephone number and extension, and email address;

(iii)The actual or anticipated date that the EFT will be transmitted;

(iv)Type of royalty payment ( *i.e.* satellite);

(v)Total amount submitted via the EFT;

(vi)Total amount to be paid by year and period;

(vii)Number of statements of account that the EFT covers;

(viii)ID numbers assigned by the Licensing Division;

(ix)Legal name of the owner for each Statement of Account.

(2)The remittance advice shall be attached to the Statement(s) of Account. In addition, a copy of the remittance advice shall be emailed or sent by facsimile to the Licensing Division.

(3)A remitter may request a waiver from the requirement for payment by electronic funds transfer as set forth in paragraph

(1)of this section. To obtain a waiver, the remitter shall submit to the Licensing Division at least 60 days prior to the royalty fee due date a certified statement setting forth the reasons explaining why payment by an electronic funds transfer would impose a financial or other hardship on the remitter. The certification must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment. A waiver shall cover only a single payment period. Failure to obtain a waiver may result in the remittance being returned to the remitter. 3. Amend § 201.17 to revise paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows: § 201.17 Statements of Account covering compulsory licenses for secondary transmissions by cable systems.

(i)*Royalty fee payment* .

(1)All royalty fees must be paid by a single electronic funds transfer, and must be received in the designated bank by the filing deadline for the relevant accounting period. The following information must be provided as part of the EFT and/or as part of the remittance advice as provided for in circulars issued by the Copyright Office:

(i)Remitter's name and address;

(ii)Name of a contact person, telephone number and extension, and email address;

(iii)The actual or anticipated date that the EFT will be transmitted;

(iv)Type of royalty payment ( *i.e.* cable);

(v)Total amount submitted via the EFT;

(vi)Total amount to be paid by year and period;

(vii)Number of statements of account that the EFT covers;

(viii)ID numbers assigned by the Licensing Division;

(ix)Legal name of the owner for each Statement of Account;

(x)Identification of the first community served (city and state).

(2)The remittance advice shall be attached to the Statement(s) of Account. In addition, a copy of the remittance advice shall be emailed or sent by facsimile to the Licensing Division.

(3)The Office may waive the requirement for payment by electronic funds transfer as set forth in paragraph (1)(i) of this section. At least 60 days prior to the royalty fee due date, the remitter shall submit to the Licensing Division a certified statement setting forth the reasons explaining why payment by an electronic funds transfer would be virtually impossible or, alternatively, why it would impose a financial or other hardship on the remitter. The statement must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment. A waiver shall cover only a single payment period. Failure to obtain a waiver may result in the remittance being returned to the remitter. 4. Amend § 201.28 as follows: a. By revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii); b. By redesignating § § 201.28(h) through

(l)as § § 201.28(i) through

(m)respectively, and adding a new § 201.28(h); c. By amending newly redesignated § 201.28(j)(1)(ii) to remove “(i)(2)” and add in its place “(j)(2)” d. By amending newly redesignated § 201.28(j)(3)(i) to remove “(i)(3)” and add in its place “(j)(3)” e. By amending newly redesignated § 201.28(j)(3)(vi) to remove “(i)” and add in its place “(j)”. The additions and revisions to § 201.28 read as follows: § 201.28 Statements of Account for digital media audio recording devices or media.

(e)* * *

(3)* * *

(ii)The amount of the royalty payment shall be calculated in accordance with the instructions specified in the quarterly Statement of Account form. Payment shall be made as specified in section 201.28(h).

(h)*Royalty fee payment* .

(i)Remitter's name and address;

(ii)Name of a contact person, telephone number and extension, and email address;

(iii)The actual or anticipated date that the EFT will be transmitted;

(iv)Type of royalty payment ( *i.e.* DART);

(v)Total amount submitted via the EFT;

(vi)Total amount to be paid by year and period;

(vii)Number of statements of account that the EFT covers;

(viii)ID numbers assigned by the Licensing Division;

(ix)Legal name of the owner for each Statement of Account.

(2)The remittance advice shall be attached to the Statement(s) of Account. In addition, a copy of the remittance advice shall be emailed or sent by facsimile to the Licensing Division.

