Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed special conditions

68,166 words·~310 min read·/register/2007/10/16/07-5072

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 199 Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM378 Special Conditions No. 25-07-11-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Operation Without Normal Electrical Power AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes.

The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will have numerous electrically operated systems whose function is needed for continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM378, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address.

All comments must be marked Docket No. NM378. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane & Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2315; facsimile

(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change the proposed special conditions based on comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The 787 will incorporate a number of novel or unusual design features, some of which have not been previously installed on large commercial aircraft. Because of these design features, these proposed special conditions differ from similar previously proposed special conditions for other airplane models. Due to rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions for the 787 contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. In addition to an electronic flight control system, a number of systems that have traditionally been pneumatically or mechanically operated have been implemented as electrically powered systems on the 787. Examples include the hydraulic power, equipment cooling, wing anti-ice, and the auxiliary power unit

(APU)and engine start systems. The criticality of some of these systems is such that their failure will either reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions, or prevent continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate standards for protection of these systems from the adverse effects of operation without normal electrical power. The current rule, 14 CFR 25.1351(d), Amendment 25-72, requires safe operation under visual flight rules

(VFR)conditions for at least five minutes after loss of all normal electrical power. This rule was structured around traditional airplane designs that used mechanical control cables and linkages for flight control. These manual controls allowed the crew to maintain aerodynamic control of the airplane for an indefinite period of time after loss of all electrical power. Under these conditions, the mechanical flight control system provided the crew with the ability to fly the airplane while attempting to identify the cause of the electrical failure, start the engine(s) if necessary, and reestablish some of the electrical power generation capability, if possible. To maintain the same level of safety associated with traditional designs, the 787 must be designed for operation with the normal sources of engine- and auxiliary-power-unit (APU)-generated electrical power inoperative. Service experience has shown that loss of all electrical power from the airplane's engine- and APU-driven generators is not extremely improbable. Thus, Boeing must demonstrate that the airplane is capable of recovering adequate primary electrical power generation for safe flight and landing. This demonstration would provide that the ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical power generation capability would be considered if unrecoverable loss of those portions is shown to be extremely improbable. An alternative source of electrical power would have to be provided for the time necessary to restore the minimum power generation capability necessary for safe flight and landing. Applicability As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action would affect only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it would affect only the applicant that applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these Special Conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1351(d), the following special conditions apply:

(1)The applicant must show by test or a combination of test and analysis that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing with all normal sources of engine- and auxiliary-power-unit (APU)-generated electrical power inoperative, as prescribed by paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) below. For purposes of this special condition, normal sources of electrical power generation do not include any alternate power sources such as the battery, ram air turbine (RAT), or independent power systems such as the flight control permanent magnet generating system. In showing capability for continued safe flight and landing, consideration must be given to systems capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers for the longest diversion time for which approval is sought.

(a)Common cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical threats must be considered in showing compliance with this requirement.

(b)In showing compliance with this requirement, the ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical power generation and distribution system may be considered if it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is extremely improbable. An alternative source of electrical power must be provided for the time required to restore the minimum electrical power generation capability required for safe flight and landing. (Unrecoverable loss of all engines may be excluded when showing that unrecoverable loss of critical portions of the electrical system is extremely improbable.)

(2)Regardless of any electrical generation and distribution system recovery capability shown under paragraph 1, sufficient electrical system capability must be provided—

(a)to allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the speed that provides the best glide slope, from the maximum operating altitude to the altitude at which the soonest possible engine restart could be accomplished, and

(b)to subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and APU. This capability must be provided in addition to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements related to operation with all engines inoperative.

(3)The electrical energy used by the airplane in descending with engines inoperative from the maximum operating altitude at the best glide slope, and in making multiple attempts to start the engines and APU, must be considered when showing compliance with paragraphs

(1)and

(2)of these special conditions and with existing 14 CFR part 25 requirements related to continued safe flight and landing. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-20310 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29011; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-14] Proposed Revision of Class D and E Airspace; Kenai, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class D and E airspace at Kenai, AK. Five Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being amended for the Kenai Municipal Airport at Kenai, AK. Additionally, one textual departure procedure

(DP)is being amended. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class D & E airspace upward, from the surface, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29011/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29011/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the Kenai Municipal Airport, in Kenai, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from the surface, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Kenai Municipal Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has amended five SIAPs and one DP for the Kenai Municipal Airport. The amended approaches are

(1)the Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range

(VOR)Runway

(RWY)19R, Amendment

(Amdt)18,

(2)the Instrument Landing System

(ILS)or Localizer

(LOC)RWY 19R, Amdt 3,

(3)the VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)RWY 01L, Amdt 7,

(4)the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 01L, Amdt 1, and

(5)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19R, Amdt 1. Textual DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class D and E controlled airspace extending upward, from the surface, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Kenai Municipal Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK. 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 D airspace area designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E surface areas designated as extensions to Class D surface areas are published in paragraph 6004 in FAA Order 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and 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 create Class D and E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at Kenai Municipal 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is to be amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 General. AAK AK D Kenai, AK [Revised] Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK (Lat. 60°34′23″ N., long. 151°14′42″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.2-miles radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport, excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the Kenai Municipal Airport extending from the 310° bearing clockwise to the 350° bearing from the Kenai Municipal Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AAK AK E4 Kenai, AK [Revised] Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK (Lat. 60°34′23″ N., long. 151°14′42″ W.) Kenai VOR/DME (Lat. 60°36′53″ N., long. 151°11′43″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.7 miles each side of the 031° radial of the Kenai VOR/DME extending from the 5.2-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport to 10.2 miles northeast of the Kenai Municipal Airport. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Kenai, AK [Revised] Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK (Lat. 60°34′23″ N., long. 151°14′42″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport and within 4 miles east and west of the 031° bearing from the Kenai Municipal Airport extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 11 miles north of the Kenai Municipal Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 75-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on October 5, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-20313 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29100; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-16] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Soldotna, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Soldotna, AK. Two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being developed for the Soldotna Airport at Soldotna, AK. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Soldotna Airport, Soldotna, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29100/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29100/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the Soldotna Airport, in Soldotna, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Soldotna Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has developed two new SIAPs for the Soldotna Airport. The new approaches are

(1)the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 07, Original

(Orig)and

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 25, Orig. Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Soldotna Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Soldotna Airport, Soldotna, AK. 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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

(DP)are being amended for the Buckland Airport at Buckland, AK. Additionally, two new SIAPs are being developed. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Buckland Airport, Buckland, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29009/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29009/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the Buckland Airport, in Buckland, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Buckland Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has amended two SIAPs and a DP, and developed two SIAPs for the Buckland Airport. The amended approaches are

(1)the Non-directional Beacon (NDB)/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)Runway

(RWY)11, Amendment

(Amdt)1 and

(2)the NDB/DME RWY 29, Amdt 1. The new approaches are

(1)the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 02, Original

(Orig)and

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 20, Orig. Textual DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Buckland Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Buckland Airport, Buckland, AK. 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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

(DP)are being developed. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Roland Norton Memorial Airport, Selawik, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-27998/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-05, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov* . Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-27998/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-05.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the Roland Norton Memorial Airport, in Selawik, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Roland Norton Memorial Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has amended two SIAPs and developed four SIAPs along with a DP for the Roland Norton Memorial Airport. The amended approaches are

(1)the Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range

(VOR)Runway

(RWY)04, Amendment

(Amdt)1 and

(2)the VOR RWY 22, Amdt 1. The new approaches are

(1)the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 04, Original (Orig),

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, 0rig,

(3)the RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 22, Orig, and

(4)the RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 22, Orig. Textual DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Roland Norton Memorial Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Roland Norton Memorial Airport, Selawik, AK. 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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 create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at Roland Norton Memorial 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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 Selawik, AK [Revised] Selawik, Roland Norton Memorial Airport, AK (Lat. 66°45′58″ N., long. 160°09′10″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of the Roland Norton Memorial Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 74-mile radius of the Roland Norton Memorial Airport. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on October 5, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-20312 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29010; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Chevak, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Chevak, AK. Two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being developed for the Chevak Airport at Chevak, AK. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Chevak Airport, Chevak, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29010/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29010/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the Chevak Airport, in Chevak, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Chevak Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has developed two new SIAPs for the Chevak Airport. The new approaches are

(1)the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 02, Original

(Orig)and

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 20, 0rig. Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Chevak Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Chevak Airport, Chevak, AK. 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 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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

(DP)are being amended for the McGrath Airport at McGrath, AK. Additionally, one new SIAP is being developed. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward, from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the McGrath Airport, McGrath, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29012/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29012/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-15.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at the McGrath Airport, in McGrath, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at McGrath Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has amended five SIAPs and a DP, and developed one new SIAP for the McGrath Airport. The amended approaches are

(1)the High Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)or Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Runway

(RWY)16, Amendment

(Amdt)1,

(2)the VOR/DME or TACAN RWY 16, Amdt 1,

(3)the VOR A, Amdt 8,

(4)the VOR/DME C, Amdt 1 and

(5)the Localizer (LOC)/DME RWY 16, Amdt 3. The new approach is the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)RWY 16, Original (Orig). Textual DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the McGrath Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the McGrath Airport, McGrath, AK. 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 surface areas are published in paragraph 6002 in FAA Order 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9R, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, 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

(SIP)submitted on September 14, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Illinois. As a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA would also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs) concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Illinois. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0376, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0376”, John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6067, *summerhays.john@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 21, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-20144 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0718; FRL-8482-9] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan

(SIP)and Operating Permits Program submitted by the state of Iowa. These revisions update and clarify various rules and makes minor revisions and corrections. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal enforceability of the State's revised air program rules. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0718 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule that is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision and Title V revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 5, 2007. William Rice, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-20377 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0390; FRL-8481-3] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Ohio: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on April 17, 2007, as amended by letter on September 26, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the Ohio SIP revision meets selected provisions of the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal Implementation Plan emission reduction requirements under the NO X SIP Call and, as such, is approvable. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0390, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0390”, John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6084, *paskevicz.john@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 28, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-20251 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0958-200744; FRL-8482-6] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Atlanta, GA, 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find that the Atlanta, Georgia marginal 8-hour nonattainment ozone area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS” or “standard”) by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding, the Atlanta, Georgia area will then be reclassified, by operation of law, as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area attainment date for the Atlanta, Georgia area would then be “as expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than June 15, 2010. Once reclassified, Georgia must submit a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision that meets the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for moderate areas, as required by the CAA. In this action, EPA is also proposing the schedule for Georgia's submittal of the SIP revision required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0958, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: harder.stacy@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019. 4. *Mail:* EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0958, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0958. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 or the Air Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone:

(404)562-9029. E-mail: *harder.stacy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? D. What Is the Atlanta, Georgia Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Atlanta Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Atlanta Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Atlanta Area IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for this Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? The CAA requires EPA to establish a NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the air quality levels they must meet to comply with the CAA. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether or not the air quality in their communities is healthful. B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards” states: “The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.” C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS established by EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. They may contain state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. D. What Is the Atlanta, Georgia Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? The Atlanta 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is located in Northern Georgia and consists of Barrow, Barton, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Pickens, Rockdale, Spaulding, and Walton Counties. For areas subject to Subpart 2 of the CAA, such as the Atlanta nonattainment area, the maximum period for attainment runs from the effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and will be the same period as provided in Table 1 of CAA Section 181(a): Marginal—3 years; Moderate—6 years; Serious—9 years, Severe—15 or 17 years; and Extreme—20 years. The Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23951) provides for classification of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.903). The effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15, 2004. See, April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858. The Atlanta area was initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004, and classified “marginal” based on a design value of .091 parts per million (ppm), with an attainment date of June 15, 2007. The design value of an area, which characterizes the severity of the air quality concern, is represented by the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at each monitor averaged over any three-year period. E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? Section 181(b)(2) prescribes the process for making determinations upon failure of an ozone nonattainment area to attain by its attainment date, and for reclassification of an ozone nonattainment area. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that EPA determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard by that date. For marginal, moderate and serious areas, if EPA finds that the nonattainment area has failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, the area must be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of

(1)the next higher classification for the area, or

(2)the classification applicable to the area's design value as determined at the time of the required **Federal Register** notice. Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish in the **Federal Register** a notice identifying any area that has failed to attain by its attainment date and the resulting reclassification. Different circumstances apply to severe and extreme areas. II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Atlanta Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? EPA makes attainment determinations for ozone nonattainment areas using available quality-assured air quality data. Within the Atlanta area, ground-level ozone is measured at various monitors. In recent years, the Confederate Avenue monitor has measured some of the highest 8-hour average ozone concentrations in the Atlanta area. The fourth-highest daily maximum readings for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in Atlanta are .092, .092, and .099 ppm, respectively. The 2004 fourth-highest daily maximum reading was from the Gwinnett Tech monitor, the 2005 fourth-highest daily maximum reading was from the Confederate Avenue monitor in Fulton County and the 2006 fourth-highest daily maximum reading was from the Conyers Monastery monitor in Rockdale County. For the Atlanta ozone nonattainment area, the attainment determination is based on 2004-2006 air quality data. The area has a 2004-2006 design value of .091 ppm. Therefore, the Atlanta area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, deadline for marginal areas. Table 1.—Atlanta Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values Site Fourth highest daily maximum 2004 2005 2006 Design value 3-year average (2004-2006) GA National Guard—Cobb Co. 0.073 0.081 0.093 0.082 U. of W.GA at Newnan—Coweta Co. 0.083 0.078 0.086 0.082 S. Dekalb—Dekalb Co. 0.084 0.087 0.096 0.089 Idlewood Rd.—Dekalb Co. 0.088 0.084 0.094 0.088 Douglasville W.—Douglas Co. 0.08 0.089 0.095 0.088 Fayetteville—Fayette Co. 0.084 0.086 0.09 0.086 Confederate Ave.—Fulton Co. 0.089 0.092 0.092 0.091 Gwinnett Tech—Gwinnett Co. 0.092 0.082 0.096 0.090 Henry Co. Ext. Office—Henry Co. 0.085 0.089 0.095 0.089 Yorkville—Paulding Co. 0.073 0.082 0.084 0.091 Conyers Monastery—Rockdale Co. 0.087 0.088 0.099 0.091 Under Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the CAA, an area can qualify for up to two 1-year extensions of its attainment date based on the number of exceedances in the attainment year and whether the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable SIP. For the 8-hour standard, if an area's fourth-highest daily 8-hour average in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.907), the area is eligible for up to two 1-year attainment date extensions. The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the nonattainment area's attainment date. For Atlanta, the attainment year is 2006. In 2006, the maximum fourth-highest daily 8-hour average value was 0.99 ppm. Based on this information, the Atlanta area currently does not qualify for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that, when EPA finds that an area failed to attain by the applicable date, the area is reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: the next higher classification, or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time of the required notice under Section 181(b)(2)(B). Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the reclassification status of an area that has failed to attain the standard by its attainment date. The classification that would be applicable to the Atlanta area's ozone design value at the time of this notice is “marginal” because the area's 2006 calculated design value, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.091 ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the Atlanta area is “moderate.” Because “moderate” is a higher nonattainment classification than “marginal” under the CAA statutory scheme, upon the effective date of a final rulemaking, the Atlanta area would be reclassified by operation of law as “moderate,” for failing to attain the standard by the marginal area applicable attainment date of June 15, 2007. III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Atlanta Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Atlanta area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. When EPA finalizes this finding, and it takes effect, the Atlanta area will be reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing a schedule by which Georgia will submit the SIP revision necessary for the proposed reclassification to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Atlanta Area When an area is reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, the state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case, 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61236). For the purposes of this reclassification for the Atlanta, Georgia area, March 1st is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result of discussions with the State, EPA proposes that the required SIP revision be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2008. A revised SIP must include the following moderate area requirements:

(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908);

(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912);

(3)reasonable further progress reductions in volatile organic compound

(VOC)and/or nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions in Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding and Rockdale Counties (the 13 counties included in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area) and reasonable further progress reductions in VOC emissions in Barrow, Barton, Carroll, Newton, Pickens, Spaulding, and Walton Counties (40 CFR 51.910);

(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9));

(5)a vehicle inspection and maintenance program (40 CFR 51.350); and

(6)nitrogen oxide and VOC emission offsets of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (40 CFR 51.165(a)). (See also, the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b).) IV. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Atlanta marginal 8-hour ozone area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. If EPA finalizes its proposal, the area will, by operation of law, be reclassified as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is also proposing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revision required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. EPA proposes that the required SIP revision for Georgia be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2008. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This proposed action to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not establish any new information collection burden. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards, see, 13 CFR 121;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation to why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either state, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of section 203. EPA believes, as discussed previously in this document, that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the proposed finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely proposes to determine that the Atlanta area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This action does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action merely proposes to determine that the Atlanta area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that

(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely proposes to determine that the Atlanta area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action merely proposes to determine that the Atlanta area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action merely proposes to determine that the Atlanta area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Atlanta area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: October 9, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-20342 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0959-200745; FRL-8482-3] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Memphis, TN/Crittenden County, AR 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find that the Memphis, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area) has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS” or “standard”) by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding, the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area will then be reclassified as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area attainment date for the reclassified Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area would then be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than June 15, 2010. Once reclassified, Tennessee and Arkansas must submit State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for moderate areas, as required by the CAA. In this action, EPA is also proposing the schedule for the States' submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0959, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov* or *riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019 (Region 4) or 214-665-7263 (Region 6). 4. *Mail:* EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0959, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, or Air Planning Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Jane Spann, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, or Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Offices' normal hours of operation. The Regional Offices' official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0959. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 or the Air Planning Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Tennessee issues)—Jane Spann, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone:

(404)562-9029. E-mail: *spann.jane@epa.gov.* (Arkansas issues)—Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section, U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Phone:

(214)665-8542. E-mail: *riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? B. What Is the Standard for 8-hour Ozone? C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? D. What Is the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area, and What Is its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date. B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area. IV. Proposed Action. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? The CAA requires EPA to establish a NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants referred to as criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the air quality levels they must meet to comply with the CAA. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether the air quality in their communities is healthful. B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards” states: “The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.” C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS established by EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. They may contain state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. D. What Is the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area, and What Is its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? The Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area is located in both Western Tennessee and Northeastern Arkansas, and consists of Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas, respectively. For areas subject to Subpart 2 of the CAA, such as the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area, the maximum period for attainment runs from the effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and will be the same period as provided in Table 1 of CAA Section 181(a): Marginal—3 years; Moderate—6 years; Serious—9 years; Severe—15 or 17 years; and Extreme—20 years. The Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23951) provides the classification scheme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see, 40 CFR 51.903). The effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15, 2004 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area was initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004, and classified as “moderate” based on a design value of .092 parts per million

(ppm)with an attainment date of June 15, 2010 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The design value of an area, which characterizes the severity of the air quality concern, is represented by the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at each monitor averaged over any three-year period. On July 15, 2004, pursuant to section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, the States of Tennessee and Arkansas submitted a petition to EPA Regions 4 and 6, requesting a downward reclassification of the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area from “moderate” to “marginal” for the 8-hour ozone standard. The petition was based on the area's “moderate” design value of .092 ppm being within five percent of the maximum “marginal” design value of 0.091 ppm. Pursuant to Section 181(a)(4), areas with design values within five percent of the standard may request a reclassification under specific circumstances. Factors for EPA to consider as part of such a request are described in Section 181(a)(4) of the CAA. The petition for reclassification to “marginal” was approved by EPA, and became effective on November 22, 2004 (see, 69 FR 56697, September 22, 2004). As a result of the downward classification, the new attainment date for the Memphis TN-AR “marginal” Nonattainment Area was set at June 15, 2007, consistent with the CAA. E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? Section 181(b)(2) prescribes the process for making determinations upon failure of an ozone nonattainment area to attain by its attainment date, and for reclassification of an ozone nonattainment area. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that EPA determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard by that date. For marginal and moderate areas, if EPA finds that the nonattainment area has failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, the area must be reclassified to the higher of

(1)the next higher classification for the area, or

(ppm)1 Site 4th highest daily max 2004 2005 2006 Design value 3 year average (2004-2006) Marion, AR 0.078 0.096 0.089 0.087 Orgill Park, TN 0.075 0.081 0.084 0.080 Frayser, TN 0.073 0.082 0.083 0.079 Hernando, MS 0.080 0.084 0.087 0.083 1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of the annual fourth highest values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I). Under Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the CAA, an area can qualify for up to two 1-year extensions of its attainment date based on the number of exceedances in the attainment year and whether the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable SIP. For the 8-hour standard, if an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less (see, 40 CFR 51.907), the area is eligible for up to two 1-year attainment date extensions. The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the nonattainment area's attainment date. For the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area, the attainment year was 2006. In 2006, the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average value was 0.089 ppm. Based on this information, the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area currently does not qualify for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that, when EPA finds that an area failed to attain by the applicable date, the area is reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: the next higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time of the required notice under Section 181(b)(2)(B). Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the reclassification status of an area that has failed to attain the standard by its attainment date. The classification that would be applicable to the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area's ozone design value at the time of this notice is “marginal” because the area's 2006 calculated design value, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.087 ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area is “moderate.” Because “moderate” is a higher nonattainment classification than “marginal” under the CAA statutory scheme, upon the effective date of a final rulemaking, the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area will be reclassified by operation of law as “moderate,” for failing to attain the standard by the marginal area applicable attainment date of June 15, 2007. III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding and it takes effect, the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area shall be reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing a schedule by which Tennessee and Arkansas will submit the SIP revisions necessary for the proposed reclassification to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area EPA must address the schedule by which Tennessee and Arkansas are required to submit a revised SIP. When an area is reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, a state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61236). For the purposes of this reclassification for the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area, March 1st is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA proposes that the required SIP revision be submitted by both Tennessee and Arkansas as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than March 1, 2009. A revised SIP must include the following moderate area requirements:

(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908);

(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912);

(3)reasonable further progress reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC ) emissions (40 CFR 51.910);

(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9));

(5)a vehicle inspection and maintenance program (40 CFR 51.350); and

(6)nitrogen oxide and VOC emission offsets of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (40 CFR 51.165(a). (See also, the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b).) IV. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Memphis TN-AR “marginal” 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. If EPA finalizes its proposal, the Area will by operation of law be reclassified as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is also proposing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. EPA proposes that the required SIP revisions for Tennessee and Arkansas be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than March 1, 2009. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This proposed action to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not establish any new information collection burden. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.);

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation to why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of section 203. EPA believes, as discussed previously in this document, that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the proposed finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, this action merely proposes to determine that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area had not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This action does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action merely proposes to determine that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely proposes to determine that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action merely proposes to determine that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR “marginal” Nonattainment Area as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action merely proposes to determine that the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Memphis TN-AR Nonattainment Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: October 9, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. Dated: September 24, 2007. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-20390 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 10 RIN 1024-AD68 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations—Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule specifies procedures for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in the possession or control of museums or Federal agencies, thus implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Act). Publication of this document is intended to solicit comments from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and members of the public before its publication as a final rule. DATES: Written comments will be accepted through January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1024-AD68, by any of the following methods: — *Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. — *Mail to:* Dr. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, Docket No. 1024-AC84, 1849 C Street, NW., (2253), Washington, DC 20240. — *Hand deliver to:* Dr. Sherry Hutt, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20240, telephone

