Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule; notice of reopening of public comment periods, and notice of public hearings

10,556 words·~48 min read·/register/2007/12/11/07-6012·

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AV07; 1018-AV04 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designations of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), Poa atropurpurea (San Bernardino bluegrass), and Taraxacum californicum (California taraxacum) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reopening of public comment periods, and notice of public hearings.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period and the scheduling of public hearings on the proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat ( *Dipodomys merriami parvus* ), and on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Poa atropurpurea* (San Bernardino bluegrass) and *Taraxacum californicum* (California taraxacum) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

The reopened comment periods will provide the public; Federal, State, and local agencies; and Tribes with an additional opportunity to submit written comments on these proposed rules. Comments previously submitted for the proposed critical habitat designations for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, *P. atropurpurea,* or *T. californicum* need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in any final decisions. DATES: *Written Comments:* We will accept comments and information until January 25, 2008, or at the public hearing.

Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decisions on the designations of critical habitat. *Public Hearings:* The public hearings will take place on January 10, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in San Bernardino, California. ADDRESSES: *Written Comments:* You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn:

RIN 1018-AV07 or 1018-AV04; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will accept written comments at the public hearing. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). *Public Hearings:* The public hearings will be held at the Clarion Hotel and Convention Center, 295 North E Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-9624. 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 We intend that any final actions resulting from these proposals will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions on these proposed rules from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed rules. We particularly seek comments on the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and the proposed critical habitat designations for *Poa atropurpurea* and *Taraxacum californicum* 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 is outweighed by the threats to each species caused by their respective designations such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent;

(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of habitat for each species; • What areas that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the features essential for the conservation of the species should be included in their respective designations and why; and • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of each species and why;

(3)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat for each species;

(4)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed revised designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and proposed critical habitat for *Poa atropurpurea* and *Taraxacum californicum* and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts; and

(5)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way as to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments. In addition, we seek the following specific comments on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat:

(1a)Specific information on dispersal areas important for habitat connectivity, their role in the conservation and recovery of the subspecies, and reasons why such areas should or should not be included in the critical habitat designation;

(2a)Our proposed exclusions totaling 2,544 acres

(ac)(1,029 hectares (ha)) of San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat and whether the benefits of excluding these areas would outweigh the benefits of their inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the Secretary determines that the benefits of including these lands are not outweighed by the benefits of excluding them, they will not be excluded from final critical habitat;

(3a)Any proposed critical habitat areas covered by existing or proposed conservation or management plans that we should consider for exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically request information on any operative or draft habitat conservation plans for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat that have been prepared under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as well as any other management or conservation plan or agreement that benefits the kangaroo rat or its primary constituent elements; and

(4a)Specific information regarding the current status of plan implementation for the following management plans: the Woolly-Star Preserve Area Management Plans; the Former Norton Air Force Base Conservation Management Plan; the Cajon Creek Habitat Conservation Management Area, Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan; and Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan. We also seek the following specific comments on the proposed critical habitat designations for *Poa atropurpurea* and *Taraxacum californicum* :

(1b)Any proposed critical habitat areas covered by conservation or management plans that we should consider for exclusion from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically request information on any operative or draft habitat conservation plans that include *Poa atropurpurea* or *Taraxacum californicum* as covered species that have been prepared under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or any other management or other conservation plan or agreement that benefits either plant or its primary constituent elements; and

(2b)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat. You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rules by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. We will accept written comments at the public hearing. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section in our final determination. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov* . 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 we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rules, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-9624. Comments and information submitted during the initial comment periods on the proposed rules need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public records as part of those comment periods and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rules. Background On June 19, 2007, we published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 33808) to revise critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Currently, 33,295 ac (13,485 ha) are designated as critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, California. Under the proposal, approximately 9,079 ac (3,674 ha) of land located in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, California, would fall within the boundaries of the revised critical habitat designation. Further, of the 9,079 ac (3,674 ha) of revised critical habitat, we are proposing to exclude 2,544 ac (1,029 ha) of land from the revised final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of the June 19, 2007, revised proposed rule [72 FR 33808] for a detailed discussion of this proposed exclusion). On August 7, 2007, we published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 44232) to designate critical habitat for *Poa atropurpurea* and *Taraxacum californicum* . We propose approximately 3,014 ac (1,221 ha) of land in San Bernardino and San Diego Counties, California, as critical habitat for P. atropurpurea, and approximately 1,930 ac (782 ha) of land in San Bernardino County, California, as critical habitat for T. californicum. Economic analyses identifying estimated impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designations for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, *Poa atropurpurea* , and *Taraxacum californicum* are still in development. When these analyses are completed, we will provide a separate notice informing the public of their availability and providing an opportunity for public comment. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(i)The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time of listing in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(1)essential to the conservation of the species and

