Rules and Regulations. Interim final rule with request for comment

7,192 words·~33 min read·/register/2006/08/07/06-6737

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

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service 31 CFR Part 208 RIN 1510-AB07 Management of Federal Agency Disbursements AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury. ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: The Financial Management Service

(FMS)is publishing an interim final rule amending 31 CFR part 208 (part 208) to facilitate the delivery of Federal payments to victims of disasters and emergencies. Part 208 implements the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3332, which generally requires that Federal payments be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT). Under 31 U.S.C. 3332, the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) must ensure that any individual required to receive a Federal payment by EFT have access to an account at a financial institution at a reasonable cost and with certain consumer protections. This amendment implements 31 U.S.C. 3332 by providing that the Department of the Treasury may establish and administer accounts for disaster victims in order to allow for the delivery of Federal payments by EFT. We are proceeding with this amendment in the form of an interim final rule that is effective without delay. DATES: This interim final rule is effective August 7, 2006. Comments on the interim final rule are due on or before September 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: This rule is available on the Financial Management Service's Web site at the following address: *http://www.fms.treas.gov/eft.* You may also inspect and copy this rule at: Treasury Department Library, Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Collection, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Before visiting, you must call

(202)622-0990 for an appointment. You may submit comments on the rule by going to the Government-wide rulemaking Web site, *http://www.regulations.gov* , and following the instructions for sending your comments electronically. Alternatively, you may email your comments to FMS at *208comments@fms.treas.gov.* You may also mail your comments to: Sally Phillips, Director, EFT Strategy Division, Financial Management Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Room 420, Washington, DC 20227. Comments received may be made publicly available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Phillips, Director, EFT Strategy Division, at

(202)874-7106 or *sally.phillips@fms.treas.gov* ; or Natalie H. Diana, Senior Counsel, at

(202)874-6680 or *natalie.diana@fms.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Treasury is amending part 208 in order to facilitate the delivery of Federal benefit and assistance payments to victims of emergencies and disasters. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many individuals who had been displaced from their homes were in immediate need of financial assistance. Treasury worked with Federal agencies to develop ways to provide Hurricane Katrina evacuees with fast, convenient, and secure access to assistance and benefit payments. Mindful of the possibility that a future emergency or disaster could disrupt the delivery of Federal payments through conventional methods such as direct deposit and check, we are amending part 208 to provide for the establishment of accounts at a financial institution for disaster or emergency victims in order to allow for the delivery by EFT of Federal payments. Authority and Purpose 31 U.S.C. 3332 generally requires that all non-tax Federal payments be made by EFT, unless waived by the Secretary. The Secretary must ensure that individuals required to receive Federal payments electronically have access to an account at a financial institution at a reasonable cost and with the same consumer protections as other accountholders. *See* 31 U.S.C. 3332(f), (i)(2). Part 208 implements the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3332. Part 208 sets forth requirements for accounts to which Federal payments may be sent by EFT; provides that any individual who receives a Federal benefit, wage, salary, or retirement payment is eligible to open an Electronic Transfer Account