(202)354-1479, facsimile

(202)371-5197. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Sections 8(c)(5) and (c)(7) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(Act)(25 U.S.C. 3001 *et seq.* ) gives the Review Committee the responsibility for recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and consulting with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in the development of regulations to carry out the Act. Section 13 charges the Secretary with promulgating regulations to carry out the Act. Section 5(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations providing for the ultimate disposition of archaeological resources and other resources removed under the Act of June 27, 1960 (the Reservoir Salvage Act, as amended, also known as the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 469-469c-1) or the Act of June 8, 1906 (the Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 431-433). Background On November 16, 1990, President George Bush signed into law the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Act addresses the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Section 8 of the Act established the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee of seven private citizens to monitor and review implementation of the inventory and identification process and repatriation activities required under the Act. Section 8(c)(5) charged the Review Committee with compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or control of museums or Federal agencies and recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition of such remains. The inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and recommendations regarding their disposition relate only to human remains in the possession or control of museums and Federal agencies and not to human remains that are excavated or removed from Federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990 under section 3 of the Act. Current regulations implementing the Act require museums and Federal agencies to retain possession of culturally unidentifiable human remains until final regulations are promulgated or the Secretary recommends otherwise. The disposition of funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains is not specifically addressed in the Act. During deliberations over recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, the Review Committee considered the intrinsic relationship of human remains to associated funerary objects and concluded that nothing in the Act precludes the voluntary disposition of these cultural items by museums or Federal agencies to the extent allowable by Federal law. In 1994, the Review Committee began to formally solicit comments from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, and Federal agencies regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The Review Committee developed its first draft of recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects in February 1995. These draft recommendations were published for public comment in the **Federal Register** (60 FR 32163, June 20, 1995). Copies of the draft were sent to over 3,000 Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, national museum and scientific organizations, and members of the public. One hundred and twenty-nine written comments were received during the 100-day comment period, representing 16 Indian tribes, 49 museums, 12 Federal agencies, 3 national museum and scientific organizations, and 58 members of the public. Based on the comments received, a revised draft of recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects was developed in June 1996. The revised draft recommendations were published for public comment in the **Federal Register** (61 FR 43071, August 20, 1996). Copies of the draft were sent to over 3,000 Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, national museum and scientific organizations, and members of the public. Forty-nine written comments were received during the 45-day comment period, representing 4 Indian tribes, 26 museums, 4 Federal agencies, 6 national museum and scientific organizations, and 11 members of the public. In June 1998, the Review Committee developed draft principles of agreement regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The draft principles of agreement were published for public comment in the **Federal Register** on two different occasions (64 FR 33502, June 23, 1999 and 64 FR 41135, July 29, 1999). Copies of the draft were sent to over 3,000 Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, national museum and scientific organizations, and members of the public. Eighty-nine written comments were received during the 70-day comment period, representing 13 Indian tribes, 39 museums, 4 Federal agencies, 5 national museum and scientific organizations, and 22 members of the public. While the Review Committee developed the draft of general recommendations, a separate procedure was developed for consideration of case-by-case requests for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects based on a recommendation from the Secretary [43 CFR 10.9(e)(6)]. Forty-one case-by-case requests were received and all were referred to the Review Committee for consideration. Twenty-six requests were made by museums and 15 requests were made by Federal agencies. The Review Committee considered each request as part of its regular meeting agenda and recommendations were referred to the National Park Service for action. Responses to each requesting museum or Federal agency were signed by a representative of the Secretary as required by § 10.9(e)(6). Of the 41 requests, the Secretary's representative recommended disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in 33 cases. Nine of the 33 recommended dispositions were to Indian tribes based on the recognition of their aboriginal occupation of the area in which the human remains and associated funerary objects were recovered, 8 were to coalitions including federally recognized Indian tribes, 11 were to non-federally recognized Indian groups, and 5 were to be completed according to applicable State law. Eleven of the 33 recommended dispositions also included funerary objects that were associated with the culturally unidentifiable human remains. In response to one of the requests, the representative of the Secretary provided a recommendation on February 7, 2000 that stated “the statutory language neither requires nor precludes the committee from making recommendations regarding the disposition of funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains. While regulatory provisions require museums or federal agencies to retain possession of culturally unidentifiable human remains until final regulations are promulgated or the Secretary recommends otherwise, these provisions do not apply to associated funerary objects. A museum may choose to repatriate such items. However, a Notice of Inventory Completion must be published in the **Federal Register** before the disposition.” Of the 41 requests made regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, in eight cases the Secretary's representative recommended that the culturally unidentifiable human remains be retained pending completion of the inventory required under 43 CFR 10.9. After circulating three drafts for public comment and considering the specific case-by-case requests, the Review Committee developed its final recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in May 2000. The recommendations were published on June 8, 2000 (65 FR 36462). The Review Committee recognized that the legislative intent of the Act is expressed by its title: the protection of Native American graves and repatriation [of Native American cultural items]. Specifically, the Review Committee found that the Act requires

(1)the disposition of all Native American human remains and cultural items excavated on or removed from Federal lands after November 16, 1990, with disposition based on linkages of lineal descent, tribal land, cultural affiliation, or aboriginal land;

(2)the repatriation of culturally affiliated human remains and associated funerary objects in Federal agency and museum collections, if requested by a culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, with repatriation based on linkages of lineal descent or cultural affiliation; and

(3)the development of regulations for the disposition of unclaimed human remains and objects and culturally unidentifiable human remains in Federal agency and museum collections. Although the treatment of funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains is not addressed in the Act, the Review Committee recognized that the Act does not prohibit the voluntary repatriation of these cultural items by museums or Federal agencies to the extent allowed by Federal law. Museums or Federal agencies must determine whether Native American human remains in their control are related to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated with a present-day federally recognized Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or are culturally unidentifiable. This determination must be made in consultation with all appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, as described in 43 CFR 10.9(b), and through a good faith evaluation of all relevant and available documentation. A determination that human remains are culturally unidentifiable may change to a determination of cultural affiliation as additional information becomes available through ongoing consultation or any other source. The Review Committee finds no statute of limitations in the Act for lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations to make a claim, and a museum or Federal agency's determination that human remains are culturally unidentifiable may occur for different reasons. Categories of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains The Review Committee's recommendations identified three categories of culturally unidentifiable human remains:

(1)those for which cultural affiliation could be determined but that the appropriate Native American group is not federally recognized as an Indian tribe;

(2)those that represent an identifiable earlier group, but for which no present-day Indian tribe has been identified by the museum or Federal agency; and

(3)those for which the museum or Federal agency believes that evidence is insufficient to identify an earlier group. Documentation Documentation is required for inventory completion and determinations of cultural affiliation by museums or Federal agencies and should be prepared in accordance with the standards outlined in 43 CFR 10.9(c) and 10.14. Documentation must occur within the context of the consultation process. The Review Committee proposed that additional study of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects is not prohibited if the appropriate parties in consultation agree that such study is appropriate. The Review Committee confirmed that once inventories have been completed, the Act may not be used to require new scientific studies or other means of acquiring or preserving additional scientific information from human remains and associated funerary objects. Disposition The Review Committee proposed three guidelines for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. 1. Respect must be the foundation for any disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Human remains determined to be culturally unidentifiable are no less deserving of respect than those for which cultural affiliation has been established. 2. Because there may be different reasons for human remains being unclaimed or determined to be culturally unidentifiable, there may be more than one appropriate disposition solution. Examples of appropriate disposition solutions include the return of human remains that are determined to be culturally unidentifiable that were removed from tribal land; human remains that are determined to be culturally unidentifiable that were recovered from the aboriginal land of an Indian tribe; or human remains that are culturally unidentifiable but for which there is a relationship of shared group identity with a non-federally recognized Native American group. 3. A museum or Federal agency may also seek the recommendation of the Review Committee for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains based on criteria other than those listed above. The Review Committee proposed two models for determining the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The first model involved the joint recommendations by claimants and museums or Federal agencies. Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains may proceed in those cases where all the relevant parties have agreed in writing that the inventory requirements have been met and that the Review Committee's guidelines for respectful treatment, recognition of alternative disposition solutions, and the use of the Review Committee for disposition recommendations have been followed. The Review Committee noted that it had already recommended disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in cases that met the three guidelines. The second model involved the joint recommendations of regional consortia. The Review Committee recognized that historical and cultural factors, and therefore issues concerning the definition and disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, vary significantly across the United States. Therefore, the Review Committee recommended that regional solutions be developed that would best fit regional circumstances. The Review Committee recommended a process in which Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations define regions within which the most appropriate solutions for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains might be determined. Within each region, the appropriate Federal agencies, museums, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations would consult together and propose a framework and schedule to develop and implement the most appropriate model for their region. Dispositions agreed upon through regional consultation meetings would be made by the appropriate Federal agencies, museums, and Indian tribes. If a disposition agreement could not be reached through regional consultation meetings, the matter could be brought before the Review Committee. Any proposed regional disposition agreement would have to meet the Review Committee's three guidelines for disposition. Inventory Section 8(c)(5) of the Act directs the Review Committee to compile an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or control of museums or Federal agencies. The scope of this inventory was expanded to include both culturally unidentifiable human remains and funerary objects with which they are associated by § 10.9(d)(2). The Review Committee's inventory summarizes information provided by museums or Federal agencies in their inventories. This includes: 1. The number of human remains and associated funerary objects under their control; 2. State and county from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed; 3. The earlier group to which the human remains and associated funerary objects are thought to have belonged; 4. The date range during which the human remains and associated funerary objects are thought to have been originally interred; and 5. The date when custody of the human remains and associated funerary objects was either transferred to an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization, or non-federally recognized Indian group or they were reinterred. Section 8(g)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide reasonable administrative and staff support necessary for the deliberations of the Review Committee. One of those duties has been compilation of the Review Committee's inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects. The Review Committee's inventory was compiled from the inventories submitted by museums or Federal agencies under 43 CFR 10.9(e)(6). Each museum and Federal agency had an opportunity to verify the Review Committee's inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects from their institution for verification before submission of the final inventory to the Review Committee. The Review Committee's inventory is posted at *http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/onlinedb/index.htm* and presently includes information on 118,348 human remains and 846,187 associated funerary objects from 614 museums or Federal agencies. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 10.1 Purpose and Applicability Paragraph 10.1(b)(3) provides clarification to Federal agencies as to when a determination constitutes final agency action as used in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 704). Section 10.2 Definitions Section 10.2 provides definitions of terms used throughout Part 10. Paragraph 10.2(e) provides additional clarification to the definition of cultural affiliation. Human remains and associated funerary objects in museum or Federal agency collections for which no lineal descendant or culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization was determined are referred to as culturally unidentifiable. Paragraph 10.2(g)(5) provides a definition of disposition and identifies procedures to effectuate this process in various situations. Section 10.9 Inventories Paragraph 10.9(e)(2) details the contents of notices of inventory completion. Additional text to clarify that such notices include information regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects to be transferred or reinterred under 43 CFR 10.11 is proposed for addition. Paragraph 10.9(e)(5) directs museums or Federal agencies to supply additional available documentation upon the request of an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. Additional text to clarify that such documentation shall be considered a public record subject to disclosure except when exempted under applicable law, such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, is proposed for addition. Further, as required by section 5(B)(2) (Inventory For Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects) of the Act, neither a request for such documentation nor any provisions of the regulations shall be construed as authorizing the initiation of new scientific studies of such human remains and associated funerary objects or other means of acquiring or preserving additional scientific information from such remains and objects. Paragraph 10.9(e)(6) is rewritten to remove the last three sentences that provide direction to museums and Federal agencies pending promulgation of § 10.11. Section 10.11 Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains This new section fulfills the Secretary's responsibility to promulgate regulations under sections 8(c)(5) and 13 of the Act regarding the process for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The Department of the Interior developed this section after full and careful consideration of the Review Committee's recommendations and other relevant legislation and policy. Paragraph

(b)concerns consultation. The drafters recognize that as a result of consultation a museum or Federal agency may revise its determination regarding the cultural affiliation of human remains and associated funerary objects. Notification and repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects that are determined to be culturally affiliated with an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization must be completed following provisions of 43 CFR 10.9(e) and 10.10(b). Paragraph

(c)establishes three choices for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The processes outlined in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are mandatory. The process outlined in paragraph (c)(3) and (c)(4) are voluntary but recommended. Paragraph (c)(1) requires a museum or Federal agency to offer to transfer control of culturally unidentifiable human remains for which it cannot prove right of possession to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations according to three priority categories outlined below. A museum or Federal agency can obtain right of possession to Native American human remains by several means. Section 2(13) of the Act stipulates that the original acquisition of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects that were excavated, exhumed, or otherwise obtained with full knowledge and consent of the next of kin or the official governing body of the appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is deemed to give right of possession to those remains. Further, section 3(e) of the Act states that nothing in section 3 of the Act shall prevent the governing body of an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization from expressly relinquishing control over any Native American human remains, or title to or control over any funerary object or sacred object. The priority ownership categories in Section 3(a) of the Act served as a reasonable model for the proposed priority categories for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Control of human remains excavated or discovered under section 3 of the Act can be based on lineal descent, tribal land, aboriginal land, and cultural relationship, as well as cultural affiliation. However, it was necessary to make several changes to the priority ownership categories in Section 3(a) of the Act to accommodate the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The drafters request comments from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and other interested persons regarding the appropriateness of using the priority structure in determining the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) stipulates that first priority would be to the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization on whose tribal land, at the time of recovery, the human remains were recovered. This category parallels the provisions in section 3(a)(2) of the Act regarding the disposition of cultural items from tribal land after November 16, 1990. This provision would apply to sites considered to be tribal land at the time the original excavation or removal occurred. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) stipulates that second priority would be to the Indian tribe or tribes that are recognized as aboriginally occupying the area in which the human remains were recovered. Aboriginal occupation may be recognized by a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims, or by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order. This category is based on the provisions of section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Act regarding the disposition of cultural items from Federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990. The Act specifically identified final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission and the United States Court of Claims as two sources of information regarding aboriginal occupation. Certain treaties, acts of Congress, and executive orders also identify areas aboriginally occupied by Indian tribes. Maps of the territory ceded by all United States treaties were originally published in the 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896-1897 [Government Printing Office, 1899] and are available online at *http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwss-ilc.html.* Treaties signed before the establishment of the United States between the various colonial governments and Indian tribes may also be used to identify areas aboriginally occupied by Indian tribes. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) stipulates that third priority would be to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations with a cultural relationship to the region from which the human remains were removed or, for human remains lacking geographic affiliation, a cultural relationship to the region in which the museum or Federal agency with control over the human remains is located. This category is similar to provisions of section 3(a)(2)(C)(2) of the Act regarding the disposition of cultural items from Federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990. However, while the provisions of section 3(a)(2)(C)(2) require a cultural relationship between an Indian tribe and cultural items, this paragraph requires a cultural relationship between an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the region from which the human remains either were removed or are currently located. Nearly 70 percent of the 110,565 culturally unidentifiable human remains for which geographical information was provided were recovered from the same state in which the possessing museum or Federal agency is located. The majority of the 7,783 human remains lacking provenience information are likewise presumed to have been recovered from the immediate vicinity of the repository in which they are currently located. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) stipulates that if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a different Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has a stronger cultural relationship with the human remains than the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization specified in (c)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(iii), the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has the strongest demonstrated cultural relationship would have priority, if upon notice, such Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization states such a claim. This provision is similar to the caveat in section 3(a)(2)(C)(2) of the Act regarding the disposition of cultural items from Federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990. The drafters request comments from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and other interested persons regarding the meaning of the term “cultural relationship.” Paragraph (c)(2) provides notice that any disposition of human remains excavated or removed from “Indian lands” as defined by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act

(ARPA)must also comply with the provisions of that statute and its implementing regulations. “Indian lands” means “lands of Indian tribes, or Indian individuals, which are either held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, except for any subsurface interests in lands not owned or controlled by an Indian tribe or Indian individual” [16 U.S.C. 470bb(4)]. Paragraph (c)(3) establishes a process for the voluntary transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are not transferred under provisions of paragraph (c)(1) to a non-federally recognized Indian group, or reinterment of culturally unidentifiable human remains according to State or other law. Such dispositions may be completed upon receipt of a recommendation from the Secretary or authorized representative. The Secretary will only consider recommending such dispositions with the written consent of all Indian tribes identified in paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2), in order to ensure that the rights of federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal members are protected. The Secretary's recommendation regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains or associated funerary objects to a non-federally recognized Indian group does not indicate Federal recognition of the group's status as an Indian tribe or the existence of a government-to-government relationship. Paragraph (c)(4) stipulates that a museum or Federal agency may transfer control of funerary objects that are associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains following the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3). This provision is consistent with customary religious and spiritual beliefs that link the disposition of funerary objects with the human remains with which they were intentionally placed. The Secretary recommends that museums and Federal agencies transfer all funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains unless such a transfer is otherwise prohibited under law. Compliance With Other Laws Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) This document is not a significant rule and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

(1)This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It 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.

(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3)This rule does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4)This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The requirements to consult with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations are minimal and do not constitute a significant economic burden. This rule will require the disposition of only those Native American human remains for which the controlling entity cannot prove right of possession [25 U.S.C. 3005]. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule will not

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2)cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; or

(3)have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings (Executive Order 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule will require the disposition of only those Native American human remains for which the controlling museum or Federal agency cannot prove right of possession [25 U.S.C. 3005(c)]. Federalism (Executive Order 12612) In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. A Federalism Assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and does not meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the order. Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* The collection of this information will not be required until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is expected to average 20 hours for the exchange of summary or inventory information between a museum and an Indian tribe and 6 hours per response for the notification to the Secretary, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collected information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Information Collection Officer, Attn: Docket No. 1024-AC84, National Park Service, Department of Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3317, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20503. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and can be Categorically Excluded under 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10, “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” Government-to-Government Relationship With Indian Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” [59 FR 22951], Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” [65 FR 218], and 512 DM 2, “Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources,” this rule has a potential effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The proposed rule was developed in consultation with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, which includes members nominated by Indian tribes. The Review Committee consulted with Indian tribes in the development of the Review Committee's recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains that form the basis of this proposed rule. The Review Committee consulted with tribal representatives regarding its recommendations on February 16-18, 1995 in Los Angeles, CA; June 9-11, 1996 in Billings, MT; June 25-27, 1998 in Portland, OR; and May 2-4, 2000 in Juneau, AK. Tribal representatives were also consulted regarding draft text for these regulations at Review Committee meetings on May 2-4, 2000 in Juneau, AK; May 31-June 2, 2002 in Tulsa, OK; and November 8-9, 2002 in Seattle, WA. Clarity of Rule We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a)Be logically organized;

(b)Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c)Use clear language rather than jargon;

(d)Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e)Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. Drafting Information This proposed rule was prepared by Dr. C. Timothy McKeown in consultation with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee as directed by section 8(c)(7) of the Act, and Jennifer Lee and Jerry Case, WASO Regulations Program, National Park Service. Public Participation It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule to the address noted at the beginning of this rulemaking. We also request comments from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and other interested persons regarding: 1. The meaning of the term “cultural relationship;” and 2. The appropriateness of using the priority structure in determining the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Copies of this proposed rule may be obtained by submitting a request to the Manager, National NAGPRA program, National Park Service, at the address noted at the beginning of this rulemaking. Commentors wishing the National Park Service to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit those comments with a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No 1024-AD68.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commentor. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 10 Administrative practice and procedure, Graves, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians-claims, Museums, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Repatriation. In consideration of the foregoing, 43 CFR Part 10 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 10—NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority for Part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 25 U.S.C. 3001 *et seq.* , 16 U.S.C. 470dd (2). 2. In § 10.1 revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: § 10.1 Purpose and applicability.

(b)* * *

(3)Throughout this part are decision points which determine how this part applies in particular circumstances, e.g., a decision as to whether a museum “controls” human remains and cultural objects within the meaning of the regulations, or, a decision as to whether an object is a “human remain,” “funerary object,” “sacred object,” or “object of cultural patrimony” within the meaning of the regulations. Any final determination making the Act or this part inapplicable is subject to review under section 15 of the Act. With respect to Federal agencies, the final denial of a request of a lineal descendant, Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization for the repatriation or disposition of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony brought under, and in compliance with, the Act and this part constitutes a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 704). 3. Amend § 10.2 by revising paragraph

(e)and adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows: § 10.2 Definitions. (e)(1) What is cultural affiliation? Cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence—based on geographical, kinship, biological, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion—reasonably leads to such a conclusion.

(2)What does culturally unidentifiable mean? Culturally unidentifiable refers to human remains and associated funerary objects in museum or Federal agency collections for which no lineal descendant or culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has been identified.

(g)* * *

(5)*Disposition* means the transfer of control over Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony by a museum or Federal agency under this part. This part establishes disposition procedures for several different situations:

(i)Custody of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony excavated intentionally from, or discovered inadvertently on Federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990 is established under § 10.6;

(ii)Repatriation of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony in museum and Federal agency collections to a lineal descendant or culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is established under § 10.10.

(iii)Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, with or without associated funerary objects, in museum or Federal agency collections is established under § 10.11. 4. Amend 10.9 by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (5), and

(6)as follows: § 10.9 Inventories.

(e)* * *

(2)The notice of inventory completion must:

(i)Summarize the contents of the inventory in sufficient detail so as to enable the recipients to determine their interest in claiming the inventoried items;

(ii)Identify each particular set of human remains or each associated funerary object and the circumstances surrounding its acquisition;

(iii)Describe the human remains or associated funerary objects that are clearly identifiable as to cultural affiliation;

(iv)Describe the human remains or associated funerary objects that are not clearly identifiable as culturally affiliated with an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, but that are likely to be culturally affiliated with a particular Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization given the totality of circumstances surrounding acquisition of the human remains or associated objects; and

(v)Describe those human remains, with or without associated funerary objects, that are culturally unidentifiable but that may be transferred under § 10.11.

(3)* * *

(4)* * *

(5)Upon request by an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has received or should have received a notice and inventory under paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section, a museum or Federal agency must supply additional available documentation.

(i)For purposes of this paragraph, “documentation” means a summary of existing museum or Federal agency records including inventories or catalogues, relevant studies, or other pertinent data for the limited purpose of determining the geographical origin, cultural affiliation, and basic facts surrounding the acquisition and accession of human remains and associated funerary objects.

(ii)Documentation supplied under this paragraph is considered a public record except as exempted under relevant laws. Neither a request for documentation nor any other provisions of this part may be construed as authorizing either:

(A)The initiation of new scientific studies of the human remains and associated funerary objects; or

(B)Other means of acquiring or preserving additional scientific information from such remains and objects.