(2)which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(ii)Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing if the Secretary determines that those areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For each species, if the proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, section 7(a)(2) of the Act would require that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration economic, national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Public Hearings Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires a public hearing be held if any person requests it within 45 days of the publication of a proposed rule. In response to requests from the public, the Service will conduct public hearings for these two critical habitat proposals on the date and at the address and times identified in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above. Persons wishing to make an oral statement for the record are encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing, please contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearings should contact Dixie Ward, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at 760-431-9440 as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding this notice is available in alternative formats upon request. Author The author of this document is the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 27, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-23842 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300, 600 and 697 [Docket No. 070717337-7338-01] RIN 0648-AV78 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Specifications for Boarding Ladders AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to require domestic fishing vessel operators to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder as a safer and more enforceable means for authorized personnel to board certain domestic fishing vessels in carrying out their duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and other applicable fisheries laws and treaties. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of personnel boarding domestic fishing vessels, as current standards have proven to be inadequate. The proposed regulations would establish a safer and more enforceable national standard for ladders used by authorized officers for boarding domestic fishing vessels subject to Federal regulation. DATES: Comments must be received at the following address by January 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV78,” by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax: 301-713-1175, Attn: William D. Chappell. • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Boarding Ladder Rule.” 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 publicly 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 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review (IRFA/RIR) may be obtained from the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Chappell, 301-713-2337. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act established U.S. jurisdiction over the fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS is responsible for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Fishery Management Plans

