Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-08-30 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

13,164 words·~60 min read·/register/2006/08/30/06-7233

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

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73 RIN 3150-AH90 Secure Transfer of Nuclear Materials AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations to implement requirements for secure transfer of nuclear materials as required by Section 656 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), signed into law on August 8, 2005. The proposed amendment would implement Section 656 by specifically excepting certain licensees from provisions of Section 170I of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. DATES: The comment period expires September 29, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. A copy of the draft proposed rule was made available for information only on July 6, 2006, on NRC's rulemaking Web site at: *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH90) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail: *cag@nrc.gov.* Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301)415-1966.) *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via NRC's rulemaking Web site at: *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6185, e-mail: *fpc@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Energy Policy Act of 2005 On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the EPAct of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). Section 656 of the EPAct added Section 170I to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42 U.S.C, 2210i, and requires that:
(a)A system be established by the Commission to ensure that materials transferred or received in the United States, by any party, pursuant to an import or export license issued by NRC, are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount of materials. Each individual receiving or accompanying the transfer of such materials shall be subject to a security background check conducted by appropriate Federal entities. Section 656 also states that, except as provided by the Commission by regulation, the materials referred to are: Byproduct material; source material; special nuclear material; high-level radioactive waste; spent nuclear fuel; transuranic waste; and low-level radioactive waste; and
(b)The Commission issue regulations, within one year after enactment of the EPAct, identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to the requirements in Section 170I 1 of the AEA. 1 The text of Section 656 actually refers to “exceptions to the requirements of Section 170D of the AEA”; however, that is a misprint. The correct citation is Section 170I. II. Discussion Based on the above, Section 656 of the EPAct amends the AEA by adding three broad elements:
(a)Establish a system for manifests of import/export shipments of radioactive materials;
(b)require security background checks of persons receiving or accompanying import/export shipments; and
(c)issue a regulation within one year with provisions for excepting certain types of radioactive materials or classes of individuals from the requirements of Section 170I of the EPAct. Establishing a system for manifests, requiring security background checks, and issuing a regulation with provisions for exceptions, are discussed in Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C, respectively, of this document. A. Establish a System for Manifests for Shipments of Radioactive Material Requirements for a system of manifests for shipments of material would include maintaining appropriate paperwork with a shipment that identifies the material being shipped. Specifically, the EPAct requires that a manifest include a description of the type of material and an indication of the amount of material being transported. Currently, requirements for manifesting shipments of radioactive materials already exist in U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)regulations at 49 CFR part 172. Specifically, 49 CFR 172.202(a) requires that shipping papers with radioactive shipments must indicate the basic description of the material, the total quantity of material (by mass, volume, or activity level in appropriate units), and the number and type of packages. In addition, for the quantities of radioactive material covered by the EPAct, 49 CFR 172.203(d) contains requirements that descriptions of a shipment containing radioactive material must include the name (and/or chemical symbol) of each radionuclide in the material; a description of the physical and chemical form of the material, if not special form; the activity contained in each package of the shipment in terms of appropriate international units (e.g., Becquerels (Bq)) and/or appropriate customary units (Curies (Ci), etc.) in parentheses following the international units; and labeling of each package being transported. NRC's current regulations cross-reference the DOT requirements applicable to the transportation of licensed materials at 10 CFR 71.5. Section 71.5 requires that each licensee who transports licensed material outside the site of usage, or where transport is on public highways, or who delivers licensed material to a carrier for transport, comply with the applicable requirements of the DOT regulations at 49 CFR parts 107, 171-180, and 390-397, as appropriate to the mode of transport. Based on the existing DOT requirements for shipping papers for shipments of radioactive materials at 49 CFR part 172 and NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 71, NRC believes that an appropriate system is already established to ensure that shipments of radioactive materials are accompanied by papers (i.e., a “manifest”) appropriately describing the type and amount of materials being shipped. Thus, NRC considers that the requirements of the EPAct have been met in this area. Therefore, NRC is not including any additional requirements for manifesting of radioactive material shipments in this proposed rule. B. Require Security Background Checks for Persons Accompanying or Receiving Shipments of Radioactive Materials Section 656 of the EPAct states that each individual who “accompanies” or “receives” the transfer of radioactive materials in the United States, pursuant to an NRC import or export license, shall be subject to a security background check 2 conducted by appropriate Federal entities. Section 656(c) of the EPAct also indicates that such background check requirements would become effective on a date established by the Commission. 