(6)If the museum or Federal agency official determines that the museum or Federal agency has possession of or control over human remains, with or without associated funerary objects, that cannot be identified as affiliated with a lineal descendent, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations, the museum or Federal agency must provide the Manager, National NAGPRA Program notice of this result and a copy of the list of such culturally unidentifiable human remains and any associated funerary objects. The Manager, National NAGPRA Program must make this information available to members of the Review Committee. Culturally unidentifiable human remains, with or without associated funerary objects, are subject to disposition under § 10.11. 5. Add § 10.11 to read as follows: § 10.11 Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.

(a)General. This section implements section 8 (c)(5) of the Act.

(b)Consultation.

(1)The museum or Federal agency official must initiate consultation regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects:

(i)Within ninety

(90)days of receipt of a request from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to transfer control of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects; or

(ii)Absent such a request, before any offer to transfer control of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects.

(2)The museum or Federal agency official must initiate consultation with officials and traditional religious leaders of all Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations:

(i)From whose tribal lands, at the time of the removal, the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed;

(ii)From whose aboriginal lands the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. Aboriginal occupation may be recognized by a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims, or a treaty, Act of Congress, or Executive Order; and (iii)(A) With a cultural relationship to the region from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed; or

(B)In the case of human remains and associated funerary objects lacking geographic affiliation, with a cultural relationship to the region in which the museum or Federal agency repository is located.

(3)The museum or Federal agency official must provide the following information in writing to all Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations with which the museum or Federal agency consults:

(i)A list of all Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations that are being, or have been, consulted regarding the particular human remains and associated funerary objects;

(ii)A list of any non-federally recognized Indian groups that are known to have a relationship of shared group identity with the particular human remains and associated funerary objects; and

(iii)An offer to provide a copy of the original inventory and additional documentation regarding the particular human remains and associated funerary objects.

(4)During consultation, museum and Federal agency officials must request, as appropriate, the following information from Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations:

(i)The name and address of the Indian tribe official to act as representative in consultations related to particular human remains and associated funerary objects;

(ii)The names and appropriate methods to contact any traditional religious leaders who should be consulted regarding the human remains and associated funerary objects;

(iii)Temporal and/or geographic criteria that the museum or Federal agency should use to identify groups of human remains and associated funerary objects for consultation;

(iv)The names and addresses of other Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or non-federally recognized Indian groups that should be included in the consultations; and

(v)A schedule and process for consultation.

(5)During consultation, the museum or Federal agency official should seek to develop a proposed disposition for culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects that is mutually agreeable to the parties specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The agreement must be consistent with this part.

(6)If consultation results in a determination that human remains and associated funerary objects previously determined to be culturally unidentifiable are actually culturally affiliated with an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, the notification and repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects must be completed as required by § 10.9

(e)and § 10.10 (b).

(c)Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects.

(1)A museum or Federal agency that is unable to prove that it has right of possession, as defined at § 10.10 (a)(2), to culturally unidentifiable human remains must offer to transfer control of the human remains to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations in the following priority order:

(i)The Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization from whose tribal land, at the time of the excavation or removal, the human remains were removed;

(ii)The Indian tribe or tribes that are recognized as aboriginally occupying the area from which the human remains were removed. Aboriginal occupation may be recognized by a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims, or a treaty, Act of Congress, or Executive Order; or

(iii)The Indian tribe and Native Hawaiian organization with:

(A)A cultural relationship to the region from which the human remains were removed, or

(B)For human remains lacking geographic affiliation, a cultural relationship to the region in which the museum or Federal agency with control over the human remains is located.

(iv)If it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that another Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has a stronger cultural relationship with the human remains than an entity specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has the strongest demonstrated cultural relationship, if upon notice, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization claims the human remains.

(2)Any disposition of human remains excavated or removed from “Indian lands” as defined by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470bb (4)) must also comply with the provisions of that statute and its implementing regulations.

(3)If none of the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section agrees to accept control, a museum or Federal agency may, upon receiving a recommendation from the Secretary or authorized representative:

(i)Transfer control of culturally unidentifiable human remains to a non-federally recognized Indian group, or

(ii)Reinter culturally unidentifiable human remains according to State or other law.

(4)The Secretary may make a recommendation under paragraph (c)(3) of this section only with the written consent of all Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations stipulated in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.

(5)A museum or Federal agency may also transfer control of funerary objects that are associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains. The Secretary recommends that museums and Federal agencies engage in such transfers whenever Federal or State law would not otherwise preclude them.

(d)Notification.

(1)Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects under paragraph

(c)may not occur until at least thirty

(30)days after publication of a notice of inventory completion in the **Federal Register** as described in § 10.9.

(2)Within 30 days of publishing the notice of inventory completion, the National NAGPRA Program manager must:

(i)Revise the Review Committee inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects to indicate the notice's publication; and

(ii)Make the revised Review Committee inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects accessible to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, non-federally recognized Indian groups, museums, and Federal agencies.

(e)Disputes. Any person who wishes to contest actions taken by museums or Federal agencies regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects is encouraged to do so through informal negotiations to achieve a fair resolution of the matter. The Review Committee may facilitate the informal resolution of such disputes that are not resolved by good faith negotiation under § 10.17. In addition, the United States District Courts have jurisdiction over any action brought that alleges a violation of the Act. 6. Amend § 10.12 by: A. Revising paragraphs (b)(ii), (iii), and (iv), and B. Adding paragraph (b)(ix) to read as follows: § 10.12 Civil penalties.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)After November 16, 1993, or a date specified under § 10.13, whichever deadline is applicable, has not completed summaries as required by the Act; or

(iii)After November 16, 1995, or a date specified under § 10.13, or the date specified in an extension issued by the Secretary, whichever deadline is applicable, has not completed inventories as required by the Act; or

(iv)After May 16, 1996, or 6 months after completion of an inventory under an extension issued by the Secretary, or 6 months after the date specified under § 10.13, whichever deadline is applicable, has not notified culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations; or

(ix)Does not offer to transfer control of culturally unidentifiable human remains for which it cannot prove right of possession under § 10.11. Dated: October 2, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-20209 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7740] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding these proposed regulatory flood elevations. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map

(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7740, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Randolph County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Kaskaskia River At confluence with Mississippi River +395 +392 Village of Evansville, Unincorporated Areas of Randolph County. Randolph/Monroe County boundary (approximately 700 feet upstream Anna Lane extended) +395 +392 Mississippi River Jackson/Randolph County boundary (approximately Cora Road extended) +385 +382 City of Chester, Unincorporated Areas of Randolph County, Village of Kaskaskia, Village of Prairie Du Rocher, Village of Rockwood. Randolph/Monroe County boundary (approximately 3,025 feet downstream of Regtown Road extended) +404 +402 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Chester Maps are available for inspection at 1330 Swanwick Street, Chester, IL 62233. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Randolph County Maps are available for inspection at 1 Taylor Street, Zoning Administrator, Chester, IL 62233. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Village of Evansville Maps are available for inspection at 403 Spring Street, P.O. Box 257, Evansville, IL 62242. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Village of Kaskaskia Maps are available for inspection at 1 Taylor Street, Chester, IL 62233. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Village of Prairie Du Rocher Maps are available for inspection at 209 Henry Street, P.O. Box 325, Prairie Du Rocher, IL 62277. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Village of Rockwood Maps are available for inspection at 900 Original Street, Rockwood, IL 62280. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Gibson County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Clear Creek At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +396 Unincorporated Areas of Gibson County. Approximately 2,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek None +401 Wolf Creek Approximately 480 feet upstream of State Highway 104 None +395 Unincorporated Areas of Gibson County. Approximately 2,211 feet upstream of State Highway 104 None +397 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Gibson County Maps are available for inspection at 309 S. College Street, Trenton, TN 38382. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Obion County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Fifteenth Street Tributary Approximately 1,740 feet upstream of the confluence with Richland Creek None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. At the confluence with Richland Creek None +284 Grove Creek Approximately 2,070 feet downstream of State Highway 22 None +311 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 950 feet downstream of State Highway 22 None +313 Hoosier Creek Approximately 1,950 feet downstream of State Highway 3 None +314 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 1,250 feet downstream of State Highway 3 None +314 Johnson Hurt Avenue Tributary At the confluence with Obion River None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 1,070 feet upstream of the confluence with Obion River None +284 Obion River Just upstream of State Highway 3 None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of State Highway 211 None +284 Drainage Canal Just upstream of State Highway 3 None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 4,280 feet upstream of State Highway 211 None +284 Old Obion River Drainage Canal Just upstream of State Highway 3 None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of State Highway 211 None +284 Pursley Creek Approximately 320 feet upstream of Nailing Drive None +323 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 800 feet downstream of State Highway 3 None +332 Richland Creek At the confluence with Obion River None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Obion County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of West Palestine Road None +284 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Obion County Maps are available for inspection at County Mayor, P.O. Box 236, Union City, TN 38281. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Rhea County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Little Richland Creek Tributary At the confluence of Little Richland Creek None +695 City of Dayton, Unincorporated Areas of Rhea County. Approximately 210 feet downstream of Back Valley Road None +736 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Dayton Maps are available for inspection at Dayton City Hall, 399 First Avenue, Dayton, TN 37321. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Rhea County Maps are available for inspection at Rhea County Property Assessor's Office, 375 Church Street, Suite 100, Dayton, TN 37321. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Weakley County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Cane Creek Approximately 50 feet upstream of Mount Pelia Road None +337 Unincorporated Areas of Weakley County. Approximately 450 feet downstream of the confluence with Cane Creek Tributary None +344 Tributary Just Upstream of Gardener Hyndsver Road None +363 Unincorporated Areas of Weakley County. Approximately 70 feet downstream of Old Fulton Road None +371 Mud Creek Just downstream of State Route 22 None +365 City of Dresden. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Boydenville Road None +402 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Dresden Maps are available for inspection at 117 W. Main Street, Dresden, TN 38225. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Weakley County Maps are available for inspection at 116 W. Main Street, Dresden, TN 38225. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Dallas County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Bear Creek Approximately 505 feet upstream of the intersection with S. Belt Line Road +443 +446 City of Desoto, City of Glenn Heights. Approximately 548 feet upstream from intersection with N. County Line Road +475 +472 Bentle Branch Approximately 1820 feet downstream from intersection with Joe Wilson Road +649 +647 City of Dallas, City of Cedar Hill, City of Duncanville. Approximately 2960 feet upstream from the intersection with Joe Wilson Road +710 +711 Cottonwood Creek (of Lake Ray Hubbard) Approximately 40 feet downstream from intersection with Stonewall Road +451 +447 City of Dallas, City of Garland, City of Richardson, City of Rowlett, City of Wylie, Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County. Approximately 1670 feet upstream from intersection with Stonewall Road +456 +455 Cottonwood Creek (of White Rock Creek) Approximately 805 feet upstream from confluence with White Rock Creek +501 +502 City of Dallas, City of Richardson, Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County. Approximately 425 feet downstream of intersection with Spring Valley Road +561 +563 Estes Branch Approximately 413 feet downstream from intersection with Bruton Road +474 +471 City of Dallas. Approximately 373 feet downstream from intersection with Saint Augustine Drive +475 +477 Furneaux Creek Approximately 1296 feet downstream from intersection with Dickerson Parkway +453 +455 City of Carrollton. Approximately 2018 feet upstream from intersection with Dickerson Parkway +457 +460 Hatfield Branch At the intersection with Prairie Creek Road +404 +400 City of Dallas. Approximately 4660 feet downstream from intersection with N. Master's Drive +485 +482 Hickory Creek Approximately 920 feet downstream from intersection with S. Woody Road +400 +399 City of Balch Springs, City of Dallas. Approximately 410 feet downstream from intersection with Arrowdell Road +441 +439 Hutton Branch Approximately 436 feet downstream from intersection with Denton Drive +451 +453 City of Carrollton, Town of Addison. Approximately 920 feet downstream from intersection with Midway Road +596 +597 Lake June Branch Approximately 1530 feet downstream from intersection with Lake June Road +458 +455 City of Dallas. Approximately 157 feet downstream from intersection with Frostwood Street +489 +491 Long Branch of Duck Creek Approximately 5710 feet downstream from intersection with Northwest Drive +461 +458 City of Mesquite, City of Dallas, City of Garland. Approximately 2230 feet downstream from intersection with Ferguson Road +522 +520 North Mesquite Creek Approximately 2380 feet downstream of intersection with Lawson Road +381 +380 City of Balch Springs, City of Mesquite, Town of Sunnyvale, Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County. Approximately 205 feet upstream from intersection with Via Del Nortway +505 +507 Pleasant Branch Approximately 440 feet downstream from intersection with Prairie Creek Road +465 +462 City of Dallas. Approximately 273 feet upstream from intersection with Bohannon Drive +497 +498 Prairie Creek Approximately 1510 feet downstream from intersection with LBJ Freeway +398 +397 City of Dallas. Approximately 540 feet downstream from intersection with Military Parkway +503 +504 Pruitt Branch Approximately 2423 feet downstream from intersection with Kingsfield Road +412 +411 City of Dallas. Approximately 696 feet upstream from intersection with Ryoak Drive +434 +435 Richardson Branch Approximately 540 feet downstream of intersection with Royal Lane +490 +491 City of Dallas. At intersection with Windy Crest Drive +578 +580 Rylie Branch Approximately 984 feet downstream from the intersection with Saint Augustine Drive +412 +410 City of Dallas. Approximately 1388 feet upstream from intersection with Old Seagoville Road +452 +456 South Mesquite Creek Approximately 2007 feet downstream from intersection with Lawson Road +384 +383 City of Balch Springs, City of Dallas, City of Mesquite. Approximately 1905 feet downstream from intersection with Demaret Drive +548 +547 Stream 2A4 At intersection with Oak Hollow Drive +459 +461 City of Rowlett, City of Dallas, Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County. Approximately 280 feet upstream from intersection with Oak Hollow Drive +480 +477 Stream 2A5 Approximately 155 feet downstream from intersection with Pecan Lane +440 +439 City of Rowlett, City of Dallas. Approximately 200 feet downstream from intersection with Spinnaker Cove +460 +464 Stream 2B1 Approximately 98 feet from the intersection with South Belt Line Road +427 +429 City of Balch Springs. Approximately 840 feet downstream from intersection with Eastgate Drive +463 +464 Stream 2B2 Approximately 150 feet upstream from intersection with Burton Road +432 +434 City of Mesquite. Approximately 880 feet upstream from intersection with I-635 +448 +450 Stream 2B4 Approximately 1930 feet downstream from the intersection with Military Parkway +442 +437 City of Mesquite, Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County. Approximately 57 feet upstream of intersection with Kearney Street +475 +476 Stream 2B5 Approximately 1650 feet upstream from intersection with Peachtree Road +463 +465 City of Mesquite. Approximately 4130 feet upstream from intersection with Peachtree Road +481 +480 Stream 2B6 Approximately 285 feet downstream from intersection with I-80 +480 +482 City of Mesquite. Approximately 42 feet downstream from intersection with Baker Drive +500 +503 Stream 2B7 Approximately 800 feet downstream from intersection with Gus Thomasson Road +474 +470 City of Mesquite. Approximately 437 feet upstream from intersection with I-30 +522 +521 Stream 2B8 Approximately 970 feet upstream from the intersection with I-635 +470 +472 City of Mesquite. Approximately 326 feet downstream from intersection with I-80 +495 +493 Stream 2E2 Approximately 1180 feet downstream from intersection with Liberty Grove Road +442 +445 City of Rowlett, City of Dallas. Approximately 3730 feet downstream from intersection with Liberty Grove Road +479 +480 Stream 4C3 Approximately 40 feet upstream from intersection with Kleberg Road +402 +400 City of Dallas. Approximately 1447 feet upstream from intersection with Woody Road +445 +443 Stream 6A1 Approximately 1054 feet downstream from intersection with Euclid Avenue +509 +505 Town of Highland Park. Approximately 95 feet downstream from intersection with Beverly Drive +520 +518 Stream 6D4 Approximately 190 feet from intersection with Scott Mill Road +498 +502 City of Carrollton. Approximately 128 feet downstream of E. Jackson Road +508 +503 Stream 6D8 Approximately 390 feet downstream from intersection with Ballantrae Road +560 +562 City of Carrollton. Approximately 780 feet downstream from intersection with Tarplex Road +612 +614 Stream JC1 Approximately 85 feet upstream from the intersection with Northwest 19th Street +462 +459 City of Grand Prairie. Approximately 940 feet upstream from intersection with I-30 +499 +501 West Fork of South Mesquite Creek Approximately 4020 feet downstream from the intersection with I-80 +465 +462 City of Mesquite. Approximately 150 feet downstream from intersection with Town East Boulevard +501 +503 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Balch Springs Maps are available for inspection at 3117 Hickory Tree Road, Balch Springs, TX 75980. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Carrollton Maps are available for inspection at 1945 E. Jackson Road, Carrollton, TX 75006. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Cedar Hill Maps are available for inspection at 502 Cedar Street, Cedar Hill, TX 75104. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Dallas Maps are available for inspection at 320 E. Jefferson Blvd., Room 321, Dallas, TX 75203. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Desoto Maps are available for inspection at 211 E. Pleasant Run Rd., Building A, Desoto, TX 75115. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Duncanville Maps are available for inspection at 203 E. Wheatland Rd., Duncanville, TX 75116. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Garland Maps are available for inspection at 800 Main St., Garland, TX 75040. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Glenn Heights Maps are available for inspection at 1938 S. Hampton, Glenn Heights, TX 75154. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Grand Prairie Maps are available for inspection at 206 W. Church St., Grand Prairie, TX 75051. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Mesquite Maps are available for inspection at 1515 N. Galloway Ave., Mequite, TX 75185. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Richardson Maps are available for inspection at 411 W. Arapaho Rd., Richardson, TX 75083. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Rowlett Maps are available for inspection at 4000 Main St., Rowlett, TX 75088. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Wylie Maps are available for inspection at 114 N. Ballard Ave., Wylie, TX 75098. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Addison Maps are available for inspection at 16801 Westgrove Drive, Addison, TX 75001. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Highland Park Maps are available for inspection at 4700 Drexel Dr., Highland Park, TX 75205. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Sunnyvale Maps are available for inspection at 537 Long Creek Rd., Sunnyvale, TX 75182. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Dallas County Maps are available for inspection at 509 Main St., Dallas, TX 75202. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Denton County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Cooper Creek Approximately 2 feet upstream of intersection with N. Mayhill Road +572 +570 City of Denton, Unincorporated Areas of Denton County. Approximately 5 feet downstream of intersection with N. Locust Street +656 +652 Dudley Branch Approximately 2455 feet downstream of intersection with Indian Road +452 +449 City of Carrollton, Town of Hebron. Approximately 2600 feet downstream from intersection with Standridge Drive +500 +501 Fletcher Branch Approximately ten feet downstream of intersection with Hickory Creek Road +554 +555 City of Denton, Unincorporated Areas of Denton County. Approximately 360 feet upstream of intersection with El Paso Street +610 +612 Furneaux Creek Approximately 1320 feet upstream from the intersection with Old Denton Road +470 +464 City of Carrollton, City of Plano, Town of Hebron. Approximately 115 feet from intersection with E. Hebron Parkway +550 +549 Indian Creek Approximately 180 ft from the intersection at Hebron Parkway +461 +463 City of Carrollton, City of Lewisville, City of Plano, City of The Colony, Town of Hebron, Unincorporated Areas of Denton County. Approximately 2940 feet from the intersection with the E. Old Denton Road bridge +476 +477 Stream 6E1 Approximately 980 feet downstream of intersection with N. Josey Lane +487 +485 City of Carrollton, City of Dallas. Approximately 1095 feet upstream from intersection with E. Frankford Road +523 +524 Timber Creek Approximately 4,925 feet downstream of intersection with Hebron Parkway +453 +450 City of Lewisville, Town of Double Oak, Town of Flower Mound. Approximately 295 feet upstream from the intersection with S. Woodland Trail +628 +626 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Carrollton Maps are available for inspection at 1945 E. Jackson Rd., Carrollton, TX 75006. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Dallas Maps are available for inspection at 320 E. Jefferson Blvd., Room 321, Dallas, TX 75203. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Denton Maps are available for inspection at 215 E. McKinney, Denton, TX 76201. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Lewisville Maps are available for inspection at 1197 W. Main St., Lewisville, TX 75067. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Plano Maps are available for inspection at 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75086. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of The Colony Maps are available for inspection at 5151 N. Colony Blvd., The Colony, TX 75056. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Double Oak Maps are available for inspection at 1100 Cross Timber Dr., Double Oak, TX 75067. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Flower Mound Maps are available for inspection at 2121 Cross Timbers Rd, Flower Mound, TX 75028. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Hebron Maps are available for inspection at 4624 Charles St., Carrollton, TX 75010. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Denton County Maps are available for inspection at 306 N. Loop 288, Suite 115, Denton, TX 76201. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: October 9, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-20382 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7739] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map