(FMPs)prepared by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and for the FMP governing Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. While each Council prepares FMPs for those fishery resources within the Council's area of authority that require conservation, NMFS implements certain requirements common to all fisheries, such as facilitation of enforcement. Associated regulations are codified at 50 CFR parts 600 through 697. These general regulations to facilitate enforcement also apply to U.S. fishing vessels fishing under the requirements of other fisheries laws and treaties. For example, they apply to fishing activities subject to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act regulations at 50 CFR part 697. In addition, there are several international fisheries regimes in which U.S. fishing vessels participate, such as the Atlantic fisheries under conservation and management measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented domestically by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 635. U.S. fishing vessels are regulated on the high seas and under other international fishing regimes, including the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, the North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, and a number of international treaties, including the 1972 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Columbia Concerning the Status of Quita Sueno, Roncador and Serrana, and the 1981 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges as amended in 2002. Current regulations at § 600.730(c)(3) require a fishing vessel to “provide a safe ladder” to be used for boarding purposes by authorized personnel including authorized officers (e.g., Coast Guard personnel, and Enforcement Agents), observers, and scientists enforcing regulations and documenting fishing effort at sea. However, a “safe boarding ladder” is not defined in regulations for domestic fishing vessels. This has led to fishing vessel operators providing a variety of ladders for boarding. Safety is compromised when authorized personnel use ladders that are inadequate. Within the last few years, several boarding officers fell into the water when the ladders provided for boarding failed or when they were inadequate to allow the boarding officer to maintain a grip on the ladder. This is a highly dangerous situation. Colliding with the fishing vessel, the small boat delivering the boarding party, and even the ladder itself can injure or kill a falling person or one in the water. In addition, especially in Alaskan and Northwestern Atlantic waters, cold water temperature can cause shock and the quick onset of hypothermia, which quickly becomes life threatening. Although boarding parties wear flotation gear, the threat of drowning through unconsciousness or entanglement in a ladder or other gear from the vessel are concerns. Some vessels have provided ladders wholly unsuited to boarding a vessel at sea, such as swimming pool ladders, aluminum step ladders, rigid wooden ladders, or metal rungs welded to the side of the vessel. While U.S. Coast Guard boarding parties can sometimes provide their own ladder, the process of rigging the ladder to the fishing vessel is slow and the ladder is bulky and hazardous to carry on board a small boat. In addition, observers transferring from one fishing vessel to another at sea cannot take a boarding ladder with them. NMFS proposes to require the use of a pilot ladder on all fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 ft (1.25 m) or greater in order to provide an easily identifiable and obtainable ladder to provide safe means for personnel to embark and disembark vessels at sea. In addition to defining and requiring the use of a pilot ladder, this proposed rule would define the term “freeboard” with regard to this rule. This change would clarify the requirements of existing and proposed regulations. In some cases the term freeboard has been interpreted as the height of the lowest deck open to the weather (weather deck) from the water's surface. In other cases it has been considered as the height of the gunwale (railing around the weather deck bulwarks) from the water's surface. The difference between these two measurements can be from a few inches to over 6 feet (1.8 m). In order to make the regulations more useful and consistent, NMFS proposes to define freeboard as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel to the water's surface. Because some vessels have openings in the bulwarks specifically for embarking and debarking personnel, NMFS proposes that, where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the sole purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the structure to the water's surface. Classification Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Small Entities Affected In determining the number of vessels that might be affected by this rule, NMFS and the Coast Guard first determined that vessels 65 ft (20.0 m) or greater in length have a freeboard (defined as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the water's surface) of 4 ft (1.25 m) or greater. While some vessels 65 ft (20.0 m) or greater in length may have a freeboard of less than 4 ft (1.25 m), NMFS assumed for purposes of this analysis that all of these vessels, as well as an unknown number of smaller vessels, would be required to carry a pilot ladder if this proposed rule were implemented. According to U.S. Coast Guard vessel documentation records, 6,050 documented fishing vessels are 65 ft (20 m) long or longer and could be affected by this requirement. Because some vessels already have ladders that would meet the new requirements, it is unlikely that all of the identified fishing vessels would need to purchase a ladder. Except for some large catcher-processor vessels, mostly engaged in the Alaska fisheries, these vessels are all considered small entities for the purpose of this rule. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements This rule has no reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Duplicating, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules This rule refers to 46 CFR subpart 163.003, which provides standards and approval and production tests for pilot ladders that would be required by this proposed rule. There are no conflicting rules. Alternatives Considered This action considered 5 alternatives including the preferred alternative and the status quo. The proposed alternative (proposed action) is to require the operators of all fishing vessels with a freeboard of over 4 feet (1.25 m) to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder for boarding parties, observers and other officials required to board the vessel. The term “pilot ladder” would replace the currently required “safe boarding ladder.” That term has been undefined and, as a result, fishing vessel operators have provided ladders that have been both inadequate and unsafe. Approved boarding ladders come in several approved versions and vary in cost. Typically, vessels would need a 10- or 12-foot (3.0 or 3.7 m) ladder that costs approximately $517-$620 for a wooden rung ladder, and $1,160-$1,392 for a synthetic rung ladder. The largest vessels may have to buy a longer ladder at a proportionate increase (approximately $50-$60 per foot) in cost. NMFS estimates the total cost to fishing vessel owners of this rule to be from $3,127,850 ($517 x 6,050 vessels) to $8,421,600 ($1,392 x 6,050 vessels). The second alternative is the status quo, or no change to the regulations. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action. This alternative would not increase costs to fishermen; however, neither would it provide any increased safety to persons attempting to board fishing vessels at sea. The regulations would continue to be ambiguous and vessel operators may continue to provide unsafe ladders, resulting in delayed boardings and accidents, some of which could be serious or fatal. A third alternative considered would limit this requirement to Alaskan and Northwestern Atlantic waters where cold water and rough seas are common. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the action. The limitation would reduce the cost to fishermen, but would not reduce the hazard to boarding parties in the areas that are not subject to the requirements, since boardings are conducted in rough seas off all coasts and during all periods of the year. Therefore, limiting the extent of this requirement would compromise the safety of boarding parties in any areas of the EEZ that are not subject to the requirements. A fourth alternative would require vessels with a freeboard of 3 feet (0.9 m) or more to provide a ladder. Some reports from U.S. Coast Guard boarding parties indicate that ladders would facilitate boarding operations in those cases. NMFS rejected this alternative because of the marginal benefit in safety and the relative difficulty in determining the number of vessels that would have to obtain ladders. A fifth alternative would allow fishing vessel owners or operators to make their own ladders according to specifications found at 46 CFR subpart 163.003, without going through the procedures for CG approval. While fishermen could potentially make such ladders cheaper than buying them, the ladders would not be approved and there would be no assurance that they would actually perform as required. Therefore, this alternative was not adopted. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife. 50 CFR Part 600 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics. 50 CFR Part 697 Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 4, 2007. John Oliver Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, and 697 are proposed to be amended as follows. CHAPTER III PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* , 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 *et seq.* , 16 U.S.C. 973-973r, 16 U.S.C. 2431 *et seq.* , 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, 16 U.S.C. 3636(b), 16 U.S.C. 5501 *et seq.* , and 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 300.2, add definitions for “freeboard” and “pilot ladder” in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 300.2 Definitions. *Freeboard* means the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel and the water's surface. Where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the cut-out and the water's surface. *Pilot ladder* means a flexible ladder constructed and approved to meet the U.S. Coast Guard standards for pilot ladders at 46 CFR subpart 163.003 entitled Pilot Ladder. 3. In § 300.5, paragraphs (c)(3) and