(3)The Office may waive the requirement for payment by electronic funds transfer as set forth in paragraph

(1)of this section. At least 60 days prior to the royalty fee due date, the remitter shall submit to the Licensing Division a certified statement setting forth the reasons explaining why payment by an electronic funds transfer would be virtually impossible or, alternatively, why it would impose a financial or other hardship on the remitter. The certification must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment. A waiver shall cover only a single payment period. Failure to obtain a waiver may result in the remittance being returned to the remitter. Dated: April 20, 2006. Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-6186 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-33-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279; FRL-8162-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NO X RACT Determinations for Eight Individual Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology

(RACT)for eight major sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *morris.makeba@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,

(215)814-2034, or by e-mail at *wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 1, 1995, March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, April 20, 1998, October 2, 1998, June 22, 1999, and February 4, 2003, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These SIP revisions consist of source-specific operating permits issued by PADEP to establish and require RACT for eight individual sources pursuant to Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. I. Background Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania. State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:

(1)All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline

(CTG)document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;

(2)All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and

(3)All major non-CTG sources. The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major sources of NO X and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. These regulations are commonly termed the “generic RACT regulations.” A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead establishes procedures for imposing case-by-case RACT determinations. The Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations consist of the procedures PADEP uses to establish and impose RACT for subject sources of VOC and NO X . Pursuant to the SIP-approved generic RACT rules, PADEP imposes RACT on each subject source in an enforceable document, usually a Plan Approval (PA), Consent Order (CO), or Operating Permit (OP). The Commonwealth then submits these PAs, COs, or OPs to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. EPA reviews these SIP revisions to ensure that the PADEP has determined and imposed RACT in accordance with the provisions of the SIP-approved generic RACT rules. It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO X emissions in the form of a NO X cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the OTR. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy Phase I of the NO X SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT determination for a major source of NO X in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145. II. Summary of the SIP Revisions The following table identifies the sources and the individual operating permits

(OPs)which are the subject of this rulemaking. Pennsylvania—VOC and NO X RACT Determinations for Individual Sources Source's name County Operating Permit (OP #) Source type “Major Source” pollutant Pennsylvania Power & Light Company—West Shore Cumberland OP-21-2009 Combustion Turbines VOC and NO X . Foster Wheeler Mt. Carmel, Inc Northumberland OP-49-0002 Cogeneration Facility NO X . Metropolitan Edison Company—Portland Northampton OP-48-0006 Combustion Turbines and Boilers NO X . Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Lycoming OP-41-0004 Combustion Turbine NO X . Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Clinton OP-18-0006 Combustion Turbines NO X . Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation Juniata County OP-34-2002 Compressor Station NO X . Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Northampton OP 48-0011 Combustion Turbines and Diesel Generators VOC and NO X . Johnstown Corporation Cambria OP-11-000-034 Steel Foundry VOC. Interested parties are advised that copies of Pennsylvania's SIP submittals for these sources, including the actual OPs imposing RACT, PADEP's evaluation memoranda, and the sources' RACT proposals (referenced in PADEP's evaluation memoranda) are included and may be viewed in their entirety in both the electronic and hard copy versions of the docket for this final rule. As previously stated, all documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. In accordance with its SIP-approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations. III. Proposed Action EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on August 1, 1995, March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, April 20, 1998, October 2, 1998, June 22, 1999, and February 4, 2003 to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for eight individual sources pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rule to approve these source-specific RACT determinations established and imposed by PADEP in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. 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 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 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), nor will it 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), because it 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 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve eight source-specific RACT determinations established and imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 19, 2006. William Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-6366 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0296; FRL-8162-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; NO X and VOC RACT Determinations for Eight Individual Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology

(RACT)for seven sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and one source of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket

(RME)ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0296 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: *morris.makeba@epa.gov.* C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0296, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to RME ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0296. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(215)814-2113, or by e-mail at *robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 27, 1995, August 1, 1995, January 10, 1996, March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, June 22, 1999, and July 28, 1999, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These SIP revisions consist of source-specific operating permits and/or plan approvals issued by PADEP to establish and require RACT for eight sources pursuant to Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. I. Background Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of CAA, Pennsylvania is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania. State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:

(1)All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline

(CTG)document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;

(2)All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and

(PA)or Operating Permit (OP). The Commonwealth then submits these PAs and OPs to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. EPA reviews these SIP revisions to ensure that the Pennsylvania DEP has determined and imposed RACT in accordance with the provisions of the SIP-approved generic RACT rules. It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO X emissions in the form of a NO X cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the OTR. That regulation was approved as SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy Phase I of the NO X SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT determination for a major source of NO X in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145. II. Summary of the SIP Revisions The following table identifies the sources and the individual plan approvals

(PAs)and operating permits

(OPs)which are the subject of this rulemaking. Pennsylvania—VOC and NO X RACT Determinations for Individual Sources Source's name County Plan Approval (PA #) Operating Permit (OP #) Source type “Major Source” pollutant Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company Cumberland 21-2003 Specialty Tire Manufacturing VOC. The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc Elk OP 24-012 Graphite Electrode and Graphite Specialities Manufacturing Facility VOC. Celotex Corporation Northumberland OP-49-0013 Fiberboard Manufacturing Facility VOC. American Railcar Industries, Inc. Shippers Car Line Division Northumberland OP-49-0012 Railcar Cleaning and Refurbishment Operation VOC. ACF Northumberland OP-49-0009 Railcar Manufacturing Operation VOC. New Holland North America, Inc Lancaster 36-2028 Surface Coating Operation VOC. Allsteel, Inc Luzerne 40-001-5 Metal Furniture Coatings VOC. Ball-Foster Glass Container Co McKean OP 42-028 Glass Melting Furnaces NO X . Interested parties are advised that copies of Pennsylvania's SIP submittals for these sources, including the actual PAs and OPs imposing RACT, PADEP's evaluation memoranda and the sources' RACT proposals (referenced in PADEP's evaluation memoranda) are included and may be viewed in their entirety in both the electronic and hard copy versions of the docket for this final rule. As previously stated, all documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. In accordance with its SIP-approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations. III. Proposed Action EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on March 27, 1995, August 1, 1995, January 10, 1996, March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, June 22, 1999, and July 28, 1999, to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for eight individual sources pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rule to approve these source-specific RACT determinations established and imposed by PADEP in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. 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 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 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), nor will it 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), because it 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 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve eight source-specific RACT determinations established and imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 19, 2006. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-6364 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880 [WO-350-06-1430-PP] RIN 1004-AD87 Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rental Schedule AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)requests comments and suggestions to assist in the writing of a proposed rule to update the linear right-of-way rental schedule in 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880. The rental schedule covers most linear rights-of-way granted under section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA), and Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA). Both laws require the holder of a right-of-way to pay annually, in advance, the fair market value to occupy, use, or traverse public lands for facilities such as power lines, fiber optic lines, pipelines, roads, and ditches. Section 367 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the per-acre rental fee schedule found in 43 CFR 2806.20. This update is to be completed not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act, which occurred on August 8, 2005. The Act requires that the BLM revise the per-acre rental fee-zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear right-of-way use to reflect current land values in each zone. The Act also requires the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) to make the same revisions for rights-of-way on National Forest System lands. We encourage members of the public to provide comments and suggestions to help with updating the BLM's and the Forest Service's rental schedule, as described in the Act. DATES: We will accept comments and suggestions on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking until May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. *Mail:* Director

(630)Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. *Personal or messenger delivery:* Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW,, Washington, DC 20036. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* *E-mail:* *comments_washington@blm.gov.* (Include “Attn: AD87”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the substance of the Advance Notice, please contact Christian Crowley at

(202)208-3799. For information on procedural matters, please contact Ian Senio at