(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, South Carolina Congaree River** (with levee) Approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the confluence of Gills Creek None *128 Unincorporated Areas of Richland County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the CSX Transportation crossing *155 *152 Congaree River** (without levee) Approximately 42.2 miles upstream of the mouth None *131 Unincorporated Areas of Richland County. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the Southeastern Beltway (West Bound) *149 *140 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed upstream and downstream BFEs, and all BFEs located on the stream reach between the two listed herein. Please check the Flood Insurance Rate Map (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Unincorporated Areas of Richland County Maps are available for inspection at the Planning Management Director's Office, 2020 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: October 11, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-20356 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-D-7824] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review* . This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Johnson County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas Bain Creek At the confluence with Niles Creek None +946 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of West 183rd Street None +1025 Tributary B At the confluence with Bain Creek None +998 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Spring Hill. At Lone Elm Road None +1023 Big Bull Creek At the County Boundary None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 5,060 feet upstream of the confluence of Big Bull Creek Tributary J None +1011 Tributary A At the County Boundary None +947 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 8,260 feet upstream of the County Boundary None +1001 Tributary C At the confluence with with Big Bull Creek None +938 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,130 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +946 Tributary D At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +941 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Gardner. Approximately 950 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 35 Ramp None +1027 Tributary E At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +949 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Gardner. Approximately 6,050 feet upstream of Waverly Road None +1037 Tributary F At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +961 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 660 feet upstream of West 183rd Street None +1019 Tributary H At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +981 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +986 Tributary I At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +988 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,180 feet upstream of West 183rd Street None +999 Blue River Approximately 5,025 feet downstream of County Boundary +867 +865 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Leawood, City of Overland Park. At the confluence of Coffee Creek +909 +913 Tributary A At the County Boundary None +905 City of Leawood. At West 135th Street None +924 Tributary B At the County Boundary +868 +865 City of Leawood, City of Overland Park. At West 143rd Street None +883 Tributary C At the confluence with Blue River +897 +898 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 325 feet upstream of West 167th Street +897 +902 Tributary D At the confluence with Blue River +898 +900 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 565 feet upstream of the confluence with Blue River +898 +900 Tributary E At the confluence with Blue River +899 +900 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,055 feet upstream of the confluence with Blue River None +904 Tributary F At the confluence with Blue River +902 +907 City of Overland Park. At U.S. Highway 69 None +959 Brush Creek At State Line Road +853 +856 City of Fairway, City of Mission Hills, City of Mission Woods, City of Overland Park, City of Prairie Village. Approximately 3,600 feet upstream of Nall Avenue +981 +982 Camp Branch Approximately 420 feet upstream of Union Pacific Railroad +894 +895 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Overland Park. Approximately 6,230 feet upstream of West 199th Street None +1057 Tributary A Approximately 1,275 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Branch None +898 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence of Camp Branch Tributary AB None +1021 Tributary AA At the confluence with Camp Branch Tributary A None +962 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 6,900 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Branch Tributary A None +1038 Tributary C At the confluence with Camp Branch +942 +941 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 490 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Branch +942 +945 Tributary D At the confluence with Camp Branch +1006 +999 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Branch None +1008 Tributary E At the confluence with Camp Branch +1007 +1000 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 815 feet upstream of the confluence of Camp Branch Tributary EA None +1017 Tributary EA At the confluence with Camp Branch Tributary E +1008 +1005 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 380 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Branch Tributary E +1008 +1007 Camp Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +789 +798 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Desoto. Approximately 1,070 feet upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek Tributary F None +966 Tributary A At the confluence with Camp Creek +836 +837 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,220 feet upstream of Waverly Road None +882 Tributary B Approximately 370 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Creek None +923 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At the confluence with Camp Creek +920 +923 Tributary D At the confluence with Camp Creek +937 +938 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,135 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Creek None +940 Tributary E At the confluence with Camp Creek +939 +942 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 580 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Creek None +944 Captain Creek At the County Boundary None +820 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Desoto. At County Line Road None +922 East Approximately 30 feet upstream of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway +797 +798 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,670 feet upstream of West 95th Street None +845 Tributary E At the confluence with Captain Creek None +902 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,780 feet upstream of Evening Star Road None +922 Tributary K At County Line Road None +952 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of County Line Road None +953 Cedar Creek Approximately 800 feet upstream of the confluence of Cedar Creek Tributary B +785 +786 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Desoto, City of Lenexa, City of Olathe. At Interstate Highway 35/U.S. Highway 50 None +1024 Tributary B Approximately 200 feet upstream of Cedar Creek Road +785 +786 City of Desoto. Approximately 210 feet upstream of Cedar Creek Road +785 +786 Tributary C At the confluence with Cedar Creek +785 +787 City of Desoto. Approximately 260 feet upstream of Cedar Creek Road None +794 Tributary D Approximately 2,235 feet upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek None +789 City of Desoto. At the confluence with Cedar Creek +785 +789 Tributary E Approximately 350 feet upstream of Cedar Creek Road None +798 City of Desoto. At the confluence with Cedar Creek +791 +798 Tributary G At the confluence with Cedar Creek +797 +805 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Lenexa, City of Olathe. Approximately 440 feet upstream of the confluence of Cedar Creek Tributary GA None +847 Tributary H At the confluence with Cedar Creek +808 +810 City of Olathe. Just upstream of South Bluestem Parkway None +921 Tributary HA Approximately 80 feet upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek Tributary H +884 +883 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Just upstream of State Highway 10 None +942 Tributary HB At the confluence with Cedar Creek Tributary H None +889 City of Olathe. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek Tributary H None +920 Tributary L At the confluence with Cedar Creek +868 +872 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Just downstream of West 151st Street None +1016 Tributary N At the confluence with Cedar Creek +941 +943 City of Olathe. At South Ward Cliff Drive None +953 Tributary O At the confluence with Cedar Creek +942 +943 City of Olathe. At Old U.S. Highway 56 None +1021 Tributary P At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +974 City of Olathe. Approximately 1,070 feet upstream of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway None +1007 Tributary Q At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +979 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Approximately 270 feet upstream of the confluence of Cedar Creek Tributary QC None +1061 Tributary QA At the confluence with Cedar Creek Tributary Q None +1008 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Just downstream of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway None +1037 Tributary S At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +1003 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 167th Street None +1018 Tributary T At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +1008 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Clare Road None +1031 Clear Creek At the confluence with Mill Creek +783 +784 City of Lenexa, City of Shawnee. Approximately 2,040 feet upstream of Clare Road None +948 Tributary F At the confluence with Clear Creek None +830 City of Shawnee. Just downstream of West 71st Street None +901 Tributary G At the confluence with Clear Creek None +909 City of Shawnee, City of Lenexa. Approximately 410 feet upstream of Mize Boulevard. None +919 Coffee Creek At the confluence with Blue River +909 +913 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe, City of Overland Park. Approximately 3,800 feet upstream of South Mur-Len Road None +1049 Tributary A At the confluence with Coffee Creek +917 +923 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek. None +930 Tributary B At the confluence with Coffee Creek +925 +926 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 430 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +929 Tributary C At the confluence with Coffee Creek +942 +943 City of Overland Park. Approximately 3,220 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +968 Tributary D At the confluence with Coffee Creek +956 +959 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +960 Tributary E At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +966 City of Overland Park. Approximately 370 feet upstream of Quivira Road None +975 Tributary F At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +970 City of Overland Park. Approximately 1,340 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +979 Tributary H At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +982 City of Overland Park. Approximately 2,940 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +997 Tributary I At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +988 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,330 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek Tributary IA None +1019 Tributary IA At the confluence with Coffee Creek Tributary I None +1008 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek Tributary I None +1025 Tributary J At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +991 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,150 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1001 Tributary K At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1004 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 910 feet upstream of Lackman Road None +1013 Tributary L At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1049 City of Olathe. Approximately 1,775 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1059 Tributary P At the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1048 City of Olathe. Approximately 2,630 feet upstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek None +1058 Coon Creek At the confluence with Mill Creek +827 +836 City of Lenexa. Approximately 9,800 feet upstream of the confluence of Coon Creek Tributary B None +948 Tributary B At the confluence with Coon Creek None +861 City of Lenexa. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Monticello Road None +927 Dykes Branch At State Line Road +860 +874 City of Prairie Village, City of Leawood. At West 83rd Street None +928 Tributary B At the confluence with Dykes Branch +878 +881 City of Leawood. Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of West 85th Terrace None +899 Hayes Creek At the confluence with Mill Creek +768 +769 City of Shawnee. Approximately 3,670 feet upstream of Holliday Drive None +791 Indian Creek Approximately 600 feet downstream of State Line Road Northbound +830 +829 City of Leawood, City of Olathe, City of Overland Park. At West 159th Street None +1062 Bypass No. 1 At the convergence with Indian Creek +918 +920 City of Overland Park. At the divergence from Indian Creek +921 +923 Tributary No. 1 Approximately 180 feet downstream of West 103rd Street +859 +858 City of Overland Park. At Roe Avenue None +897 Tributary No. 2 At the confluence with Indian Creek +864 +865 City of Overland Park. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Metcalf Avenue/U.S. Highway 169 None +923 Tributary No. 3 Approximately 450 feet upstream of the confluence with Indian Creek +870 +869 City of Overland Park. Approximately 920 feet upstream of West 93rd Street None +934 Tributary No. 4 Approximately 50 feet upstream of the confluence with Indian Creek +874 +875 City of Overland Park. At Antioch Road None +923 Tributary No. 5 At the confluence with Indian Creek +887 +889 City of Overland Park. Approximately 205 feet upstream of Knox Drive (North) None +951 Tributary No. 5 Bypass A At the convergence with Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 +904 +901 City of Overland Park. Approximately 110 feet downstream of the divergence from Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 +914 +915 Tributary No. 5 Bypass B At the convergence with Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 +930 +929 City of Overland Park. At the divergence from Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 +937 +936 Tributary No. 5 Bypass C At the convergence with Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 +938 +936 City of Overland Park. At the divergence from Indian Creek Tributary No. 5 None +950 Tributary No. 6 At the confluence with Indian Creek +997 +1000 City of Olathe. Just downstream of West 143rd Street +1013 +1014 James Branch Just upstream of the confluence with Indian Creek +833 +832 City of Leawood. Approximately 660 feet upstream of Ensley Lane +889 +891 Kill Creek Approximately 820 feet upstream of West 83rd Street +791 +792 City of Gardner, City of Desoto, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 5,750 feet upstream of West 167th Street None +1036 Tributary C At the confluence with Kill Creek None +798 City of Desoto. Just upstream of Lexington Avenue None +814 Tributary CA At the confluence with Kill Creek Tributary C None +814 City of Desoto, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At Lexington Avenue None +847 Tributary F At the confluence with Kill Creek None +813 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 7,480 feet upstream of the confluence with Kill Creek None +872 Tributary G At the confluence with Kill Creek None +820 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,380 feet upstream of String Town Road None +862 Tributary H At the confluence with Kill Creek None +832 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Just downstream of Homestead Lane None +889 Tributary I At the confluence with Kill Creek None +869 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,865 feet upstream of the confluence of Kill Creek Tributary IA None +924 Tributary J At the confluence with Kill Creek None +879 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At Walnut View Drive None +885 Tributary K At the confluence with Kill Creek None +883 City of Gardner, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 240 feet upstream of the confluence of Kill Creek Tributary KC None +1003 Tributary KA At the confluence with Kill Creek Tributary K None +937 City of Gardner. Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of the confluence with Kill Creek Tributary K None +948 Tributary KC At the confluence with Kill Creek Tributary K None +1002 City of Gardner, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of West 167th Street None +1010 Tributary L At the confluence with Kill Creek None +887 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,030 feet upstream of the confluence with Kill Creek None +892 Tributary M At the confluence with Kill Creek None +905 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 6,210 feet upstream of the confluence with Kill Creek None +950 Tributary N At the confluence with Kill Creek None +919 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,080 feet upstream of Gardner Road None +1003 Tributary O At the confluence with Kill Creek None +945 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Just downstream of West 151st Street None +947 Tributary P At the confluence with Kill Creek None +996 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 159th Street None +1009 West Tributary C Approximately 930 feet upstream of the confluence with Kill Creek West Tributary B +796 +803 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Edgerton Road None +837 Lake Quivira Approximately 800 feet downstream of County Boundary None +829 City of Lake Quivira, City of Shawnee. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Lakeshore South Street None +854 Tributary A At the confluence with Lake Quivira None +829 City of Lake Quivira, City of Shawnee. Approximately 1,930 feet upstream of Lakeshore West Street None +850 Tributary AA At the confluence with Lake Quivira Tributary A None +829 City of Lake Quivira. At Lakeshore West Street None +832 Little Bull Creek At the County Boundary None +939 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 700 feet upstream of West 199th Street None +1010 Tributary A At the confluence with Little Bull Creek None +953 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 5,105 feet upstream of Cedar Niles Road None +1004 Little Cedar Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +839 +845 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Just downstream of Old U.S. Highway 56 None +1023 Tributary B At the confluence with Little Cedar Creek +865 +866 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Approximately 1,430 feet upstream of West 127th Street None +1005 Tributary C At the confluence with Little Cedar Creek +879 +881 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Olathe. Just downstream of College Boulevard None +980 Tributary CA At the confluence with Little Cedar Creek Tributary C None +957 City of Olathe. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Cedar Creek Tributary C None +961 Tributary D At the confluence with Little Cedar Creek +904 +909 City of Olathe, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,210 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Cedar Creek None +938 Tributary F At the confluence with Little Cedar Creek +971 +973 City of Olathe. Just downstream of West Santa Fe Street +973 +978 Little Mill Creek. At the confluence with Mill Creek +794 +792 City of Lenexa, City of Shawnee. At Brentwood Drive +977 +981 Tributary A At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +794 +792 City of Shawnee. At Midland Drive None +806 Tributary B At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +857 +858 City of Shawnee. Approximately 1,720 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Mill Creek None +871 Tributary C Approximately 260 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Mill Creek +860 +861 City of Shawnee. Approximately 460 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Mill Creek None +865 Tributary D At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +883 +882 City of Shawnee. Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of West 71st Street None +920 Tributary E At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +889 +891 City of Shawnee, City of Lenexa. Approximately 940 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Mill Creek None +896 Tributary F At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +893 +897 City of Shawnee, City of Lenexa. Approximately 880 feet upstream of the confluence of Little Mill Creek Tributary FA None +922 Tributary FA At the confluence with Little Mill Creek Tributary F None +915 City of Shawnee. Approximately 430 feet upstream of Blackfish Parkway None +923 Tributary H At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +922 +927 City of Lenexa. Approximately 1,340 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Mill Creek +922 +932 Tributary I At the confluence with Little Mill Creek +952 +956 City of Lenexa. Approximately 790 feet upstream of Greenway Lane None +961 Martin Creek At the confluence with Big Bull Creek None +951 City of Edgerton, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,900 feet upstream of Old State Highway 56 None +1022 Tributary C At the confluence with Martin Creek +960 +963 City of Edgerton, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 6,550 feet upstream of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway None +1013 Tributary CA At the confluence with Martin Creek Tributary C +969 +973 City of Edgerton. Approximately 2,670 feet upstream of First Street None +1008 Tributary D At the confluence with Martin Creek +967 +972 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 335 feet upstream of West 183rd Street None +1022 Tributary E At the confluence with Martin Creek +982 +984 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 13,450 feet upstream of 191st Street None +1037 Tributary F At the confluence with Martin Creek None +1001 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Martin Creek None +1027 Massey Creek At State Line Road None +968 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 415 feet upstream of Mission Road None +1003 Tributary A At the confluence with Massey Creek None +983 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,850 feet upstream of the confluence of Massey Creek Tributary AB None +1034 Tributary AA At the confluence with Massey Creek Tributary A None +985 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,070 feet upstream of West 207th Street None +1028 Tributary AB At the confluence with Massey Creek Tributary A None +1004 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,525 feet upstream of the confluence with Massey Creek Tributary A None +1027 Mill Creek Just upstream of Wilder Road +768 +769 City of Shawnee, City of Lenexa, City of Olathe, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of East Cedar Street +1017 +1016 Tributary A At the confluence with Mill Creek +775 +773 City of Shawnee. Just downstream of Woodland Drive +775 +773 Tributary B At the confluence with Mill Creek +783 +785 City of Shawnee. Approximately 530 feet upstream of Barker Road None +786 Tributary D At the confluence with Mill Creek +800 +798 City of Shawnee. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Woodland Drive None +823 Tributary E At the confluence with Mill Creek +806 +803 City of Shawnee, City of Lenexa. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence of Mill Creek Tributary EB None +879 Tributary EA At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary E None +874 City of Lenexa. Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary E None +876 Tributary EB At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary E None +874 City of Lenexa, City of Shawnee. Just downstream of Barkley Drive None +888 Tributary G At the confluence with Mill Creek +858 +857 City of Lenexa. Approximately 1,340 feet upstream of the confluence with Mill Creek None +870 Tributary H At the confluence with Mill Creek +868 +869 City of Lenexa, City of Olathe, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Just downstream of College Boulevard None +968 Tributary HA At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary H +895 +896 City of Lenexa. Approximately 790 feet upstream of Renner Boulevard None +940 Tributary HB At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary H None +957 City of Lenexa. Just downstream of Eicher Drive None +982 Tributary J At the confluence with Mill Creek +916 +919 City of Olathe. Approximately 1,940 feet upstream of the confluence with Mill Creek None +926 Tributary L At the confluence with Mill Creek +928 +932 City of Olathe. Just downstream of South Ridgeview Road None +945 Tributary M Approximately 720 feet upstream of Burlington & Northern Santa Fe Railway None +950 City of Olathe. At the confluence with Mill Creek +943 +950 Tributary N Approximately 580 feet upstream of South Nelson Road None +956 City of Olathe. At the confluence with Mill Creek +950 +956 Tributary NA At the confluence with Mill Creek Tributary N +950 +956 City of Olathe. Just downstream of South Nelson Road None +957 Tributary O At the confluence with Mill Creek +952 +959 City of Olathe. Just downstream of East Kansas City Road None +1007 Negro Creek At the confluence with Blue River +869 +868 City of Overland Park, City of Leawood. At U.S. Highway 69 +986 +989 Tributary A At the confluence with Negro Creek +872 +870 City of Leawood, City of Overland Park. Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence of Negro Creek Tributary AC None +926 Tributary AB At the confluence with Negro Creek Tributary A +917 +921 City of Leawood. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the confluence with Negro Creek Tributary A None +926 Tributary AC At the confluence with Negro Creek Tributary A None +923 City of Leawood. At West 143rd Street None +924 Tributary B At the confluence with Negro Creek +884 +888 City of Leawood. Approximately 740 feet upstream of the confluence with Negro Creek None +892 Tributary C At the confluence with Negro Creek +903 +908 City of Leawood. At Nall Avenue None +917 Tributary D At the confluence with Negro Creek +920 +923 City of Overland Park. At West 157th Street None +947 Tributary E At the confluence with Negro Creek +924 +925 City of Overland Park. At West 156th Street +926 +932 Niles Creek At the County Boundary None +940 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Gardner. Approximately 100 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 56 None +1032 Tributary A At the confluence with Niles Creek None +974 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,310 feet upstream of the confluence with Niles Creek None +986 Tributary C At the confluence with Niles Creek None +1003 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,020 feet upstream of the confluence with Niles Creek None +1011 North Branch Indian Creek Approximately 220 feet upstream of the confluence with Indian Creek +905 +906 City of Lenexa, City of Overland Park. Approximately 2,920 feet upstream of West 103rd Street None +979 Tributary A At the confluence with North Branch Indian Creek +925 +927 City of Overland Park. Just downstream of West 103rd Street +947 +944 Tributary B At the confluence with North Branch Indian Creek +935 +937 City of Overland Park, City of Lenexa. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Hauser Street None +980 Pickering Creek At the confluence with Captain Creek None +922 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,920 feet upstream of West 167th Street None +979 Tributary A At the confluence with Pickering Creek None +940 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,150 feet upstream of the confluence of Pickering Creek Tributary AA None +959 Rock Creek At the confluence with Brush Creek +863 +868 City of Mission, City of Fairway, City of Mission Hills, City of Roeland Park. Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence with Rock Creek Tributary G +964 +960 Tributary A Approximately 100 feet downstream of Shawnee Mission Parkway None +892 City of Roeland Park, City of Fairway. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Shawnee Mission Parkway None +936 Tributary B Approximately 300 feet downstream of Shawnee Mission Parkway None +898 City of Roeland Park, City of Fairway. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of West 53rd Street None +943 Tributary D Approximately 450 feet downstream of West 54th Terrace None +931 City of Roeland Park. Approximately 560 feet upstream of Sherwood Drive None +963 Tributary E At Johnson Drive None +935 City of Roeland Park, City of Mission. At West 57th Street None +940 Spoon Creek At the confluence with Kill Creek None +821 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,280 feet upstream of West 167th Street None +988 Tributary B At the confluence with Spoon Creek None +919 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,380 feet upstream of Sunflower Road None +937 Tributary C At the confluence with Spoon Creek None +927 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 450 feet upstream of the confluence with Spoon Creek None +928 Tributary E At the confluence with Spoon Creek None +958 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 3,120 feet upstream of Sunflower Road None +975 Spring Creek At West 215th Street None +940 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Spring Hill. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of West 199th Street None +1029 Sweetwater Creek Approximately 11,000 feet downstream of West 215th Street None +960 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Spring Hill. Approximately 500 feet upstream of West 207th Street None +1031 Tributary A At the confluence with Sweetwater Creek None +997 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Spring Hill. Approximately 5,180 feet upstream of the confluence with Sweetwater Creek None +1029 Tributary B At the confluence with Sweetwater Creek None +997 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County, City of Spring Hill. Approximately 2,775 feet upstream of the confluence with Sweetwater Creek None +1012 Ten Mile Creek At West 215th Street None +1013 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 405 feet upstream of Lackman Road None +1024 Tomahawk Creek At the confluence with Indian Creek +845 +843 City of Leawood. At College Boulevard +845 +844 Tributary No. 12B1 Approximately 70 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek Tributary No. 12 +923 +924 City of Overland Park. Just upstream of West 133rd Street +924 +925 Tributary No. 13 At the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +929 +930 City of Overland Park. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +931 +932 Tributary No. 13B1 At the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +935 +934 City of Overland Park. Approximately 50 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +935 +934 Tributary No. 4 Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +864 +865 City of Leawood. Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +864 +865 Tributary No. 9 Approximately 220 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +890 +891 City of Overland Park. Approximately 820 feet upstream of the confluence with Tomahawk Creek +892 +893 Tucker Branch At West 215th Street None +1000 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 5,025 feet upstream of Renner Road None +1022 Turkey Creek Approximately 125 feet downstream of Lamar Avenue +843 +844 City of Overland Park, City of Lenexa, City of Merriam, City of Mission, City of Shawnee. Approximately 1,525 feet upstream of Nieman Road None +1007 Tributary C At the confluence with Turkey Creek +894 +895 City of Merriam. Approximately 1,225 feet upstream of Merriam Drive None +897 Tributary F At the confluence with Turkey Creek +931 +934 City of Merriam, City of Shawnee. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Flint Street None +974 Tributary J At East Frontage Road +971 +977 City of Overland Park. Approximately 1,880 feet upstream of Mastin Street None +992 Wolf Creek At the confluence with Blue River +909 +913 City of Overland Park, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 183rd Street None +1041 Tributary B At the confluence with Wolf Creek +914 +918 City of Overland Park, Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At U.S. Highway 69 None +953 Tributary C At the confluence with Wolf Creek +931 +934 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 207th Street None +1045 Tributary CC At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary C None +1018 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At Antioch Road None +1019 Tributary CD At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary C None +1034 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At Antioch Road None +1042 Tributary D At the confluence with Wolf Creek +935 +939 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,140 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek +935 +953 Tributary E At the confluence with Wolf Creek +938 +941 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 199th Street None +1026 Tributary EA At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary E None +1006 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At Quivira Road None +1025 Tributary EB At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary E None +1021 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 199th Street None +1028 Tributary F At the confluence with Wolf Creek +946 +950 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 720 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek +946 +953 Tributary G At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +966 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 191st Street None +1024 Tributary GA At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary G None +993 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 191st Street None +1008 Tributary H At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +990 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 183rd Street None +997 Tributary I At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +997 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. At West 183rd Street None +999 Tributary J At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1003 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 2,550 feet upstream of West 183rd Street None +1021 Tributary K At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1012 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1015 Tributary L At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1016 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1034 Tributary M At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1018 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 925 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1019 Tributary N At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1020 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 4,970 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek None +1041 Tributary NA At the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary N None +1025 Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek Tributary N None +1040 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Desoto Maps are available for inspection at 33150 W. 83rd Street, De Soto, KS 66018. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Edgerton Maps are available for inspection at 404 E. Nelson, Edgerton, KS 66021. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Fairway Maps are available for inspection at 5252 Belinder Road, Fairway, KS 66205. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Gardner Maps are available for inspection at 120 E. Main Street, Gardner, KS 66030. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Lake Quivira Maps are available for inspection at 10 Crescent Boulevard, Lake Quivira, KS 66217. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Leawood Maps are available for inspection at 4820 Town Center Drive, Leawood, KS 66211. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Lenexa Maps are available for inspection at 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway, Lenexa, KS 66215. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Merriam Maps are available for inspection at 9000 W. 62nd Terrace, Merriam, KS 66202. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Mission Maps are available for inspection at 6090 Woodson, Mission, KS 66202 Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Mission Hills Maps are available for inspection at 6300 State Line Road, Mission Hills, KS 66208. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Mission Woods Maps are available for inspection at 4700 Rainbow Boulevard, Westwood, KS 66205. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Olathe Maps are available for inspection at 100 W. Santa Fe Drive, Olathe, KS 66061. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Overland Park Maps are available for inspection at 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, KS 66212. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Prairie Village Maps are available for inspection at 7700 Mission Road, Prairie Village, KS 66208. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Roeland Park Maps are available for inspection at 4600 W. 51st Street, Roeland Park, KS 66205. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Shawnee Maps are available for inspection at 11110 Johnson Drive, Shawnee, KS 66203. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. City of Spring Hill Maps are available for inspection at 401 N. Madison Street, Spring Hill, KS 66083. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County Maps are available for inspection at 111 S. Cherry Street, Suite 3500, Olathe, KS 66061. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Cherokee County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Bates Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek None +1,633 Bearpaw Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Lower Bear Paw Road (State Road 1312) None +1,534 Beaverdam Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 70 feet downstream of the confluence of Cook Creek None +1,734 Beech Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,548 Brasstown Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,587 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Brasstown Road None +1,605 Brown Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,692 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River None +1,709 Cane Creek At the confluence with Nottely River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 64 None +1,536 Chambers Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,534 Davis Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek None +1,767 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County Approximately 20 feet downstream of the confluence with Dockey Creek and Bald Creek None +2,054 Grape Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Joe Brown Highway (State Road 1326) None +1,530 Hanging Dog Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Running Deer Lane None +1,914 Hiwassee River Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Apalachia Lake Dam None +1,162 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Murphy. Approximately 875 feet downstream of Mission Dam None +1,620 Junaluska Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,783 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews. At the confluence of Bear Branch None +2,169 Little Brasstown Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek None +1,605 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Folk School Road (State Road 1565) None +1,627 Martin Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,534 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,740 feet upstream of Brasstown Road (State Road 1564) None +1,655 McClellan Creek At the confluence with Tatham Creek None +1,852 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Pisgah Road (State Road 1507) None +1,903 Morgan Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,594 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River None +1,601 Nottely River At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.2 miles downstream of U.S. Highway 64 None +1,534 Owl Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek None +1,677 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Owl Creek Road (State Road 1340) None +1,904 Peachtree Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,564 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Upper Peachtree Road (State Road 1535) None +1,798 Persimmon Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 440 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 64 None +1,821 Phillips Creek At the confluence with Tatham Creek None +1,852 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,610 feet upstream of Sunflower Lane None +2,360 Rapier Mill Creek Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Nottely River +1570 +1,571 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. At the confluence of South Fork Rapier Mill Creek None +1,596 Ricket Branch At the confluence with Valley River None +1,679 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Airport Road (State Road 1428) None +1,706 Rogers Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,572 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River None +1,594 Slow Creek Approximately 75 feet downstream of the downstream most crossing of Canyon Road (State Road 1527) None +1,678 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 660 feet upstream of the upstream most crossing of Canyon Road (State Road 1527) None +1,727 South Fork Rapier Mill Creek At the confluence with Rapier Mill Creek None +1,596 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of State Route 60 None +1,674 South Shoal Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,282 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of Shoal Creek Road (State Road 1145) None +1,972 Tatham Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,772 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews. At the confluence of McClellan Creek and Phillips Creek None +1,852 Valley River At the confluence with Hiwassee River None +1,530 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews, Town of Murphy. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Cherokee Avenue None +3,678 Whitiaker Branch At the confluence with Valley River None +1,696 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River None +1,715 Worm Creek At the confluence with Valley River None +1,825 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Robinson Road (State Road 1502) None +2,240 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Maps are available for inspection at Ginger Lynn Welch Complex, 810 Aquoni Road, Cherokee, North Carolina. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Andrews Maps are available for inspection at Andrews Town Hall, 1101 Main Street, Andrews, North Carolina. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Town of Murphy Maps are available for inspection at Murphy Town Hall, 5 Wofford Street, Murphy, North Carolina. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County Maps are available for inspection at Cherokee County Mapping Department/GIS, County Courthouse, 39 Peachtree Street, Suite 104, Murphy, North Carolina. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Fayette County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Wolf River Unnamed Tributary 1 (Controlled by Wolf River) Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +300 City of Piperton, Unincorporated Areas of Fayette County. Approximately 5,170 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +300 Wolf River Unnamed Tributary 2 (Controlled by Wolf River) Approximately 2,750 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +300 Unincorporated Areas of Fayette County. Approximately 4,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +300 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Piperton Maps are available for inspection at 3575 Highway 196, Piperton, TN 38017. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Unincorporated Areas of Fayette County Maps are available for inspection at 16265 Highway 64, Suite 4, Somerville, TN 38068. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.” Dated: October 9, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-20357 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7741] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7741, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Orange County, New York, and Incorporated Areas Black Meadow Creek At confluence with Otter Kill +378 +377 Town of Goshen. Approximately 800 feet upstream of confluence with Otter Kill +378 +377 Cold Brook Approximately 300 feet downstream of Beach Road +439 +435 Town of Deer Park, City of Port Jervis. At confluence with Neversink River +438 +435 Delaware River At County boundary +425 +426 Town of Deer Park, City of Port Jervis. Approximately 645 feet upstream of Rail Road +469 +470 Monhagen Brook Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Abe Isseks Drive None +465 City of Middletown, Town of Wallkill, Town of Wawayanda. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Mt. Hope Road None +606 Moodna Creek Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of spillway at Towns of Blooming Grove and Cornwall corporate limits +259 +260 Town of Blooming Grove, Town of Cornwall, Village of Washingtonville. At the confluence with Otter Kill and Cromline Creek +321 +319 Neversink River At the confluence with Delaware River +425 +430 City of Port Jervis, Town of Deer Park. Approximately 275 feet upstream of Paradise Road +645 +649 Otter Kill Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Sora Wells Trail +366 +365 Town of Goshen. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of State Route 17 None +470 Tributary 12 At the confluence with Otter Kill +368 +365 Town of Goshen. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Craigville Road +397 +395 Perry Creek At the confluence with Moodna Creek None +306 Town of Blooming Grove, Village of Washingtonville. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Clove Road None +537 Pine Tree Brook At confluence with Ramapo River Reach 2 +580 +582 Village of Monroe. Approximately 1,020 feet upstream of confluence with Ramapo River Reach 2 +581 +582 Quaker Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream of confluence with Browns Creek +399 +398 Village of Florida. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Roosevelt Avenue None +456 Ramapo River Reach 2 Approximately 2,150 feet downstream of Arden House Road None +518 Village of Harriman, Town of Monroe, Town of Woodbury, Village of Monroe. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Reynolds Road None +838 Tributary 1 At confluence with Ramapo River Reach 2 +522 +519 Village of Harriman, Town of Woodbury. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Meadow Avenue +522 +519 Tributary 26 At confluence with Ramapo River Reach 2 +579 +581 Village of Monroe. Approximately 800 feet upstream of confluence with Ramapo River Reach 2 +580 +581 Rio Grande Approximately 300 feet downstream of State Route 17 +411 +412 Town of Goshen, Village of Goshen. Approximately 650 feet upstream of Greenwich Avenue +433 +430 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Rio Grande None +427 Village of Goshen. Approximately 2,160 feet upstream of Scotchtown Road None +440 Satterly Creek At the confluence with Moodna Creek +314 +312 Town of Blooming Grove, Village of Washingtonville. At the confluence of Satterly Creek Tributary #5 +344 +346 South Tributary to Wawayanda Creek At the confluence with Wawayanda Creek +519 +521 Town of Warwick, Village of Warwick. Approximately 2 miles upstream of Galloway Road None +778 Wallkill River Tributary 6 At the confluence with Wallkill River None +331 Town of Montgomery. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of State Route 17 None +392 Wawayanda Creek Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of Howe Street +506 +507 Village of Warwick, Town of Warwick. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Forester Avenue +521 +522 Woodbury Creek At Creamery Hill Road +250 +251 Town of Cornwall, Town of Woodbury. Approximately 1,190 feet upstream of Estrada Road None +487 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Woodbury Creek None +487 Town of Woodbury. Approximately 2,700 feet upstream of Dunderburg Road None +772 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and includes BFEs located on the stream reach between the two listed herein. Please check the Flood Insurance Rate Map (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. COMMUNITY NAME City of Middletown Maps are available for inspection at Middletown City Hall, 16 James Street, Middletown, NY. City of Port Jervis Maps are available for inspection at Port Jervis City Municipal Building, 14-20 Hammond Street, Port Jervis, NY. Town of Blooming Grove Maps are available for inspection at Blooming Grove Town Hall, 6 Horton Road, Blooming Grove, NY. Town of Cornwall Maps are available for inspection at Cornwall Town Hall, 183 Main Street, Cornwall, NY. Town of Deer Park Maps are available for inspection at Deer Park Town Building Inspector's Office, 420 Route 209, Hugenot, NY. Town of Goshen Maps are available for inspection at Goshen Town Hall, 41 Webster Street, NY. Town of Monroe Maps are available for inspection at Monroe Town Building Department, 11 Stage Road, Monroe, NY. Town of Montgomery Maps are available for inspection at Montgomery Town Hall, 110 Bracken Road, Montgomery, NY. Town of Wallkill Maps are available for inspection at Wallkill Town Hall, 99 Tower Drive, Middletown, NY. Town of Warwick Maps are available for inspection at Warwick Town Municipal Building, 132 Kings Highway, Warwick, NY. Town of Wawayanda Maps are available for inspection at Wawayanda Town Hall, 80 Ridgeberry Hill Road, Slate Hill, NY. Town of Woodbury Maps are available for inspection at Highlands Town Hall, 511 Route 32, Highland Mills, NY. Village of Florida Maps are available for inspection at Florida Village Hall, 33 South Main Street, Florida, NY. Village of Goshen Maps are available for inspection at Goshen Village Hall, 276 Main Street, Goshen, NY. Village of Harriman Maps are available for inspection at Harriman Village Hall, 1 Church Street, Harriman, NY. Village of Monroe Maps are available for inspection at Monroe Village Hall, 7 Stage Road, Monroe, NY. Village of Warwick Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 77 Main Street, Warwick, NY. Village of Washingtonville Maps are available for inspection at Washingtonville Village Hall, 29 West Main Street, Washingtonville, NY. [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”] Dated: October 10, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-20388 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU83 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Monterey Spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required Determinations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Monterey Spineflower ( *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* ) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation and amended Required Determinations for the proposal. The draft economic analysis for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* forecasts future costs associated with conservation efforts for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* of approximately $17 million (undiscounted) over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be approximately $13 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $9.6 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. The amended Required Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance with applicable statutes and Executive Orders that we have deferred until the information from the draft economic analysis of this proposal was available. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended Required Determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. DATES: We will accept public comments until October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods: 1. By mail or hand-delivery to: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. 2. By electronic mail (e-mail) to: *fw8mosp@fws.gov.* Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for other information about electronic filing. 3. By fax to: the attention of Diane Steeck at 805-644-3958. 4. Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Steeck, Ecologist, or Connie Rutherford, Listing and Recovery Coordinator, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on the proposed revised critical habitat designation for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75189), and our draft economic analysis of the proposed revised designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1)The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.