(4)are revised to read as follows: § 300.5 Facilitation of enforcement.

(c)* * *

(3)Except for fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less, provide, when requested by an authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector, a pilot ladder capable of being used for the purpose of enabling the authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector to embark and disembark the vessel safely. The pilot ladder must be maintained in good condition and kept clean.

(4)When necessary to facilitate the boarding or when requested by an authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector, provide a manrope or safety line, and illumination for the pilot ladder. CHAPTER VI PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 4. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 5. In § 600.10, add definitions for “freeboard” and “pilot ladder” in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 600.10 Definitions. *Freeboard* means the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel and the water's surface. Where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the cut-out and the water's surface. *Pilot ladder* means a flexible ladder constructed and approved to meet the U.S. Coast Guard standards for pilot ladders at 46 CFR subpart 163.003 entitled Pilot Ladder. 6. In § 600.730, paragraphs (c)(3) and

(4)are revised to read as follows: § 600.730 Facilitation of enforcement.

(c)* * *

(3)Except for fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less, provide, when requested by authorized officer or observer personnel, a pilot ladder capable of being used for the purpose of enabling personnel to embark and disembark the vessel safely. The pilot ladder must be maintained in good condition and kept clean.

(4)When necessary to facilitate the boarding or when requested by an authorized officer or observer, provide a manrope or safety line, and illumination for the pilot ladder. PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 7. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* 8. In § 697.9, paragraph

(a)is revised to read as follows: § 697.9 Facilitation of enforcement.

(a)*General.* See § 600.730 of this chapter. [FR Doc. E7-24008 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 237 Tuesday, December 11, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 6, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The regulations in Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations, govern the interstate movement of animals to prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry diseases in the United States. Supplementing the regulations is the Uniform Program Standards for the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program that outlines the minimal national standards of the program providing specifics on administration of the program, program elements and procedures, and laboratory procedures. *Need and Use of the Information:* The objective of this program is to provide minimum national standards for the control of Johne's disease. The program consists of three basic elements:

(1)Education, to inform producers about the cost of Johne's disease and to provide information about management strategies to prevent, control, and eliminate it;

(2)management, to work with producers to establish good management strategies on their farms; and

(3)herd testing and classification, to help separate test-positive herds from test-negative herds. Failing to collect this information would greatly hinder the control of Johne's disease and possibly lead to increased prevalence. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government; Farms; Business or other for-profit *Number of Respondents:* 50,602. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 70,515. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23937 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 6, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(FSP)provides low-income individuals and families with assistance to purchase eligible food items for the home consumption through state-operated programs. Over the past decade, increased awareness of the importance of the FSP as a basic nutritional safety net, as well as a critical work support, has led to a variety of federal and state efforts to increase program access and participation. Congress has allocated funds for the purpose of evaluating and collecting data on the FSP as part of Section 17(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended through Public Law 106-171, February 11, 2000. The Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS)plans to systematically examine the range of efforts States are undertaking to enhance food stamp certification and modernize the FSP. *Need and Use of the Information:* FNS will initiate a comprehensive study to:

(1)Develop a national inventory of FSP modernization efforts across states;

(2)document key features and outcomes associated with food stamp modernization;

(3)systematically describe and compare techniques states are using to modernize the FSP; and

(4)identify promising practices. Without this study, FNS and state food stamp agencies will have to rely on the information that is provided for individual modernization initiatives. *Description of Respondents:* Individual or households; Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,107. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (one time only). *Total Burden Hours:* 1,869. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23938 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974; Revision of Systems of Records and Proposed New Routine Uses AGENCY: Department of Agriculture (USDA). ACTION: Notice of revisions to Privacy Act Systems of Records. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)gives notice that it proposes to amend five Privacy Act Systems of Records maintained by the Risk Management Agency (RMA). EFFECTIVE DATE: The revised systems notices and the proposed routine uses will become effective 40 days after publication, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate public comments. Comments on this notice must be received on or before January 10, 2008 to be assured consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Bollinger, Chief, Underwriting Standards Branch, Risk Management Agency, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676, telephone

