69714 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

The area would be depicted on 

aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 

The coordinates for this airspace docket 

are based on North American Datum 83. 

The Class E airspace areas designated as 

700/1200 foot transition areas are 

published in paragraph 6005 in FAA 

Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations 

and Reporting Points, dated September 

1, 2005, and effective September 15, 

2004, which is incorporated by 

reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E 

airspace designations listed in this 

document would be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 

40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations to ensure 

the safe and efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it proposes to establish Class E 

airspace sufficient in size to contain 

aircraft executing instrument 

procedures at Koyuk Airport and 

represents the FAA’s continuing effort 

to safely and efficiently use the 

navigable airspace. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; 

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 

POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9N, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 15, 2005, is to be 

amended as follows: 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet or more above the 

surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E5 Koyuk, AK [Revised] 

Koyuk Airport, AK 

(Lat. 64°56′22′′ N., long. 161°09′15′′ W.) 

Koyuk NDB, AK 

(Lat. 64°55′55′′ N., long. 161°08′52′′ W.) 

Norton Bay NDB, AK 

(Lat. 64°41′46′′ N., long. 162°03′47′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 9-mile radius 

of the Koyuk Airport and 4 miles west and 

8 miles east of the Koyuk NDB 210° bearing 

extending from the 9-mile radius to 17 miles 

southwest of the airport; and that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface within 5 miles west and 11 miles east 

of the Koyuk NDB 210° bearing extending 

from the NDB to 30 miles southwest of the 

NDB and 4.5 miles either side of the line 

between the Norton Bay NDB and the Koyuk 

NDB, and the area within 20 miles of the 

Koyuk Airport extending clockwise from the 

Koyuk NDB 140° bearing to the 187° bearing, 

and the area within 25 miles of the Koyuk 

Airport extending clockwise from the Koyuk 

NDB 220° bearing to the 230° bearing. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Anchorage, AK, on November 8, 

2005. 

Michael A. Tarr, 

Manager, Operations Support. 

[FR Doc. 05–22772 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 5420 

[WO–270–1820–00–24 1A] 

RIN 1004–AD70 

Preparation for Sale 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) proposes to amend 

its regulations on preparation for timber 

sales to allow third party scaling on 

density management sales with an 

upper limit on the quadratic mean 

diameter at breast height (DBH) of the 

trees to be harvested of 20 inches. Third 

party scaling would be limited to the 

situations described in the amended 

provision, that is, if a timber disaster 

has occurred and a critical resource loss 

is imminent, and tree cruising and BLM 

scaling are inadequate to permit orderly 

disposal of the damaged timber, or if 

BLM is carrying out density 

management timber sales subject to the 

size limits stated above. Thus, third 

party scaling would generally not be 

used for sales of higher-value and/or 

larger diameter timber. BLM is 

amending the regulations in order to 

improve the efficiency of density 

management timber sales where the 

timber to be harvested may be 

designated by prescription (a written 

prescription included in the timber sale 

contract). The regulations will no longer 

require that BLM perform all scaling 

except in the event that a timber disaster 

is threatening imminent critical 

resource loss, and scaling by BLM 

would be inadequate to permit orderly 

disposal of the damaged timber. In the 

case of density management timber sales 

when the quadratic mean DBH of trees 

to be cut and removed is equal to or less 

than 20 inches, the regulations will only 

allow third party scaling by scalers or 

scaling bureaus under contract to BLM. 

DATES: Comments must be received, 

postmarked, or electronically dated on 

or before January 17, 2006. BLM will not 

necessarily consider any comments 

received, postmarked, or electronically 

dated after the above date in making its 

decision on the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau 

of Land Management, Eastern States 

Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, 

Springfield, Virginia 22153, Attention: 

RIN 1004–AD70. 

Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 

L Street NW., Suite 401, Washington, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69715 

DC 20036. Internet e-mail: 

comments_washington@blm.gov. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about the rule, 

contact Lyndon Werner at (503) 808–

6071 or Scott Lieurance at (202) 452–

0316. For procedural questions about 

the rulemaking process, contact Ted 

Hudson at (202) 452–5042. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may contact these persons 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

II. Background 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

IV. Procedural Matters 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

Electronic Access and Filing Address 

You may view an electronic version of 

this proposed rule at BLM’s Internet 

home page: http://www.blm.gov. You 

may also comment via the Internet to: 

Comments_Washington@blm.gov. Please 

also include ‘‘Attention: 1004-AD70’’

and your name and return address in 

your Internet message. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your Internet 

message, contact us directly at (202) 

452–5030. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Comments 

Written comments on the proposed 

rule should be specific, should be 

confined to issues pertinent to the 

proposed rule, and should explain the 

reason for any recommended change. 