(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* habitat, • What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain features essential to the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.

(3)Our mapping methodology and criteria used for determining critical habitat, as well as any additional information on features essential to the conservation of the species.

(4)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat.

(5)Information on whether, and, if so, how many of, the State and local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens,* and how many were either already in place at the time of listing or enacted for other reasons.

(6)Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed revised critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits that have been inadvertently overlooked.

(7)Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat.

(8)Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat.

(9)Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by designation of critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens.* The draft economic analysis indicates the potential economic effects of undertaking conservation efforts for this species in particular areas within Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Based on this information, we may consider excluding portions of these areas from the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

(10)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed revised designation of critical habitat would not result in a disproportionate effect on small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of revised critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities.

(11)Information on whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the proposed revised designation.

(12)Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area from the revised critical habitat designation outweighs the benefit of including the area in the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

(13)The existence of any conservation or management plans being implemented by California State Parks, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)on former Fort Ord, or other public or private land management agencies or owners that we should consider for exclusion from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please include information on any benefits (educational, regulatory, etc.) of including or excluding lands from this proposed revised designation.

(14)Economic data on the incremental effects that would result from designating any particular area as revised critical habitat, since it is our intent to include the incremental costs attributed to the revised critical habitat designation in the final economic analysis.

(15)Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments. The Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the December 14, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 75189) need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the draft economic analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. If you use e-mail to submit your comments, please include “Attn: RIN 1018-AU83” in your e-mail subject header, preferably with your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail, contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate revised critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule and the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at: *http://www.fws.gov/ventura/.* You may also obtain copies of the proposed revised critical habitat rule and the draft economic analysis by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ), or by calling 805-644-1766 extension 301. Background Pursuant to the terms of a March 2006 settlement agreement, we agreed to submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a proposed revised critical habitat designation for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* on or before December 7, 2006. We published a proposed rule to designate revised critical habitat for *C. p.* var. *pungens* on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75189). The proposed revised critical habitat totals approximately 11,032 acres

(ac)(4,466 hectares (ha)) for *C. p.* var. *pungens* in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, California. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the December 14, 2006, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* (71 FR 75189), we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation for *C. p* . var. *pungens* . The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* ; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether revised critical habitat is designated. The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of conservation-related measures that are likely to be associated with future economic activities that may adversely affect the habitat within the proposed revised boundaries over a 20-year period. It also considers past costs associated with conservation of the species from the time it was listed (February 4, 1994; 59 FR 5499) until the year the proposed revised critical habitat rule was published (December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75189). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see section 1.4 (Approach to Estimating Economic Impacts) of the draft economic analysis. The draft economic analysis describes economic impacts of *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* conservation efforts associated with the following activities:

(1)Removal and control of invasive, nonnative plant species;

(2)recreational activities, including foot traffic, and off-road vehicles;

(3)overspray of pesticides from agricultural operations;

(4)munitions clean-up methods on former military ranges that remove and chip all standing vegetation;

(5)expansion of unregulated vehicle parking on the sand dunes; and

(6)vegetation clearing associated with road and trail maintenance. With regard to the removal and control of invasive, nonnative plant species, as well as recreational activities management, we acknowledge that most or all of these activities identified have been, and will continue to be, directed at the protection of several sensitive species, including *C. p.* var. *pungens.* Therefore, in the draft economic analysis, the attribution of such costs solely to *C. p.* var. *pungens* likely overstates the economic impact of the critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis estimates pre-designation costs associated with the conservation of the species to be approximately $5.2 million (undiscounted). Discounted costs are estimated to be approximately $6.2 million at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $7.9 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The draft economic analysis estimates post-designation costs associated with conservation efforts for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* to be approximately $17 million (undiscounted) over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be approximately $13 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $9.6 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* , including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to the designation of revised critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for *C. p.* var. *pungens* in areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The draft analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* was listed as threatened (February 4, 1994; 59 FR 5499) and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat. Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond this point would be speculative. As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. Required Determinations—Amended In our December 14, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 75189), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until information concerning potential economic impacts of the revised designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism); E.O. 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* , future costs associated with conservation efforts for *C. p.* var. *pungens* are estimated to be approximately $17 million (undiscounted) over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be approximately $13 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $9.6 million ($0.85 million annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. As described in the draft economic analysis, four entities are anticipated to experience the highest estimated costs. These include California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), with potential economic impacts estimated at approximately $10.5 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years; the Department of the Army (on former Fort Ord), with potential economic impacts estimated at approximately $3.5 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years; the University of California (on former Fort Ord), with potential economic impacts estimated at approximately $1.5 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years; and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with potential economic impacts estimated at approximately $0.83 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we have determined that the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for *C. p* . var. *pungens* will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the **Federal Register** , the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)did not formally review the proposed rule. Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat. In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat provided the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based upon our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of the final rulemaking. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. If the proposed revised critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. In our draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* and proposed designation of revised critical habitat. We determined from our draft analysis that the small business entities that could potentially be affected include one city government (City of Pacific Grove), and one private farm. However, costs were not associated with the City of Pacific Grove or the private farm because of the small likelihood that these landowners would undertake actions to conserve the species in the future. It is unknown at this time whether a third entity, Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA), would be classified as a small entity because the local agencies that will receive land from FORA are unknown because the Habitat Conservation Plan

(HCP)that will provide the framework for distribution and management of former Fort Ord lands has not been completed. Therefore, for the purpose of the draft economic analysis, FORA was not classified as a small entity. From this analysis, we certify that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. One critical habitat unit (Prunedale, Unit 7) contains 17 ac (7 ha) of land held in a conservation easement owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Pacific Gas and Electric Company maintains power lines that cross this unit; however, because the company does not plan to develop this land any further, the designation of revised critical habitat is not expected to have an adverse effect on energy production. Although the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it may raise novel legal and policy issues, it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ), the Service makes the following findings:

(a)This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except

(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or

(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

(b)As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* , there is expected to be no impact on small governments or small entities. There is no record of consultations between the Service and any of these governments since *C. p.* var. *pungens* was listed as threatened on February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5499). It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects would be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for *C. p.* var. *pungens* within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of revised critical habitat for the *C. p.* var. *pungens* would significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Executive Order 12630—Takings In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing revised critical habitat for *Chorizanthe pungens* var. *pungens* . Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed designation of revised critical habitat for *C. p.* var. *pungens* does not pose significant takings implications. Authors The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: October 5, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-20241 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070809451-7452-01] RIN 0648-AV79 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 42 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The current regulations governing the Northeast

(NE)multispecies fishery contain a number of inadvertent errors, omissions, and ambiguities, including some that may appear to be inconsistent with the measures adopted by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in recent actions taken under the NE Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan (FMP), including Amendment 5, Framework Adjustment

(FW)38, Amendment 13, FW 40-A, FW 41, and FW 42. The intent of this action is to correct these errors and omissions and to clarify specific regulations to ensure consistency with, and accurately reflect the intent of, previous actions under this FMP. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV79, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http:/www.regulations.gov.* • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Proposed Rule to Correct/Modify NE Multispecies Regulations.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review

(RIR)prepared for this action are available upon request from the Regional Administrator at the above address. Copies of the environmental assessments

(EAs)prepared for FW 42, FW 41, FW 40-A, and FW 38; and the supplemental environmental impact statements

(SEIS)prepared for Amendments 5 and 13 may be obtained from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to

(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas W. Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone

(978)281-9141, fax

(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The most recent management action in the NE multispecies fishery, FW 42, was implemented by a final rule that published in the **Federal Register** on October 23, 2006 (71 FR 62156) and became effective on November 22, 2006. FW 42 superseded measures implemented by an emergency final rule that published on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 19348) that was implemented because of a delay in the development of FW 42. However, upon further review of regulations implemented by the FW 42 final rule, NMFS found that the current regulations contained several inadvertent errors, omissions, and ambiguities that appear to be inconsistent with the measures adopted by the Council and approved by the Secretary. Some of the errors were due to failure of the current regulations to adapt or reinstate measures that were included or modified by the April 13, 2006, emergency final rule. Other errors were the result of incorrect references or a failure to adequately address administrative issues associated with specific measures. Further review of the current regulations revealed that there were other errors related to previous management actions under the FMP, including Amendments 5 and 13, FW 40-A, FW 41, and FW 38, as specified below. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), this action proposes to correct these errors, revise specific measures to facilitate administration of such measures, and clarify or modify the current regulations to maintain consistency with FW 42 and other previous actions. The following proposed corrections are listed in the order in which they appear in the regulations. Proposed Measures 1. Definitions for Lessor, Lessee, Transferor, and Tranferee The April 27, 2004, final rule implementing measures approved under Amendment 13 (69 FR 22906) created two programs designed to allow vessels to obtain additional NE multispecies days-at-sea

(DAS)in order to offset the economic impacts of effort reductions under that action. These programs, the DAS Leasing and DAS Transfer Programs, include provisions that specifically apply to either the vessel giving or receiving DAS. While the regulations refer to these vessels as the “lessor/transferor” and “lessee/transferee” for both of these programs, respectively, the Amendment 13 final rule never explicitly defined these terms. As a result, this rule would define each of these terms at 50 CFR 648.2 to clarify the applicability of specific provisions for each of these programs. 2. Vessel Monitoring System

(VMS)Notification Requirements Currently, vessels issued limited access permits in several fisheries are either required to use VMS, or may elect to use VMS in lieu of using the DAS call-in system. The final rule implementing FW 42 required all NE multispecies vessels fishing under a NE multispecies DAS to use VMS and indicated that such vessels would be sent letters detailing the procedures pertaining to VMS purchase, installation, and use. However, the current regulations do not specifically address what procedures other vessels using VMS should follow. Because the NMFS VMS and DAS systems use the VMS activity code declared by the vessel operator to enforce existing area-based regulations and accurately charge DAS based upon where the vessel fishes, what gear the vessel uses, the DAS type used, and the management program in which the vessel is participating, it is critical that the VMS activity code declared on each trip accurately reflects the vessel's intended operations. If the VMS activity code is incorrect, for example, DAS could be inaccurately charged and a vessel may be subject to enforcement action, increasing the burden on both vessel operators and NMFS for inaccurate VMS declarations. Although the current regulations do not specifically detail how and when a vessel should declare its intended fishing activity via VMS for all fisheries, NMFS believes it is essential that all vessels using VMS must declare their intended activity through VMS prior to each trip to ensure that the VMS activity code declared accurately represents the vessel's intended activity for that trip. NMFS has recently sent letters to all affected permit holders instructing vessel operators on the proper use of VMS, including a letter on March 7, 2007, that required vessel operators to declare a VMS activity code prior to each trip. The FW 42 final rule modified the regulations at § 648.10(b)(2) to state that NMFS shall send letters to all limited access NE multispecies DAS permit holders providing detailed information on the procedures pertaining to VMS usage. Because the current regulations do not specifically describe the procedures pertaining to VMS usage in other fisheries, this action would modify the VMS notification requirements at § 648.10(b)(2) to specify that NMFS would send letters specifying the procedures pertaining to VMS purchase, installation, and use to all affected permit holders. Thus, this action would clarify that vessels required, or electing to use VMS are subject to the VMS usage requirements outlined in any previous and future permit holder letters. In addition, this action would specify at § 648.10(b)(5) that vessels using VMS must declare the vessel's intended fishing activity via VMS prior to leaving port before each fishing trip. 3. Gulf of Maine

(GOM)Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery Prohibitions The GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery was implemented through a July 9, 2003, final rule (68 FR 40808). However, this final rule did not update the prohibitions at § 648.14(a)(35) and

