March 21, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This final rule establishes regulations for seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means related to taking of fish and shellfish for subsistence uses during the 2005-06 regulatory year. The rulemaking is necessary because Subpart D is subject to an annual public review cycle. This rulemaking replaces the fish and shellfish taking regulations included in the ``Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C and Subpart D2004 Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife Regulations,'' which expire on March 31, 2005. This rule also amends the Customary and Traditional Use Determinations of the Federal Subsistence Board (Section .24 of Subpart C).

The National Tree-marking Paint Committee will meet in Jackson, Wyoming on May 24-26, 2005. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss activities related to improvements in, concerns about, and the handling and use of tree-marking paint by personnel of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management.

In compliance with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning regulations, Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1610.5-5, this provides notice that the BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office proposes to prepare an amendment to the South Coast RMP with an associated environmental assessment (EA) or, if needed, an environmental impact statement (EIS) for BLM-administered public lands in the Border Mountains portion of the San Diego County Management Area. The plan amendment proposes to establish management guidelines for lands acquired since 1994 and designate a route of travel network. This planning activity encompasses approximately 60,000 acres of federally managed public land, including the Otay Mountain Wilderness, the Hauser Mountain Wilderness Study Area, the Kuchamaa Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and the McAlmond Canyon/Hauser Mountain Wildlife Management Area. The BLM invites the public to participate in this planning effort. Citizens are requested to help identify issues or concerns and to provide input on BLM's proposed planning criteria as described below under Supplementary Information.