2 The term “security background check” is not defined in Section 656. In related regulatory efforts, it has been noted that background checks form the basis of trustworthiness and reliability and are comprised of several elements (e.g., verification of identity; a check into employment history, education and personal references; and a criminal history record check requiring fingerprints). The NRC believes that the most appropriate and comprehensive approach for establishing requirements for security background checks is as part of the broader considerations of NRC's planned rulemaking to implement Section 652 of the EPAct. Section 652 mandates the Commission to require fingerprinting and criminal history record checks for any individual who is permitted unescorted access to radioactive material “* * * that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks.” The individuals referred to under Section 656 are a subgroup (i.e., those transferring radioactive material pursuant to an export or import license) of the larger group of individuals at a licensed facility, with unescorted access to radioactive material, who would ultimately be included under a Section 652 rulemaking. The goal of the Section 652 rulemaking is that requirements for access are coherent and use a graded approach for the wide range of licensees impacted by Section 652, including those who might import or export radioactive material, and that there be coordinated consideration of appropriate exceptions, and of both domestic and import/export transport. Thus, NRC considers the rulemaking to implement Section 652 to be the most appropriate and comprehensive approach for establishing requirements for security background checks for licensees, and for licensee employees, for unescorted access to radioactive material and for the broad range of transportation networks that licensees use. The Section 652 rulemaking will incorporate technical basis development and will also provide opportunity for stakeholder comment. Those individuals involved in “receiving” and “accompanying” radioactive materials, addressed in Section 656, would be covered by the comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking. In addition to the rulemaking to implement Section 652, there are various regulatory initiatives, in place or underway, at other Federal agencies who have authority in the area of transportation security, including the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)and the DOT (see further discussion below). NRC views the transport security requirements of DHS and/or DOT, that apply to the nation's hazardous material transportation infrastructure as a whole, as the most effective long-term solution to implementing certain provisions of Section 656 of the EPAct. NRC is aware of DHS initiatives, such as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC)3 program, that are being implemented and views such programs as an effective solution for security background checks on transportation workers. NRC will work with other Federal agencies with authority in the area of transport security during the Section 652 rulemaking to ensure a coordinated Federal approach and to consider other Federal agency programs that are developed and initiated. 3 TSA and USCG recently published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** on implementing the TWIC program for the maritime sector (see 71 FR 29395; May 22, 2006). The current schedule for the rulemaking to implement Section 652 calls for issuance of a proposed rule in the Fall of 2007 and a final rule in the Fall of 2008. While the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking is being conducted, the combination of NRC's system of Orders to a broad range of licensees setting conditions for access to radioactive material, as well as the system of DHS's and DOT's authorities and security regulations for transport personnel, provide adequate protection of the common defense and security, as they relate to persons accompanying and receiving material. These existing systems, described more fully below, include provisions for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability and provisions for fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining a criminal history record check from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NRC issued an extensive series of Orders during 2002-2005 that included background check requirements for unescorted access to radioactive material for certain facilities which it licenses. NRC has also issued Orders to reactor and materials licensees for shipment of radioactive material in quantities of concern (RAMQC). The purpose of these Orders has been to impose certain security measures to supplement existing regulations at 10 CFR part 20, and equivalent Agreement State regulations, for securing licensed materials from unauthorized access, with the intent of providing the NRC with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security is protected. The Orders note that conditions for unescorted access to risk-significant sources of radioactive material are governed by an appropriate need-to-know and by background checks as input to a determination concerning the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals who have access to the material. The Orders for unescorted access to radioactive material issued to date do not include fingerprinting for a criminal history record check. Currently, NRC is preparing additional Orders to pool-type irradiator licensees, manufacturing and distribution (M&D) licensees, and licensees making shipments of RAMQC, to require fingerprinting and criminal history checks for unescorted access to the risk-significant sources of radioactive material at their facilities. These Orders would cover all individuals with unescorted access to radioactive material at these facilities; persons “receiving” material