(816)926-7176, electronic mail *pam.bollinger@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USDA and RMA propose to amend the five Privacy Act Systems of Records listed below to add a single new routine use to each:

(1)USDA/FCIC-2, Compliance Review Cases, which was last published in full at 67 FR 68559, on November 12, 2002;

(2)USDA/FCIC-8, List of Ineligible Producers, which was last published in full at 72 FR 523, on January 5, 2007;

(3)USDA/FCIC-9, Agent, which was last published in full at 68 FR 55362, on September 25, 2003;

(4)USDA/FCIC-10, Policyholder, which was last published in full at 67 FR 68086, on November 8, 2002; and

(5)USDA/FCIC-11, Loss Adjuster, which was last published in full at 68 FR 15426, on March 31, 2003. The Risk Management Agency, a component of USDA that administers programs of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), a wholly-owned Government Corporation, maintains these systems. Each of the systems listed is being revised to add two additional new routine uses. The first new routine use permits disclosure of certain electronic records which have been incorporated in electronic format into this system through the Comprehensive Information Management System

(CIMS)in accordance with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, section 10706. CIMS is a system of computer programs and databases, physically located in Kansas City, Missouri, that is jointly maintained by the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)and RMA utilizing the services of an information technology contractor. CIMS contains producer, program, and land information from FSA, RMA, and approved insurance providers (AIPs), as defined in section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)). CIMS acts as a repository of data and also combines, reconciles, defines, translates, and formats data in such a manner so it can be used by entities that have authorized access to CIMS. CIMS will be used to help RMA and FSA administer their programs by allowing the agencies to discover and correct errors in reporting and assist the producers in providing consistent information to FSA, RMA, and AIPs. The electronic information collected in CIMS will be disclosed to FSA and AIPs under contract with RMA and further disclosed to the AIP's insurance agents and loss adjusters. The electronic information may also be disclosed to any contractor engaged in the development or maintenance of CIMS. Such disclosures are necessary to administer and enforce requirements of the Federal crop insurance programs, an integral part of the USDA farm program system. To ensure that AIPs, and their insurance agents and loss adjusters, are only receiving information related to their specific insureds, all requests for information provided through CIMS will be automatically validated by CIMS software. Validation is accomplished by checking producer information provided directly to CIMS by data requestors against an RMA-maintained database of accepted policies incorporated into CIMS. AIPs will be required to sign a non-disclosure statement before accessing CIMS to preclude them from using the information for an unauthorized purpose or releasing the information to an unauthorized person or the public. FSA and any contractor engaged in the development or maintenance of CIMS will have access to all RMA data incorporated into CIMS. RMA data in CIMS will only be disclosed to the AIPs, their insurance agents and loss adjusters, for information associated with their insured producers and only with regard to such producers' farming operations contained in counties covered by their policies. The RMA data disclosed through access to CIMS data consist of:

(1)Standardized records containing identifying information on entities such as the name, address, tax identification number (social security number or employer identification number) and entity type;

(2)the name, address, and tax identification number of individuals having a substantial beneficial interest in an ineligible individual or legal entity; and

(3)information related to ineligibility such as date and cause of ineligibility, date of notification letter, and current status. RMA may also be releasing FSA data through CIMS to contractors, the AIPs, their insurance agents and loss adjusters, for information associated with their insured producers and only with regard to such producers' farming operations contained in counties covered by their policies. The FSA data provided by CIMS will include:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity Information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file;

(2)current and prior crop year electronic report acreage information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers;

(3)electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(CLUs)through the unique CLU identifier. A CLU is an electronic representation of the boundaries of a piece of land, represented in latitudes and longitudes. It is the smallest unit of land that has a permanent, contiguous boundary; common land cover and land management; common owner; and common producer association; and

(5)digital imagery and geospatial data layer containing common land unit boundaries, calculated acres, State and county codes, and unique identifier, calculated acres and State and county codes for States the AIPs have contracted with RMA to sell crop insurance. USDA is adding the second new routine pursuant to instruction from the Office of Management and Budget, in its May 22, 2007, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-07-16, on the subject of Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. This second new routine use will permit release of information to described types of persons and entities for the purpose of remediation of a breach of confidentiality. A “Report on New System,” required by 5 U.S.C. 552a

