2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This final rule amends guidance to consular offices for the waiver of personal appearance of applicants for nonimmigrant visas contained at 22 CFR 41.102, to conform to the requirements of Section 222(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 5301 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). The final rule replaces the interim rule published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2003 and reflects legislation enacted subsequent to that rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is amending 12 CFR part 313, Procedures for Corporate Debt Collection, to include delinquent criminal restitution debt within the debt covered by part 313.

This order revokes two public land orders insofar as they affect 118.60 acres of public lands withdrawn from surface entry, mining, and mineral leasing and reserved for use by the Department of the Air Force for military purposes at Fort Yukon. The lands are no longer needed for the purpose for which they were withdrawn.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458, December 17, 2004), advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns about privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect the important legal rights of all Americans. Processes currently exist to redress errors and ameliorate false positives associated with the use of watch list data for aviation and other security screening purposes. Efforts to address, enhance, conform, and potentially streamline these procedures are ongoing throughout the Federal Government, and the Board is assisting relevant executive branch departments and agencies in those efforts. The Board seeks any comments, suggestions or other information from members of the public who have knowledge on this subject. Comments may be forwarded via the Board's Web site at https://www.PrivacyBoard.gov. While there is no specific deadline for the submission, the Board is interested in receiving public comments soon. The Board is unable to respond to individual comments and cannot assist individual redress requests. Information gathered will be used solely to assist the Board in understanding the effects of policy and program operations on Americans' civil liberties.

In May 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department) announced its National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the Congestion Initiative), a bold and comprehensive national program to reduce congestion on the Nation's roads, rails, runways, and waterways. One major component of the Congestion Initiative is the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA). By separate notice in the Federal Register, the Department has solicited metropolitan areas to enter into UPAs to demonstrate strategies with a combined track record of effectiveness in reducing traffic congestion. See Applications for Urban Partnership Agreements as Part of Congestion Initiative, (71 FR 71231) dated December 8, 2006. To support this national strategy, the Department intends to award cooperative agreements to one or more successful jurisdictions to operationally test, demonstrate, and evaluate region- wide innovative technology based congestion mitigation strategies. The purpose of this notice is to solicit proposals by metropolitan areas to the Intelligent Transportation Systems Operational Testing to Mitigate Congestion (ITS-OTMC) Program for funding the implementation of innovative congestion-reducing technologies. The Department may provide successful jurisdictions up to $100 million over three years through the ITS-OTMC Program in support of innovative technology-based strategies to reduce congestion. This notice is one of three solicitations being issued by the Department in connection with the Congestion Initiative. See below ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coordination with Other Congestion Initiative Solicitations.''

FMCSA announces that it has published an opportunity to apply for FY 2007 CMV Operator Safety Training Grant Opportunity funding on the grants.gov Web site (https://www.grants.gov). Section 4134 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) establishes the CMV Operator Safety Training Grant Opportunity program. The legislation requires grant recipients to train drivers and future drivers in the safe operation of CMVs, as defined in Section 31301 of Title 49, United States Code. Priority will be given to regional or multi-state educational or nonprofit associations serving economically distressed regions of the United States. Eligible awardees also can include State governments, local governments, and accredited post-secondary educational institutions (public or private) such as colleges, universities, vocational-technical schools and truck driver training schools. To apply for funding, applicants must be registered with grants.gov. Registration with grants.gov may take two to five days before the system will allow you to apply for grants using the grants.gov Web site (https://www.grants.gov/applicants/getregistered.jsp). Submit application in accordance with the instructions provided. Applications for grant funding must be submitted electronically to the FMCSA through the grants.gov Web site. The CFDA number for MCSAP is 20.235.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the Barge ``MARMACK 12'', Official Number 1024657, while it is being used for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project. The zone will extend 500 feet in all directions from the barge, and will be in effect at all times during the duration of this rule. This zone is only in effect while the barge is on the navigable waters of the United States, in the Tacoma Narrows. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard the public from possible collision with the barge and the deck sections it is carrying, and from hazards associated with navigating in the vicinity of the barge during construction operations. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives.

Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of a certain petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce the availability of the draft Report for one of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Products for public comment. This draft Report addresses the following CCSP Topic: Product 4.5 Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in the United States After consideration of comments received on the draft Report, the final Report along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site.