at these licensee's facilities, pursuant to an import/export license, would be a subset of the persons covered by the Orders. As noted above, other Federal agencies have separate statutory authority in the area of transportation security. DHS is responsible for protecting the movement of international trade across U.S. borders and maximizing the security of the international supply chain. DHS includes the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Collectively, these agencies are responsible for protecting our nation's transportation systems and supervising the entry of goods into the United States. In carrying out these responsibilities, TSA has regulations for both civil aviation security (49 CFR parts 1540 to 1562) and maritime and land transportation security (49 CFR parts 1570 to 1572). Sections 1544.229 and 1544.230 of Title 49 require that each aircraft flight crew member, and each person with unescorted access authority and authority to perform checked baggage or cargo functions, undergo a Federal fingerprint-based criminal history record check. 49 CFR 1572.5 requires security threat assessments for individuals applying for, renewing, or transferring a commercial driver's license with a hazardous materials endorsement (radioactive material is a Class 7 hazardous material under DOT regulations). 49 CFR 1572.15 establishes procedures for security threat assessments. A TSA security threat assessment includes a fingerprint-based criminal history check, an intelligence-related background check, and a final disposition. Personnel involved in these functions can be disqualified if the checks indicate potential security risks. Similarly, the USCG has requirements for security at U.S. ports and background checks for maritime personnel (33 CFR part 110 and 46 CFR part 10). Recently, DHS announced that it would begin conducting name-based background checks on nearly 400,000 port workers in the U.S. as a initial measure as DHS expedites the comprehensive nationwide biometric-based TWIC program in 2006. C. Issue Regulations With Exceptions As discussed in Section I of this document, Section 656(b) of the EPAct mandates that the NRC issue regulations, within one year after enactment of the EPAct, identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to provisions for security background checks in Section 170I of the AEA, as amended. Consistent with Section 656(b) of the EPAct, the Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to except, from the security background check requirements of Section 170I of the AEA, as amended, licensees who have not received NRC Orders restricting unescorted access to radioactive materials based on background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history record checks. As noted above, Orders restricting access based on fingerprinting and criminal history record checks will be issued for pool-type irradiator licensees, M&D licensees, and licensees who make shipments of RAMQC. Under this proposed rule, those licensees who did not receive Orders for background checks that include fingerprinting would be excepted from the security background check requirements at Section 170I of the AEA. The rationale for the exceptions is that it is consistent with the system of Orders, issued to certain licensees, that the NRC has instituted for protection of the common defense and security. The materials possessed and transferred by the licensee groups who have received Orders have been deemed, during the process of issuance of the Orders, to be appropriate for immediately requiring certain security measures for unescorted access based on potential higher risk resulting from malevolent use of those materials. Those licensees excepted by this proposed amendment possess materials and use them in a manner that generally presents a lesser hazard for causing harm to the public health and safety and common defense and security, even if used for malevolent purposes. Generally, the basis for inclusion of materials within the system of Orders has been use of International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)Code of Conduct Category threshold quantity amounts which take account of the IAEA's categorization of sources found in IAEA Safety Guide No. RS-G-1.9, “Categorization of Radioactive Sources” (2005). The safety guide provides a risk-based ranking of radioactive sources in five categories in terms of their potential to cause severe deterministic effects for a range of scenarios that include both external exposure from an unshielded source and internal exposure following dispersal. Most licensees excepted under this proposed amendment are not expected to import or export radioactive material containing radionuclides in the higher risk categories of the IAEA Safety Guide 1.9. Using the framework of the existing system of Orders to codify exceptions allows for a consistent approach for radioactive materials which NRC considers appropriate, at this time, for exception from the requirements of Section 170I of the AEA as amended by the EPAct. As discussed in Section II.B of this document, the NRC intends to address background checks and fingerprinting for criminal history record checks for licensees in a more comprehensive manner under the rulemaking to implement Section 652 of the EPAct. One of the elements of that rulemaking, as mandated by Section 652(B)(i)(ll), will be determining requirements for access to quantities of radioactive material, subject to regulation by the Commission, that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or to the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks. Thus, the proposed requirements for exceptions in this Section 656 rulemaking will be revisited and may be superseded by the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking. At this time, in this Section 656 rulemaking, NRC is making a risk-informed decision to except licensees other than those with risk-significant sources (i.e., pool-type irradiators, M&D, and those making shipments of RAMQC, who received Orders) from the security background check requirements of Section 170I. In the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking, NRC will consider whether the exceptions for security