March 13, 2008 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model 369A, OH-6A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS helicopters. The proposed AD would require repetitive tap inspections of each tail rotor (T/R) blade abrasion strip. This proposal is prompted by an incident in which an abrasion strip separated from a T/R blade. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent disbonding and subsequent separation of an abrasion strip from a T/R blade, which could result in vibration, loss of the T/R, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The Surface Transportation Board seeks public comments on a proposal to require railroads to include a disclosure statement in any document that they consider to be a rail transportation contract under 49 U.S.C. 10709.

The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

NMFS announces the reduction of the scup coastwide commercial possession limit from Maine through North Carolina for the Winter I period. Regulations governing the scup fishery require publication of this notification to advise the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina that 80 percent of the commercial quota allocated to the Winter I period is projected to be harvested and to announce that the possession limit for a Federal vessel permit holder is reduced to 1,000 lb (454 kg) of scup per trip. This possession limit will remain in effect until the end of the Winter I period (through April 30, 2008) or until the Winter I quota allocation has been fully harvested, which ever occurs first.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed General Management Plan (Final GMP/EIS), Olympic National Park, Washington. The purpose of the GMP is to provide management direction for resource protection and visitor use at Olympic National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. A GMP is needed to confirm the purpose and significance of the park, to clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park, to provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions as to how to best protect park resources and provide for a diverse range of visitor experiences, to ensure a foundation for decision making in consultation with interested stakeholders, and to serve as the basis for more detailed management documents. In addition to a ``baseline'' no-action alternative (Alternative A) which would maintain current management, the Final GMP/ EIS describes and analyzes three ``action'' alternatives. Alternative B emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection and natural processes would take priority over visitor access in certain areas of the park. Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor opportunities. Alternative D is the ``management preferred'' alternative; it is a combination of the other alternatives, emphasizing both protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences. The foreseeable environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed; as documented in the Final EIS, Alternative D is deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' course of action. Description of Alternatives: The Final GMP/EIS includes three action alternatives and a no-action alternative. The no-action alternative (Alternative A) assumes that existing programs, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels, and the current management practices would continue. There would be no zoning designated within the park, and issues would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis without a long range plan or vision. The park would continue to be managed in accordance with existing plans and policies. Alternative B emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection; natural processes would have priority over visitor access in certain areas of the park. In general, the park would be managed as a large ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to support visitation. Some roads and facilities would be moved or closed to protect natural processes, and visitor access and services in sensitive areas would be reduced. Boundary adjustments for the purposes of resource protection would be considered adjacent to the park in the Ozette, Lake Crescent, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault areas. When compared with the other alternatives, this alternative would have less front country acreage designated as development, and more acreage designated as low-use and day-use zones. This alternative includes a river zone and an intertidal reserve zone. Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor opportunities. The natural and cultural resources are protected through management actions and resource education programs. However, maintaining access to existing facilities would be a priority, and access would be retained to all existing front country areas or increased by improving park roads to extend season of use. New or expanded interpretation and educational facilities would be constructed. This alternative includes a boundary adjustment in the Ozette area. When compared with the other alternatives, this alternative would have increased acreages zoned as development and day use and decreased acreages of low-use zone areas. This alternative would include an intertidal reserve zone; there would be no river zone. Alternative D is the park's ``preferred'' alternative. It was developed by integrating key components of the other alternatives, emphasizing both the protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences. All management activities minimize adverse effects on park resources to the extent possible. Access would be maintained to existing front country areas, but roads might be modified or relocated for resource protection, river restoration, and/or to maintain vehicular access. Visitor education and interpretative facilities would be improved or developed to improve visitor opportunities and to protect park resources. Three boundary adjustments are proposed, which include seeking land exchanges and partnering with Washington Department of Natural Resources, developing protective strategies in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service for its lands within the adjusted boundaries, and acquiring