June 21, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for Middle Fork Avalanche Hazard Reduction for Glacier National Park, Montana. This effort will result in agreed upon methods to reduce the avalanche hazard to trains and personnel that travel through the John Stevens Canyon between mile post 180 and 192 on State Highway 2, adjacent to the boundary of Glacier National Park. The Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railroad runs along the southern boundary of Glacier National Park on Flathead National Forest lands. These lands are under a Right-of-Way. The avalanche paths that threaten the trains and personnel are within Glacier National Park. Alternatives to be considered include (1) No-Action, (2) Snow Sheds in all Chutes and an Avalanche Monitoring Program (but no triggering or stability testing), (3) Combination of Snow Sheds and Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering, (4) No New Sheds and Ongoing Avalanche Monitoring Stability Testing and Triggering and (5) Temporary Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering Until Snow Sheds are Constructed. The No Action alternative will consider the affects of maintaining the existing sheds avalanche monitoring and continued use of the existing avalanche sensor wires. Alternative 2 will consider the effects of constructing five new sheds and adding onto six existing sheds. Avalanche monitoring would be ongoing, but no stability testing or triggering would occur after sheds are constructed. Alternative 3 will consider a combination of snow sheds and monitoring, stability testing and triggering of avalanches when snow conditions indicate. Alternative 4 will consider only using avalanche monitoring, stability testing and triggering. Alternative 5 will consider the temporary use of avalanche stability testing and triggering until snow sheds are constructed. Avalanche monitoring would continue to occur. Major issues include avalanche stability testing and triggering within proposed wilderness in Glacier National Park, impacts to threatened and endangered species known to use the area, winter recreational use in the area, protection of resources from accidental freight spills caused by avalanches, and safety for the public and personnel in the area. Amtrak travels daily through the area. A scoping letter has been prepared. Copies may be obtained from Superintendent, PO Box 128, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana 59936 or by calling 406-888-7901. Information may also be obtained from https://parkplanning.nps.gov/.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces its intent to prepare a General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, located in Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties of Virginia. The park consists of 3,000 acres that comprise significant portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, a decisive battle in the Civil War, and Belle Grove Plantation, an antebellum manor house listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the enabling legislation for the park, Congress established a Federal Advisory Commission to advise in the preparation of a GMP, and key partner organizations who may continue to own and manage properties within the park. Prepared by planners at the park and in the NPS Northeast Region, with assistance from advisors and consultants, the GMP/EIS will propose a long-term approach to managing Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared the Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in June 2000. The Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service in Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Site. Potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are assessed for each alternative. When approved, the plan will serve as a template for all future decisions relating to recreation and land use within the 81-mile Merced River corridor on both the main stem and South Fork. The primary goals of the plan are to ensure the free-flowing condition of the river, along with providing long-term protection and enhancement of what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls the river's ``Outstandingly Remarkable Values'' the unique qualities that make the river worthy of special protection. Purpose and Need for Federal Action: The Merced River Plan is the official document for guiding future management of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). In August 2000, the Merced River Plan/FEIS was approved (the Record of Decision was subsequently revised in November 2000). Shortly after the Record of Decision was signed, the plan became the subject of a lengthy litigation process. In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit directed the NPS to prepare a ``new or revised'' comprehensive management plan that addresses two deficiencies identified in the Court's October 27, 2003 opinion (Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 803 9th Cir. 2003). The Court ruled that: (1) The revised plan must implement a user capacity program that presents specific measurable limits on use, and (2) the revised plan must reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The programmatic guidance identified herein would revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the park's 1980 General Management Plan. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: In the proposed Revised Merced River Plan, Alternative 2 (agency preferred alternative) would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, with the addition of implementing the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) user capacity component, along with interim limits on some park facilities; the El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn to a quarter-mile on either side of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other alternatives: Alternative 1No Action; Alternative 3Segment Limits with VERP Program; and Alternative 4Management Zone Limits with VERP Program. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ``environmentally preferable'' alternative. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline from which to compare the three action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the Merced River Planas detailed in the 2000 Record of Decision (and subsequent revision)would continue to guide management in the river corridor. Application of its management elements (boundaries, classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning, River Protection Overlay, Section 7 determination process) would continue as presented in the plan. However, a program of standards and indicators under the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework would not be in place and the park would continue managing user capacity under existing programs and policies outlined in the February 2004 User Capacity Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This program includes continuation of the current wilderness management program and existing Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. Alternative 1 would implement the narrow boundary for the El Portal segment as described in the selected alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (100-year floodplain or River Protection Overlay [whichever is greater] along with adjacent wetlands). Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements from the No Action alternative, in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with a maximum daily limit for each river segment and an annual visitation limit of 5.32 million; the El Portal segment would have the maximum quarter-mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain the elements of No Action in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with limits for each river management zone and an annual visitation limit of 3.27 million; the El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Planning Background: The draft and final Revised Merced River Plan/ SEIS were prepared pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Environmental Policy Act. On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register. At this time, a 30-day scoping period was initiated. In response to public comment, this scoping period was extended to September 10, 2004. During scoping, a series of public meetings were held. A letter from the Superintendent was sent to over 8,000 interested members of the public on the park's Planning Mailing list, encouraging them to submit ideas, issues, and concerns relating to the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the scoping period and associated public meetings were publicized via regional media, on the park's Web site, through emailed notices on the park's electronic newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin boards. Over 100 letters, faxes, and emails were received and considered during the development of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written scoping comments, as well as oral testimony from public hearings, can be viewed on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/ revision). A scoping report is also available. On January 14, 2005, a Notice of Availability for the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register. The public review period continued through March 22, 2005. Approximately 1,500 printed copies and 600 CD-ROM versions of the draft SEIS were mailed to interested individuals and organizations. In February and March 2005, a series of public meetings was held in locations throughout California to discuss the draft document. During the public comment period, eleven public meetings were hosted throughout California between February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005. Meetings were held at El Portal, San Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst, Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Mariposa, Groveland and in Yosemite Valley. An additional Open House was hosted in Yosemite Valley prior to the end of the public comment period. Each public meeting was set up to allow for (1) informal conversations between park staff (including consultants) and the public, (2) a presentation by park staff on the plan's proposed elements, and (3) a formal public hearing attended by a court reporter. The public was encouraged to submit written comments on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via letter, email or fax. Attendees could also leave written comments on comment forms provided at the meetings. The NPS contacted local, regional, and national media outlets, issued press releases that were faxed and emailed to media outlets and phone calls that were made to newspaper and news reporters to generate interest in the plan. In addition, paid newspaper advertisements were placed in the Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star (Oakhurst, CA), the Union Democrat (Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star and the Mammoth Times. Paid public notices were placed in the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee. Numerous stories about the plan and the schedule of public meetings appeared in local and regional newspapers. In addition, several project fact sheets were posted on the park's Web site; fliers were posted on community bulletin boards, post offices, and local businesses in communities where public meetings were hosted; and press release announcements were included in the park's Daily Report throughout the entire comment period. The park specifically initiated dialogue with several interested local parties. These included park employees and their families, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary concessioner) employees and residents, and park partner staff such as the Yosemite Institute, the Yosemite Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In addition, there was extensive outreach within the local communities of El Portal and Wawona through participation at local Mariposa County Planning Advisory Committee meetings. The park also conducted a ``walking tour'' in El Portal to discuss the process for identifying Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment of the Merced River and the rationale for the various El Portal boundary alternatives. The NPS engaged gateway communities throughout the process through personal communications and meetings between the park staff and gateway community members. As a result of the public review period, the NPS received comments from 114 individuals, 25 organizations, 6 government agencies, 2 tribes and 1 university, including public testimony given by individuals at public meetings. Over 900 individual comments were received. The analysis of these comments generated about 400 concerns statements, which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning process. The public comments received and transcripts from the public hearings are available for viewing on the park Web site (https:// www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/revision). The Public Comment Analysis and Response Report is included as Appendix F in the Final SEIS. Distribution of Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS: A mail-back postcard was sent to all individuals and organizations on the park's general mailing list asking recipients if they would like to receive a printed copy or CD-ROM version (or both) of the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. This announcement also indicated that the plan would be available for viewing on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/ yose/planning). Copies of the final plan will also be available at the National Park Service headquarters in Yosemite Valley, the Yosemite Valley Research Library, the National Park Service warehouse building in El Portal, and at a number local and regional libraries (listed in Chapter VI of the Final SEIS). Decision Process: Depending upon the response from other agencies, interested organizations, and the general public, at this time it is anticipated that a Record of Decision would be approved not sooner than at least 30 days have elapsed after publication by the EPA of their filing notice for the Final Revised MRP/SEIS. Notice of the approved decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional media. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved Revised Merced River Plan is the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park.

