2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This notice sets forth the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board. This notice also describes the function of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required under the Sunshine in Government Act.

These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Limited Partnership (GALP) Model G150 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with use of a hydrophobic coating, rather than windshield wipers, as the means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield during precipitation conditions, as required by the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Peppers. The revision will allow sweet peppers to be marketed as mixed varieties and/or colors when marked with more than one variety or color on the container. The decay tolerance will be revised to include only those sweet peppers which are affected by decay on the wall and/or calyx. Decay affecting only stems will no longer fall under the restricted decay tolerance. It will be scored against the five percent serious damage tolerance for U.S. Fancy and U.S. No 1 grades and against the five percent restrictive tolerance for the U.S. No. 2 grade. The requirement to designate peppers which fail to meet the color requirements of their respective grades or respective (color specified) grade will be made optional. The ``Unclassified'' section will be deleted. The purpose for this revision is to update and revise the standards to accurately represent today's marketing practices.

This action revises Jet Routes J-8, J-18, J-19, J-58, J-76, J- 104 and J-244; and Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-60, V-190, V-263 and V-611 over the Las Vegas, NM, area. The FAA is taking this action due to the renaming of the ``Las Vegas VOR tactical air navigation (VORTAC)'' to the ``Fort Union VORTAC.'' The name of the Las Vegas, NM, VORTAC is being changed to enhance the management of aircraft operations over the Las Vegas, NM, area by eliminating the possibility of confusion with the Las Vegas, NV, VORTAC. The FAA is also making editorial changes to update the format of the legal descriptions for VOR Federal Airways V-190, V-263 and V-611.

Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, will hold two public hearings for the purpose of receiving comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (DPEIS/DMP) prepared on the proposed designation of the Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve in Texas. The DPEIS/DMP addresses research, monitoring, education and resource protection needs for the proposed reserve. The Estuarine Reserves Division will hold two public hearings, the first hearing at 10:30 a.m. on November 9th, Hearing Room E1.012 in the Capital Extension, Texas State Capital, 1400 Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701. A second hearing will be held at 4 p.m. on November 10, Saltwater Pavilion, 810 Seabreeze Drive, Rockport Beach Park, Rockport, TX 78383. The views of interested persons and organizations on the adequacy of the DPEIS/DMP are solicited, and may be expressed orally and/or in written statements. Presentations will be scheduled on a first-come, first-heard basis, and may be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes. The time allotment may be extended before the hearing when the number of speakers can be determined. All comments received at the hearing will be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Management Plan. The comment period for the DPEIS/DMP will end on November 23rd, 2005. All written comments received by this deadline will be considered in the preparation of the FEIS.

This action withdraws the proposed rule published Friday, October 31, 2003 (68 FR 6204862049). NASA will issue internal guidance to automate the collection and transfer of Research and Development (R&D) abstracts to an appropriate central repository where they will be available for use by government agencies and other users.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review 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 order on cased pencils from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review 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).

NMFS announces that it has approved the request of the State of New Jersey to transfer 36,333 lb (16,481 kg) of commercial summer flounder quota to the states of Maine, Connecticut, and New York, 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). By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved.

Notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement pursuant to sections 104, 106(a), 107 and 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606(a), 9607 and 9622, as amended (``CERCLA''), and under the authority of the Attorney General of the United States to compromise and settle claims of the United States concerning the Denver Radium Superfund site, Operable Unit 2 (``OU 2''). The proposed settlement is embodied in an Administrative Order on Consent (``AOC'') between the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and the Atlas Metal & Iron Corp. and Atlas Umatilla, LLC (``Settling Respondents,'' (collectively the ``Parties'')). This AOC provides for the performance of operation and maintenance activities by the Settling Respondents, the recording of an environmental covenant by Atlas Umatilla, LLC, and the reimbursement of certain response costs incurred by the United States at or in connection with OU 2. In exchange, the United States will provide covenants to the Settling Respondents under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607, will provide contribution protection for the Settling Respondents, and will waive any lien(s) it may have on the property located at 1100 Umatilla, Denver, Colorado (``Property'') under sections 107(l) and 107(r) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(l) and 9607(r). EPA has notified the State of Colorado (the ``State'') of this action pursuant to section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(a). The Property was listed on the NPL as part of OU 2, on September 8, 1983. EPA issued a ROD for OU 2 on September 29, 1987. The ROD called for excavation and off-site disposal of the radium-contaminated soils. During implementation of the ROD, EPA determined that some radium- contaminated soils could be left in place pursuant to supplemental standards and also discovered the lead contaminated soils. It was determined that excavation, treatment, and off-Site disposal were the best response actions for the lead contaminated soils. These changes to the ROD were documented in an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) dated September 17, 1993. Operation and maintenance activities still need to be performed at the Property, including implementation of institutional controls, to limit or control disturbances of any contaminated soils left on-Site under supplemental standards, to restrict use of ground water, and to monitor and maintain acceptable radon levels in buildings on the Property.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin to accept requests, from December 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006, for grants to supplement State and Tribal Response Programs. This notice provides guidance on eligibility for funding, use of funding, grant mechanisms and process for awarding funding, the allocation system for distribution of funding, and terms and reporting under these grants. EPA has consulted with state and tribal officials in developing this guidance. The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements and a public record. Another goal is to provide funding for other activities that increase the number of response actions conducted or overseen by a state or tribal response program. This funding is not intended to supplant current state or tribal funding for their response programs. Instead, it is to supplement their funding to increase their response capacity. For fiscal year 2006, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.5 million per state or tribe. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out these grants.

The Environmental Protection Agency will recognize municipalities and industries for outstanding and innovative technological achievements in wastewater treatment and pollution abatement programs at the annual Clean Water Act Recognition Awards ceremony during the Water Environment Federation's Technical Exposition and Conference (WEFTEC) in Washington, DC. An inscribed plaque will be presented to first and second place national winners for projects and programs in operations and maintenance at wastewater treatment facilities, biosolids management, pretreatment and storm water management. This action also announces the 2005 national awards winners.

Because EPA received adverse comments, we are withdrawing the direct final rule on the supplemental authorization of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2005, published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51270). We stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by September 29, 2005, we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We received adverse comment on the direct final rule. We will address those comments in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51317). As stated in the parallel proposal, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, is revising the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste, issued on January 20, 1998 (63 FR 3629) and revised previously on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 82985) and July 13, 2001 (66 FR 38646). On September 6, 2002 (67 FR 56989) and June 30, 2004 (69 FR 39446) the Department decided to send the waste from Battelle Columbus Laboratory West Jefferson site to the Hanford Site. The Department has now decided to transfer approximately 37 cubic meters of transuranic (TRU) waste generated as part of the cleanup of the Battelle Columbus Laboratory West Jefferson site near Columbus, Ohio, to the Savannah River Site (SRS) and/or the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) site near Andrews, Texas for either characterization or storage until the waste can be disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Both SRS and WCS offer viable storage options for the Battelle TRU waste. Pursuant to this decision, DOE may ship all of the Battelle TRU waste to either SRS or WCS, or it may choose to ship a portion of the waste to SRS and the remainder of the waste to WCS. The Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste (approximately 25 cubic meters, including about 3 cubic meters of mixed TRU waste [containing both radioactive and hazardous components]) would be stored at SRS or WCS for up to five years. The CH-TRU waste (approximately 12 cubic meters, including about 2 cubic meters of mixed TRU waste) would be characterized at SRS under the existing characterization program and shipped to WIPP for disposal or stored at WCS for up to five years. If DOE's request for modification of the WIPP hazardous waste facility permit currently pending before the New Mexico Environment Department is granted without substantial change, DOE may be able to ship the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for disposal, without additional characterization. If additional characterization is necessary prior to disposal at WIPP, the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped from SRS or WCS to another DOE site for characterization. DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) in accordance with DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether the proposed off-site shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste for storage at SRS or WCS prior to disposal at WIPP is a substantial change to the proposal or whether there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns such that a supplement to the WM PEIS or a new EIS would be needed. Based on the SA, DOE has determined that a supplement to the WM PEIS or a new EIS is not needed.

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 forged stainless steel flanges from India 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).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on September 26, 2005, terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.

