Department of the Interior May 7, 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This notice advises the public that we the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we) intend to initiate a single planning process to consecutively develop a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment for the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and a step-down research management plan (RMP) and environmental assessment for both Palmyra and Kingman Reef NWRs. This notice also announces a public open house meeting; see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the details. Both NWRs are low coral atolls located in the Central Pacific Ocean approximately 1,000 miles south of Hawai'i. We furnish this notice in compliance with our CCP policy to advise other agencies and the public of our intentions, and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 9.52(b) of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, Subpart B, that the National Park Service (NPS) has received from Seismic Assistants, Ltd., a Plan of Operations to conduct the Knight Phase IV 3-D Seismic Survey within the Big Sandy Creek Corridor, Turkey Creek and Village Creek Corridor Units of Big Thicket National Preserve, in Hardin and Tyler Counties, Texas. The NPS has prepared an Environmental Assessment and a draft Wetlands Statement of Findings for this proposal.

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, is proposing to renew the No Child Left Behind Act Regulations, 25 CFR parts 30, 37, 39, 42, 44 and 47, OMB Control Number 1076-0163.

The National Park Service is terminating preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the General Management Plan, Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park, Richmond, California. A Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS for the General Management Plan (GMP) was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2002. The National Park Service has since determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than an EIS is the appropriate environmental documentation for the GMP; this determination includes due consideration of all public comment and other agency information received during the public scoping period. Background: The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park includes the Ford Assembly Building, the Richmond Shipyard 3 (currently known as the Port of Richmond, Terminals 5, 6 and 7), the Maritime and Ruth Powers Child Development Centers, Atchison Village housing, Kaiser Field Hospital, Fire Station 67A, the Rosie the Riveter Memorial, the S.S. Red Oak Victory, and city parks referred to in the authorizing legislation as Shimada Peace Memorial Park, Westshore Park (now known as Lucretia Edwards Park), Sheridan Observation Point Park, Vincent Park, and the Bay Trail-Esplanade. The National Park Service (NPS) does not own or manage these sites, but is authorized to interpret the story of Rosie the Riveter and the World War II home front, conduct and maintain oral histories, operate an education center, provide visitor services, provide technical assistance, enter into agreements to support preservation and interpretation, and acquire certain structures from willing sellers. The NPS will collaborate with the public and private owners of these sites to plan for and encourage their preservation and use. Pub. L. 106-352 requires the GMP to include a plan to preserve the historic setting of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park, which must be jointly developed and approved by the City of Richmond. Accordingly, the GMP will establish the overall direction for the park, setting a broad vision and management goals for managing this partnership park for the next 15 to 20 years. The plan was originally scoped as an EIS. No concerns or issues expressed during public scoping and preliminary development of the GMP convey either the potential for controversy or identify potential for significant impacts. In the GMP effort to date the cooperating park partners and NPS planning team have developed three alternatives for the historical park. All three alternative visions support preserving the historic scene while providing different approaches for visitors to experience and learn about Rosie the Riveter and the American World War II Home Front. Initial analysis of the alternatives has revealed neither major effects nor significant or unacceptable impacts on the human environment, nor any potential for impairing park resources and values. Potential impacts as may arise from implementing any of the alternatives are expected to range from negligible to moderate in magnitude. All the GMP alternative visions provide for preserving the historic scene with the NPS providing technical assistance to help support the decisions and actions of the park partners. All uses expected to occur under any of the alternative visions are deemed to be appropriate. For these reasons the NPS determined the intensity of conservation planning and environmental impact analysis needed for the GMP is an EA.

This rule revises the list of nonrural areas identified by the Federal Subsistence Board (Board, we, us). Only residents of areas identified as rural are eligible to participate in the Federal Subsistence Management Program on Federal public lands in Alaska. We are changing Adak's status to rural. We also are adding Prudhoe Bay to the list of nonrural areas. The following areas continue to be nonrural, but we are changing their boundaries: the Kenai Area; the Wasilla/Palmer Area, including Point McKenzie; the Homer Area, including Fritz Creek East (except Voznesenka) and the North Fork Road area; and the Ketchikan Area. We have also added Saxman to the Ketchikan nonrural area. We are making no other changes in status. This final rule differs from the proposed rule relative to the Kodiak area and Saxman: For reasons set forth below, we did not change the status of the Kodiak area from rural to nonrural, as we had proposed, and we included Saxman in the nonrural Ketchikan area, which we had not proposed. Residents of those areas changing from rural to nonrural have 5 years to come into compliance with this rule.