The General Services Administration (GSA) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to assess the potential impacts of the construction of a New Border Station Facility on Interstate 91 in Derby Line, Vermont (the ``Proposed Action''). At the request of the US Customs and Border Protection, the GSA is proposing to construct a new border station facility on Interstate Highway 91 at Derby Line, Vermont. The existing facilities are undersized and obsolete, and consequently incapable of providing the level of security now required. The Proposed Action has been defined and will likely include: (a) identification of land requirements, including acquisition of adjoining land if appropriate; (b) demolition of all existing government structures at the border station; (c) construction of a main administration building and ancillary support buildings; and (d) relocation a portion of the I-91 roadway and interchange and consequent potential alterations to secondary roads. The location of the new border station facility is set by the requirement that the facility be located at the intersection of the interstate highway and the U. S. Border. Therefore, alternatives to be studied will identify alternative locations for the components of the border station including the main administration and ancillary support buildings, the roadway and interchange. A No Action alternative will also be studied that will evaluate the consequences of not constructing the new border station facility. This alternative is included to provide a basis for comparison to the action alternatives described above as required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1002.14(d)). GSA invites individuals, organizations and agencies to submit comments concerning the scope of the EIS. The public scoping period starts with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue for forty five (45) days from the date of this notice. GSA will consider all comments received or postmarked by that date in defining the scope of the EIS. GSA expects to issue a Draft EIS in summer 2005 at which time its availability will be announced in the Federal Register and local media. A public comment period will commence upon publication of the Notice of Availability. The GSA will consider and respond to comments received on the Draft EIS in preparing the Final EIS.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has made a recommendation to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C.2286a(a)(5) regarding the issuance of a requirement that nuclear material packaging meet technically justified criteria for safe storage and handling outside of engineered contamination barriers.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifying and evaluating three alternatives for a Fire Management Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), in northern California. Potential impacts and mitigating measures are described for each alternative. The alternative selected after this conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process will serve as a blueprint for fire management actions for the GGNRA over the next 10-15 years. This Fire Management Plan (FMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) identifies and analyzes two action alternatives, and a No Action alternative, to update and revise the 1993 Fire Management Plan for the GGNRA, Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point National Historic Site; the latter two sites are administered by GGNRA. The 1993 FMP focuses primarily on natural resource management issues and needs to be revised to more fully address cultural resource concerns. In addition, the revisions will bring the FMP into conformance with current federal wildland fire policies and standards, address lands added to GGNRA since 1993, and plan for fire hazard reduction in the extensive wildland urban interface on the park's boundary. This FMP DEIS evaluates fire management options for approximately 15,000 acres of GGNRA's nearly 75,000 legislated acres. The planning area for the FMP contains lands in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo countiesthree of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay area. Several of the smaller national park sites are within the City of San Francisco itself; remaining areas are in southern and southwestern Marin County, northwestern San Mateo County and the Phleger Estate, in southeastern San Mateo County near the Town of Woodside. The FMP planning area does not included the following lands: (1) The northern lands of GGNRA, comprising 18,000 acres north of the Bolinas-Fairfax Road in western Marin County, which are managed by the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) under an agreement between the two park units. Fire management responsibilities for these northern lands are addressed in the PRNS FMP (approved October 29, 2004). (2) Lands within the jurisdictional boundary of GGNRA that are not directly managed by the National Park Service. This includes the San Francisco Watershed, managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (with overlays of NPS easements) and the interior portion of the Presidio of San Francisco (referred to as Area B), which is managed by the Presidio Trust, a federal corporation. The coastal portion of the Presidio (Area A), managed by the GGNRA, is included in the planning area. In addition to lands currently under the management of the NPS, the FMP planning area includes those lands within the legislative boundary that may pass to NPS management in the near future. These areas, all in San Mateo County, include Cattle Hill, Pedro Point, Picardo Ranch, and northern coastal bluffs along Highway 1. GGNRA was created in 1972 to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning. The legislation charged the Secretary of the Interior to ``utilize the resources [of GGNRA] in a manner which will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management'' and to ``preserve the recreation area, as far as possible, in its natural setting, and protect it from development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of the area.''[16 U.S.C. 460bb]. GGNRA protects a remarkably diverse cluster of coastal ecosystems, landscapes, and historical sites, from the rural hills of Tomales Bay and the San Mateo watershed to the scenic headlands and military outposts of the Golden Gate and the urban shorelines of San Francisco. This diversity centers on the singular geographic feature of Golden Gate, portal between the United States and the Pacific Basin, and includes a Civil War fort, an ancient redwood forest, the former Alcatraz federal penitentiary, and most of the last remaining open spaces and forests on the ocean coast of the metropolitan Bay Area. The parklands include beaches, coastal headlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, Douglas fir and coast redwood forests, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine terraces, and riparian corridors. GGNRA contains the highest concentration of historic buildings (over 1,250 buildings and five national historic landmark districts) in any single unit of the National Park System. In the past, wildland fire occurred naturally in the park