private land by willing seller only. This alternative includes slightly more development zone acreage in the front country when compared with Alternative B, and slightly less than Alternative C. This alternative has more day-use zone acreage than Alternative B, and more low-use zone acreage than Alternative C. A river zone is not included, but the alternative does include an intertidal reserve zone. Changes Incorporated in the Final EIS: The park made minor changes and clarified aspects of the preferred alternative as a result of public comment; however, there were no substantive modifications. Editorial changes and additional explanatory text on topics of interest were incorporated. Other changes made to the Final GMP/EIS as a result of public comments included clarifying the purpose, need, and legislative procedures for boundary adjustments and the potential cost for property acquisition and land easements. Several public comments related to the management of cultural resources in wilderness. The wilderness and cultural resources sections have been updated based on changes in NPS Management Policies 2006. The public also expressed concerns related to existing access rights to private property and the effects the alternatives would have on the socioeconomic resources in the region. Information on private property access rights has been included. The socioeconomic information in the affected environment and environmental consequences section has been updated based on the best available information and data provided by the public during the Draft EIS comment period. There were questions from the public related to management and wilderness zoning. Management zones have been rewritten to clarify front country zone descriptions and stock use. Wilderness zoning definitions remain within the plan but the exact on-the-ground designation has been removed from the plan and will be delineated through a subsequent wilderness management plan process (which will include ample opportunity for public involvement and review). Area Indian tribes provided comments and additional information for the Final EIS. Laws and policies governing use by Native Americans of park resources have been added to ``Laws, Regulations, Servicewide Mandates and Policies'' and desired conditions and strategies under ``Parkwide Policies and Servicewide Mandates'' have been updated or clarified for several topics. In addition, visitation information has been updated with the most up-to-date statistics. Responses to comments are provided in the Final GMP/EIS. In addition to these minor changes and clarifications, several public comments resulted in minor modifications to the final preferred alternative (Alternative D). Instituting an overnight permit system for parking at Swan Bay was suggested so that lake users, including private property owners, could park overnight at that location. Keeping Rayonier Landing open for day use only was also proposed. Both of these ideas were included in the final preferred alternative. Some agencies, tribes, and communities requested increased partnering to improve visitor education and opportunities and collaborative cultural and natural resources management, and this is incorporated. There were also suggestions to integrate components of Alternatives A, B, and C into the final preferred alternative. Many commenters felt that Alternative A should be selected as no change was necessary to meet park management objectives. However, continuing the current management would not fulfill the plan objectives and expressed purpose and need. The park received numerous comments to expand the proposed boundary adjustment for the final preferred alternative to more closely match that included in Alternative B. This was considered but not incorporated in the final preferred alternative because the park determined that other options could be used to promote resource protection (such as working with partners and employing cooperative management strategies outside the park boundaries). The park also received multiple requests to integrate wild and scenic river studies for the 12 eligible rivers into the plan, and to institute a river zone as included in Alternative B. During development of the proposed GMP, the park reviewed the existing eligibility studies and determined that formal suitability studies related to wild and scenic rivers designation would be conducted in a separate planning process after the GMP is completed due to the high number of rivers involved and the detail needed for these studies. The park also included protective measures for rivers and floodplains in Alternative D; therefore a formal river zone designation is not needed to meet park desired conditions. The park also received recommendations to include improvements to park roads and facilities similar to those explored under Alternative C, including paving existing gravel roads, expanding existing facilities and parking lots, and increasing visitor services. These suggestions were rejected in the final preferred alternative because they are not needed to meet park purpose, needs, and objectives. Many suggestions provided were too detailed to be included in the final proposed plan (e.g. interpretive exhibits, wilderness management practices) and are recorded for consideration in future implementation plans. Text in the final preferred alternative has been clarified to emphasize that any property acquisition would be by exchange, through easements, or by willing seller only; updated information has been provided to clarify the need for boundary expansions. Boundary adjustments would not occur until property is acquired through the willing seller process and accomplished pursuant to the legislative process. The preferred alternative has been modified slightly based on public concernsthe potential area of exchange for mineral rights has been changed from lands solely in the Ozette watershed to lands within the State of Washington. The NPS would work with the State of Washington to identify priority areas for exchange. Public Engagement: The park's Notice of Intent initiating the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis[bs]GMP planning process was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2001. Public