(202)452-5049. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339, to contact the above individuals during business hours. FIRS is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures Commenting on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Written comments or suggestions should: • Be specific; • Explain the reasoning behind your comments and suggestions; • Address the issues outlined in the Notice; and • Where possible, reference the specific section or paragraph of existing laws or regulations that you are addressing. For comments and recommendations to be most useful, and most likely to influence decisions on the content of the proposed rule, they should: • Be substantive; • Facilitate development of a uniform, cost effective administrative process for calculating rental payments; • Result in a fair and reasonable payment of fair market rent; and • Include citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. The BLM is particularly interested in receiving comments and suggestions about the topics listed in Section III of this Notice. All communication on these topics should refer to RIN 1004-AD87, and may be submitted by several methods listed under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) need not be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule. Likewise, comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ) need not be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule. Reviewing Comments Submitted by Others Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under “ ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger delivery” during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 a.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Those wishing to withhold their name or address (except for the city or town) must state this prominently at the beginning of their comment. Submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. II. Background Statutory Section 367 of the Act, Fair Market Value Determinations for Linear Rights-of-Way Across Public Lands and National Forests, directs the Secretary of the Interior to:

(1)Update 43 CFR 2806.20, which contains the per-acre rent schedule for linear rights-of-way;

(2)revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear right-of-way uses to reflect current values of land in each zone; and

(3)complete the update within one year of enactment of the Act. The Act also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make the same revisions to the regulations that apply to rights-of-way granted on National Forest System

(NFS)lands. This provision supplements existing Secretarial authority to assess and collect fair market value of the right to use, cross, or traverse public or NFS lands. Current Linear Rent Schedule On July 8, 1987, and September 30, 1987, the BLM published regulations establishing rental schedules for linear rights-of-way granted under Section 28 of the MLA and Title V of FLPMA (52 FR 25818 and 52 FR 36576). The Forest Service uses these same schedules to charge rent for rights-of-way across NFS lands. Therefore, updates to these schedules would also impact the Forest Service and users of NFS lands. The 1987 rental schedule was developed to set fair market rent, while minimizing the need for individual real estate appraisals for each right-of-way requiring rent payments, as well as to avoid the costs, delays, and unpredictability of the appraisal process in reasonably setting fair market rent. The 1987 rental schedule defines eight fee zones based on the distribution of average land values by county in each of the states, except Alaska. (The existing rent schedule does not apply to Alaska. Linear right-of-way rental fees in Alaska are currently determined on a case-by-case basis based on local market values.) A county was assigned to one of the eight Zone Values, based on land values in the county: lower-value counties were assigned lower-numbered zones. The eight Zone Values were set at $50, $100, $200, $300, $400, $500, $600, and $1,000 per acre. A county's Zone Value is translated into a per-acre Zone Rent by use of the adjustment formula described below. To calculate the annual right-of-way rental payment, the Zone Rent is multiplied by the total acreage within the right-of-way. The formula for Zone Rent is: Zone Rent = (Zone Value) × (Impact Adjustment) × (Price Index) × (Treasury Security Rate) The Zone Value term in the formula is the land value that was established for each of the eight zones. The Zone Values established in 1987 have not been updated since that time; however, it is generally recognized that land values have increased in most areas over the past 20 years. The Impact Adjustment term in the formula reflects the differences in land-use impacts between