NMFS announces that it has approved the request of the State of Rhode Island to transfer 50,186 lb (22,764 kg) of commercial summer flounder quota to the States of Maine, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in accordance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Addendum XV to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In addition, NMFS is revising commercial summer flounder quota numbers for the States of North Carolina and Maryland from those published in a previous Addendum XV transfer. By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved.

On June 18, 2004, EPA received an application from the State of Washington requesting authorization to administer a Program in accordance with section 402 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Included in the application was a letter signed June 10, 2004, by the Governor of Washington, stating that the State's Lead-Based Paint Abatement Program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program under TSCA section 402. Also, included was a letter from the Attorney General of Washington, certifying that the laws and regulations of the State provided adequate legal authority to administer and enforce TSCA section 402. Washington certifies that its program meets the requirements for approval of a State program under section 404 of TSCA and that Washington has the legal authority and ability to implement the appropriate elements necessary to enforce the program. Therefore, pursuant to section 404, the program is deemed authorized as of the date of submission. Today's notice announces the authorization of the State of Washington Lead- Based Paint Activities Program to apply in the State of Washington effective June 10, 2004.

Among other changes to patent and trademark fees, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), splits the patent application filing fee into a separate filing fee, search fee and examination fee. The Consolidated Appropriations Act also provides that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) may refund part or all of the excess claim fee and the search fee in certain situations. This notice proposes changes to the rules of practice to implement the provisions for refunding the search fee for applicants who file a written declaration of express abandonment before an examination has been made of the application.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China and Taiwan, and the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

This final rule adopts with changes the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2003 (68 FR 67995 67998). This final rule amends the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) by providing policy and procedures on how NASA will acquire services to support management activities and administrative functions when performing those services requires the contractor to have access to sensitive information submitted by other contractors. NASA's increased use of contractors to support management activities and administrative functions, coupled with implementing Agency-wide electronic information systems, requires establishing consistent procedures for protecting sensitive information from unauthorized use or disclosure.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 5- year review of the Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis), Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae), beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata), deltoid spurge (Chamaesysce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea), fringed campion (Silene polypetala), Small's milkpea (Galactia smallii), and tiny polygala (Polygala smallii) under section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The purpose of reviews conducted under this section of the Act is to ensure that the classification of species as threatened or endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) is accurate. The 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review.

The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require past performance evaluation of certain orders, and to ensure that subcontracting management is addressed during evaluation of a contractor's past performance.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning economic price adjustment. A request for public comments was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 24773 on May 11, 2005. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97- 24-09, which applies to Burkhart Grob Model G 103 C Twin III SL sailplanes. AD 97-24-09 currently requires repetitively inspecting the propeller bearing and upper pulley wheel for increased play and, if increased play is found, modifying the propeller bearing and pulley wheel. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent loss of the sailplane propeller caused by increased play in the current design propeller bearing and upper pulley wheel. This could result in loss of control of the sailplane.

The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company (GE) CT64-820-4 turboprop engines with stage 1 turbine disk and shaft, part number (P/N) 6004T47P03 or 4921T10P02 installed. This AD requires removing from service these stage 1 turbine disk and shafts at reduced compliance times. This AD results from the discovery by the manufacturer of low-cycle-fatigue (LCF) cracks found in stage 1 turbine disk and shafts, P/Ns 6004T47P03 and 4921T10P02. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the stage 1 turbine disk and shaft, resulting in damage to the airplane.

Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Modified Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified elevations will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), as amended; and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Burley, Idaho Field Office of the Twin Falls District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), located in Cassia County, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)/resource management plan amendment (DEIS/ Amendment) to consider whether or not to grant a right-of-way and amend the 1985 Cassia Resource Management Plan (Cassia RMP).

Funds are available to support grants for secondary analysis of data available from the National Survey on Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW). NSCAW provides longitudinal data from multiple informants on the functioning, well-being, and services provided to a national probability sample of children and families who come into contact with the child welfare system through an investigation of child maltreatment. Data are available through licensing agreements from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect at Cornell University (https://www.ndacan.cornell.edu). Applicants' planned analyses should be designed to advance the state of knowledge in child maltreatment, child welfare services, child and family services, and/or child development for high risk children.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the need for possible revisions of the United States Standards for Grades of Dewberries and Blackberries. At a 2003 meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result AMS has identified the color requirement for possible revision. Additionally, AMS is seeking comments regarding any other revisions that may be necessary to better serve the industry.

The FTA, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ) and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), and supported by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives that provide improved commuter and airport access connecting Lower Manhattan with the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Jamaica Station in Queens and with JFK International Airport. The project sponsors, MTA, PANYNJ, LMDC and NYCEDC, are undertaking a New Starts Alternatives Analysis (AA) concurrently with the EIS. The FTA is the lead federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and the regulations implementing NEPA set forth in 23 CFR part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. As co-sponsors of the proposed project, MTA, PANYNJ, LMDC and NYCEDC will ensure that the EIS and the environmental review process will also satisfy the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The EIS will evaluate one or more Build Alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative. The scoping process for the EIS will include an analysis and screening of all feasible rail and non-rail based transportation alternatives that will improve travel in the corridor between the Lower Manhattan, Jamaica and JFK Airport travel hubs. The project sponsors may designate a ``locally preferred alternative'' either prior to the preparation of the Draft EIS if a clear choice emerges from the screening analysis, or following public circulation of the Draft EIS. Scoping will be accomplished through meetings and correspondence with interested persons, organizations, and Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. FTA, MTA, PANYNJ, and LMDC, supported by NYCEDC, seek public and interagency input on the scope of the EIS for this project including the alternatives to be considered and the environmental and community impacts to be evaluated.