(43)to include this new exempted fishery. The prohibition at § 648.14(a)(35) prohibits the use of small mesh outside of listed exempted fisheries, while the prohibition at § 648.14(a)(43) indicates that it is unlawful for anyone to violate the provisions of listed exempted fisheries. This action would add a reference to the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery at § 648.80(a)(16) to these prohibitions. 4. In-season Action Prohibition Starting with the implementation of Amendment 13 in 2004, the FMP has developed several Special Management Programs that provide the Regional Administrator with the authority to implement in-season adjustments to management measures, including revising trip limits, access to specific areas, and gear requirements. In-season actions are implemented through a temporary rule, with requirements outlined in letters sent to affected permit holders. Despite the authority to implement such in-season actions, there is no specific prohibition regarding the provisions of an in-season action. Therefore, this action would implement a provision at § 648.14(a)(78) prohibiting vessels from violating the requirements of an in-season action. 5. Georges Bank

(GB)Seasonal Closure Area Applicability The GB Seasonal Closure Area was first implemented by the final rule implementing measures approved under FW 33 to the FMP (April 24, 2000; 65 FR 21658). This closure applies to any vessel fishing with gear capable of catching groundfish and is effective from May 1 through May 31 of each fishing year. On November 19, 2004, the final rule implementing FW 40-A (69 FR 67780) established the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock Special Access Program (SAP). This SAP allows vessels to target haddock using Category B DAS from May 1 through December 31 of each fishing year. The SAP area includes portions of the GB Seasonal Closure Area during the period of the closure. When the Council developed this SAP, it intended to exempt these SAP participants from the GB Seasonal Closure Area. However, the regulations implementing FW 40-A did not exempt such participating vessels from this closure. As a result, a final rule corrected this oversight and exempted vessels participating in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area Haddock SAP from the GB Seasonal Closure Area (December 27, 2005; 70 FR 76422). Both the April 13, 2006, emergency rule and the FW 42 final rule adjusted the start date of the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP from May 1 to August 1 of each fishing year. As a result, an exemption from the GB Seasonal Closure Area is no longer necessary for vessels participating in that SAP. Therefore, this action would remove the exemption at § 648.81(g)(2)(iv). 6. DAS Leasing Program Application Requirements The final rule implementing Amendment 13 established the DAS Leasing Program. This program allows vessels to temporarily exchange Category A DAS on a yearly basis, provided participating vessels submit an application to lease DAS and the Regional Administrator approves the lease request. The FW 42 final rule revised the introductory text of the DAS Leasing Program regulations at § 648.82(k)(3). However, through an oversight in the regulatory text for that rule, the regulations at § 648.82(k)(3)(i) through

(iii)were inadvertently removed. These regulations include the DAS Leasing Program application requirements and the authority of the Regional Administrator to approve or disapprove DAS leasing applications. These provisions are necessary to effectively administer the DAS Leasing Program. Therefore, this action would reinsert the provisions at § 648.82(k)(3)(i) through

(iii)that were inadvertently removed. 7. VMS Positional Polling Rates for U.S./Canada Management Area For vessels required to use VMS, the current regulations specify the minimum VMS positional polling rate. Vessels are responsible for paying for such VMS positional polls. When the Council adopted measures to include in Amendment 13, the Council did not specify a particular VMS positional polling rate that vessels would be responsible for paying for while fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area. However, the Amendment 13 final rule indicated that a vessel participating in the U.S./Canada Management Area would be subject to a minimum VMS position polling rate of two polls per hour at the vessel's expense. NMFS, under the authority provided in section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, included this increased polling rate with the intent to facilitate and enhance the enforcement of area-specific management provisions. While NMFS can request a vendor to temporarily increase the VMS positional polling rate on individual vessels in any fishery at the Agency's expense to facilitate enforcement operations, to date, NMFS has not imposed the higher VMS positional polling rate on individual NE multispecies trips into the U.S./Canada Management Area, which would be at a participating vessel's expense, due to technical limitations. Since implementing this requirement for vessels to pay for an increased polling frequency, NMFS has determined that such a measure should originate with the Council, similar to the way the Council adopted the requirement for vessels to pay for a polling rate of two VMS positional polls per hour for vessels participating in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. The VMS positional polling rate for which all other vessels using VMS are required to pay for is one positional poll per hour. Because the Council did not specifically recommend that NE multispecies vessels must pay for a higher VMS polling rate while fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area, NMFS has decided to remove the increased VMS positional polling rate applicable to NE multispecies vessels. Therefore, this action would remove references to an increased VMS positional polling rate for vessels participating in the U.S./Canada Management Area from the regulations at §§ 648.9(c)(1)(ii), 648.10(b)(2)(iii), and 648.85(a)(3)(i). 8. Haddock Total Allowable Catch

(TAC)in the Closed Area

(CA)I Hook Gear Haddock SAP The CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP was first implemented by the FW 40-A final rule, but was later modified by the rule implementing measures approved under FW 41 to the FMP (September 14, 2005; 70 FR 54302). The FW 41 final rule split the SAP into two seasons (one season for vessels participating in an approved Sector and another season for non-Sector vessels), with the haddock TAC distributed accordingly. The FW 42 final rule further modified the manner in which the haddock TAC for this SAP is calculated, but did not revise the season or the distribution of the haddock TAC. The regulations implemented by the FW 42 final rule included revisions to the manner in which the haddock TAC is calculated, but inadvertently omitted the provisions that distributed the haddock TAC among the two seasons, including the authority of the Regional Administrator to adjust the quota to each season to account for under- or over-harvest of the haddock TAC during the first season of the SAP. Accordingly, the current regulations do not accurately reflect the provisions adopted by the Council and implemented under the FW 41 final rule. These provisions are necessary to administer this SAP effectively. Therefore, this action would revise the regulations at § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(F) to reinsert the FW 41 provisions that were inadvertently removed. 9. White Hake Trip Limits Early in the development of FW 42, the Council considered adopting a 500-lb (226.8-kg) per DAS, up to 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) per trip, limit for white hake. In order to implement the trip limits as soon as possible while FW 42 was still being developed, NMFS implemented an emergency rule establishing these trip limits. Subsequently, the Council adopted a white hake trip limit of 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per DAS, up to 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per trip in FW 42. The emergency rule was modified on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25094) to reflect the white hake trip limit adopted by the Council in FW 42. However, both the FW 42 proposed and final rules inadvertently included the lower white hake trip limit included in the original emergency final rule. Therefore, this action would correct the white hake trip limit found at § 648.86(e) to accurately reflect the white hake trip limit adopted by the Council in FW 42. 10. Approval of Sector Applications The procedure to review and approve sector allocations was first established through the Amendment 13 final rule. Although the SEIS prepared to support Amendment 13 did not specifically direct NMFS to publish a proposed rule when reviewing sector applications and operations plans, the Amendment 13 final rule included language that required NMFS to seek public comment on proposed sector operations plans through the publication of a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** . The Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)allows agencies to waive the requirement to publish a proposed rule and to provide for public comment in limited circumstances. However, because the current regulations require NMFS to develop a proposed rule for each sector, NMFS must publish a proposed rule for sectors and does not have the ability to take advantage of the provision in the APA that allows the Assistant Administrator to waive proposed rulemaking should circumstances allow. Based upon the existing procedures and associated time lines, the requirement to develop a proposed rule may be too inflexible and can unnecessarily delay the start of proposed sector operations beyond the start of the fishing year on May 1. This can create unnecessary adverse economic and social impacts for sector participants, especially if the sector operations plans do not change between fishing years. Therefore, this action would revise the existing sector approval regulations at § 648.87(c)(1) and

(2)by removing the requirement to develop a proposed rule, but indicating that sectors would be approved consistent with applicable law. 11. Recreational Fish Size Restrictions Although minimum fish size restrictions have been implemented since the initial development of the FMP, the final rule implementing measures approved under Amendment 5 (March 1, 1994; 59 FR 9872) specified that the minimum fish sizes also apply to any fish or part of a fish, including fillets. The Amendment 5 SEIS indicates that fish or fish parts must have the skin on for the purposes of identification to facilitate enforcement of the minimum size provisions. The SEIS only provides one exception to this requirement, allowing commercial vessels to retain up to 25 lb (11.3 kg) of fillets of legal-sized fish for personal consumption. While not explicitly indicated, the intent of the skin-on provision applies to groundfish caught by any vessel—commercial, charter/party, or private recreational vessel. The regulations implemented by the Amendment 5 final rule clearly outline the minimum fish size provisions for commercial vessels at § 648.83, including the skin-on provision in paragraph (a)(2) of that section. However, the recreational minimum fish size requirements at § 648.89 do not specifically include the skin-on provision. Because the charter/party regulations at § 648.89 do not specifically indicate that the skin-on provisions applies to such vessels, this action would add the skin-on provision outlined at § 648.83(a)(2) at § 648.89(b)(4). 12. Additional Corrections In addition to the changes specified above, the following changes to the regulations as amended by the final rule implementing FW 42 are proposed to correct inaccurate references and to further clarify the intent of FW 42 and previous actions. The changes listed below are in the order in which they appear in the regulations. In § 648.4(c)(2)(iii)(A), the reference to the annual designation as either a Day or Trip gillnet vessel at “§ 648.82(k)” would be corrected to read “§ 648.82(j).” In § 648.14, the reference to “§ 648.81(d)” in paragraph (a)(38) would be corrected to reference the transiting provision at § 648.81(i); the reference to “§ 648.81(b)(2)(i)” in paragraph (a)(39) would be corrected to reference the transiting provision at § 648.81(i); the reference to “§ 648.51(a)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)” in paragraph (a)(53) would be corrected to reference the gear stowage provisions at § 648.23(b); the reference to “§ 648.85(b)(6)” in paragraph (a)(153) would be corrected to read “§ 648.85(b)(4);” the reference to “§ 648.86(g)(1)(i) or (g)(2)(i)” in paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to read “§ 648.86(g)(1),” as § 648.86(g)(1)(i) and (g)(2) expired when the April 13, 2006, emergency rule (71 FR 19348) was superceded by the FW 42 final rule; the reference to “§ 648.86(g)(1)(i) or (g)(2)(i)” and “§ 648.81(g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2)(ii)” in paragraph (b)(4) would be corrected to read “§ 648.86(g)(1),” as § 648.86(g)(1)(i) and (g)(2) expired when the April 13, 2006, emergency rule was superceded by the FW 42 final rule; the reference to “§ 648.86(b)(1)(i)” in paragraph (c)(24) would be corrected to read “§ 648.86(b)(1);” and the reference to “§ 648.86(b)(2)(ii) or (iii)” in paragraph (c)(26) would be corrected to read “§ 648.86(b)(2).” In § 648.80(b)(2)(vi), the reference to “(a)(11)(i)(A) and (B)” in the introductory text would be corrected to read “(b)(11)(i)(A) and (B).” In § 648.82(e)(1), the reference to “§ 648.10(c)(5)” would be corrected to read “§ 648.10.” In § 648.85, the reference to “§ 648.94(b)(7)” in paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(D) would be revised to read “§ 648.94(b)(3),” as § 648.94(b)(7) expired when the April 13, 2006, emergency rule was superceded by the FW 42 final rule; and the references to “§ 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(G)” in paragraph (b)(7)(iii), (b)(7)(v)(D), and (b)(7)(vi)(D) would be corrected to read “§ 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(F),” as § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(G) expired when the April 13, 2006, emergency rule was superceded by the FW 42 final rule. In addition, reference to specific stock areas at § 648.85(b)(6)(v) would be added to § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(D) to clarify that the landing limits specified in this paragraph apply to particular stock areas. Further, reference to § 648.10 would be inserted at § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(A) to clarify how DAS would be counted in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP. Finally, § 648.85(b)(7)(vi)(G) through

(I)would be removed, as these paragraphs were included in the April 13, 2006, emergency rule and expired when that rule was superceded by the FW 42 final rule. In § 648.86(i), the references to “§ 648.85(a)(3)(iv)” and “§ 648.85(a)(6)(iv)(D)” would be corrected to read “§ 648.85.” In § 648.92, paragraph (b)(2)(iii) would be deleted, as this repeats the regulations at § 648.92(b)(2)(ii) and is not necessary. Classification Pursuant to sections 304 (b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows: The proposed allocation would correct/clarify the existing regulations to ensure that the current regulations accurately reflect measures adopted by the New England Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. This action would ensure that the economic impacts analyzed in previous actions would be realized, but would not impose any additional economic impacts on affected entities. The proposed action would not significantly reduce profit for affected vessels, as the proposed measures are either administrative in nature and would not affect vessel operations, or would have no economic impact beyond that previously analyzed. For example, FW 42 indicated that declarations of a vessel's intended activity via VMS prior to each trip would cost groundfish vessels approximately $0.50 per declaration, or about $15,000 per year. In addition, Amendment 13 indicated that the U.S./Canada Management Area gear requirements would cost participating vessels $7,500 for a modified flounder net, or $747 to comply with the haddock separator trawl requirement. This action would simply clarify or reinstate such requirements, respectively, but would not increase costs associated with these measures. Other measures corrected or clarified by this action would ensure that unnecessary costs, such as the costs for higher VMS positional polling rates, are eliminated or that vessels would be able to fully realize the economic benefits of special management programs by correctly distributing the available haddock resources in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. This proposed rule contains a number of collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)which have been approved by OMB as follows: 1. VMS purchase and installation, OMB # 0648-0202, (1 hr/response); 2. VMS proof of installation, OMB # 0648-0202, (1 hr/response); 3. Automated VMS polling of vessel position, OMB # 0648-0202, (5 sec/response); 4. Area and DAS declarations via VMS, OMB # 0648-0549 (5 min/response); 5. Standardized catch reporting requirements, OMB # 0648-0212 (15 min/response); 6. Sector manager daily reports for CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, OMB # 0648-0212, (2 hr/response); 7. DAS Leasing Program application, OMB # 0648-0202, (5 min/response); 8. Annual declaration to participate in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, OMB # 0648-0202, (2 min/response); 9. Sector allocation proposal, OMB # 0648-0202, (50 hr/response); and 10. Sector operations plan submission, OMB # 0648-0202, (50 hr/response). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This action would not create new information collections or modify the response time associated with any of the information collection referenced above. Instead, this action would revise the regulations underlying these information collections to correct inadvertent errors, omissions, and ambiguities in the current regulations, as described in the preamble. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to

(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting. Dated: October 11, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.2, definitions for “lessee,” “lessor,” “transferee,” and “transferor” are added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows: § 648.2 Definitions. *Lessee* means a vessel owner who receives temporarily transferred NE multispecies DAS from another vessel through the DAS Leasing Program specified at § 648.82(k). *Lessor* means a vessel owner who temporarily transfers NE multispecies DAS to another vessel through the DAS Leasing Program specified at § 648.82(k). Transferee means a vessel owner who receives permanently transferred NE multispecies DAS and potentially other permits from another vessel through the DAS Transfer Program specified at § 648.82(l). Transferor means a vessel owner who permanently transfers NE multispecies DAS and potentially other permits to another vessel through the DAS Transfer Program specified at § 648.82(l). 3. In § 648.4, paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) is revised to read as follows: § 648.4 Vessel permits.

(c)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)* * *

(A)For vessels fishing for NE multispecies with gillnet gear, with the exception of vessels fishing under the Small Vessel permit category, an annual declaration as either a Day or Trip gillnet vessel designation as described in § 648.82(j). A vessel owner electing a Day or Trip gillnet designation must indicate the number of gillnet tags that he/she is requesting, and must include a check for the cost of the tags. A permit holder letter will be sent to the owner of each eligible gillnet vessel, informing him/her of the costs associated with this tagging requirement and providing directions for obtaining tags. Once a vessel owner has elected this designation, he/she may not change the designation or fish under the other gillnet category for the remainder of the fishing year. Incomplete applications, as described in paragraph

(e)of this section, will be considered incomplete for the purpose of obtaining authorization to fish in the NE multispecies gillnet fishery and will be processed without a gillnet authorization. **§ 648.9 [Amended]** 4. In § 648.9, remove and reserve paragraph (c)(1)(ii). 5. In § 648.10, the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), and paragraph (b)(2)(iii) are revised; and paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as follows: § 648.10 DAS and VMS notification requirements.

(b)* * *

(2)The owner of such a vessel specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, with the exception of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section, must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator at the time of application for a limited access permit that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets the minimum performance criteria, unless otherwise allowed under this paragraph (b). If a vessel has already been issued a limited access permit without the owner providing such documentation, the Regional Administrator shall allow at least 30 days for the vessel to install an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria and for the owner to provide documentation of such installation to the Regional Administrator. The owner of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit that fishes or intends to fish under a Category A or B DAS as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets those criteria prior to fishing under a groundfish DAS. NMFS shall send letters to all affected permit holders providing detailed information on the procedures pertaining to VMS purchase, installation, and use.

(iii)DAS counting for a vessel that is under the VMS notification requirements of this paragraph (b), with the exception of vessels that have elected to fish exclusively in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area on a particular trip, as described in this paragraph (b), begins with the first location signal received showing that the vessel crossed the VMS Demarcation Line after leaving port. DAS counting ends with the first location signal received showing that the vessel crossed the VMS Demarcation Line upon its return to port. For those vessels that have elected to fish exclusively in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area pursuant to § 648.85(a)(3)(ii), the requirements of this paragraph

(b)begin with the first location signal received showing that the vessel crossed into the Eastern U.S./Canada Area and end with the first location signal received showing that the vessel crossed out of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area upon beginning its return trip to port, unless the vessel elects to also fish outside the Eastern U.S./Canada Area on the same trip, in accordance with § 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A).

(5)*VMS notification requirements for other fisheries* . Unless otherwise specified in this part, or via letters sent to affected permit holders under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the owner or authorized representative of a vessel that is required to use VMS, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must notify the Regional Administrator of the vessel's intended fishing activity by entering the appropriate VMS code prior to leaving port at the start of each fishing trip. Notification of a vessel's intended fishing activity includes, but is not limited to, gear and DAS type to be used; area to be fished; and whether the vessel will be declared out of the DAS fishery, or will participate in the NE multispecies and monkfish DAS fisheries, including approved special management programs. A vessel cannot change any aspect of its VMS activity code outside of port, except that NE multispecies vessels are authorized to change the category of DAS used (i.e., flip its DAS), as provided at § 648.85(b), or change the area declared to be fished so that the vessel may fish both inside and outside of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area on the same trip, as provided at § 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A). VMS activity codes and declaration instructions are available from the Regional Administrator upon request. 6. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(35), (a)(38), (a)(39), (a)(43), (a)(53), (a)(153), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(24), and (c)(26) are revised and paragraph (a)(78) is added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a)* * *

(35)Fish with, use, or have on board, within the areas described in § 648.80(a)(1) and (2), nets with mesh size smaller than the minimum mesh size specified in § 648.80(a)(3) and (4), except as provided in § 648.80(a)(5) through (8), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(15), (a)(16), (d), (e), and (i), unless the vessel has not been issued a NE multispecies permit and fishes for NE multispecies exclusively in state waters, or unless otherwise specified in § 648.17.

(38)Enter or be in the area described in § 648.81(a)(1) on a fishing vessel, except as provided in § 648.81(a)(2) and (i).

(39)Enter or be in the area described in § 648.81(b)(1) on a fishing vessel, except as provided in § 648.81(b)(2) and (i).

(43)Violate any of the provisions of § 648.80, including paragraphs (a)(5), the Small-mesh Northern Shrimp Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(6), the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(9), Small-mesh Area 1/Small-mesh Area 2; (a)(10), the Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(11), the GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(12), the Nantucket Shoals Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(13), the GOM/GB Monkfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(14), the GOM/GB Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(15), the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(16) the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(18), the Great South Channel Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(3), exemptions (small mesh); (b)(5); the SNE Monkfish and Skate Trawl Exemption Area; (b)(6), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(8), the SNE Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(9), the SNE Little Tunny Gillnet Exemption Area; and (b)(11), the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. Each violation of any provision in § 648.80 constitutes a separate violation.

(53)Possess, land, or fish for regulated species, except winter flounder as provided for in accordance with § 648.80(i) from or within the areas described in § 648.80(i), while in possession of scallop dredge gear on a vessel not fishing under the scallop DAS program as described in § 648.53, or fishing under a general scallop permit, unless the vessel and the dredge gear conform with the stowage requirements of § 648.23(b), or unless the vessel has not been issued a multispecies permit and fishes for NE multispecies exclusively in state waters.

(78)Violate any provision of an in-season action to adjust trip limits, gear usage, season, area access and/or closure, or any other measure authorized by this part.

(153)If fishing under the SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP, described in § 648.85(b)(4), fail to comply with the restrictions and conditions under § 648.85(b)(4)(i) through (iv).

(b)* * *

(3)While fishing in the areas specified in § 648.86(g)(1), with a NE multispecies Handgear A permit, or under the NE multispecies DAS program, or under the limited access monkfish Category C or D permit provisions, possess yellowtail flounder in excess of the limits specified under § 648.86(g)(1), unless fishing under the recreational or charter/party regulations, or transiting in accordance with § 648.23(b).

(4)If fishing in the areas specified in § 648.86(g)(1) with a NE multispecies Handgear A permit, or under the NE multispecies DAS program, or under the limited access monkfish Category C or D permit provisions, fail to comply with the requirements specified in § 648.81(g)(1).

(c)* * *

(24)Enter port, while on a NE multispecies DAS trip, in possession of more than the allowable limit of cod specified in § 648.86(b)(1), unless the vessel is fishing under the cod exemption specified in § 648.86(b)(4).

(26)Enter port, while on a NE multispecies DAS trip, in possession of more than the allowable limit of cod specified in § 648.86(b)(2). 7. In § 648.80, paragraph (b)(2)(vi) is revised to read as follows: § 648.80 NE multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

(b)* * *

(2)* * *

(vi)*Other restrictions and exemptions* . Vessels are prohibited from fishing in the SNE Exemption Area, as defined in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, except if fishing with exempted gear (as defined under this part) or under the exemptions specified in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5) through (9), (b)(11), (c), (e), (h), and

(i)of this section, or if fishing under a NE multispecies DAS, if fishing under the Small Vessel or Handgear A exemptions specified in § 648.82(b)(5) and (b)(6), respectively, or if fishing under a scallop state waters exemption specified in § 648.54, or if fishing under a scallop DAS in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this section, or if fishing under a General Category scallop permit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(11)(i)(A) and

(B)of this section, or if fishing pursuant to a NE multispecies open access Charter/Party or Handgear permit, or if fishing as a charter/party or private recreational vessel in compliance with the regulations specified in § 648.89. Any gear on a vessel, or used by a vessel, in this area must be authorized under one of these exemptions or must be stowed as specified in § 648.23(b). **§ 648.81 [Amended]** 8. In § 648.81, remove paragraph (g)(2)(iv). 9. In § 648.82, paragraph (e)(1) is revised and paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through

(iii)are added to read as follows: § 648.82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access vessels.

(e)* * *

(1)DAS shall accrue to the nearest minute and, with the exceptions described under this paragraph

(e)and paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section, shall be counted as actual time called, or logged into the DAS program, consistent with the DAS notification requirements specified at § 648.10.