The Delaware River Basin Commission (``Commission'' or ``DRBC'') will hold a public hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments to the Commission's Basin RegulationsWater Supply Charges and Comprehensive Plan concerning certificates of entitlement. No changes in the substance or administration of the rule are proposed. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the language of the rule to conform to the Commission's past decisions and current practices in order to provide better notice to users as to how the Commission is implementing its entitlements program and to avoid future controversy. Background. The Delaware River Basin Compact (``Compact''), the 1961 statute that created the DRBC and defined its powers, authorizes the Commission to charge for the use of facilities that it may own or operate and for products and services rendered thereby. Compact, Sec. 3.7. Congress limited this authority by providing that the Commission cannot charge for water withdrawals or diversions that could lawfully have been made without charge as of the effective date of the Compact. Id., Sec. 15.1(b). By Resolution No. 64-16A in 1964 the Commission authorized a water charging program. It provided for the revenues generated by the program to be used for repayment of the nonfederal share of the investment cost of water supply storage facilities associated with federal projects within the Basin. In anticipation of Commission investment in storage at the Beltzville Lake and Blue Marsh Reservoir projects in Pennsylvania, the Commission by Resolution No. 1971-4 defined, among other things, the means by which it would establish water charging rates. Consistent with Section 15.1(b) of the Compact, Resolution No. 1971-4 provided that charges would be applicable only to the amount of water withdrawn in excess of the amount taken or legally entitled to be taken by an entity during the preceding year. By Resolution No. 74-6, the Commission instituted a system of water supply charges for surface water withdrawals within the Basin. That resolution provided for the issuance of certificates of entitlement to then-current water users, establishing the amount of water each could lawfully take from the surface waters of the Basin without charge, consistent with Section 15.1(b) of the Compact. The resolution provided that a certificate of entitlement was not transferable, except under limited circumstances set forth in enumerated exceptions. Because entitlements treat users that commenced water withdrawals before the enactment of the Compact more favorably than users who commenced water withdrawals later, even though all users benefit equally from the facilities financed by water supply charges, courts and the Commission have emphasized the need to eliminate entitlements over time. Both the Commission and the courts have construed narrowly the exceptions to the rule that entitlements are not transferable, and the Commission has in its decisions consistently held that changes in ownership or control would extinguish a certificate. However, the language of the regulations has never explicitly defined ``changes in ownership or control.'' As a consequence, in the decisions that the Commission has been asked to make in its adjudicatory capacity and that the courts have subsequently been asked to decide, the matter of what constitutes a change of ownership or control has been controversial. In 1994, in response to a ruling by the Third Circuit in Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. DRBC, 824 F. Supp. 500 (D.Del. 1993), aff'd., No. 93-7475 (3d Cir. June 24, 1994) (per curiam), the Commission adopted Resolution No. 94-20. That resolution incorporated an explicit ``ownership and/or control'' test and eliminated the merger exception included in the Commission's regulations at the time. In addition, the exception for corporate reorganizations embodied in Section 5.2.1.F.2 of the Water Charging Regulations was amended to apply only when the reorganization ``does not affect ownership and/or control.'' In spite of the 1994 amendment, some members of the Basin community have continued to interpret the language of the rule in a manner contrary to the Commission's consistent interpretation. To avoid further controversy, the Commission proposes a more thorough revision of the language, intended to remove any ambiguity. Key Provisions. In addition to defining ``change in ownership and/ or control'' with much greater specificity, the proposed revisions also make clear that a merger at any tier in a corporate organization will extinguish a certificate held by a subsidiary in the same way as if the merger had occurred at the subsidiary level. Although the Commission has interpreted its rule this way in the past, the rules have never been explicit on this point. The proposed amendments preserve and clarify the corporate reorganization exception contained in the current regulation. The Commission traditionally has not extinguished an entitlement in the case of an internal reorganization, and it does not propose a change in this practice. The proposed amendments also preserve the existing exception for agricultural uses. Historically, agriculture has been treated differently than other uses. For purposes other than agriculture, an entitlement is issued to a user and would not be transferable to a different user, even if the use remained the same. In the case of agriculture, however, an entitlement effectively runs with the land, as long as the land remains in agriculture. The proposed amendments provide that an entitlement can be reissued to the successor of a holder of a certificate issued for agricultural water use, provided that the successor demonstrates that the water will continue to be used for agricultural irrigation purposes.