(1)oil, gas, and other energy-related pipelines, roads, ditches, and canals, and

(2)electrical transmission and distribution lines, telephone lines, and non-energy related pipelines. Energy-related pipelines and roads were considered as having a greater surface disturbance impact on the land, and were adjusted to 80 percent of the Zone Value. Electrical transmission and distribution lines, phone lines, and non-energy related pipelines with a smaller area of disturbance, were adjusted to 70 percent of the Zone Value. The Price Index term in the formula allows the rental values to increase with inflation. This number changes annually reflecting the change in the Gross Domestic Product, Implicit Price Deflator Index. The Treasury Security term in the formula reflects a reasonable rate of return to the United States for the use of the land within the right-of-way. The 1987 regulations were based on a rate of return of 6.41 percent for a one year Treasury Security. BLM Right-of-Way Program and Revenues The BLM generated over $15 million in right-of-way rental receipts for fiscal year 2005. The BLM administers nearly 90,000 rights-of-way, of which over 48,000 are subject to a rental payment. Wyoming and New Mexico together account for slightly more than 30,000 of the rights-of-way subject to rent. Seventy-five percent of all right-of-way revenues were collected by five BLM State Offices. These five State Offices and the revenues collected are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1.—Right-of-Way Rental Receipts for “Top Five” BLM State Offices State office Rental receipts (FY 2005) Nevada $3,678,823 California 2,946,170 Wyoming 1,804,274 New Mexico 1,661,834 Arizona 1,272,795 Total 11,363,896 Non-linear rights-of-way, including communication site authorizations, account for nearly 3,500 authorizations generating over $5 million in revenue. Subtracting the communication site revenue from the $15 million reported for all rights-of-way results in an average rent of approximately $250 for linear rights-of-way. The average rental payment in 2005, including communication site authorizations, was approximately $320. Description of Issues The rental schedule is a cost-effective means for calculating and billing right-of-way holders for the use of public lands. In general, the rental schedule must be fair and reasonable and rent must be calculated in a consistent manner, depending on the type of authorized use. To facilitate the billing process, the rental schedule itself must be a cost-effective way to administer the right-of-way program relative to the amount of revenue collected. In addition, right-of-way holders should be able to estimate rental payments and forecast changes in billed rent in accordance with the terms and conditions of the right-of-way. Updating the rental schedule formula will require changes to current rental payments; depending on the magnitude of the changes in various components of the formula, rents are likely to increase as a result of the general increase in land values. Impacts on groups or individual holders ultimately depend on the formula options considered. As part of the rulemaking process, impacts of any increase in rent on current holders and small businesses will be evaluated. In addition, the proposed regulation will likely include a phase-in period and other provisions designed to facilitate the transition to the new rents. In cases where the applicant feels that the calculated rent is excessive, additional relief may include provisions for reduction or waiver of rent as is currently provided for by 43 CFR 2806.15 or for an alternative calculation of rent, based on an appraisal report. For such an appraisal report to be admissible, the applicant would be required to follow applicable Departmental and Agency instructions, pay for the cost of the appraisal report, and ensure that the report meets Federal standards. The BLM is considering using existing published information or statistical data for updating the rental schedule, such as information published by the National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS). NASS publishes two reports:

(1)The Census of Agriculture published every five years (Five Year Census), and

(2)the annual Land Values and Cash Rents Summary (Annual Report). The Five Year Census includes land values by county for each state. The land values are reported for cropland, woodland, permanent pasture, and rangeland and includes buildings. The NASS data in the Annual Report includes state average pastureland values. The statewide average for pastureland may approximate rural agricultural types of land (woodlands and rangelands) that are administered by the BLM. You can find more detailed information about these two reports at the NASS Web site at: *http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp* . III. Description of Information Requested The BLM is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following questions: 1. What available published information, statistical data, or reports should BLM use to update the current linear right-of-way rental fee Zone Values? 2. What, if any, other terms, *e.g.* , impact adjustment or rate of return, used in the 1987 rental formula should BLM update, clarify, or revise? Should the one-year Treasury Rate (rate of return) used in the current formula, *i.e.* , 6.41 percent, be revised to reflect the current rate? If yes, should the rate be updated annually? 3. What, if any, provisions should BLM include in the proposed regulation to provide relief from large, unexpected increases in individual rental payments? 4. How should the number of rental zones be changed in the new linear right-of-way rental schedule, if at all? 5. Should the new linear right-of-way rental schedule split some states and counties into more than one zone? 6. Should the new linear right-of-way rental schedule apply to BLM-administered lands in Alaska? The BLM further solicits public comments on other approaches for updating the 1987 linear right-of-way rental schedule. Other suggestions will be considered inasmuch as they may facilitate updating the current schedule. Dated: April 17, 2006. Chad Calvert, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E6-6338 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P 71 81 Thursday, April 27, 2006 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act; Meeting DATE AND TIME: Friday, May 5, 2006, 9:30 a.m., Commission Briefing and Meeting. PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. STATUS: Briefing Agenda Commission Briefing: The Effectiveness of Historically Black Colleges and Universities • Introductory Remarks by Chairman • Speakers' Presentations • Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director • Annual Program Planning CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Audrey Wright, Office of the Staff Director

(202)376-7700. Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. 06-4016 Filed 4-25-06; 11:53 am]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

U.S. Code