(ETA)at a financial institution that offers such accounts; and establishes the responsibilities of Federal agencies and recipients under the regulation. Part 208 also sets forth a number of waivers to the general requirement that Federal payments be delivered by EFT. Thus, part 208 contemplates that an individual entitled to a Federal payment either has access to a bank account to which the payment can be delivered electronically, or that the individual can receive and make use of a check payment. In the extraordinary circumstances of a disaster or emergency, however, many individuals may not have access to their bank accounts and may not be able to readily establish new bank accounts. Such individuals would have no way to receive an electronic Federal assistance or benefit payment. Moreover, as Hurricane Katrina illustrated, in disaster or emergency situations, the postal delivery of checks may be delayed or disrupted at the very time when the expeditious delivery of Federal assistance and benefit payments is critical in assisting people in disaster situations who urgently need funds in order to pay for food, clothing and shelter. Even where Treasury checks can be expeditiously delivered to disaster victims, individuals who have been displaced from their homes may be unable to establish their identities due to lost or inaccessible documentation. As a result, financial institutions may be unwilling to cash Treasury checks for these individuals, because they cannot determine the identity of the individual or whether a Treasury check that an individual is seeking to cash has been stolen and fraudulently endorsed. Finally, check payments may raise security concerns in disaster situations, since individuals who cash checks will typically be carrying significant amounts of cash in order to make purchases. The interim final rule gives Treasury the authority to quickly establish accounts for disaster and emergency victims, as well as the flexibility to determine what features such accounts should have in order to meet the needs of payment recipients. Amendment of Part 208 We are amending 31 CFR part 208 by adding a new § 208.11 that provides that Treasury may establish accounts at financial institutions for victims of a disaster or emergency in order to allow for the electronic delivery of Federal payments. New § 208.11 gives the Secretary flexibility to determine what features such accounts should have in light of the particular nature of the disaster or emergency. Sections 208.4, 208.6, 208.7 and 210.5 of title 31 CFR do not apply to the establishment of accounts or issuance of payments pursuant to this section. For example, the waivers set forth in § 208.4 are not applicable in situations where Treasury is establishing accounts for the express purpose of allowing for the delivery by EFT of Federal payments to disaster victims. The requirement in §§ 208.6 and 210.5 that a Federal non-vendor electronic payment be deposited to a deposit account in the name of the recipient does not apply to accounts established pursuant to § 208.11, nor are agencies required to notify check recipients and newly-eligible payment recipients of options available to them, as is normally required under § 208.7. Further, Treasury will be able to deliver payments to accounts established pursuant to § 208.11, notwithstanding any other instructions from the payment recipient. Regulatory Analyses *Request for Comment.* We invite comment on all aspects of the interim final rule. *Request for Comment on Plain Language.* On June 1, 1998, the President issued a memorandum directing each agency in the Executive branch to write its rules in plain language. This directive is effective for all new proposed and final rulemaking documents issued on or after January 1, 1999. We invite comment on how to make this interim final rule clearer. For example, you may wish to discuss:

(1)Whether we have organized the material to suit your needs;

(2)whether the requirements of this interim final rule are clear; or

(3)whether there is something else we could do to make this rule easier to understand. *Notice and Comment; Effective Date.* We are proceeding without notice and comment on this rulemaking because of the need to be prepared to deliver Federal assistance and benefit payments during the current hurricane season, which is already underway. Obtaining prior notice and comment would delay implementation of this rule and could cause hardship to individuals who might be urgently in need of food, clothing and shelter in the event a hurricane, disaster or other emergency occurs. Accordingly, under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), we find good cause that prior notice and comment on this rule and a 30-day delay in its effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Although the rule will take effect without prior notice and comment, we are inviting comment and will consider the comments received. *Executive Order 12866.* It has been determined that this interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 208 Accounting, Automated Clearing House, Banks, Banking, Electronic funds transfer, Financial institutions, Government payments. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the preamble, 31 CFR part 208 is amended as follows: PART 208—MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCY DISBURSEMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 90, 265, 266, 1767, 1789a; 31 U.S.C. 321, 3122, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3321, 3325, 3327, 3328, 3332, 3335, 3336, 6503; Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. 2. Add a new § 208.11 to read as follows: § 208.11 Accounts for disaster victims. Treasury may establish and administer accounts at any financial institution designated as a financial agent for disaster victims in order to allow for the delivery by electronic funds transfer of one or more Federal payments. Such accounts may be established upon terms and conditions that the Secretary considers appropriate or necessary in light of the circumstances. Treasury may deliver payments to these accounts notwithstanding any other payment instructions from the recipient and without regard to the requirements of §§ 208.4, 208.6, and 208.7 of this part and 31 CFR 210.5. For purposes of this section, “disaster victim” means an individual or entity located within an emergency area, or an individual or entity that has relocated or been displaced from an emergency area as a result of a major disaster or emergency. “Emergency area” means a geographical area in which there exists an emergency or disaster declared by the President pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). The maintenance of accounts and the provision of account-related services under this section shall constitute reasonable duties of a financial agent of the United States. Dated: July 31, 2006. Kenneth R. Papaj, Commissioner. [FR Doc. E6-12689 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-35-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-073] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 113, St. Petersburg Beach, Pinellas County, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations governing the operation of the Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 113, St. Petersburg Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. This rule is needed to provide vehicular traffic relief during heavy vehicular traffic periods flowing into a nearby county park, as well as meeting the reasonable needs of mariners. This bridge will open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour until October 29, 2006. DATES: This rule is effective from August 7, 2006 until 7 p.m. on October 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD07-06-073 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL 33131, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at