engagement and information measures have included public meetings, presentations and meetings, newsletter and postcard mailings, local and regional press releases, and Web site postings. The official public scoping process began in June 2001 when a scoping newsletter was distributed to approximately 800 people on the park's mailing list. During September and October 2001, public scoping meetings were held in several locations around the Olympic Peninsula and in the region. More than 500 comments were received during the scoping process. The majority of comments fell into the following categories: resource protection, wilderness management, visitor use and experience, access to park areas, and partnerships. Due consideration of these comments aided in defining the issues to be considered in developing the draft plan. In January 2002, a newsletter was distributed to summarize the planning issues and concerns brought forward during scoping, and to announce five workshops to be held in late January to seek public participation in developing alternatives. This was followed by the releases of a preliminary alternatives newsletter (distributed in May 2003) and a park update newsletter (distributed November 2004) to the project mailing list, which had reached approximately 1,200 individuals, agencies, area tribes, and organizations. In March 2006 an R.S.V.P. card with a postage paid response was sent to those on the mailing list to announce the upcoming release of the draft plan and to determine who on the mailing list wanted a copy of the plan. Approximately 340 cards were returned with requests for a copy of the plan or for notification of its release. The EPA's notice of filing of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2006, and the document was available for extended public review for 105 days through September 30, 2006, during which time the NPS distributed approximately 900 copies. The park's Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006. The document was available at park offices, visitor centers and at area libraries, and it was posted on the Internet. Printed and CD-ROM copies were sent upon request, and also distributed to agencies, government representatives, area tribes, organizations, and interested individuals. Detailed information announcing the opportunity for public review and the locations, times and dates for public workshops was published in several area newspapers, including The Peninsula Daily News, Forks Forum, The Daily World, The Seattle Times, Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader, and the Kitsap Sun. Public workshops were conducted in Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Sekiu-Clallam Bay, Amanda Park, Shelton, Silverdale, and Seattle. Over 250 people attended the workshops. The NPS received approximately 500 comments on the Draft EIS by mail, fax, hand delivery, oral transcript, and via the Internet. In addition, approximately 637 additional individuals responded by using one of seven different form letters and approximately 827 individuals signed one of three petitions. The following topics received the most comment: access to park facilities, boundary adjustments, management zoning, Olympic Hot Springs restoration, Ozette Lake, partnerships, rivers and floodplains, socioeconomic resources, tribal treaty rights and trust resources, protection of ethnographic resources, employment opportunities, government-to-government consultation, partnerships, and how to improve relationships with the park, visitor use, stock use opportunities, wilderness management, and cultural resources management. Some commenters cited concerns related to accessibility, air quality, air tours and overflights, park budget and budget priorities, climate change, costs of implementing the preferred alternative, education and outreach, facilities management, fisheries resources, geologic processes, habitat, night sky, soundscape management, topics dismissed (e.g. environmental justice, unique farmlands), vegetation, water resources, wild and scenic river studies, and wildlife management (native, extirpated, and non-native). Throughout the planning process, the NPS has consulted with various tribal, federal, state, and local government agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Western Washington Office and the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries Office and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary), Federal Highways Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Transportation, and local, city, and county officials and agencies. Consultations and informational meetings were also held with area tribal governments. Tribal consultation meetings were held with all eight tribes in 2001, and follow-up meetings were held in 2004 and 2005 to provide an update on the status of the plan. During the public review period, in 2006, meetings were offered to all eight tribes, and six tribes requested meetings. Six tribes provided a wide range of comments on the draft plan. Several tribes brought forward issues that need to be addressed outside the scope of the plan, such as jurisdiction, trust resources, treaty rights, gathering, and land issues. Tribes were also concerned about how boundary adjustments would affect their tribal treaty rights. The park integrated many tribal comments and suggested revisions into the final plan. At the request of the tribes, a meeting was held July 20, 2007 to review the tribal comments and the park responses and changes to the final plan. Seven of the eight tribes attended the meeting, plus three tribes requested individual meetings after the group session. While not all issues were addressed in the final plan, many issues were resolved and/or clarified.

This is the second notice to producers and users of veterinary biological products and other interested individuals that we will be holding our 14th public meeting to discuss regulatory and policy issues related to the manufacture, distribution, and use of veterinary biological products. This notice provides information on the agenda, as well as the dates, times, and place of the meeting. It also identifies a contact person for obtaining registration forms, lodging information, and copies of the agenda.