(r)as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, was sent to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; the Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives; and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Dated: December 3, 2007. Charles F. Conner, Acting Secretary. USDA/FCIC-2 System Name: Compliance Review Cases, USDA/FCIC-2. Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of uses and the purposes of such uses:

(8)Disclosure to the Comprehensive Information Management System

(FSA)and approved insurance providers as necessary to carry out the tasks referred to in routine uses

(6)and (7). Such disclosure may include not only the RMA information contained in this system of records, it may also include FSA data provided to CIMS, which includes:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity Information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file;

(2)current and prior crop year electronic report acreage information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers;

(3)electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(CLUs)through the unique CLU identifier—(A CLU is an electronic representation of the boundaries of a piece of land, demarcated in latitudes and longitudes. It is the smallest unit of land that has a permanent, contiguous boundary; common land cover and land management; common owner; and common producer association); and

(9)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when

(1)USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(2)the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. USDA/FCIC-8 System Name: USDA/FCIC-8, List of Ineligible Producers: Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of uses and the purposes of such uses:

(10)Disclosure to the Comprehensive Information Management System

(CIMS)authorized under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Section 10706. All information disclosed to CIMS may be further disclosed to the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)and any contractor engaged in the development or maintenance of CIMS and to approved insurance providers, their insurance agents and loss adjusters, for information associated with their insured producers and only with regard to such producers' farming operations contained in counties covered by their policies. Such disclosure would include not only the RMA information contained in this system of records, it may also include FSA data provided to CIMS, which includes:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file;

(2)current and prior crop year electronic report acreage information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers:

(3)Electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(11)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when

(1)USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. USDA/FCIC-9 System Name: Agent, USDA/FCIC-9: Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of uses and the purposes of such uses:

(10)Disclosure to the Comprehensive Information Management System

(FSA)and approved insurance providers the agent contact information (name, address, telephone number, e-mail address) with respect to particular producers, and access to all agent data to approved insurance providers with respect to the agents employed or contracted by the approved insurance provider and the policies insured by the approved insurance provider. Such disclosure may include not only the RMA information contained in this system of records, it may also include FSA data provided to CIMS, which includes:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file:

(2)Current and prior crop year electronic report, acreage, information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers:

(3)Electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(CLUs)through the unique CLU identifier—(A CLU is an electronic representation of the boundaries of a piece of land, represented in latitudes and longitudes. It is the smallest unit of land that has a permanent, contiguous boundary; common land cover and land management; common owner; and common producer association); and

(11)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when

(1)USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. USDA/FCIC-10 System Name: Policyholder, USDA/FCIC-10: Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of uses and the purposes of such uses:

(8)Disclosure to the Comprehensive Information Management System

(FSA)and to approved insurance providers, their insurance agents and loss adjusters, for information associated with their insured producers and only with regard to such producers' farming operations contained in counties covered by their policies. Such disclosure would include not only the RMA information contained in this system of records, it may also include FSA data provided to CIMS, which includes:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity Information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file;

(2)current and prior crop year electronic report acreage information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers;

(3)electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(9)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when

(1)USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. USDA/FCIC-11 System Name: Loss Adjuster: Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of uses and the purposes of such uses:

(8)Disclosure to the Comprehensive Information Management System

(CIMS)authorized under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Section 10706. All information disclosed to CIMS may be further disclosed to any contractor engaged in the development or maintenance of CIMS, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), or to approved insurance providers. Disclosed information may include loss adjuster contact information (name, address, telephone number, e-mail address) with respect to particular producers. In addition, all loss adjuster data may be disclosed to the approved insurance provider that has employed or contracted with the particular loss adjuster with respect to the claims insured by the approved insurance provider. Such disclosure would include not only the RMA information contained in this system of records, it may also include FSA data provided to CIMS, which includes:

(1)Electronic Producer and Member Entity Information, including a common producer name, address, tax identifier, identity type, and entity file;

(2)current and prior crop year electronic report acreage information reported to FSA by producers, and acreage determined by FSA, as applicable, and farm and producer identifiers;

(3)electronic production data/information used by both FSA and RMA to establish program benefits;