(305)415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was impracticable and contrary to the public interest, because the rule is needed to provide for vehicular traffic relief and provides provisions for vessels to transit through the area twice per hour. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after **Federal Register** publication. This rule provides for scheduled bridge openings for vessels to transit through the bridge. Background and Purpose The Pinellas Bayway “E” (SR 679) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 113, St. Petersburg Beach, Pinellas County, Florida, currently opens on signal; except that, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour. The bridge provides vehicular access into and out of a popular county park. On June 23, 2006, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule (71 FR 36010) at the request of Florida State Representative Rice's office, on behalf of the local citizens, that stated the bridge will be required to only open on the hour and half-hour Fridays from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress shall be passed as necessary. However, after this temporary final rule was published, Florida State Representative Rice's office, at the request of the local citizens revised their request for the opening of the bridge. The bridge shall open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour. Discussion of Rule The regulation was requested by Florida Representative Rice's office on behalf of the residents of St. Petersburg Beach and will provide temporary relief for vehicular traffic during periods of heavy traffic traveling into and out of a nearby county park, while continuing to provide for the reasonable needs of navigation. The bridge will be required to open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, because the rule will allow for timed bridge openings. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the regulations provide for bridge openings, and the reasonable needs of navigation. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order, because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. From August 7, 2006 through 7 p.m. on October 29, 2006, § 117.287(d)(3) is suspended and (d)(5) is added to read as follows: § 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

(d)* * *

(5)Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) bridge, mile 113 at St. Petersburg Beach. The draw shall open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour. Dated: July 17, 2006. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-12528 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0322; FRL-8190-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Las Vegas Valley Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revised attainment plan, as modified to withdraw the motor vehicle emissions budget for 2030, for the Las Vegas Valley carbon monoxide nonattainment area as a revision to the Nevada state implementation plan. The revised attainment plan, as modified, includes revised base year and future year emissions inventories and a revised demonstration of continued attainment of the carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standard in Las Vegas Valley through 2020 based on the most recent emissions models and planning assumptions and establishes new motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA is acting under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, which obligates the Agency to take action on State submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect of this approval action is to update the carbon monoxide motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Las Vegas area and thereby make them available for the purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: This rule is effective on September 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0322. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, telephone number:

(775)833-1276; fax number:

(775)833-1276; e-mail address: *oconnor.karina@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. What Action Did EPA Propose? II. Is the Background for This Rule? III. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? IV. What Is Our Final Action? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Did EPA Propose? On May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910), under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), we proposed to approve the *Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada* (October 2005), which was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners on October 4, 2005 and submitted to EPA by NDEP on February 14, 2006, as a revision to the Nevada SIP on the condition that Clark County and the State of Nevada withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle emission budget, or, in the alternative, we propose to disapprove the plan. Specifically, we proposed to approve the plan's revised base year and projected emission inventories and modeling demonstration of continued attainment of the CO standard through 2020. Our proposed disapproval was based on our finding that the plan does not demonstrate continued attainment in year 2030 because it lacks micro-scale modeling analysis for the environs of the County's airports in that year. Furthermore, we found that, with the exception of the 2030 budget, the new motor vehicle emissions budgets established in the plan are also consistent with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley. Thus, we proposed to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005 CO plan for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020 as meeting the purposes of section 176(c)(1) and the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93, subpart A contingent upon the withdrawal of the 2030 budget by Clark County and the State of Nevada, and to disapprove the submitted budgets in the 2005 CO plan, in the alternative, if no such withdrawal was made. As discussed below, the State of Nevada has submitted a second SIP revision that withdraws the 2030 budget, and we received no comments on our proposal, and thus, we are taking final action to approve the 2005 CO plan, as amended, and to approve the related motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020. II. What Is the Background for This Rule? Based on monitoring data from the mid-1970's, EPA designated Las Vegas Valley 1 as a carbon monoxide