On December 16, 2005, the EPA promulgated emission guidelines (EG) for existing ``other'' solid waste incineration (OSWI) units. Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require States with existing OSWI units subject to the EG to submit plans to the EPA that implement and enforce the emission guidelines. Indian Tribes may submit, but are not required to submit, Tribal plans to implement and enforce the EG in Indian country. State plans are due from States with OSWI units subject to the EG on December 16, 2006. If a State or Tribe with existing OSWI units does not submit an approvable plan, sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require the EPA to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan for OSWI units located in that State or Tribal area within 2 years after promulgation of the EG (December 16, 2007). This action proposes a Federal plan to implement EG for OSWI units located in States and Indian country without effective State or Tribal plans. On the effective date of an approved State or Tribal plan, the Federal plan would no longer apply to OSWI units covered by the State or Tribal plan.

NMFS announces Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops to be held in January, February, and March of 2007. Additional workshops will be held throughout 2007 and will be scheduled at a later date. The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. As of December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, Atlantic shark dealers may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held throughout 2007, at no charge to the participant. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Vessel owners and operators whose permits expire in January, February, or March 2007 must attend one of these free workshops in order to renew their permit.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces the extension of temporary restrictions consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan's (ALWTRP) implementing regulations. These restrictions will continue to apply to lobster trap and anchored gillnet fishermen in an area totaling approximately 1,809 nm\2\ (6,204 km\2\), east of Portland, Maine, for an additional 15 days. The purpose of this action is to provide immediate protection to an aggregation of Northern right whales (right whales).