(k)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)*Application information requirements* . An application to lease Category A DAS must contain the following information: Lessor's owner name, vessel name, permit number and official number or state registration number; Lessee's owner name, vessel name, permit number and official number or state registration number; number of NE multispecies DAS to be leased; total priced paid for leased DAS; signatures of Lessor and Lessee; and date form was completed. Information obtained from the lease application will be held confidential, according to applicable Federal law. Aggregate data may be used in the analysis of the DAS Leasing Program.

(ii)*Approval of lease application* . Unless an application to lease Category A DAS is denied according to paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall issue confirmation of application approval to both Lessor and Lessee within 45 days of receipt of an application.

(iii)*Denial of lease application* . The Regional Administrator may deny an application to lease Category A DAS for any of the following reasons, including, but not limited to: The application is incomplete or submitted past the March 1 deadline; the Lessor or Lessee has not been issued a valid limited access NE multispecies permit or is otherwise not eligible; the Lessor's or Lessee's DAS are under sanction pursuant to an enforcement proceeding; the Lessor's or Lessee's vessel is prohibited from fishing; the Lessor's or Lessee's limited access NE multispecies permit is sanctioned pursuant to an enforcement proceeding; the Lessor or Lessee vessel is determined not in compliance with the conditions, restrictions, and requirements of this part; or the Lessor has an insufficient number of allocated or unused DAS available to lease. Upon denial of an application to lease NE multispecies DAS, the Regional Administrator shall send a letter to the applicants describing the reason(s) for application rejection. The decision by the Regional Administrator is the final agency decision. 10. In § 648.85, paragraphs (b)(7)(vi)(G) through

(I)are removed, and paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (b)(6)(iv)(D), (b)(7)(iii), (b)(7)(iv)(A) and (F), (b)(7)(v)(D), and (b)(7)(vi)(D) are revised to read as follows: § 648.85 Special management programs.

(a)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)*VMS requirement* . A NE multispecies DAS vessel in the U.S./Canada Management Areas described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must have installed on board an operational VMS unit that meets the minimum performance criteria specified in §§ 648.9 and 648.10.

(b)* * *

(6)* * *

(iv)* * *

(D)*Landing limits* . Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(D), a NE multispecies vessel fishing in the Regular B DAS Program described in this paragraph (b)(6), and fishing under a Regular B DAS, may not land more than 100 lb (45.5 kg) per DAS, or any part of a DAS, up to a maximum of 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip, of any of the following species/stocks from the areas specified in paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section: Cod, American plaice, white hake, witch flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, GB winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder, southern windowpane flounder, and ocean pout; and may not land more than 25 lb (11.3 kg) per DAS, or any part of a DAS, up to a maximum of 250 lb (113 kg) per trip of CC/GOM or SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. In addition, trawl vessels, which are required to fish with a haddock separator trawl as specified under paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J) of this section, and other gear that may be required in order to reduce catches of stocks of concern as described under paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J) of this section, are restricted to the following trip limits: 500 lb (227 kg) of all flatfish species (American plaice, witch flounder, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, and GB yellowtail flounder), combined; 500 lb (227 kg) of monkfish (whole weight); 500 lb (227 kg) of skates (whole weight); and zero possession of lobsters, unless otherwise restricted by § 648.94(b)(3).

(7)* * *

(iii)*Season* . The overall season for the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is October 1 through December 31, which is divided into two participation periods, one for Sector and one for non-Sector vessels. For the 2005 fishing year, the only participation period in which eligible Sector vessels may fish in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is from October 1 through November 15. For the 2005 fishing year, the only participation period in which eligible non-Sector vessels may fish in the SAP is from November 16 through December 31. For the 2006 fishing year and beyond, these participation periods shall alternate between Sector and non-Sector vessels such that, in fishing year 2006, the participation period for non-Sector vessels is October 1 through November 15, and the participation period for Sector vessels is November 16 through December 31. The Regional Administrator may adjust the start date of the second participation period prior to November 16 if the haddock TAC for the first participation period specified in paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(F) of this section is harvested prior to November 15.

(iv)* * *

(A)*DAS use restrictions* . A vessel fishing in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP may not initiate a DAS flip. A vessel is prohibited from fishing in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP while making a trip under the Regular B DAS Pilot Program described under paragraph (b)(6) of this section. DAS will be charged as described in § 648.10.

(F)*Haddock TAC* —( *1* ) *Allocation and distribution* . The maximum total amount of haddock that may be caught (landings and discards) in the Closed Area I Hook Gear SAP Area in any fishing year is based upon the size of the TAC allocated for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt live weight), adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB

(WGB)haddock exploitable biomass (in relationship to its size in 2004), according to the following formula: Biomass YEAR X = (1,130 mt live weight) x (Projected WGB Haddock Exploitable BiomassYEAR X /WGB Haddock Exploitable Biomass 2004 ). The size of the western component of the stock is considered to be 35 percent of the total stock size, unless modified by a stock assessment. The maximum amount of haddock that may be caught in this SAP during each fishing year is divided evenly between the two participation periods of October 1 - November 15 and November 16 - December 31, as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(iii) of this section. The Regional Administrator shall specify the haddock TAC for the SAP, in a manner consistent with applicable law. ( *2* ) *Adjustments to the haddock TAC* . The Regional Administrator may adjust the portion of the haddock TAC specified for the second participation period to account for under- or over-harvest of the portion of the haddock TAC (landings and discards) that was harvested during the first participation period, not to exceed the overall haddock TAC specified in this paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(F).

(v)* * *

(D)*Reporting requirements* . The owner or operator of a Sector vessel declared into the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP must submit reports to the Sector Manager, with instructions to be provided by the Sector Manager, for each day fished in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Area. The Sector Manager shall provide daily reports to NMFS, including at least the following information: Total pounds of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, and white hake kept; total pounds of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, and white hake discarded; date fish were caught; and VTR serial number, as instructed by the Regional Administrator. Daily reporting must continue even if the vessel operator is required to exit the SAP as required under paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(F) of this section.

(vi)* * *

(D)*Reporting requirements* . The owner or operator of a non-Sector vessel declared into the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP must submit reports via VMS, in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Regional Administrator, for each day fished in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Area. The reports must be submitted in 24-hr intervals for each day fished, beginning at 0000 hr local time and ending at 2400 hr local time. The reports must be submitted by 0900 hr local time of the day following fishing. The reports must include at least the following information: Total pounds of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, and white hake kept; total pounds of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, and white hake discarded; date fish were caught; and VTR serial number, as instructed by the Regional Administrator. Daily reporting must continue even if the vessel operator is required to exit the SAP as required under paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(F) of this section. 11. In § 648.86, paragraphs

(e)and

(i)are revised to read as follows: § 648.86 NE Multispecies possession restrictions.

(e)*White hake* . Unless otherwise restricted under this part, a vessel issued a NE multispecies DAS permit, a limited access Handgear A permit, an open access Handgear B permit, or a monkfish limited access permit and fishing under the monkfish Category C or D permit provisions may land up to 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) of white hake per DAS, or any part of a DAS, up to 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per trip.

(i)*Offloading requirement for vessels possessing species regulated by a daily possession limit* . Vessels that have ended a trip as specified in § 648.10(b)(2)(iii) or (c)(3) that possess on board species regulated by a daily possession limit (i.e., pounds per DAS), as specified at § 648.85 or § 648.86, must offload these species prior to leaving port on a subsequent trip. Other species regulated by an overall trip limit may be retained on board for a subsequent trip. For example, a vessel that possesses cod and winter flounder harvested from Georges Bank is subject to a daily possession limit for cod of 1,000 lb (453 kg)/DAS and an overall trip limit of 5,000 lb (2,267 kg)/trip for winter flounder. In this example, the vessel would be required to offload any cod harvested, but may retain on board winter flounder up to the maximum trip limit prior to leaving port and crossing the VMS demarcation line to begin a subsequent trip. 12. In § 648.87, paragraphs (b)(1)(ix), (b)(1)(xv) and (xvi), (b)(2)(x), and

(c)are revised to read as follows: § 648.87 Sector allocation .

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ix)Unless exempted through a Letter of Authorization specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, each vessel operator and/or vessel owner fishing under an approved Sector must comply with all NE multispecies management measures of this part and other applicable law. Each vessel and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in a Sector must also comply with all applicable requirements and conditions of the Operating Plan specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section. It shall be unlawful to violate any such conditions and requirements and each Sector, vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector may be charged jointly and severally for civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant 15 CFR part 904.

(xv)All vessel operators and/or vessel owners fishing in an approved Sector must be issued and have on board the vessel, a Letter of Authorization

(LOA)issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(xvi)The Regional Administrator may exempt participants in the Sector, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, from any Federal fishing regulations necessary to allow such participants to fish in accordance with the Operations Plan, with the exception of regulations addressing the following measures for Sectors based on a hard TAC: Year-round closure areas, permitting restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrades, etc.), gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.), and reporting requirements (not including DAS reporting requirements). A framework adjustment, as specified in § 648.90, may be submitted to exempt Sector participants from regulations not authorized to be exempted pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(2)* * *

(x)Each vessel and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in a Sector must comply with all applicable requirements and conditions of the Operations Plan specified in this paragraph (b)(2) and the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section. It shall be unlawful to violate any such conditions and requirements unless such conditions or restrictions are identified as administrative only in an approved Operations Plan. Each Sector, vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector may be charged jointly and severally for civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant to 15 CFR part 904.

(c)*Approval of a Sector and granting of exemptions by the Regional Administrator* .

(1)Once the submission documents specified under paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2) of this section have been determined to comply with the requirements of this section, NMFS may consult with the Council and shall approve or disapprove Sector operations consistent with applicable law.

(2)If a Sector is approved, the Regional Administrator shall issue a Letter of Authorization to each vessel operator and/or vessel owner belonging to the Sector. The Letter of Authorization shall authorize participation in the Sector operations and may exempt participating vessels from any Federal fishing regulation, except those specified in paragraph (b)(1)(xvi) of this section, in order to allow vessels to fish in accordance with an approved Operations Plan, provided such exemptions are consistent with the goals and objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. The Letter of Authorization may also include requirements and conditions deemed necessary to ensure effective administration of, and compliance with, the Operations Plan and the Sector allocation. Solicitation of public comment on, and NMFS final determination on such exemptions shall be consistent with paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(3)The Regional Administrator may withdraw approval of a Sector, after consultation with the Council, at any time if it is determined that Sector participants are not complying with the requirements of an approved Operations Plan or that the continuation of the Operations Plan will undermine achievement of fishing mortality objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. Withdrawal of approval of a Sector may only be done after notice and comment rulemaking consistent with applicable law. 13. In § 648.89, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows: § 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

(b)* * *

(4)The minimum fish size applies to whole fish or to any part of a fish while possessed on board either a charter/party or a private recreational vessel. Fish fillets, or parts of fish, must have skin on while possessed on board a vessel and at the time of landing in order to meet minimum size requirements. “Skin on” means the entire portion of the skin normally attached to the portion of the fish or to fish parts possessed is still attached. **§ 648.92 [Amended]** 14. In § 648.92, remove paragraph (b)(2)(iii). [FR Doc. E7-20386 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 199 Tuesday, October 17, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Meeting AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. The meeting is open to the general public. DATES: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will meet October 29-31, 2007 at the Double Tree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024. ADDRESSES: The public may file written comments before or up to two weeks after the meeting with the contact person. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-mail: *JADunn@csrees.usda.gov* ; Fax:

(202)720-6199; Mail/Hand-Delivery or Courier: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, Room 344-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 2255, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Dunn, Executive Director or Shirley Morgan-Jordan, Program Support Coordinator, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; telephone:

(202)720-3684. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Monday, October 29, 2007, at 9 a.m. an Orientation Session for new members and interested incumbent members will be held. The full Advisory Board Meeting will convene at 12:15 p.m. with introductory remarks provided by the Acting Chair of the Advisory Board. There will be brief introductions by new Board members, incumbents, and guests followed by general Advisory Board Business. There will be remarks from a variety of distinguished leaders and experts in the field of agriculture, as well as officials and/or designated experts from the four agencies of USDA's Research, Education, and Economics Mission area. Speakers will provide recommendations regarding ways the USDA can enhance its research, extension, education, and economic programs to protect our Nation's food, fiber, fuel and agricultural system. The Honorable (Acting) Secretary of Agriculture, Chuck Conner, will attend the meeting and provide brief remarks. The meeting will adjourn for the day at 5 p.m. Following adjournment, an evening program will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. with guest speaker Dr. Robert Brackett, Director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, who will present highlights concerning Food Safety. On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, the meeting will reconvene at 7:30 a.m. with introductory remarks from Dr. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary of the Research, Education and Economics Mission Area. Various presentations and discussions will take place throughout the day on the two Focus Topics, “Organic Agriculture” and “Rural Economic and Community Development and Priorities for Cooperative Extension”. The meeting will adjourn for the day by 5:15 p.m. Following the adjournment, there will be an evening meeting with guest speaker, Dr. Bo Beaulieu, Director, Southern Rural Development Center, who will provide highlights on Rural Development. On Wednesday, October 31, 2007, the Board Meeting will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. with a final session to discuss Strategic Plans for the Board. The Advisory Board Meeting will adjourn by 9:30 a.m. Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to two weeks following the Board meeting (by close of business Wednesday, November 14, 2007). All statements will become a part of the official record of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office. Done at Washington, DC this 10th day of October, 2007. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E7-20324 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0113; LS-05-09] United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)is establishing a voluntary standard for a grass (forage) fed livestock marketing claim. This standard incorporates revisions made as a result of comments received from an earlier proposed standard. A number of livestock producers make claims associated with production practices in order to distinguish their products in the marketplace. With the establishment of this voluntary standard, livestock producers may request that a grass (forage) fed claim be verified by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Verification of this claim will be accomplished through an audit of the production process in accordance with procedures that are contained in Part 62 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 62), and the meat sold from these approved programs can carry a claim verified by USDA. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin E. O'Connor, Chief, Standards, Analysis, and Technology Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2607-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0254, facsimile

(202)720-1112, telephone

(202)720-4486, or e-mail *Martin.OConnor@usda.gov* . The U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived from Such Livestock, is available through the above physical address or by accessing the Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” USDA is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural products. One way of achieving this objective is through the development and maintenance of voluntary standards by AMS. AMS is establishing this voluntary U.S. Standard for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived from Such Livestock, in accordance with procedures that are contained in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements for the services associated with the grass (forage) fed marketing claim is approved under Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control No. 0581-0124, which expires August 31, 2008. Background Individuals and companies often highlight production and marketing practices in advertisements and promotions to distinguish their products in the marketplace. Since the late 1970's, livestock and meat producers (individuals and companies) have requested the voluntary services of AMS to verify or certify specific practices to increase the value of their products. The Livestock and Seed

(LS)Program of AMS has provided certification, through direct product examination, for a number of production claims related to livestock and carcass characteristics. The validity of such claims was enhanced since the product was labeled as “USDA Certified.” The LS Program also offers verification services through Quality System Verification Programs (QSVP; *http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/audit.htm* ) to substantiate claims that cannot be determined by direct examination of livestock, their carcasses, component parts, or the finished product. The QSVP provides suppliers of agricultural products or services the opportunity to distinguish specific activities involved in the production and processing of their agricultural products and to assure customers of their ability to provide consistent quality products or services. This is accomplished by documenting the quality management program and having the manufacturing or service delivery processes verified through independent, third-party audits. One specific QSVP is the USDA Process Verified Program which allows suppliers to make marketing claims—such as feeding practices or other raising and processing claims—and label and market their products as “USDA Process Verified.” As multiple marketers of specialized claims began to seek USDA certification or verification for the same or similar production practices, AMS determined it would be beneficial to establish standards for common production and marketing claims and these standards will collectively be a part of the voluntary U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims that may be used in conjunction with a certified or verified program recognized by AMS. The livestock and meat marketing claim standards will be instrumental in facilitating communication, establishing a common trade language, and enhancing understanding among producers, processors, and consumers. Past experience indicates that standards sort a highly diverse population into more homogeneous groups, and when standards are uniformly applied, they provide a valuable marketing tool. AMS develops standards for marketing and production claims based on experience with USDA Certified Programs and USDA QSVP, research into standard practices and procedures, and requests from the livestock and meat industries. One such production practice is the raising of livestock on grasslands or forage products. Accordingly, AMS is establishing the voluntary grass (forage) fed marketing claim standard. AMS obtained input from a number of individual experts in government, industry, and academia while drafting this standard and the corresponding thresholds for compliance. Product labels that include the grass (forage) fed marketing claim must be submitted to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Labeling Program and Delivery Division (LPDD), for evaluation prior to use. FSIS, LPDD, under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601, 607) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451, 457), regulates domestic and imported meat, poultry, and egg product labeling, standards, and ingredients. AMS has worked closely with FSIS, LPDD to develop the voluntary grass (forage) fed marketing claim standard. The standard for a grass (forage) fed marketing claim will be part of the voluntary U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims which may be used in conjunction with a USDA QSVP. Grass (forage) fed marketing claims may be verified, as provided in 7 CFR Part 62, by a feeding protocol that confirms a grass (forage)-based diet. However, since this is a voluntary marketing claim, FSIS will not establish a new provision to limit the use of the term grass (forage) fed to labels in which participants have a USDA QSVP. Any specific labeling issues or questions not related to AMS' services should be directed to the FSIS, LPDD. Comments and Responses on the Proposed Marketing Claim Standard for the Grass (Forage) Fed Claim AMS originally proposed 13 U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, as a notice and request for comments, in the December 30, 2002, **Federal Register** Notice (67 FR 79552), including the grass (forage) fed claim. AMS then revised the grass (forage) fed claim and re-proposed the claim in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662). This final notice only covers the grass (forage) fed claim. Other claims that appeared in the December 30, 2002, **Federal Register** Notice (67 FR 79552) will be addressed at a later time. In the December 30, 2002, **Federal Register** Notice (67 FR 79552), the grass (forage) fed claim standard proposed that grass, green or range pasture, or forage shall be 80 percent or more of the primary energy source throughout the animal's life cycle. As a result of the public comments received, AMS determined significant modification to the proposed grass (forage) fed standard was needed. AMS re-proposed the grass (forage) fed claim standard in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662). It proposed that grass (annual and perennial), forbs (legumes, *Brassica* ), browse, forage, or stockpiled forages, and post-harvest crop residue without separated grain shall be at least 99 percent of the energy source for the lifetime of the ruminant specie, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. By the close of the comment period for the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662), AMS received 19,811 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations, non-profit organizations, national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, retail and meat product companies, and livestock producers. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS' responses follow. Grass (Forage) Percentage *Comments:* An overwhelming majority of the comments received expressed support that AMS chose to develop and propose production standards for grass fed animals. Further, the majority of comments supported that the animal's diet must be 99 percent or higher grass or forage-based. AMS also received a small number of comments suggesting a percentage other than the proposed 99 percent. A few commenters suggested the standard be 100 percent grass or forage-based. One commenter in particular commented favorably on the increase from 80 percent to 99 percent but stated that a 100 percent would be easier to verify. There were also commenters who stated that the 99 percent grass or forage-based diet was too strict due to the diverse climate and rangeland throughout the United States. One commenter stated that 99 percent of the diet coming from grass or forage is too high to have a balanced ration that provides good weight gains and also reduces nitrogen losses to the environment. One commenter stated that 75 percent of beef producers in the United States work with environments with periods of zero plant growth, and only the highest quality stored forages will result in weight gains approaching 1.0 kg/day. These commenters recommended various levels from 90 to 97.5 percent grass or forage-based diet to address these concerns. One comment suggested that the grass (forage) fed claim require that grass (forage) be at least 99 percent of the energy source for the lifetime of the animal with the exception of documented emergency feeding. Another commenter stated that the 1 percent allowed for non-forage feed should be specified for inadvertent or emergency cases only, but not part of the regular ration. Beyond setting a percentage level, one commenter also asked AMS to provide scientific justification for the level being at 99 percent. Commenters were not only concerned about the percentage level but also requested further clarification of what the percentage refers to. One commenter supported the figure of 99 percent as the grass (forage) fed standard but requested that the wording be changed from “99% of the energy source” to “99% of the dry matter intake.” This commenter's rationale was that the percentage of the energy source as related to animal food intake is not a commonly calculated measure and using it will cause confusion and various unintended interpretations on how it is to be measured. Another commenter made a similar request that the language require feeding of 100 percent forage and not 99 percent of the energy from forage. Two other commenters also had similar comments that the claim as stated is confusing, that the statement “at least 99 percent of the energy source” does not correspond to “a grass or forage based diet that is 99 percent or higher” and that the first statement could be taken as any amount of protein (or other nutrient) source could also be fed. Another commenter suggested that the use of forage as an energy source should be changed to “energy/feed source” to avoid the supplementation of non-forage-based nitrogen, such as urea treated hay. *Agency Responses:* After evaluating the extensive comments received regarding the appropriate diet percentage, AMS determined that in order to make a grass (forage) fed marketing claim, a diet of grass (forage) should be maximized. AMS believes that the 99 percent grass or forage-based diet proposed in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662) was appropriate. However, AMS concurs it is easier to verify a 100 percent grass (forage)-based diet. AMS also concurs that as proposed, various interpretations on what the percentage refers to and how it will be measured (calculated) might occur. The language in the standard regarding the use of grass (forage) as an “energy source” should be changed and clarified to represent that the standard is based solely on the consumption of a grass (forage)-based diet. Removing the “energy source” terminology will further clarify that supplemental energy and protein sources are not permitted and will remove any confusion about how to measure (calculate) percent energy source. Again, AMS believes that due to the nature of grass (forage) fed production systems, it will be more appropriate to verify a maximized (100 percent) grass (forage)-based diet. Therefore, AMS will not adopt any of the other suggested percentage levels and will remove any reference to a percentage in the standard. Accordingly, the grass (forage) fed marketing claim will only apply to ruminant animals whose diet throughout their lifespan is derived solely from grass (forage), with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. AMS realizes that incidental supplementation may occur due to inadvertent exposure to non-forage feedstuffs or to ensure the animal's well being at all times during adverse environmental or physical conditions. If incidental supplementation occurs as described above, the producer must fully document (e.g., receipts, ingredients, and tear tags) the incidental supplementation that occurs including how much, how often, and what was supplemented. The producer must maintain sufficient records of the animal's diet for the lifespan of the animal to demonstrate compliance with the requirement that, throughout its lifespan, the ruminant animal's diet is derived solely from grass and forage, with the exceptions previously discussed. Finally, with regard to the commenter requesting scientific justification for the 99 percent grass (forage)-based diet, AMS notes that this is a marketing claim centered on a production method where the animal's diet is derived from grass and not a computed scientific figure. Clarification of Language and Definition Relative to the Exclusion of Grains *Comments:* The majority of the comments received requested that the standard be clarified, and stated that the language in the proposed standard was ambiguous which could allow meat from grain fed animals to be labeled as grass (forage) fed. Specifically, many of the commenters asked for the meaning of “immature grain” to be clarified. AMS received numerous comments with specific suggestions for the language in the background section and definition of the grass (forage) fed standard to ensure grain would be prohibited. Commenters suggested that the standard should prohibit the use of any mature corn or other traditional feed grains in feedstock used by producers seeking to market products under a grass (forage) fed label. Numerous commenters requested that crops normally harvested for grain (such as corn and small grains) must be harvested or grazed when in the vegetative state (pre-grain formation) in order to be considered eligible feed under this standard. Several commenters suggested that “hay, haylage, baleage, silage, and ensilage may be fed, provided no grain species have reached the milk stage or legume grain reached 10 percent pod fill.” A few other comments were also received regarding the language in the standard. One commenter recommended that AMS reconsider the definition of eligible feed provided in the 2002 Notice (i.e., grass, green or range pasture, or forage) and include language regarding the specific conditions where harvested grasses can be used. They stated that if AMS changes the definition of “grass,” then AMS will need to also look at the impact the change makes on meeting the nutritional needs of the animal if the requirement is to still be 99 percent of the energy needs. One commenter stated that it may be better to indicate that legumes and *Brassica* are only examples of forbs, not the complete list of acceptable forbs. One commenter requested that the word “mother's” be inserted before the phrase “milk consumed prior to feeding.” Another commenter brought up the issue of calves raised on milk replacer until weaning. This commenter stated that in dairy-intensive regions of the United States it is possible for dairy bull and steer calves to be part of grass fed beef production systems and that it would be useful for the standard to clarify whether milk replacer is an acceptable feed source. *Agency Responses:* AMS did not intend for the standard to permit meat from grain fed animals to be labeled as grass (forage) fed. AMS agrees further clarification and more specific language are needed to prevent the feeding of grain. AMS has incorporated several of the suggested clarifications received through the comments on this point and the definition of grass (forage) will be clarified so that crops normally harvested for grain may qualify for forage only if they are harvested or are grazed in the vegetative state (pre-grain). The details regarding the language clarifications are set forth in this standard. Regarding milk consumed by calves prior to weaning, AMS has determined that it is not necessary to insert the word “mother's” as one commenter suggested. Milk replacer fed prior to weaning is within the intent of the grass (forage) fed standard, as it is an acceptable alternative feed source to mother's milk. The remainder of the comments were considered, but not incorporated into the standard as AMS has determined the standard, with the revisions made, is clear, attainable, and appropriate. Stored and Harvested Forages and Other Supplements *Comments:* One issue that particularly divided commenters was allowing stored or harvested forages to be a part of the grass (forage) fed claim. One commenter stated it is important to exclude “green chop” forage, corn or sorghum grain, and soybeans. Another commenter encouraged AMS not to allow harvested forage, corn silage, or other grains that have been separated from their stalks to be part of the grass (forage) fed claim. Another commenter specifically did not think the feeding of fermented vegetative products like silage should be permitted in the grass (forage) fed designation as they have undergone significant chemical alteration. One commenter wanted animals raised 100 percent on live, green grass and that their diet should not include hay, almond hulls, or other vegetable matter. Some commenters stated mechanically harvested forage without grain may be fed to animals while on grassland during periods of inclement weather or low forage quality. Several commenters supported the proposed standard to allow the feeding of harvested grass and forage to grass fed animals. They stated that in northern climates, feeding of harvested grass and forage during winter months is often necessary to sustain animals in a healthy condition as well as in drought conditions. Another commenter stated that stored forages should be allowed, because in most regions of the country, cattle cannot graze during the entire calendar year, and there will be year round demand for locally produced grass fed, fresh products. This commenter stated that their customers in the winter would rather purchase products produced from grass fed animals fed stored forage than conventional meat and dairy products, if they have the choice. This commenter also stated that the use of hay and hay crop silage will be needed to provide feed when snow cover prevents livestock from grazing live or dormant pasture. Another commenter mentioned that the best stored forage is grass that is mechanically harvested before grain is formed and properly cured and stored to maintain as much “green” as possible and that silage did not meet the “green” criteria. AMS also received numerous comments suggesting various supplements that should or should not be considered eligible to be included in the grass (forage) fed diet. Again, the comments received regarding supplements differed in that some commenters stated that certain supplements should be allowed while others indicated that the supplements should not be allowed. Specific supplements mentioned to be excluded were processed or partially processed fruits, vegetables, rice, nuts or nut hulls, soybean meal and soy hulls, dried distillers grains, corn gluten feed, whole cottonseed, flax, beet pulp, citrus pulp, cottonseed meal, livestock minerals for proper immune function and general health, range cubes (75 percent ground alfalfa hay and 25 percent wheat and soybean meal, all organic certified), and wheat bran. The commenters in support of feeding supplements stated that supplemental feeding of ruminants that are on a very high forage diet, whether on pasture or being fed stored forages during the pasture dormancy period, is essential practice for both profitability, water quality concerns, and is very important to balancing the ration given to the ruminant. One commenter submitted that mineral and vitamin supplementation should not be routine, but only used when necessary for animal health purposes. *Agency Responses:* Due to the diverse range and climate conditions across the United States, it is not practical to limit consumption to grass (forage) consumed by the animal only while pasturing and to restrict the use of harvested, stockpiled or stored forages. During periods of inclement weather or low forage quality, the welfare and nutritional needs of the animal must be taken into account. Allowing harvested or stockpiled forages will address the lack of readily available grass (forage) throughout the year. Accordingly, harvested forage without grain is allowed. AMS realizes that silage is a fermented vegetative product that has undergone significant chemical alteration and is not as “green” as other freshly chopped forages; however, restricting silage due to a “green” criterion is outside the scope of the standard. As stated previously in the document, language will be in the standard to exclude grain, specifically to exclude forage crops containing grain as eligible feed. With regard to other supplements mentioned in the comments, AMS does agree that certain supplemental ingredients should not be allowed in the diet because they are not grass (forage). These ingredients include cereal grains, grain byproducts (starch and protein sources), cottonseed and cottonseed meal, soybean and soybean meal, non-protein nitrogen sources such as urea, and animal byproducts. By contrast, roughage (e.g.>, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, and almond hulls), defined as any feed high in crude fiber and low in total digestible nutrients, on an air-dry basis, can be supplemented in a grass (forage)-based diet because it is low in nutrients and its bulk stimulates peristalsis. Further, AMS believes that mineral and vitamin supplements should be allowed so the animal's nutrient intake can be adjusted and that deficiencies in the diet can be corrected. Related Production Issues Including Access to Pasture, Confinement, and Antibiotics and Hormones *Comments:* Many of the comments received from both producers and consumers were explicit in that they want grass fed raising practices distinguished from conventional feeding practices. Commenters wrote that consumers of grass fed animal products reasonably expect that these animals are raised on pasture, in contrast to the feedlots and other confinement operations typical of conventional animal agriculture. Others specifically stated that they do not want the grass (forage) fed label to mean an animal has been confined for up to 220 days, fed corn silage, and administered antibiotics and growth hormones. Others requested for AMS to ensure that grass (forage) fed means range or pasture raised, not produced from a conventional confinement operation. Many commenters also urged AMS to move quickly to develop the revised requirements for livestock labeling claims related to hormones, antibiotics, and pasture requirements. Commenters stated that the grass (forage) fed claim will only become truly effective when it comprehensively includes hormone, antibiotic, and free-range or pasture fed standards. Another issue raised was that the proposed standard neglected to specify or require that animals be raised on pasture. Some commenters specifically stated the term grass (forage) fed is, and should continue to be, synonymous with animals having free access to pasture or rangeland. Many other commenters stated that grass (forage) fed should mean animals humanely raised in grass pastures from birth to harvest. Other commenters stated that the 99 percent provision was appropriate, but only in conjunction with the expectation that the bulk of an animal's nutrition will come from a live, green pasture where, according to season, the animal shall predominantly be raised. Others commented that AMS should require that a significant amount of the grass in the animal's diet come from grass and forage consumed by animals while pasturing. Other commenters stated that at the minimum, animals should graze during the growing season but for no less than 120 days per year. One commenter said that grass fed ruminants must graze pasture during the entire growing season and that exceptions to this provision should be limited to