Where possible, comments should 

reference the specific section or 

paragraph of the proposal which the 

commenter is addressing. BLM may not 

necessarily consider or include in the 

Administrative Record for the final rule 

comments which BLM receives after the 

close of the comment period (See DATES) 

or comments delivered to an address 

other than those listed above (See 

ADDRESSES). 

Comments, including names, street 

addresses, and other contact 

information of respondents, will be 

available for public review at 1620 L 

Street, NW., Room 401, Washington, 

DC, during regular business hours (7:45 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish to request 

that BLM consider withholding your 

name, street address, and other contact 

information (such as: Internet address, 

FAX or phone number) from public 

review or from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act, you must 

state this prominently at the beginning 

of your comment. BLM will honor 

requests for confidentiality on a case-bycase basis to the extent allowed by law. 

BLM will make available for public 

inspection in their entirety all 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses. 

II. Background 

BLM Districts have been testing 

different methods of selling timber, such 

as Designation-by-Prescription (DxP), 

attempting to gain efficiencies, 

especially with a program comprised of 

substantially more density management 

and small logs than was historically the 

case. This testing has revealed that the 

gain in efficiency by using such 

methods is lost due to the regulatory 

requirement that BLM personnel 

conduct all the scaling if a DxP sale is 

scale as opposed to lump-sum. 

Otherwise, scale DxP sales can be more 

efficient in certain situations (small 

diameter density management). 

43 CFR 5422.1 states: ‘‘[a]s the general 

practice, the Bureau will sell timber on 

a tree cruise basis,’’ which means lumpsum sales. Section 5422.2(a) states: 

‘‘[s]caling by the Bureau will be used 

from time to time for administrative 

reasons.’’ Lump-sum is the default, and 

there must be an interest-of-theGovernment reason to conduct a scale 

sale. 

43 CFR 5422.2(b) allows third-party 

scaling when all of three conditions are 

met: 

(1) A timber disaster has occurred; 

(2) A critical resource loss is 

imminent; and 

(3) Lump-sum timber measurement 

practices are inadequate to permit 

orderly disposal of the damaged timber. 

Regular commercial density 

management sales obviously do not 

meet these conditions. The definition of 

third-party scaling found in 43 CFR 

5400.0–5 is ‘‘the measurement of logs by 

a scaling organization, other than a 

Government agency, approved by the 

Bureau.’’ This includes the nongovernmental Scaling Bureaus that 

normally contract with purchasers to 

scale in mill yards. BLM does contract 

with these Scaling Bureaus to scale for 

administrative check scales. 

Historically, BLM timber sales, 

particularly in western Oregon, were 

clearcuts of high-value large timber. Log 

accountability was the principal reason 

for the aforementioned regulations 

limiting scale sales and third-party 

scaling. These provisions are intended 

to minimize the potential for log theft. 

Today’s sale program, however, has a 

considerable component of density 

management sales in lower-value, 

smaller-log situations that meet one or 

more of the following objectives: 

Growth enhancement, habitat 

restoration, or fuels/fire hazard 

reduction. Density management sales 

are timber sales intended to accomplish 

these objectives by removing smaller 

trees and understory that may inhibit 

growth or forest health or contribute to 

fuel buildup. In addition, density 

management sales intended to enhance 

wildlife habitat may remove some 

dominant and co-dominant trees in the 

forest stand to enhance biological 

diversity. Smaller logs cannot be 

efficiently and effectively truck scaled. 

Scaling in the mill yards as trucks are 

unloaded is faster and more accurate. 

BLM does not intend a major shift to 

scale sales for density management. 