(4)The farm/tract/field numbers associated with the common land units

(9)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when

(1)USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. [FR Doc. E7-23974 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Sheppard Creek Post-Fire Project, Flathead National Forest, Flathead and Lincoln Counties, MT AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)for a proposal to salvage merchantable timber affected by the Brush Creek wildland fire on the Tally Lake Ranger District of the Flathead National Forest. This fire burned a total of approximately 30,000 acres on the Flathead and Kootenai National Forests from July to September of 2007. Approximately 25,000 acres burned on the Tally Lake Ranger District where this project is proposed. The Kootenai National Forest will be preparing a separate salvage proposal. The city of Whitefish, Montana is located about twenty air miles to the east of the central portion of the project area. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before January 15, 2008. A public scoping meeting will be held in the city of Kalispell, Montana on January 9, 2008. The draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS)is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and made available for public review in April of 2008. No date has yet been determined for filing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Lisa Timchak, Tally Lake District Ranger. The mailing address is Tally Lake Ranger District, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901. Electronic comments may be e-mailed to *comments-northern-flathead-tally-lake@fs.fed.use* with “Sheppard Creek Post-Fire Project” in the subject line and must be submitted in MSWord (*.doc) or rich text format (*.rtf). Comments received in response to this request will be available for public inspection and will be released in their entirety if requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Donner, Planning Team Leader, Tally Lake Ranger District, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901 or call at

(406)758-0408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the action is to recover merchantable wood fiber affected by the Brush Creek Fire in a timely manner to support local communities and contribute to the long-term yield of forest products. Fire-killed trees do not typically maintain their merchantability as wood products for more than one to three years, depending on their species and size. Sapwood staining, checking, woodborer damage, and decay will deleteriously reduce timber volume after that time. Smaller-diameter trees typically will not be merchantable within a year. Larger-diameter trees can retain their merchantability as wood products for a longer period, but merchantability will deteriorate as time goes on. While considering ecological needs, salvage harvesting an appropriate amount of fire-affected trees in a timely manner to ensure their economic utilization and starting the reforestation process in the burned area will help facilitate meeting desired conditions within the area of the Brush Creek Fire. Proposed Action The proposed action includes salvage of trees from approximately 6500 acres, which represents about 30 percent of the area that burned in the 2007 Brush Creek Fire on the Flathead National Forest. Approximately 17 miles of road reconstruction are proposed to access burned trees. This reconstruction on existing road templates would allow use of the road during salvage operations and would later close them after salvage operations are completed. In addition, new temporary road construction is proposed on approximately 9 miles to access burned trees. No salvage or road building is proposed within inventoried roadless lands. Planting conifer seedlings and ensuring that Best Management Practices would be maintained on roads used for the salvage would also be included in this project. More detailed scoping information and maps can be accessed on the Flathead National Forest internet site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/flathead/* . Possible Alternatives Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Alternative B, the proposed action described above, was developed by the interdisciplinary team to respond to the purpose and need for action and to comply with the Flathead Forest Plan. At least one additional action alternative will be developed by modifying the proposed action to respond to the significant issues identified during the public involvement and scoping process. Responsible Official The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor of the Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901. The Forest Supervisor will make a decision regarding this proposal considering the comments and responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and rationale for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision. Nature of the Decision To Be Made An environmental analysis for the Sheppard Creek Post-Fire Project will evaluate site-specific issues, consider management alternatives, and analyze the potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives. The scope of the project is limited to decisions concerning activities within the Sheppard Creek Post-Fire Project Area that meet the Purpose and Need, as well as desired conditions. An environmental impact statement will provide the Responsible Official with the information needed to decide which actions, if any, to approve. This EIS will tier to the Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and EIS of January 1986, and its subsequent amendments, which provide overall guidance for land management activities on the Flathead National Forest. Scoping Process Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be used to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. Input provided by interested and/or affected individuals, organizations, and government agencies will be used to identify resource issues that will be analyzed in the draft EIS. The Forest Service will identify significant issues raised during the scoping process, and use them to formulate alternatives, prescribe project design features, and/or analyze environmental effects. Preliminary Issues Preliminary issues and concerns include effects of treatments on the following: Soils, old growth and mature tree wildlife habitat, cavity nesting wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat, and potential bark beetle epidemics. Comment Requested The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 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 atlernatives 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. Dated: December 4, 2007. Cathy Barbouletos, Forest Supervisor, Flathead National Forest. [FR Doc. 07-6012 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code