as an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and vegetation structure within the natural range of variability. Past logging and fire suppression activities have lead to increased fuel loads and changes in vegetation community structure. This has increased the risk of large, high-intensity wildland fire within the park, threatening the park's developed zones, its natural and cultural resources, and residential areas close to the park boundary in the wildland urban interface zone. Alternatives. Though the three alternatives vary in the strategies used to achieve fire management goals, there are several common elements of the FMP that are the same under each alternative. The fire management approach for Muir Woods National Monument would be the same, including the use of prescribed fire as well as mechanical fuel reduction. Some actions, including continued implementation of the Wildland Urban Interface Initiative, maintenance of the park's fire roads and trails, vegetation clearing around park buildings, suppression of unplanned ignitions, public information and education, construction of a new fire cache for equipment storage and continuation of the current fire monitoring program, would be carried out under all three alternatives. The three alternatives meet the park's goals and objectives to an acceptably large degree, and are within constraints imposed by regulations and policies, by risks associated with the wildland urban interface, and by technical and funding limitations. The three alternatives differ in combinations of prescribed burning and mechanical treatments in the park interior versus parklands that share a boundary with development. Each alternative has an upper limit set on the number of acres that could be treated by either prescribed burning or mechanically treated in one year (see Table 1). Alternative A (No Action)This alternative would update the 1993 FMP only to reflect changes to the park's boundary (e.g., addition of new lands since 1993) and current national fire management policies. The focus of the 1993 FMP program is on vegetation management through the application of prescribed fire to perpetuate fire-dependent natural systems. In recent practice, many fire management actions have been mechanical fuel reduction projects (e.g., mowing, cutting to remove non-native shrubs and trees, and selective thinning in forested stands) funded through the Wildland-Urban Interface Program. This alternative would rely on the continued implementation of the 1993 FMP supplemented by mechanical fuel reduction along with prescribed fire, and suppression of all wildfires. Current research projects would continue and would focus on the role of fire to enhance natural resources and the effects of fire on key natural resources to determine the effectiveness of various fuel treatments. Alternative BHazard Reduction and Restricted Fire Use for Research and Resource Enhancement. This alternative would emphasize use of mechanical methods to reduce fire hazards and fuel loads in areas with the highest risks. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would increase the number of acres mechanically treated each year, with a focus on the reduction of high fuel loads in the wildland urban interface area. Limited use of prescribed fire could occur for research purposes within the park interior. Research projects would examine the role of fire to enhance natural resources and the effects of fire on key natural resources to determine the effectiveness of various fuel treatments. Natural and cultural resource goals and objectives would be integrated into the design and implementation of fuel reduction projects. Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) (Environmentally Preferred) Hazard Reduction and Resource Enhancement through Multiple Treatments. This alternative would allow for the greatest number of acres to be treated on an annual basis to achieve fire management and resource objectives through the use of a broad range of fire management strategies. Mechanical treatment and prescribed burning would be used throughout the park as a means to reduce fuel loading and achieve resource enhancement goals. Mechanical treatments, complemented by prescribed fire, would be employed to assist with restoration and maintenance of the park's natural and cultural resources. An expanded research program would examine the role of fire and mechanical treatments in enhancing natural resources, reducing fuel loading, and specific impacts of fire on key natural resources; research would also be used to adaptively guide the fire management program and help to maximize the benefits to park resources. As in Alternative B, natural and cultural resource goals and objectives would be integrated into the design and implementation of fuel reduction projects.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 853, as codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the record of decision for the Arrowhead- Weston Transmission Line River Crossing/Right-Of-Way Request. On February 23, the Director, Midwest Region, approved the record of decision for the crossing/right-of-way (ROW) request. Specifically, the NPS has selected the preferred alternative (alternative 1: Long-span option) as described in the final environmental impact statement (EIS). Under the selected action, the NPS will issue a 120-foot wide ROW permit to Minnesota Power, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and American Transmission Company (the Applicants) to allow for construction and operation of alternative 1: Long-span option, which is a double-circuited, alternating current, 161 and 345-kilovolt transmission line crossing of the Namekagon River, a segment of the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway). The selected action and four other alternatives were analyzed in the draft and final EIS. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed. Among the alternatives the NPS considered, the selected action best provides a combination of limiting impacts in the crossing area and providing enhancements throughout the Riverway. The NPS believes the preferred alternative allows for a transmission line crossing of the Namekagon River while minimizing and compensating for impacts to the Riverway. The river crossing will have no impact on the free-flowing characteristics of the Namekagon River and is consistent with the park's general management plan which calls for new crossings to be consolidated in existing crossings. The preferred will allow supporting structures to be set back from line-of-sight of the river, and will require less ground, vegetation, and ongoing maintenance disturbances. The compensatory mitigation package will eliminate up to eight distribution line crossings, provide noise abatement measures on a nearby stretch of the Riverway, and provide funds for studies and activities to enhance scenery and recreation along the Riverway. The record of decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, the rationale for why the selected action is the environmentally preferred alternative, a finding on impairment of park resources and values, and an overview of public involvement in the decisionmaking process.