(1)emergencies that may threaten the safety and well being of the animals or soil; and,

(2)management practices such as roundups, sorting, shipping, and weaning. This commenter also stated that the provisions should not be interpreted as to exclude high intensity rotational grazing systems. Some of the commenters also stated that similar to the issue of pasture raised, the grass (forage) fed claim should also mean animals are not to be raised in confinement ( *e.g.* , feedlot). Some commenters suggested that grass fed animals should not be fed in confinement more than 20-30 days per calendar year, unless an emergency situation arises that poses a threat to the animal's health or well being ( *e.g.* , fire, flood, and blizzard). Some suggested allowable confinement conditions that include: times when animals are sorted, shipped, weaned, sold, and harvested, and periods of extreme, adverse weather such as flooding, drought, or blizzards. Another production practice on which AMS received comments was the use of antibiotics and hormones. Some of the commenters stated that in their view the grass (forage) fed standard should restrict the use of antibiotics and hormones. However, other commenters discussed the complexities in completely restricting the use of antibiotics. *Agency Responses:* In the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662), AMS determined that meat produced from animals which meet the minimum requirements for grass (forage) feeding should be eligible for the grass (forage) fed claim and additional production practices that go beyond a grass (forage) fed diet should not be incorporated in this standard. Additional labeling claims can be made in conjunction with the grass (forage) fed claim ( *e.g.* , free-range, no antibiotics or hormones administered) to highlight other production practices. AMS also has determined that animals must graze live pasture during the growing season as a requirement of the grass (forage) fed standard as it is inherent to the term grass (forage) fed. With regards to the issue of confinement and free-range, as stated in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 27662), AMS recognizes the synergistic nature between grass feeding and free-range conditions; however, AMS has determined it is preferable to keep the terminology separate and develop two distinct standards for both grass (forage) fed and free-range claims, particularly in view of possible distinctions in their diet. Similarly, AMS has determined it is preferable to keep the terminology separate for the use of antibiotics and hormones. Verification, Compliance, and Labeling Issues *Comments:* Several commenters stated that while the audit-based verification procedures (USDA Process Verified Program) utilized to substantiate label claims provides a high degree of assurance, the cost of compliance with these standards can be unduly burdensome for small and mid-sized producers and that all possible steps be taken to reduce the fee-based requirements for participating in this program. One commenter stated that it was unfortunate that this program does not maintain any penalties for producers and handlers who utilize the grass (forage) fed label without participating in the USDA Process Verified Program. Another comment recommended that FSIS establish a new provision within the Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations and the Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual, Directives and Notices that would limit the usage of the term “grass fed” only to labels in which the producer and handler of the product were approved participants under a USDA Process Verified Program for grass (forage) fed labeling. Other commenters stated a transition period for producers should be allowed so that they may continue to sell products that claim to be produced from grass fed animals while protocols are updated, and new labels are approved by FSIS, printed, and applied to the product. Another commenter asked to see language added that will not allow producers to include the term “grass fed” in their company name unless they are selling product verified by AMS. They stated if this provision is not added ranches will just change their ranch name to include the word grass fed instead of going through the paperwork required of USDA Process Verified Programs. One commenter objected to the voluntary program because their main plant is located in Argentina and would not be able to be included in the program, even though 99 percent of all animals and 100 percent of all bulls and cows are grass fed in Argentina. This commenter stated that this program discriminates against imported meat and meat products, and is an added cost to the end user, as the costs to approve the meat would be passed on to the consumer. *Agency Responses:* Relative to the cost of AMS audit-based verification services, every effort has been made to make these services available in the most cost-effective manner possible to all applicants. The cost of AMS' verification services is outside the scope of voluntary marketing claim standards. In response to the issue of penalties for producers and handlers who utilize a grass (forage) fed label without participating in the USDA Process Verified Program, it should be noted that all label claims, including the ones verified by a USDA Process Verified Program, must be approved by FSIS, LPDD. FSIS, LPDD develops and implements regulations and policies to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg product labeling is truthful and non-misleading. Under FMIA and PPIA, the labels of products must be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated this authority to FSIS, before these products can enter commerce. Accordingly, all labeling issues and questions, including requiring a USDA Process Verified Program for approval of a grass (forage) fed claim, transition periods, and the use of grass fed in a company's name must be addressed by FSIS. The purpose of voluntarily participating in a USDA Process Verified Program is to obtain AMS verification for specific practices so that a livestock or meat producer's products can be differentiated in the marketplace. Although producers and handlers may use an approved grass (forage) fed label without participating in a USDA QSVP, the use of any official certificate, memoranda, marks, or other identifications, and devices for purposes of the Agricultural Marketing Act without complying with the program requirements may result in either a fine, imprisonment, or both. Section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 authorizes the imposition of fines, imprisonment, or both for anyone who knowingly falsifies any official certificate, memorandum, mark, or other identification, or device for making such mark or identification, with respect to inspection, class, grade, quality, size, quantity, or condition, issued or authorized pursuant to USDA QSVP. Relative to foreign producers who want to market grass (forage) fed products in the United States, a cost-effective, voluntary program to substantiate label claims can be developed between USDA and the appropriate national-level counterpart in the producer's country provided applicable FSIS regulatory approvals are in place. Perceptions Associated With Grass (Forage) Fed Claim *Comments:* Many commenters offered reasons for producing and consuming meat from grass fed animals. Commenters stated that as a consumer they wanted livestock raised in conditions that promote the animal's health and protect the environment, and in conditions that will produce meat products that contain the healthiest nutrients. One commenter thought AMS should allow verifiable health claims, such as low fat, or future verifiable health claims, such as Conjugated Linoleic Acid

(CLA)content. Another commenter also disagreed with any prohibition on any claims regarding levels of Omega-3 fatty acids and CLA in a specified serving of grass fed meat versus an identical serving of grain fed meat. These commenters stated that sufficient empirical scientific evidence now exists to clearly document the attributes of grass feeding in regard to Omega-3 fatty acids and CLA. Several commenters suggested that while the exact benefits of increased CLA and the type and balance of Omega-3 fatty acids are still under evaluation, the possibility that meat derived from grass (forage) fed ruminants is better for consumers remains an open question. One commenter stated that they support AMS' position that requirements or characteristics beyond energy source ( *i.e.* , level of CLA or Omega-3 fatty acids) should not be incorporated into the standard. This commenter stated that not all forages are equal in fatty acid composition and feeding different types of forages to different types of cattle across the country can result in differing concentrations of CLA and Omega-3 fatty acids in the final product. They agreed grass fed beef can contain significantly higher levels of these compounds than grain fed beef; however, they stated that the industry lacks evidence to suggest that these higher levels create a meaningful health benefit for humans and agreed that this issue warrants further investigation based on sound science. *Agency Responses:* It will be up to the producer to make additional distinctions in their meat products beyond the grass (forage) fed claim. Further, it is up to an individual consumer to determine their reason for eating meat from animals fed grass (forage). Reasons consumers list for consuming meat from grass fed animals differ widely and such standards would be based on those various perceptions. However, this issue is not within the scope of this marketing claim standard. Nutritional issues on labels are more appropriately addressed through the FSIS, LPDD label approval process. Additional Issues Raised *Comments:* Some commenters also requested that the use of genetically engineered plants and forage be prohibited and that specifically the grass (forage) fed label should ensure the grass or forage used as feed not be sourced from pasture or harvested from grasses using genetically engineered varieties of alfalfa, Bahia grass, tall fescue, Italian ryegrass or other such grasses. Several comments supported that the standard covers all ruminants, including cattle, goats, and sheep. However, multiple commenters requested that the standard be written so as to clearly indicate that dairy products derived from livestock meeting the grass (forage) fed standard can be marketed using grass (forage) fed claims. One commenter specifically proposed that the grass (forage) fed claim be applied to all ruminant animal products including meat, meat products, milk, milk products, animal fiber, and animal fiber products. Another commenter asked that the standard address the reality of what a grass fed chicken or a grass fed pig will eat. One commenter also suggested that a standardized spelling of grass fed be determined to minimize confusion among producers, marketers, consumers, and industry organizations. *Agency Responses:* At this time, a requirement prohibiting the use of genetically engineered plants is not included due to the lack of research showing effects on animals consuming genetically engineered plants. Further, this voluntary standard applies only to meat products from ruminants. Milk, milk products, animal fiber, and animal fiber products are determined to be outside the scope of this standard. AMS does agree a standardized spelling of grass fed would minimize confusion and has applied a standardized spelling to the standard. Accordingly, AMS establishes the following voluntary U.S. Standard for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, in this notice. U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock. *Background:* This claim applies to ruminant animals and the meat and meat products derived from such animals whose diet, throughout their lifespan, with the exception of milk (or milk replacer) consumed prior to weaning, is solely derived from forage, which for the purpose of this claim, is any edible herbaceous plant material that can be grazed or harvested for feeding, with the exception of grain. Forage-based diets can be derived from grass (annual and perennial), forbs ( *e.g.* , legumes, *Brassica* ), and browse. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Growing season is defined as the time period extending from the average date of the last frost in spring to the average date of the first frost in the fall in the local area of production. Hay, haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other roughage sources also may be included as acceptable feed sources. Consumption of seeds naturally attached to forage is acceptable. However, crops normally harvested for grain (including but not limited to corn, soybean, rice, wheat, and oats) are only eligible feed if they are foraged or harvested in the vegetative state (pre-grain). Upon request, verification of this claim will be accomplished through an audit of the production process. The producer must be able to verify for AMS that the grass (forage) marketing claim standard requirements are being met through a detailed documented quality management system. Claim and Standard *Grass (Forage) Fed* —Grass and forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs ( *e.g.* , legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Hay, haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other roughage sources may also be included as acceptable feed sources. Routine mineral and vitamin supplementation may also be included in the feeding regimen. If incidental supplementation occurs due to inadvertent exposure to non-forage feedstuffs or to ensure the animal's well being at all times during adverse environmental or physical conditions, the producer must fully document ( *e.g.* , receipts, ingredients, and tear tags) the supplementation that occurs including the amount, the frequency, and the supplements provided. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: October 10, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-20328 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District, Wyoming. Upper Greys Vegetation Treatment AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The analysis area of 11,855 acres is located in the Upper Greys River watershed on the Greys River Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. It is approximately 20 miles southeast of Afton, Wyoming on the west slope of the Wyoming Range. All lands within the 11,855 acre analysis area are National Forest System lands, within Lincoln County, Wyoming. The legal description includes portions of: T30N, R116W and T29N, R116W. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 15, 2007. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in February 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in April 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger, Greys River Ranger District, P.O. Box 339, Afton, Wyoming. For further information, mail correspondence to: *mailroom_r4_bridger_teton@fs.fed.us* and on the subject line put only “Upper Greys River Vegetation Treatment.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: District Ranger, Greys River Ranger District, P.O. Box 339, 641 N. Washington St., Afton, Wyoming 83110, or phone

(307)886-5310. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the proposed action is to attain desired vegetation conditions including increased diversity of tree age and size classes, improve the health and vigor of some mature timber stands and reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. It further reduces soil erosion and sedimentation from existing sources. A stand replacing fire is highly likely in this area due to dense, mature forests with an abundance of down dead and ladder fuels and would be apt to change the area from mature forest to grasses and forbs, damage existing seedlings, saplings and young forest. The loss of vegetation would also create conditions conducive to excess soil erosion over the landscape. The Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP)and the 2004 Greys River Landscape Scale Assessment

(LSA)have both identified opportunities for vegetation treatments to help improve resource conditions. The LSA found that the lodgepole pine vegetation in the Greys River falls outside the range of properly functioning condition and identified an opportunity to treat over 7,000 acres by 2010. Alternative 1—Proposed Action This proposal was developed primarily to help achieve desired conditions described in the LSA while responding to issues from previous public scoping, changes in resource demand, and recently identified resource issues. It is designed to improve Forest resource conditions as identified in the LSA. The proposal is to treat approximately 591 acres and reduce existing sediment sources within the 11,855 acre analysis area which lies in the upper Greys River drainage. The proposed action would take place from approximately 2008 through 2011 and would include: 1. Commercial harvest of approximately 591 acres of mixed conifer timber. • Approximately 436 acres would be treated using a clearcutting silvicultural system. • Approximately 155 acres would be treated using a selection silvicultural system to remove dead and dying trees, low vigor trees, or small groups of trees less than 2 acres in size, while retaining 40 to 70% of healthy trees in the stand. • Approximately 4.5 miles of temporary road would be constructed and then closed and rehabilitated after use. These would be mostly short spurs to access log landing areas off the main roads. Approximately 1.5 miles of existing closed roads would be used for timber hauling and closed and rehabilitated after use. 2. Identifying segments of existing logging roads and trails, including all culverts and creek crossings, that have the potential to erode, particularly those segments that are delivering, or have the potential to deliver, sediment to stream channels and other water bodies. Restore identified areas to *Elimination Class 3 and 4* (as defined in the Forest Plan). Segments of the designated road system would be reconstructed to improve drainage, reduce sediments, ensure fish passage and provide improved public safety before log hauling could occur. 3. Treating slash created from timber harvest by broadcast burn or pile burn. All treatments are planned within Desired Future Condition

(DFC)area 1B. The management emphasis for DFC 1B is scheduled wood fiber production and use, livestock production, and other commodity outputs. Possible Alternatives Alternative 2—No Action Alternative This alternative is required under NEPA regulations and also serves as a baseline of information for comparison of other alternatives. Though this alternative does not respond to the purpose and need for action, it does address some issues. Responsible Official Jay Dunbar, District Forest Ranger, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming. Nature of Decision To Be Made This decision will be whether or not to implement specific vegetation management projects and associated road improvements, as allowed in the LRMP and LSA. The decision would include any mitigation measures needed in addition to those prescribed in the LRMP. Scoping Process The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state, and local agencies interested in or affected by this project. In addition, comments submitted on the March 9, 2007 scoping effort will also be considered in preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be used to give the public general notice. Public participation activities would include requests for written comments. The first formal opportunity to comment is to respond to this notice of intent, which initiates the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes:

(1)Identifying potential issues,

(2)narrowing the potential issues and identifying significant issues of those that have been covered by prior environmental review,

(3)exploring alternatives in addition to No Action, and

(4)identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Preliminary Issues The Forest Service has identified the following potential issues. Your input is especially valuable here. It will help us determine which of these merit detailed analysis. It will also help identify additional issues related to the proposed action that may not be listed here. *Issue 1* —The effects of vegetative treatment on lynx foraging habitat, security cover for elk and other habitat, including Snake River cutthroat trout habitat. *Issue 2* —The effects of vegetative treatment on forest health, specifically the high proportion of older age class conifer stands and declining tree condition, including high dwarf mistletoe infection levels in lodgepole pine. *Issue 3* —The effects of vegetative treatment on fuel loading. High fuel loadings exist in dead and down material, as well as from recent mortality losses, due to mountain pine beetle and long-term site productivity. *Issue 4* —The effects of roads and harvest activities on water quality. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review The Draft EIS

(DEIS)is proposed to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)and to be available for public comment in the winter of 2008. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions ( *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts ( *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: October 4, 2007. Heidi Whitlatch, Acting District Forest Ranger. [FR Doc. 07-5072 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 45

Traces to 45 documents

CFR