background checks should be modified. Under this proposed amendment, licensees *not* excepted can use the provisions of their existing Orders (or new or amended Orders) to comply with Section 170I. As noted above, the Commission believes that this system of NRC Orders and the system of transport security of other Federal agencies provide adequate protection of the common defense and security while NRC is conducting the Section 652 rulemaking. Also, under the proposed amendment, if additional Orders for fingerprinting and criminal history checks for unescorted access to radioactive material are issued to licensees other than those noted above (i.e., pool-type irradiators, M&Ds, and those making shipments of RAMQC), licensees who receive any such new Orders would no longer be excepted from the security background check requirements of Section 170I. III. Effective Date of Implementation of Rule Section 656(c) of the EPAct provides that amendments to the AEA take effect upon issuance of regulations by the Commission under Section 656(b) of the EPAct. Consistent with this provision, the requirements for exceptions proposed in this amendment would become effective on the date of issuance of a final rule. Section 656(c) of the EPAct also provides that the security background check requirement is to become effective “* * * on a date established by the Commission.” As discussed above, the Commission is using its system of Orders to impose the security background check requirements. The Orders specify dates by which licensees must take specific actions. In addition, the Commission will issue more comprehensive security background check requirements in the future rulemaking to implement Section 652 and will establish an effective date for those requirements. With regard to manifest requirements, the Commission notes, as discussed above, that current NRC and DOT regulations require shipments of radioactive material to be accompanied by shipping papers (i.e., a manifest). IV. Section by Section Analysis of Substantive Changes A new Section 73.28 would be added to note that licensees are excepted from the security background check provisions of Section 170I of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, if they have not received Orders from the NRC containing requirements for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history checks as a prerequisite for unescorted access to radioactive materials. Licensees subject to Orders would not be excepted from the security background check provisions, and would use the requirements in their existing Orders to comply with Section 170I. V. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, NRC would indicate specific exceptions to the requirements of Section 656 of the EPAct. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. VI. Agreement State Compatibility Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,” which became effective on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into four compatibility categories (Compatibility Category A through D). In addition, NRC program elements also can be identified as having particular health and safety significance or as being reserved solely to NRC. The proposed amendment to part 73 would be a program element designated “NRC” based on implementation of the procedure in NRC's Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States.” The requirements in this proposed amendment are limited to providing exceptions to requirements in Section 170I of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, and are based on a system of Orders that were developed under NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security which are areas of exclusive NRC regulatory authority and cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States. Therefore, the requirements of this proposed amendment should not be adopted by the Agreement States. VII. Plain Language The Presidential memorandum entitled “Plain Language in Government Writing” (63 FR 31883; June 10, 1998), directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. NRC requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent using one of the methods detailed under the ADDRESSES heading of the preamble to this proposed rule. VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(ii) as a categorical exclusion. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0002. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. X. Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation because it relieves restrictions and does not impose any additional burdens on licensees. XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification A regulatory flexibility Act analysis is not required because the proposed amendment does not impose any additional burdens on licensees. XII. Backfit Analysis NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this proposed rule because this amendment would not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in the backfit rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73 Criminal penalties, Export, Hazardous materials transportation, Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the AEA, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR part 73. PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844, 2297f); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L. 99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169). 2. A new § 73.28 is added to read as follows: § 73.28 Security background checks for secure transfer of nuclear materials. Licensees are excepted from the security background check provisions in Section 170I of the AEA if they have not received Orders from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission containing requirements for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history record checks as a prerequisite for unescorted access to radioactive materials. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of August, 2006. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14397 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [REG-148576-05] RIN 1545-BF69 User Fees for Processing Installment Agreements AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed amendments to the regulations relating to user fees for installment agreements. The proposed amendments affect taxpayers who wish to pay their liabilities through installment agreements. This document also contains a notice of public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written and electronic comments must be received by *September 29, 2006* . Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2006, must be received by September 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148576-05), Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Alternatively, taxpayers may send submissions electronically directly to the IRS Internet site at *www.irs.gov/regs* , or via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-148576-05). The public hearing will be held in the auditorium of the New Carrollton Federal Building, 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning submissions and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Kelly Banks, 202-622-7180; concerning cost methodology, Eva Williams, 202-435- 5514; concerning the proposed regulations, William Beard, 202-622-3620 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA), which is codified at 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to prescribe regulations that establish charges for services provided by the agency (user fees). The charges must be fair and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President. Those policies are currently set forth in OMB Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (the OMB Circular). The OMB Circular encourages user fees for government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. Under the OMB Circular, an agency that seeks to impose a user fee for government-provided services must calculate its full cost of providing those services. In general, the amount of a user fee should recover the cost of providing the service, unless the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)grants an exception. Section 6159 authorizes the IRS to enter into an agreement with any taxpayer for the payment of tax in installments. Section 6331(k) generally prohibits the IRS from levying to collect taxes while an installment agreement in effect. A taxpayer that enters into an installment agreement therefore receives a special benefit of being allowed to pay an outstanding tax obligation over time. Before entering into an installment agreement, the IRS must examine the taxpayer's financial position to determine whether such an agreement is appropriate. Once the agreement is in effect, the IRS must process the payments and monitor compliance. Under sections 300.1 and 300.2, the IRS currently charges $43 for entering into an installment agreement and $24 for restructuring an installment agreement or reinstating an installment agreement that is in default. The amount of the fees has not changed since the fees were first implemented in 1995. As required by the OMB Circular, the IRS recently completed a review of the installment agreement program and determined that the full cost of an installment agreement is $105. The IRS also determined that the full cost of restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement is $45. The higher costs associated with installment agreements result from increases in labor and other costs since 1995 and refinements in the costing model to better account for the full cost of an installment agreement. In accordance with the OMB Circular, these proposed regulations increase the fees to bring them in line with actual costs. These proposed regulations propose to charge less than full cost for entering into an installment agreement in cases where the taxpayer chooses to pay by way of a direct debit from the taxpayer's bank account. The proposed fee for such an installment agreement is $52. The reduced fee would only apply to new installment agreements; the charge would still be $45 for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement, regardless of the method of payment. While the OMB Circular requires agencies to charge full cost, OMB has granted an exception to the full cost requirement of the OMB Circular for direct debit installment agreements. In addition, the IRS believes that charging less than full cost will encourage taxpayers to choose to pay by direct debit. The IRS has determined that the default rate on direct debit installment agreements is much lower than that for other agreements. These agreements are therefore beneficial both to taxpayers and to tax collection. Proposed Effective Date These regulations are proposed to be effective thirty days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the final regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This certification is based on the information that follows. The economic impact of these regulations on any small entity would result from the entity being required to pay a fee prescribed by these regulations in order to obtain a particular service. The dollar amount of the fee is not, however, substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entity subject to the fee. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the auditorium of the New Carrollton Federal Building, 5000 Ellin Rd., Lanham, MD. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the main entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments and an outline of the comments to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight
(8)copies) by Monday, September 25, 2006. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is William Beard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy and Summonses Division. Lists of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 300—USER FEES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701. **Par. 2.** Section 300.1(b) is amended by adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 300.1 Installment agreement fee.
(b)* * * Effective January 1, 2007, the fee for entering into an installment agreement is $105, except that the fee is $52 when the taxpayer pays by way of a direct debit from the taxpayer's bank account. **Par. 3.** Section 300.2(b) is amended by adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 300.2 Restructuring or reinstatement of installment agreement fee.