(CO)nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), as amended in 1977. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3, 1978). In response, Clark County and the State of Nevada adopted and implemented various air quality plans and programs, including a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, to reduce CO levels in Las Vegas Valley, but the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) were not attained by the then-applicable 1987 attainment date. [EPA approved these plans and programs at various times as revisions to the Nevada state implementation plan (SIP).] 1 The boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley CO nonattainment area are defined by reference to State hydrographic area #212, which covers the central portion of Clark County. See 40 CFR 81.329. The CAA was significantly amended by Congress in 1990 to establish new attainment dates and planning and control requirements for areas that had failed to attain the NAAQS under the 1977 Amendments. Under the 1990 Amended Act, Las Vegas Valley was initially classified as a “moderate” nonattainment area for CO but was later reclassified as a “serious” CO nonattainment area after having missed the attainment date for moderate areas. In response to the “moderate”, and then “serious,” nonattainment classification and related CAA requirements, Clark County and the State of Nevada adopted and implemented new air quality plans and programs, including a “serious” area attainment plan, the *Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada* (August 2000) (“2000 CO plan”). In 2004, we approved the 2000 CO plan and related motor vehicle emissions budgets for years 2000, 2010 and 2020. See 69 FR 56351, September 21, 2004. In response to changes in the EPA-approved motor vehicle emission factor model and higher-than-forecast increases in population growth in Las Vegas Valley, the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), in consultation with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), undertook a comprehensive air quality planning effort to review and update the 2000 CO plan and the associated motor vehicle emission budgets to maintain consistency for future transportation conformity findings. The planning efforts culminated in the preparation of the *Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada* (October 2005) (“2005 CO plan”). The Clark County Board of Commissioners adopted the 2005 CO plan on October 4, 2005, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP)submitted the plan to EPA as a revision to the Nevada SIP on February 14, 2006. The 2005 CO plan, as adopted on October 4, 2005 and submitted on February 14, 2006, includes revised base year and future year emissions inventories and a revised demonstration of continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through 2030 based on the most recent emissions models and planning assumptions and establishes new motor vehicle emissions budgets. The inventories and modeling demonstration included in the 2005 CO plan relate to analysis years 1996, 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030. The plan allocates almost all of the estimated safety margins 2 in years 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 to the on-road motor vehicle emissions category. Based on our review and evaluation of NDEP's February 14, 2006 SIP revision submittal, we proposed to approve the 2005 CO plan on the condition that Clark County and the State of Nevada withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle emission budget, or, in the alternative, to disapprove the plan. See 71 FR 26910 (May 9, 2006). 2 The term “safety margin” refers to the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment or maintenance. See 40 CFR 93.101. The 2005 CO plan also allocates a small portion of the safety margins to certain point sources. As stated in our proposed rule published on May 9, 2006, our objection to the 2030 budget was premised on our finding that the plan lacks micro-scale modeling analysis for the environs of the County's airports in that year. In response, on May 2, 2006, Clark County adopted a revision to the 2005 CO plan that involved withdrawal of the 2030 budget and revision and replacement of the specific section of the plan (section 7.3, page 7-2, “Mobile Source Emissions Budget”) that identifies the emissions budgets. On May 12, 2006, NDEP submitted the amended page of the plan to EPA as a SIP revision together with evidence of adoption of this amendment by the Clark County Board of Commissioners. We have reviewed the May 12, 2006 submittal, and find that it meets the condition we placed on the proposed approval of the 2005 CO plan, and thus we are taking final action today to approve the plan, as amended. Please see the proposed rule at 71 FR 26910 (May 9, 2006) for more information about the background leading up to the submittal of the 2005 CO plan and our review and evaluation of the plan. III. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the proposal published in the **Federal Register** on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910). We received no comments on our proposed rulemaking. IV. What Is Our Final Action? Pursuant to section 110(k) of the Act and for the reasons set forth above and in the proposed rule, we are approving the *Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada* (October 2005), as adopted on October 4, 2005 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners and submitted by NDEP on February 14, 2006, and as amended by the board on May 2, 2006 and submitted by NDEP on May 12, 2006, as a revision to the Nevada SIP. Our approval is based on our evaluation of the plan submittals and determination that the plan's revised base year and projected emission inventories and modeling demonstration of continued attainment of the CO standard through 2020 reflect acceptable methods and the most recent models and planning assumptions. Furthermore, we find that the new motor vehicle emissions budgets established in the plan and reflecting scaled inventories are also consistent with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley. Thus, we are approving the following motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005 CO plan, as modified by the withdrawal of the 2030 budget as set forth in NDEP's February 12, 2006 submittal, as meeting the purposes of section 176(c)(1) and the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A: CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget [December weekday] Year Tons per day 2006 623 2010 690 2015 768 2020 817 Our action today in approving the above budgets has the effect of replacing the previously-approved CO motor vehicle emissions budgets from the Las Vegas Valley 2000 CO plan for the purposes of transportation conformity. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 approves an air quality plan as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 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 approves a state plan implementing a Federal standard and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 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 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.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 6, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 20, 2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(57) and (c)(58) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(57)The following plan revision was submitted on February 14, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management.