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Rolla, MO.

Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker national permits are canceled without prejudice.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), with the support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education are soliciting the submission of instruments or items that measure the quality of healthcare experienced by people with mobility impairment. The instruments or items will be considered for inclusion in a CAHPS[reg] survey of people with mobility impairment (PWMI). Items or survey instruments may be submitted from researchers, health plans, other health care providers, disability organizations, stakeholders, vendors and other interested parties. This initiative is in response to suggestions from a significant number of stakeholders to develop a CAHPS[reg] tool that measures the quality of care as perceived by adults with disabilities, and to provide performance data to health plans and others that are actionable for quality improvement and access. Our response to stakeholder requests will ultimately provide users with a flexible survey tool to assess the quality of healthcare services for adults with disabilities across multiple settings. The focus of this initial project will be only on people with mobility impairments, and subsequent survey projects may focus on other aspects of disability. Many questions in the existing CAHPS instruments address concerns of people with mobility impairments, including access, communication, courtesy and respect, and shared decision-making. We are particularly interested in identifying and considering new content areas, new response categories and scales for existing questions, and revised wording or question order to make existing questions disability- appropriate.

The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes. That AD currently requires one-time inspections for cracking in certain upper deck floor beams and follow-on actions. This new AD expands the existing inspection area and requires inspecting fastener holes in certain areas of airplanes modified previously, and taking corrective actions if necessary. This action also defines new sources for instructions for repairs and post-modification/repair inspections. This AD is prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams. We are issuing this AD to find and fix cracking in certain upper deck floor beams, which could extend and sever floor beams adjacent to the body frame and result in rapid depressurization and loss of controllability of the airplane.

The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, and -300 series airplanes; and Model 747SR and 747SP series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the upper deck floor beams located at certain body stations, and repair, if necessary. This new AD lowers the threshold for the existing inspections and requires new repetitive inspections of previously repaired areas, and repair if necessary. This AD is prompted by the results of an additional detailed analysis that indicate fatigue cracks can initiate sooner than has previously been observed. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper deck floor beams at certain body stations due to fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid decompression and reduced controllability of the airplane.

The FAA is adopting a new Airworthiness Directive (AD) to supersede AD 99-06-02, which currently applies to certain Fairchild Aircraft (Fairchild) SA226 and SA227 series airplanes. AD 99-06-02 requires you to repetitively inspect the wing spar center web cutout on both wings for cracks between Wing Station (WS) 8 and WS 17.5. That AD also requires you to repair any area found cracked before further flight. The repair will eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections on that particular wing spar. Since that AD became effective, we have determined that we inadvertently omitted certain Model SA227-CC/DC airplane serial numbers from the applicability. This AD retains the actions of AD 99-06-02 and adds additional Model SA227- CC/DC airplanes to the Applicability section. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the wing spar center web cutout area, which could result in structural failure of the wing spar. This could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for GE CF6-80A1/A3 and CF6-80C2A series turbofan engines. That AD currently requires completing one of the following actions before further flight: Performing a directional pilot valve (DPV) pressure check for leakage, and, if necessary, replacing the DPV assembly with a serviceable assembly, or Replacing the DPV assembly with a serviceable assembly, or Deactivating the thrust reverser, and revising the FAA- approved airplane flight manual (AFM) to require applying performance penalties for certain takeoff conditions if a thrust reverser is deactivated. That AD also requires revising the Emergency Procedures Section of the FAA-approved AFM to include a flight crew operational procedure for use in the event of any indication of an in-flight thrust reverser deployment. This AD specifies the same requirements for leak checks, but increases the interval between required checks. This AD also removes the requirement to revise the Limitations Section and the Emergency Procedures Section of the applicable AFM when deactivating one or both thrust reversers. This AD results from Airbus Industrie, the airplane manufacturer, revising the master minimum equipment list (MMEL) to include procedures for operating the airplane with the thrust reversers deactivated, and revising the AFM to include procedures for emergency operation if the thrust reversers deploy while in flight. This AD also results from the engine manufacturer recommending extending the interval between inspecting or replacing the DPV. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent thrust reverser deployment, which, if it occurs in-flight, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of a certain bracket that attaches the flight deck instrument panel to the airplane structure; replacement of the bracket with a new, improved bracket; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD is prompted by reports of cracking of a certain bracket that attaches the flight deck instrument panel to the airplane structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a cracked bracket. Failure of this bracket, combined with failure of the horizontal beam, could result in collapse of the left part of the flight deck instrument panel, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.