(b)* * * Effective January 1, 2007, the fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement is $45. Mark. E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-14421 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-130] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1024.7, Palm Beach, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing the operation of the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1024.7, Palm Beach, Florida. The proposed rule would require the drawbridge to open twice an hour. The proposed schedule is based on requests from vessel operators along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The proposed schedule would require the bridge to open on the quarter and three quarter-hour and would meet the reasonable needs of navigation while not impacting vehicular traffic. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander
(dpb)maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of docket number [CGD07-06-130] and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-06-130], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose In 2005, the Coast Guard changed the regulations on most of the bridges in Palm Beach County to facilitate increased vehicular traffic while meeting the reasonable needs of navigation. Recently waterway users have requested that the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) bridge regulation be changed from opening on the hour and half-hour to opening on the quarter and three-quarter hour in order to improve vessel transit sequencing on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway through Palm Beach County. This proposed schedule will improve transit times for vessels while not impairing vehicular traffic. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulation of the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge that crosses the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1024.7, in Palm Beach, FL. The existing regulation that governs the operation of the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) drawbridge is published in 33 CFR 117.261(w). The proposed rule would improve staggered bridge openings and allow vessels traveling at five knots to significantly reduce wait times to pass through the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Drawbridge. The proposed schedule would have the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge opening on the quarter and three-quarter hour. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Because the proposed rule would provide timed openings for vehicular traffic and continue to provide twice an hour sequenced openings for vessel traffic, the rule should have little economic impact. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Broward County bridges. The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because proposed rule would provide timed openings for vehicular traffic and continue to provide twice an hour sequenced openings for vessel traffic. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be 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. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In Sec. 117.261 revise paragraph
(w)to read as follows: § 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to Key Largo.
(w)Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) bridge, mile 1024.7, at Palm Beach. The draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour. Dated: July 5, 2006. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-14432 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0474; FRL-8214-8] RIN 2060-AN70 Amendments to Regulations for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: In a rule published January 18, 2001, EPA promulgated several new standards for heavy-duty highway diesel engines and vehicles beginning in model year 2007. In this rulemaking we are proposing to make some technical amendments to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, remove old provisions, and to revise some provisions regarding deterioration factors to be identical to those for nonroad diesel engines certified under the Tier 4 rule, published June 29, 2004. DATES: Written comments must be received by September 29, 2006. Request for a public hearing must be received by September 14, 2006. If we receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a new deadline for public comments. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0474, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail* : *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room: B108 Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. If your Docket requires the submission of multiple copies, please insert the following here: • Please include a total of copies. • If the NPRM involves an ICR that will be submitted to OMB for review and approval under 5 CFR 1320.11, then you must also include the following language pursuant to 1320.11(a): “In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.” *• Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108 Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0474. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. 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 material, 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 the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air Docket, Public Reading Room, Room B108, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at
(202)566-1742 and by facsimile at
(202)566-1741. You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuimdie Guerra, Assessment and Standards Division, e-mail *guerra.zuimdie@epa.gov,* voice-mail
(734)214-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Background In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , we are making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on the rule, or on one or more distinct actions in the rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule, or the portions of the rule receiving adverse comment. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. B. Regulated Entities This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify heavy-duty highway diesel engines in the United States. Category NAICS code a Examples of potentially affected entities Industry 336112 Engine and Truck Manufacturers. Industry 33612 Heavy-duty Engine and Truck Manufacturers. a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Send Comments? See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for information about accessing these documents. The direct final rule also includes detailed instructions for sending comments to EPA. II. Summary of Rule This proposed rule would make slight revisions to the regulations to implement the following minor amendments: • Removing several sections that describe regulatory requirements for model years before 1996, and before 2001 for Selective Enforcement Auditing. Discontinuing publication of these sections does not affect the manufacturers' responsibility to continue meeting standards for any vehicles or engines that may still be operating within the regulatory useful life. • Referring provisions for certification fees in part 86 subpart J to part 85 subpart Y, since they have been completely replaced in part 85 starting with the 2004 model year. • Requiring engine manufacturers to name an agent for service in the United States in § 86.007-21, § 86.416-80, § 86.437-78, and § 86.1844-01. • Revising deterioration factor provisions in § 86.004-28(c)(4)(iii)(B). • Correcting a typographical error in the equation in § 86.007-11(a)(2)(v). • Adding paragraph