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/ Draft Environmental Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for the Wetland and Creek Restoration at Big Lagoon. This Draft EIS/EIR evaluates alternatives for ecological restoration and public access upgrades in the Big Lagoon area at Muir Beach, part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The National Park Service (NPS) and County of Marin (County) have jointly prepared the Draft EIS/EIR in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes multiple alternatives for ecological restoration, public access improvements, bridge replacement, and fill disposal locations. The alternatives are based upon park values, effective restoration strategies and public access approaches, NPS and County policy, and applicable law. Background: Redwood Creek is a coastal stream located in Marin County, California. The project's area of potential effect encompasses the lower reach of Redwood Creek extending from where the creek passes underneath Highway 1, to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean approximately 2,800 feet downstream. Within this reach, the creek and its floodplain have been extensively modified by realignment of the creek; construction of Pacific Way and the Pacific Way bridge, a levee road that borders the creek, and the NPS parking lot and picnic area; and placement of gabions and other artificial fill in the creek channel and on its floodplain. Combined, these modifications to the creek and its floodplain have altered channel hydraulics and reduced its sediment transport capacity, resulting in extreme sediment deposition in the creek channel and reduction in channel capacity. Under current conditions, the creek floods during even moderate rain events, inundating Pacific Way, stranding residents, and hindering access to the public beach. In the winter, residents along Pacific Way often cannot access Highway 1, the sole connecting road, because floodwaters commonly prevent passage by vehicles and pedestrians. This lack of access severely limits emergency services. In addition to the flooding, current conditions in lower Redwood Creek present a risk of channel avulsion, in which the creek could abandon its existing channel and establish a new channel in the floodplain. Avulsion of the channel to the adjacent meadow, which is several feet lower in elevation than the channel bed, could impair passage of adult and juvenile coho salmon and steelhead through the lower creek and could have undetermined consequences to infrastructure. GGNRA has determined that restoration activities at the project site are necessary to address these issues, GGNRA and the County have been involved in an active planning process to identify alternative restoration and public access alternatives to address these identified issues. Proposal and Alternatives: As noted, this Draft EIS/EIR describes and analyzes four alternatives. Alternative 1, the ``baseline'' No Action Alternative, would maintain the existing management direction. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (action alternatives) contain varying mixes of three main components: (1) Ecological restoration; (2) public access upgrades, including a reconfiguration of the existing parking lot; and (3) replacement of the Pacific Way Bridge. Each of the action alternatives incorporates the following elements: Interim flood reduction measures; Relocation of the Redwood Creek channel; Construction of new drainage swale and upper pasture modification; Backbeach lagoon enhancement, channel realignment, and dune restoration; Removal of levee road; Invasive species removal; Removal of tavern remnants; Removal of utility lines; Removal of concrete channels and revetment; Modification to Green Gulch field 7. The main differences between the action alternatives is the approach by which ecological restoration would occur. Alternative 3 would combine riparian restoration components with restoration of open water and wetland habitants. Two open-water lagoons would be created, one on either side of the new channel. The two small lagoons would be backwaters, connected to the creek near the downstream end of each lagoon. The banks of the lagoons would have varied slopes to favor a variety of habitats. The lagoons would maintain a minimum water depth of 3-4 feet year-round. Alternative 4 would create a periodically brackish open-water habitat similar to historic (1853) conditions, modified to reflect existing constraints of Pacific Way and private property. This would involve creating a large lagoon with fringing wetlands extending to the edge of the valley immediately landward of Muir Beach. The lagoon would be excavated with gentle side slopes to encourage colonization of emergent wetland vegetation. Like the small lagoons under Alternative 3, the large lagoon would maintain a minimum water depth of 3-4 feet year-round. Alternative 2 (Creek Restoration) (agency-preferred alternative) would involve relocating approximately 2,000 linear feet of Redwood Creek to the topographically lowest portion of the valley, while maintaining a habitat mix similar to current conditions. In addition to relocating Redwood Creek, this alternative includes the following two core elements: ParkingA parking lot with capacity for 175 cars located parallel to Pacific Way. The lot would include a new turn-off from Pacific Way and would include 310 linear feet of stacking room for cars between the entrance and the first parking stall. Other parking lot options considered in the Draft EIS/EIR include: maintaining the current capacity of 175 Cars at Beach; Alternative B1 (50 Cars at Beach); Alternative B2 (145 Cars at Beach); Alternative B3 (175 Cars at Beachsimilar shape as existing lot); Alternative B5 (200 Cars at Beach); and Alternative C (118 Cars at Alder Grove plus 14 Handicapped Spaces and Drop-Off at Beach). Bridge Replacement150-foot-long bridge with raised road. This bridge would span the new 35-foot-wide channel and areas of riparian habitat and flood plain on either side of the channel. Two-foot-wide piers, placed at approximately 40-foot intervals, would be used to support the span. Other bridge alternatives considered in the Draft EIS/EIR include: Alternative BR1 (50-foot-long bridge with a raised road); Alternative BR2 (50-foot-long bridge with a low road); Alternative BR3 (150-foot-long bridge with raised road); and Alternative BR4 (266- to 300-foot-long bridge with highest road). Scoping and Public Involvement: Between December 2002 and December 2004, 17 public meetings were held, as well as a variety of site visits and meetings with representatives of various agencies. On December 3, 2002, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register, beginning the formal scoping process for the project. The NOI identified goals for the project, and public scoping meetings were held on October 22, October 29, and November 2, 2002, with a site visit for the public held on November 9, 2002, to solicit input on the project and its potential impacts. Following these meetings, a Big Lagoon Working Group consisting of interested individuals, agencies, and organizations was formed to help develop project alternatives. The working group convened regularly in meetings that were open to the public. In addition, two alternatives workshops were held for the public on September 30 and October 4, 2003. The results of those workshops, as well as a more detailed summary of the scoping process, are presented in the Alternatives Public Workshops Report (NPS 2004). Finally, Marin County circulated a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on April 27, 2004, soliciting comments on the specific issues to be included in the scope of CEQA environmental review. All of these activities informed the alternatives formulation process. Comments: Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR will be sent to affected Federal, Tribal, State and local government agencies, to interested parties, and those requesting copies. Paper and digital copies (compact disc) of the document will also be available at park headquarters and at local libraries. The complete document will be posted on the GGNRA's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/goga) and on NPS's Planning, Environment and Public Comment Web site (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/goga). All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 75 days from the date of EPA's notice of filing published in the Federal Register (as soon as this occurs, the confirmed close of the comment period will be posted on the Web sites noted above, and listed in all notification announcements sent from GGNRA). Written comments will be accepted online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/goga (click on the project title and follow instructions), or by sending a letter addressed as follows: Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123 (Attn: Muir Beach Creek and Wetland Restoration). Two public meetings will be scheduled to hear comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, approximately 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Please visit the project Web site (noted above) to learn more about the project, planning process, and the confirmed dates and time for the public meetings. Questions regarding this project may also be directed at any time to Steve Ortega (415) 561-4841 or via e-mail at steve ortega@nps.gov. All comments are maintained in the administrative record and will be available for public review at GGNRA headquarters. Please note our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Decision Process: Following the analysis of all comments received concerning the Draft EIS/EIR, at this time it is anticipated that the Final EIS/EIR would be completed in spring 2007. The availability of the final documents will be announced in the Federal Register, and also publicized via local and regional press media, direct mailings, and Web site postings. Not sooner than thirty days after the distribution of the Final EIS/EIR, a Record of Decision may be executed (at this time it is anticipated a recommended decision would be developed in summer 2007). As a delegated EIS the approving official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently, the official responsible for implementing the approved wetland and restoration plan will be the General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.