Rather, we seek to have a multifaceted 

‘‘tool kit’’ of sale method options in 

order to maintain as cost effective a 

program as possible. It is not in the best 

interest of the Government to scale all 

density management sales. In certain 

cases, the costs of administering a lumpsum sale are less than costs of 

conducting scaling, making the lumpsum sale the preferred in-the-interest-ofthe-Government option. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would add one 

sentence to section 5422.2 on scale 

sales: ‘‘BLM may also order third party 

scaling, only by scalers or scaling 

bureaus under contract to BLM, for the 

scaling of density management timber 

sales when the quadratic mean diameter 

of the trees to be cut and removed is 

equal to or less than 20 inches.’’ (The 

quadratic mean diameter is a measure 

used by foresters as an index of the size 

of trees in a stand. According to the 

Dictionary of Forestry, the quadratic 

mean diameter is the diameter of the 

tree corresponding to the tree of mean 

basal area. Basal area is the crosssectional area of a tree measured at 

breast height. The basal area of a tree 

with DBH equal to the quadratic mean 

diameter is equal to the mean basal area 

of the stand.) This will enable us to 

conduct density management sales 

while taking advantage of the improved 

economies that third party scaling may 

provide, such as by allowing scaling in 

the mill yards as trucks are unloaded, 

which is faster and more accurate. 

For the sake of clarity, we also 

propose to divide section 5422.2(b) into 

69716 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

three paragraphs, the second of which 

would comprise this new provision. 

Paragraph (b)(1) would consist of the 

first sentence of existing paragraph (b), 

which covers the disaster situation in 

which third party scaling is allowed, 

and paragraph (b)(3) would consist of 

the second sentence of existing 

paragraph (b), which requires that third 

party scaling must follow BLM 

standards in use for timber depletion 

computations, so that we can make sure 

that sales conform with sustained yield 

principles. Redesignated paragraph 

(b)(1) would also be amended editorially 

to read in active voice. Neither 

paragraph (b)(1) nor (b)(3) would 

contain substantive changes. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action and is not subject to 

review by Office of Management and 

Budget under Executive Order 12866. 

The proposed rule will not have an 

effect of $100 million or more on the 

economy. The average cost of contract 

scaling is approximately $1.50 per 

thousand board feet. The approximate 

average annual number of sales 

contracts over the past several years that 

would qualify for third party scaling 

under the proposed rule has been ten 

sales. The new provision would enable 

BLM to prepare and administer certain 

contracts (that otherwise qualify to be 

sold as a scale sale) more efficiently, 

saving approximately $90,000 per year. 

These savings are not directly passed 

onto purchasers. There may be a slight 

saving to a purchaser of a scale sale over 

a lump sum sale due to their not having 

to conduct pre-sale measures of the sale 

volume to the same intensity. 

For the same reasons, the proposed 

rule will not adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

The rule would impose no requirements 

on any governmental entities. 

The proposed rule will not create a 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency. The 

approach in the proposed rule is similar 

to that of the Forest Service in using 

third-party scaling. 

The proposed rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the right 

or obligations of their recipients, having 

no effect on any of these matters; nor do 

they raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are 

simple and easy to understand. We 

invite your comments on how to make 

these proposed regulations easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

1. Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

2. Do the proposed regulations 

contain technical language or jargon that 

interferes with their clarity? 

3. Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

4. Would the regulations be easier to 

understand if they were divided into 

more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ appears in bold type and is 

preceded by the symbol ‘‘§’’ and a 

numbered heading, for example 

‘‘§ 5422.2 Scale sales.’’) 

5. Is the description of the proposed 

regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

regulations? How could this description 

be more helpful in making the proposed 

regulations easier to understand? 

Please send any comments you have 

on the clarity of the regulations to the 

address specified in the ADDRESSES

section. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule authorizing certain timber 

cuts to be scaled by BLM-approved third 

parties is a regulation of an 

administrative and financial nature. 

Therefore, it is categorically excluded 

from environmental review under 

section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 

516 Departmental Manual (DM), 

Chapter 2, Appendix 1. In addition, the 

proposed rule does not meet any of the 

10 criteria for exceptions to categorical 

exclusions listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, 

Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR 1508.4) and the environmental 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of the Interior, the term 

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and that have been found 

to have no such effect in procedures 

adopted by a Federal agency and for 

which neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Congress enacted the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure that 