(j)to § 86.007-35 to ensure that the recently added provision that allows labeling flexibility to heavy-duty engines extends to 2007 and later model years. • Revising § 86.1213-94 to reference the fuel specifications in part 86, subpart N. • Republishing § 86.1360(c), which was removed in the migration of test procedures to 40 CFR part 1065, because there is a reference to it in § 86.1370-2007 and in § 86.1380-2004. • Citing the incorporation by reference of several technical standards related to on-board diagnostics in § 86.1806-01. • Correcting reference to LDVs, LDTs and heavy-duty vehicles in CFR § 86.1806-04(j) and § 86.1806-05(j). • Correcting a mistake made in the 2004 Heavy-Duty rule that accidentally omitted paragraphs
(c)and
(d)from § 86.1840-01. EPA does not expect that the technical amendments will have any adverse cost impact to the manufacturers. There are no testing costs associated with the technical amendments proposed. There is no environmental impact associated with this regulatory action because this proposed rule does not propose to change the heavy-duty highway diesel engine emission standards that manufactures have to meet; it simply make some technical amendments to the rule. For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** . This proposal incorporates by reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the direct final rule. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as it merely makes a slight revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. There are no new costs associated with this rule. A Final Regulatory Support Document was prepared in connection with the original regulations for heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles beginning in model year 2007 (HD 2007 rule), which was signed December 21, 2000 and published January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5002) and we have no reason to believe that our analysis in the original rulemaking is inadequate. The relevant analysis is available in the docket for the December 21, 2000 rulemaking (66 FR 5002) and at the following Internet address: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm.* The original action (66 FR 5002) was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order 12866. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not include any new collection requirements, as it merely makes a slight revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. There are no new paperwork requirements associated with this rule. The information collection requirements
(ICR)for the original heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles rulemaking were approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned OMB control number 2060-0104, EPA ICR number 0783.47. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)566-1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule merely makes a slight revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule merely makes a revision to the regulations to provide an additional option for selecting the deterioration factor for highway heavy duty diesel engines. The requirements of UMRA therefore do not apply to this action. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of UMRA policy. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule merely makes a revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. This proposed rule merely makes a revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. It merely makes a revision to the regulations to correct typographical errors, revise references, restore sections, conciliate provisions with our nonroad engine regulations and remove old provisions for highway heavy-duty diesel engines. Thus, we have determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of NTTAA policy. J. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this action comes from section 202 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521). This action is a notice of proposed rulemaking subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d). See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 24, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-14428 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0098; FRL-8215-2] RIN 2008-AA00 Federal Implementation Plan for the Billings/Laurel, MT, Sulfur Dioxide Area; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for a proposed rule published July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39259). In the July 12, 2006 document, EPA proposed to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)containing emission limits and compliance determining methods for several sources located in Billings and Laurel, Montana. At the request of several commenters, EPA is extending the comment period through November 3, 2006. DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received on or before November 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0098, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and ostrand.laurie@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the section titled, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. • *Hand Delivery:* Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0098. 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” systems, 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the July 12, 2006 document (71 FR 39259). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Ostrand, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466,
(303)312-6437, *ostrand.laurie@epa.gov* . Dated: August 21, 2006. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E6-14452 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0399; FRL-8214-4] Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of Allen County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On May 30, 2006, the State of Indiana, through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), submitted, in final: A request to redesignate the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Allen County, Indiana, to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and a request for EPA approval of an Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision containing a 14-year maintenance plan for Allen County. Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the Allen County, Indiana ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2003-2005 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. EPA is also proposing to approve Indiana's request to redesignate the area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and the State's maintenance plan SIP revision. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that Allen County, Indiana has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act. EPA is also proposing to approve, for purposes of transportation conformity, the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2020 that are contained in the 14-year 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Allen County. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0399, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6052, *rosenthal.steven@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: August 16, 2006. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-14425 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 45 CFR Part 706 RIN 3035-AA02 Employee Responsibilities and Conduct Residual Cross-References Regulation of the United States Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is proposing to repeal its old employee conduct regulations, which have been superseded by the executive branch Standards of Ethical Conduct, financial disclosure and financial interests regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics
(OGE)In place of its old regulations, the Commission is proposing to add a section of residual cross-references to those branchwide regulations as well as its proposed new supplemental standards regulations and certain executive branchwide conduct rules promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before September 29, 2006 to be considered in the formulation of final rules. ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to: United States Commission on Civil Rights, Office of the Staff Director, Attn: Emma Monroig, Solicitor and Designated Agency Ethics Official, Esq., 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 621, Washington, DC 20425. E-mail comments should be addressed to *emonroig@usccr.gov* . Please cite 45 CFR part 706 in all correspondence related to these proposed revisions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emma Monroig, Esq., Solicitor and Designated Agency Ethics Official, Office of the Staff Director, United States Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 621, Washington, DC 20425,
(202)376-7796; Facsimile:
(202)376-1163. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1992, OGE issued a final rule setting forth uniform executive branch Standards of Ethical Conduct (generally effective on February 3, 1993) and an interim final rule on financial disclosure, and in 1996 issued a final rule on financial interests for executive branch departments and agencies of the Federal Government and their employees. Those three executive branchwide regulations, as corrected and amended, are codified in 5 CFR parts 2634, 2635 and 2640. Together those regulations have superseded the old Commission regulations, based on prior OPM standards, on employee responsibilities and conduct at 45 CFR part 706 which the Commission is proposing to remove its superseded regulations, and add in place thereof, a new section containing residual cross-references to the provisions at 5 CFR parts 2634, 2635 and 2640, as well as to the proposed new Commission regulation supplementing the executive branchwide standards that is being separately published today elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** for codification in a new chapter LXVIII of 5 CFR, to consist of part 7801. In addition, the Commission is proposing to include in its residual section a reference to the separate, specific executive branchwide provisions regarding gambling, safeguarding the examination process and conduct prejudicial to the Government which are set forth in 5 CFR part 735, as amended and reissued by OPM in 1992 and 2006. Those specific branchwide restrictions are not covered by in OGE's Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation; furthermore, they are self-executing and do not require any department or agency republication. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 Because this proposed rule relates to Commission personnel it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 12988. Regulatory Flexibility Act It has been determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this rule as proposed would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would primarily affect Commission employees. Paperwork Reduction Act It has been determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this proposed rulemaking document, because it does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Congressional Review Act The Commission has determined that this rulemaking is not a rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804, and, thus, does not require review by Congress. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 706 Conflict of interests, Government employees. Dated: August 24, 2006. Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director, United States Commission on Civil Rights. Dated: August 24, 2006. Emma Monroig, Solicitor and Designated Agency Ethics Official, United States Commission on Civil Rights. For the reasons set forth in this preamble, the Commission is proposing to revise 45 CFR part 706 to read as follows: PART 706—EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDUCT Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7301, 42 U.S.C. 1975b(d). § 766.1 Cross-references to employee ethical conduct standards, financial disclosure and financial interest regulations and other conduct rules. Employees of the United States Commission on Civil Rights are subject to the executive branch standards of ethical conduct contained in 5 CFR part 2635, the Commission regulations at 5 CFR part 7801 (as proposed in a separate proposed rule document published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ) which supplement the executive branchwide standards, the executive branch financial disclosure regulations contained in 5 CFR part 2634, and the executive branch financial interests regulations contained in 5 CFR part 2640, as well as the executive branch employee responsibilities and conduct regulations contained in 5 CFR part 735. [FR Doc. 06-7233 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 28
Traces to 28 documents
45 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 73
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 594
  • 49 CFR 172
  • 49 CFR 172.202(a)
  • 49 CFR 172.203(d)
  • 10 CFR 71
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 49 CFR 1572.5
  • 49 CFR 1572.15
  • 33 CFR 110
  • 46 CFR 10
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 68 Stat. 930
  • 94 Stat. 780
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • 106 Stat. 2951
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2232
  • Pub. L. 96-295
  • 94 Stat. 789
  • Pub. L. 99-399
  • 100 Stat. 876
  • 26 CFR 300
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 102-587
  • 106 Stat. 5039
  • 5 CFR 1320.11
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 1065
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 86
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 45 CFR 706
+ 5 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
C.F.R.§ 71.5
C.F.R.§ 51.22
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 2073
U.S.C.§ 5841
U.S.C.§ 3504
U.S.C.§ 10155
U.S.C.§ 2169
Cite10 CFR 73
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-58
Stat.119 Stat. 594
Cites 73 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.