March 9, 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.527 for intercollegiate crew races, marine events to be held April 8, 2006, on the waters of the St. Mary's River at St. Mary's City, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to control vessel traffic due to the confined nature of the waterway and expected vessel congestion during the event. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for the safety of event participants, spectators and vessels transiting the event area.

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming open teleconference meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (the Council) and is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to listen as the Council conducts their meeting by teleconference. This notice also describes the functions of the Council. Agenda: The Council will discuss their work activities, timelines and development of the Annual Report to Congress. Date and Time: March 21, 2006; 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern time. Location: The Department of Education, Room 1W112, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202.

EPA is approving revisions to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on September 11, 2003. The revisions include modifications to Alabama's open burning rules found at Alabama Administrative Code (AAC) Chapter 335-3-3-.01. These revisions are part of Alabama's strategy to meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Open burning creates smoke that contains fine particles (PM2.5) and precursors to ozone. ADEM has found that elevated levels of PM2.5 mirror the months when ozone levels are highest (May- September). These rules are intended to help control levels of PM2.5 and ozone precursors that contribute to high ozone and PM2.5 levels. Today's action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In its September 11, 2003, submittal, ADEM also proposed SIP revisions to include changes to AAC Chapter 335-3-4, concerning opacity. EPA is not acting on that part of the revision at this time.

The EPA has treated wet and dry corn milling facilities differently under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) depending on whether the facilities in question produce ethanol fuel or ethanol fit for human consumption. In particular, EPA has applied different major source size cut offs to these facilities under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program based on the product these facilities produce. Additionally, when the list of source categories relative to the definition of ``major emitting facility'' was first promulgated on August 7, 1980, this same list was promulgated in the same final regulatory package for determining from which source categories fugitive emissions were to be counted in determining whether a source is a major source. As a result, although two of the regulatory changes being proposed today address the major source threshold for PSD sources, the remaining proposed regulatory changes address when fugitive emissions are counted for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source under the PSD, nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), or title V programs. In today's action, we are requesting public comment on two options under consideration by EPA with respect to corn milling facilities. Under Option 1, EPA would treat wet and dry corn milling facilities in the same manner under the PSD, nonattainment NSR, and title V programs regardless of whether they produce ethanol fuel or ethanol fit for human consumption. If EPA adopts Option 1, EPA would redefine chemical process plants under the definition of ``major emitting facility'' to exclude wet and dry corn milling facilities which produce ethanol fuel. Under Option 2, EPA would retain the current distinction between wet and dry corn milling facilities under these regulatory programs based on whether they produce ethanol fuel or ethanol fit for human consumption. The EPA's preferred option is Option 1. We are requesting comment on these two options and on the revisions that we propose to make if we adopt Option 1.

The FAA is superseding three existing airworthiness directives (ADs) that apply to certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. The existing ADs currently require repetitive inspections of the body station (BS) 2598 bulkhead, and corrective action if necessary. This new AD adds a requirement to modify the bulkhead, including a one-time inspection and corrective action if necessary, which terminates certain repetitive inspections. This AD also requires a post-modification inspection of the modified area. This AD results from new reports of cracking in all three areas that require inspection in accordance with the existing ADs. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the BS 2598 bulkhead structure, which could result in inability of the structure to carry horizontal stabilizer flight loads, and loss of controllability of the airplane.

The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracks in the overlapping (upper) skin, upper fastener row of the lap joints of the fuselage skin in sections 41, 42, and 46; and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. This AD results from fatigue tests and an analysis that identified areas of the fuselage lap joints where fatigue cracks can occur. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the overlapping (upper) skin, upper fastener row of the lap joints of the fuselage skin in sections 41, 42, and 46, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

This document responds, in part, to petitions for reconsideration of the December 2004 final rule amending our head restraints standard. The amended standard contains new requirements applicable to head restraints voluntarily installed in rear outboard designated seating positions. Because of the time constraints faced by vehicle manufacturers in certifying voluntarily installed rear outboard head restraints to the new requirements, we are bifurcating our response. This document addresses those issues we feel are most time sensitive. In particular, we are responding to those petitions asking the agency to delay the application of the new requirements to voluntarily installed rear outboard head restraints. This final rule delays the date on which the manufacturers must comply with the requirements applicable to head restraints voluntarily installed in rear outboard designated seating positions from September 1, 2008 until September 1, 2010. The remaining petitions for reconsideration will be addressed in a separate notice.