Government regulations do not 

unnecessarily or disproportionately 

burden small entities. The RFA requires 

a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, either detrimental or beneficial, 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rule would likely 

provide additional business 

opportunities to scalers and scaling 

bureaus, which are mostly if not all 

small entities. The average cost of 

contract scaling is approximately $1.50 

per thousand board feet. The 

approximate average annual number of 

sales contracts over the past several 

years that would qualify for third party 

scaling under the proposed rule has 

been ten sales. The new provision 

would enable BLM to prepare and 

administer certain contracts (that 

otherwise qualify to be sold as a scale 

sale) more efficiently, saving 

approximately $90,000 per year. These 

savings are not directly passed onto the 

purchasers. There may be a slight saving 

to a purchaser of a scale sale over a 

lump sum sale due to their not having 

to conduct pre-sale measures of the sale 

volume to the same intensity. Therefore, 

BLM has determined under the RFA 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This proposed rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). That 

is, it would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more; it 

would not result in major cost or price 

increases for consumers, industries, 

government agencies, or regions; and it 

would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

It would merely allow BLM to contract 

out a management step in timber 

volume measurement for some types of 

timber sales to non-governmental 

entities that can operate more efficiently 

than the Bureau. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

These proposed regulations do not 

impose an unfunded mandate on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector, in the aggregate, of $100 

million or more per year; nor do these 

proposed regulations have a significant 

or unique effect on State, local, or tribal 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69717 

governments. The rule would impose no 

requirements on any of these entities. 

We have already shown, in the previous 

paragraphs of this section of the 

preamble, that the change proposed in 

this rule would not have effects 

approaching $100 million per year on 

the private sector. Therefore, BLM is not 

required to prepare a statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (Takings) 

The proposed rule is not a 

government action capable of interfering 

with constitutionally protected property 

rights. The rule would allow BLM to 

contract out one step in the timber 

volume measurement process, and 

would not provide for the taking or 

reduction in value of, or any other effect 

on any private property. Therefore, the 

Department of the Interior has 

determined that the rule would not 

cause a taking of private property or 

require further discussion of takings 

implications under this Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The proposed rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the states, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. It would not apply 

to states or local governments or state or 

local governmental entities. Therefore, 

in accordance with Executive Order 

13132, BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

Under Executive Order 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this proposed rule would not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have found that this 

proposed rule does not include policies 

that have Tribal implications. There are 

no substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

There will be some small economic 

benefit to scalers and scaling bureaus, 

and therefore to any American Indians 

that may be employed by or otherwise 

financially connected to such entities. 

There are, however, no policy 

implications that require consultation 

with Indian Tribes. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13211, BLM has determined that the 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the energy supply, 

distribution, or use, including a shortfall 

in supply or price increase. The rule 

does not relate to energy supply, 

distribution, or use in any respect. 

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of 

Cooperative Conservation 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13352, BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule is purely administrative 

and does not affect cooperative 

conservation. This proposed rule takes 

appropriate account of and considers 

the interests of persons with ownership 

or other legally recognized interests in 

land or other natural resources because 

it does not interfere with such interests. 

The proposed rule solely affects a 

Federal responsibility not involving 

state or local participation, and has no 

impact on public health and safety. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed regulations do not 

contain information collection 

requirements that the Office of 

Management and Budget must approve 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Author 

The principal authors of this 

proposed rule are Kenny McDaniel, 

Manager, Gunnison Field Office, 

Colorado, Scott Lieurance, Forester—

Senior Specialist, Washington Office, 

and Lyndon Werner, Forester, Oregon 

State Office, assisted by Ted Hudson, 

Senior Regulatory Specialist, 

Washington Office, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 5420 

Forests and forest products, 

Government contracts, Public lands, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble and under the authorities 

stated below, BLM proposes to amend 

43 CFR part 5420 as set forth below: 

PART 5420—PREPARATION FOR 

SALE 

1. The authority citation for part 5420 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 61 Stat. 681, as amended, 69 

Stat. 367; Sec. 5, 50 Stat. 875; 30 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1181e. 

Subpart 5422—Volume Measurements 

2. Amend section 5422.2 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 5422.2 Scale sales. 

* * * * * 

(b) (1) BLM may order third party 

scaling after determining that all of the 

following factors exist: 

(i) A timber disaster has occurred; 

(ii) A critical resource loss is 

imminent; and 

(iii) Measurement practices listed in 

§ 5422.1 and paragraph (a) of this 

section are inadequate to permit orderly 

disposal of the damaged timber. 

(2) BLM may also order third party 

scaling, only by scalers or scaling 

bureaus under contract to BLM, for the 

scaling of density management timber 

sales when the quadratic mean diameter 

of the trees to be cut and removed is 

equal to or less than 20 inches. 

(3) Third party scaling volumes must 

be capable of being equated to BLM 

standards in use for timber depletion 

computations, to insure conformance 

with sustained yield principles. 

[FR Doc. 05–22779 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Distinct Population 

Segment of the California Tiger 

Salamander in Sonoma County 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period.