The Office of English Language Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for the English Language Teaching (ELT) Materials Development Project and English Language Educators Summer Institute in July 2009. U.S. public and private universities, colleges, community colleges and other organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to provide the following: (1) The development of English language materials suitable to Office of English Language Programs' goals and (2) the design and administration of a three-week professional development program for assessing English language teaching materials for possible adoption into English language teaching programs overseas. For the ELT Materials Development Project, the recipient will develop English Language Teaching materials (print, audio, and online) to become part of the collection of the Office of English Language Programs for use overseas. These should reflect current academic best practices and educational priorities. More detailed information about the ELT materials to be developed under this cooperative agreement is detailed in the Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation (POGI). For the English Language Educators Summer Institute to take place in 2009, the recipient will design and administer a three-week professional development program for experienced secondary school and university English language teachers drawn from countries served by U.S. Department of State Regional English Language Officers based overseas. The focus of the English Language Educators Summer Institute is to familiarize participants with the newly authored materials (created as part of this cooperative agreement), selected Office of English Language Program publications, U.S. student-centered teaching methods, various materials illustrating U.S. society, culture and diversity, and the role of materials in the language classroom. The exchange experience should also give participants an in-depth experience of American life and culture and contribute to mutual understanding between participants' countries and the United States. The program should include both a theoretical component, provided through professional development seminars in an academic setting, and a practical component, provided through hands on experience assessing and working with selected titles from the Office of English Language Programs. Participants should also create or adapt English language teaching materials suitable for their local context. Applicant organizations should have a demonstrated ability to conduct a substantive academic program, develop English language materials, and manage logistical and administrative aspects of the program.

In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). These actions relate to the proposed highway project to its current four lanes to six lanes by adding one HOV lane in each direction from the Old Redwood Highway Interchange, KP 12.1 (postmile 7.5), to the Rohnert Park Expressway Interchange at KP 22.4 (postmile 13.9) on the Sonoma 101 Highway in Sonoma County in the State of California.

The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires inspecting to determine the part number and serial number of the fuel tank boost pumps and, for airplanes with affected pumps, revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) and the FAA- approved maintenance program. The existing AD also provides for optional terminating action for compliance with the revisions to the AFM and the maintenance program. The original NPRM proposed to require modifying or replacing the fuel tank boost pumps, which would terminate the AFM limitations and the maintenance program revisions. The original NPRM resulted from a report that a fuel tank boost pump failed in service, due to a detached screw of the boost pump housing that created a short circuit between the stator and rotor of the boost pump motor and tripped a circuit breaker. This new action revises the original NPRM by excluding certain modified airplanes from the applicability, requiring the AFM/maintenance program revisions on additional airplanes, and requiring modification or replacement of additional fuel tank boost pumps. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent electrical arcing in the fuel tank boost pump motor, which, in the presence of a combustible air-fuel mixture in the pump, could result in an explosion and loss of the airplane.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires reviewing airplane maintenance records, doing repetitive inspections for cracking of the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs), replacing the PCMs if necessary, and reporting all airplane maintenance records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. This proposed AD would limit the applicability, reduce the initial inspection threshold and repetitive interval, remove the reporting requirement, and require installation of a secondary retention device for the yaw damper modulating piston. Installation of the secondary retention device would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements. This proposed AD results from additional reports of failure or cracking of the PCM manifold in the area of the yaw damper cavity endcap at intervals well below the initial inspection threshold of the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent an uncommanded left rudder hardover in the event of cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper or lower rudder PCMs, and subsequent failure of the PCM manifold, which could result in increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes, Model 767 airplanes, and Model 777- 200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for damage of the electrical terminal at the left and right flightdeck window 1, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also allow for replacing the flightdeck window 1 with a new improved flightdeck window equipped with electrical connections, which would end the need for the repetitive inspections for that flightdeck window 1. This proposed AD results from several reports of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically heated flightdeck window 1. In more than one of the incidents, the arcs resulted in open flames. We are proposing this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, (30) days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 525 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly; and, if you find that firewall sealant is missing, seal with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly. This proposed AD results from a report that firewall sealant may not have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly during manufacture of certain Model 525 airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly, which could result in failure of the fire extinguishing system to prevent the spread of fire through the firewall gap. This failure could lead to an uncontrolled fire.