(1)Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada, adopted on October 4, 2005 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners (with the exception of section 7.3 (page 7-2), “Mobile Source Emissions Budget”).

(58)The following plan revision was submitted on May 12, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management.

(1)Section 7.3 (page 7-2), “Mobile Source Emissions Budget” of the Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada, adopted on May 2, 2006 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners. [FR Doc. E6-12761 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 051014263-6028-03; I.D. 080106A] Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; End of the Pacific Whiting Primary Season for the Shore-based Sector and the Resumption of Trip Limits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the end of the 2006 primary season for the Pacific whiting (whiting) shore-based sector at 6 p.m. local time (l.t.) August 2, 2006, because the allocation is projected to be reached. This action is intended to keep the harvest of whiting at the 2006 allocation levels. DATES: Effective from 6 p.m. l.t. August 2, 2006, until January 1, 2007. Comments will be accepted through August 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or RIN number], by any of the following methods: • E-mail:. *WhitingSBclosure2006.nwr@noaa.gov* Include [docket number and/or RIN number] in the subject line of the message. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko. • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky Renko. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko at 206-526-6110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a) establish separate allocations for the catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors of the whiting fishery. For 2006, the 232,069 mt commercial harvest guideline for whiting is divided with the catcher/processor sector receiving 78,903 mt (34 percent); the mothership sector receiving 55,696 mt (24 percent); and the shore-based sector receiving 97,469 mt (42 percent). Regulations at 50 CFR 660.373(b) describe the primary season for each sector. The primary season for the shore-based sector is the period(s) when the large-scale target fishery is conducted, and when “per trip” limits are not in effect. Before and after the primary season, per-trip limits are in effect for whiting. The best available information on July 31, 2006, indicates that 81,159 mt had been taken through July 27, 2006, 2006, and that the 97,469 mt shore-based allocation will be reached by August 2, 2006. This **Federal Register** document announces that the primary season for the shore-based sector ends on August 2, 2006, and a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip limit is imposed. Per-trip limits are for vessels using large or small footrope trawl gear and are intended to accommodate small bait and fresh fish markets, and bycatch in other fisheries. To minimize incidental catch of Chinook salmon by vessels fishing shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) contour in the Eureka area, at any time during a fishing trip, a limit of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of whiting is in effect year-round, except when landings of whiting are prohibited. NMFS Action For the reasons stated above, and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(b)(3), NMFS herein announces: Effective 6 p.m. l.t. August 2, 2006, no more than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed or landed by any vessel participating in the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery, unless otherwise announced in the **Federal Register** . If a vessel fishes shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) contour in the Eureka area (43° - 40°30′ N. lat.) at any time during a fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip limit applies, as announced in the annual management measures at paragraph IV, B (3)(c)(ii), except when the whiting fishery is closed. Classification This action is authorized by the regulations implementing the FMP. The determination to take this action is based on the most recent data available. The Assistant Administrator for fisheries, NMFS, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because providing prior notice and opportunity would be impracticable. It would be impracticable because if this closure were delayed in order to provide notice and comment, the fishery would be expected to greatly exceed the sector allocation. This would either result in the entire whiting optimum yield being exceeded, or in the allocations for the other sectors being reduced. Therefore, good cause also exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3). The aggregate data upon which the determination is based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES ) during business hours. This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.323(b)(3) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: August 1, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries , National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-6737 Filed 8-2-06; 12:58 pm]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

U.S. Code