Proposed Rules. Proposed rule
39,802 words·~181 min read·
/register/2007/12/28/07-6233A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7753] 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 March 27, 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-7753, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, 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
(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: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location** *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Existing Modified City of Sacramento, California California City of Sacramento Natomas Basin Area West of Natomas East Main Drainage Canal None *33 Area North of American River None *33 Area East of Sacramento River None *33 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Sacramento Maps are available for inspection at Stormwater Management Program, 1395 35th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95822. Unincorporated Areas of Sacramento County, California California Unincorporated Areas of Sacramento County Natomas Basin Area West of Natomas East Main Drainage Canal None *33 Area North of American River None *33 Area East of Sacramento River None *33 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Sacramento County Maps are available for inspection at Municipal Services Agency, Department of Water Resources, 827 7th Street, Room 301, Sacramento, CA 95814. Unincorporated Areas of Sutter County, California California Unincorporated Areas of Sutter County Natomas Basin Area West of Natomas East Main Drainage Canal None *33 Area South of Cross Canal None *33 Area East of Sacramento River None *33 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Sutter County Maps are available for inspection at Sutter County Administrators Office, 1160 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * * * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Allatoona Branch Approximately 700 feet upstream of confluence of Allatoona Creek +983 +985 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 75 feet upstream of Holland Rd +1017 +1019 Allatoona Creek Approximately 625 feet upstream of County Line Rd +861 +862 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1625 feet upstream of Holland Rd +1078 +1070 Bishop Creek Just upstream of confluence with Sope Creek +907 +911 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just upstream of Seven Springs Circle +973 +979 Blackjack Creek Just upstream of confluence with Sope Creek +993 +999 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Just upstream of Lightfoot Circle None +1065 Butler Creek Approximately 1375 feet upstream of Nance Rd +861 +862 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Acworth, City of Kennesaw. Approximately 600 feet downstream of Sumit Wood Drive +1027 +1024 Campground Creek Just upstream of confluence with Sope Creek +928 +931 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Roswell Road None +1057 Concord Creek Approximately 50 feet upstream of Covered Bridge Road +898 +897 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 650 feet downstream of Durrell Street None +1014 Cooper Lake Creek Approximately 550 feet downstream of East West Connector +829 +825 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Smyrna. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Gann Road None +892 Due West Creek Approximately 300 feet downstream of Hadaway Road +895 +896 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1100 feet downstream of Butterfield Road None +988 Eastside Creek Just upstream of confluence with Sope Creek +915 +920 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just downstream of Greenview Drive None +965 Elizabeth Branch Just upstream of the confluence with Sope Creek +999 +1000 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 1750 feet upstream of interstate 75 None +1082 Favor Creek Approximately 1025 feet upstream of confluence of Nickajack Creek +914 +917 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1225 feet downstream of Favor Road +988 +987 Hope Creek Just upstream of confluence with Rottenwood Creek +945 +940 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 1100 upstream of Interstate 75 None +1004 Laurel Creek Approximately 375 feet upstream of Norfolk Southern Corporation Railroad +801 +807 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Smyrna. Approximately 150 feet downstream of Dunn Street None +986 Liberty Hill Branch Approximately 400 feet upstream of Monarch Valley Walk +767 +770 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 950 feet upstream of Blackhawk Trail +884 +914 Little Allatoona Creek Approximately 1875 feet upstream of Old Stilesboro Road +895 +896 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 925 feet upstream of Fernstone Road +926 +932 Little Noonday Creek Approximately 1925 feet upstream confluence of Noonday Creek +908 +906 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1325 feet upstream of Almon Drive +1008 +1007 Lost Mountain Creek At Confluence with Wildhorse Creek +902 +907 City of Powder Springs. Approximately 1850 feet upstream of the confluence with Wildhorse Creek +906 +907 Luther Ward Creek Approximately 1525 feet upstream of confluence of Mud Creek +917 +920 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1700 feet upstream of Luther Ward Road +967 +963 Milam Branch Approximately 700 feet upstream of confluence of Queen Creek +929 +914 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Lone Oak Drive +1007 +1010 Mill Creek No. 1 Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence of Powder Springs Creek +941 +942 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just downstream of Poplar Springs Road +1002 +1001 Mill Creek No. 2 Approximately 2000 feet upstream of confluence of Nickajack Creek +909 +908 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Hicks Road None +965 Morgan Lake Tributary Just upstream of Rio Montana Drive +950 +947 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 300 feet downstream of Morgan Lake Dam +988 +986 Mud Creek Approximately 1600 feet upstream of confluence of Nose Creek +909 +912 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 250 feet downstream of Gordon Combs Road +1023 +1024 Nickajack Creek Approximately 2550 feet downstream of Veterans Memorial Highway +766 +767 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Smyrna. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Cobb Drive None +1047 Noonday Creek Approximately 175 feet upstream of Shallowford Road +907 +904 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Kennesaw, City of Marietta. Approximately 325 feet upstream of New Salem Road None +1025 Noonday Tributary No. 3 Approximately 1125 feet upstream of confluence of Noonday Creek +926 +928 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 350 feet downstream Dickson Road +1056 +1051 Noonday Tributary No. 7 Approximately 425 feet upstream of confluence of Noonday Creek +955 +953 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 1500 feet downstream of Club Drive +997 +995 Noses Creek Approximately 300 feet upstream of Clay Road +891 +892 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Austell, City of Marietta, City of Powder Springs. Approximately 225 feet downstream of Tower Road +1081 +1082 Olley Creek Approximately 2525 feet upstream of confluence of Sweetwater Creek +891 +892 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Austell, City of Marietta. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Hill Street +1072 +1069 Olley Creek Tributary Approximately 350 feet downstream of Booth Road +1004 +1001 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Brownstone Road None +1026 Piney Grove Creek Just upstream of the Confluence with Sewell Mill Creek +942 +951 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just downsteam of Davis Road +1070 +1067 Pitner Creek Approximately 800 feet upstream of confluence of Little Allatoona Creek +892 +890 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 425 feet upstream of Fords Road +994 +997 Poorhouse Creek Just upstream of the confluence with Rottenwood Creek +926 +928 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 4,800 feet upstream of Cobb Parkway None +954 Poplar Creek Just upstream of confluence with Rottenwood Creek +877 +880 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Smyrna. Just upstream of PineCrest Circle None +1011 Powder Springs Creek Approximately 2100 feet upstream of C H James Parkway +913 +914 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Macland Road +940 +941 Powers Creek Just upstream of confluence with Rottenwood Creek +931 +933 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County Approximately 200 feet upstream of Powers Ferry Road None +951 Proctor Creek Approximately 1950 feet upstream of Old Highway 41 +864 +865 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Acworth, City of Kennesaw. Just upstream of Jiles Road None +948 Queen Creek Approximately 175 feet downstream of Queens River Drive +766 +767 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 225 feet upstream of Mableton Drive None +997 Robertson Creek Just upstream of the Confluence with Sewell Mill Creek +922 +923 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approxiamtely 600 feet upstream of Benson Drive None +1019 Rottenwood Creek Approxiamtely 500 feet upstream of the confluence with the Chattahoochee River +788 +789 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Just upstream of Fairground Street +1051 +1052 Rubes Creek Approximately 2800 feet upstream of confluence of Trickum Creek +898 +896 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 130 feet upstream of Saxony Glen None +1075 Rubes Creek Tributary Just upstream of Confluence with Rubes Creek +921 +918 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 750 feet upstream of Keheley Road +990 +986 Sewell Mill Creek Just Upsteam of Greenfield Drive +919 +921 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just upstream of Karen Lane +1086 +1084 Smyrna Branch Approximately 450 feet downstream of Cobb Drive +936 +933 City of Smyrna. Approximately 175 feet upstream of Powder Springs Street None +997 Sope Branch Just upstream of Confluence with Sope Creek +1022 +1023 City of Marietta. Approxiamtely 300 feet upstream of Sequoia Road None +1088 Sope Creek Just upstream of confluence with the Chattahoochee River +807 +808 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approxiamtely 1025 feet upstream of Fairground Street None +1042 Tanyard Creek Approximately 1275 feet upstream of Lake Acworth Drive +867 +864 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Acworth. Approximately 300 feet downstream of Baker Plantation Drive +918 +919 Theater Branch Approximately 125 feet upstream of Old Concord Road +928 +929 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Smyrna. Just downstream of Parkway Drive +970 +973 Thompson Creek Just upstream of the Confluence with Sewell Mill Creek +933 +934 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just upstream of Pine Road +964 +965 Trickum Creek Just upstream of Confluence with Rubes Creek +910 +911 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Pete Shaw Road None +1054 Trickum Creek Tributary Just upstream of confluence with Trickum Creek +934 +935 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County. Just downstream of Jims Road +1104 +1108 Ward Creek Approximately 600 feet upstream of Ernest Barrett Parkway +923 +926 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Northcutt Street +1054 +1050 Westside Branch At confluence with Ward Creek +1017 +1016 City of Marietta. Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Ward Creek +1017 +1016 Wildhorse Creek At Confluence with Noses Creek +902 +907 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Powder Springs. Just Downstream of Macedonia Road +906 +907 Wildwood Branch Just upstream of the confluence with Sope Creek +976 +985 Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County, City of Marietta. Approximately 300 feet downstream of Varner Road None +1027 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Acworth Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 4415 Senator Russell Avenue, Acworth, GA 30101. City of Austell Maps are available for inspection at 2716 Broad Street, SW, Austell, GA 30106. City of Kennesaw Maps are available for inspection at 2529 J.O. Stephenson Avenue, Kennesaw, GA 30144. City of Marietta Maps are available for inspection at Development and Inspection Department, 205 Lawrence Street, Marietta, GA 30060. City of Powder Springs Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 4484 Marietta Street, Powder Springs, GA 30127. City of Smyrna Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 2800 King Street, Smyrna, GA 30080. Unincorporated Areas of Cobb County Maps are available for inspection at 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090. Douglas County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Alexander Branch At confluence with Bear Creek None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,630 feet upstream of the confluence of Alexander Branch Tributary B None +1094 Tributary A At confluence with Alexander Branch None +1000 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,080 feet upstream of Cougar Trail None +1040 Tributary B At confluence with Alexander Branch None +1026 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,030 feet upstream of confluence with Alexander Branch None +1060 Amber Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +789 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,610 feet upstream of Jan Drive None +934 Tributary A At confluence with Amber Creek None +823 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,540 feet upstream of Jan Drive None +902 Anneewakee Creek Approximately 670 feet upstream of State Highway 166 None +747 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 2,480 feet upstream of the confluence of Anneewakee Creek Tributary L None +1147 Tributary A At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +747 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,880 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +799 Tributary B At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +747 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,320 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +811 Tributary C At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +776 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +866 Tributary D At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +844 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,150 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +906 Tributary E At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +864 +873 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,910 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +894 Tributary F At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +878 +879 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +913 Tributary G At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +884 +892 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,270 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +980 Tributary H At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +887 +894 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 2,450 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +915 Tributary I At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +891 +895 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 840 feet upstream of Warren Road None +948 Tributary J At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +945 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 2,690 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +1010 Tributary K At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +1063 City of Douglasville. Approximately 1,560 feet upstream of Rose Lake Circle None +1128 Tributary L At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +1108 City of Douglasville. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Gurley Road None +1131 Arbor Branch At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +995 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 160 feet upstream of Pine Lane None +1125 Tributary A At confluence with Arbor Branch None +1084 City of Douglasville. Approximately 1,310 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 20/Tom Murphy Freeway None +1127 Austin Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +935 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 210 feet upstream of Mill Glen Drive None +1083 Baldwin Creek At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +763 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 820 feet upstream of North Bear Drive None +1049 Tributary A At confluence with Baldwin Creek None +941 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,450 feet upstream of Dorsett Shoals Road None +1084 Bear Creek Approximately 300 feet upstream of confluence with Chattahoochee River None +741 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 630 feet upstream of Ridge Way None +1128 Tributary A At confluence with Bear Creek None +741 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,190 feet upstream of confluence with Bear Creek None +752 Tributary B At confluence with Bear Creek None +741 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County Approximately 530 feet upstream of State Highway 166 None +780 Tributary C At confluence with Bear Creek None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 390 feet upstream of Fouts Mill Road None +782 Tributary D At confluence with Bear Creek None +761 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 420 feet upstream of Fox Glove Court None +820 Tributary E At confluence with Bear Creek None +774 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,140 feet upstream of confluence with Bear Creek None +827 Tributary F At confluence with Bear Creek None +818 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas CountyD. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Yorktown Road None +901 Tributary G At confluence with Bear Creek None +822 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 330 feet upstream of Kings Highway None +967 Bomar Branch Approximately 50 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek +880 +881 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 230 feet upstream of Appaloosa Trail None +939 Chapel Farms Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +769 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 760 feet upstream of confluence of Chapel Farms Creek Tributary A None +917 Tributary A At confluence with Chapel Farms Creek None +908 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,020 feet upstream of confluence with Chapel Farms Creek None +920 Coursey Creek At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +813 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,510 feet upstream of Dorsett Shoals Road None +944 Crooked Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +874 +875 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,070 feet upstream of Bomar Road None +1021 Tributary A At confluence with Crooked Creek None +897 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,270 feet upstream of confluence with Crooked Creek None +943 Tributary B At confluence with Crooked Creek None +909 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Pilgrim Drive None +938 Tributary C At confluence with Crooked Creek None +914 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 430 feet upstream of Tara Woods Drive None +934 Tributary D At confluence with Crooked Creek None +930 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,880 feet upstream of confluence with Crooked Creek None +969 Crossing Branch At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +898 +905 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 6,340 feet upstream of confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +984 Dorsett Creek At confluence with Bear Creek None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 440 feet upstream of Dorsett Shoals Road None +1059 Douglas County Water Reservoir Entire shoreline +738 +760 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Farm Branch At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +881 +885 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Camel Drive None +927 Tributary A At confluence with Farm Branch +882 +888 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,350 feet upstream of Bomar Road None +942 Gothards Creek Approximately 12,900 feet downstream of confluence of Gothards Creek Tributary 3 None +923 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 10,000 feet downstream of confluence of Gothards Creek Tributary 3 None +926 Knollwood Branch At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +972 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 310 feet upstream of State Highway 5 None +1143 Tributary A At confluence with Knollwood Branch None +1105 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Pinehurst Way None +1137 Little Anneewakee Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +895 +897 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 450 feet upstream of East Big B Road None +1058 Tributary A At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +901 +905 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 1,610 feet upstream of Bedford Place None +1043 Tributary B At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +909 +910 City of Douglasville. Approximately 940 feet upstream of Logan Lane None +967 Tributary C At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +922 +925 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 1,910 feet upstream of confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek None +955 Tributary D At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +946 +948 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Cindy Drive (2nd crossing) None +1003 Tributary E At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +956 +958 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 2,020 feet upstream of Little Anneewakee Creek None +1040 Little Bear Creek At confluence with Bear Creek None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 7,350 feet upstream of Smokestone Drive None +1019 Tributary A At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +776 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,520 feet upstream of confluence of Little Bear Creek Tributary B None +880 Tributary B At confluence with Little Bear Creek Tributary A None +806 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,340 feet upstream of confluence with Little Bear Creek Tributary A None +841 Tributary C At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +791 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 4,760 feet upstream of confluence with Little Bear Creek None +882 Tributary D At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +817 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,160 feet upstream of confluence with Little Bear Creek None +923 Tributary E At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +827 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 7,500 feet upstream of confluence with Little Bear Creek None +917 Tributary F At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +920 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,080 feet upstream of confluence with Little Bear Creek None +941 Mobley Creek Tributary 6 Approximately 20 feet upstream of confluence with Mobley Creek +933 +934 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 450 feet upstream of confluence with Mobley Creek +934 +935 Panther Creek At confluence with Chapel Farms Creek None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,230 feet upstream of Chapel Hill Farms Drive None +933 Tributary A At confluence with Panther Creek None +826 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of confluence with Panther Creek None +851 Simon Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek +877 +878 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,660 feet upstream of Harvest Ridge Drive None +934 Slater Mill Creek At confluence with Little Anneewakee Creek +939 +942 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Village Court None +1059 Tributary A At confluence with Slater Mill Creek None +1031 City of Douglasville. Approximately 360 feet upstream of East Spring Street None +1171 Tributary B At confluence with Slater Mill Creek None +1032 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Douglasville. Approximately 1,360 feet upstream of Fairburn Road/State Highway 92 None +1069 Sweetwater Creek Approximately 5,900 feet downstream of State Highway 61/Dallas Highway None +972 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,450 feet upstream of State Highway 61/Dallas Highway None +979 Tanyard Branch At confluence with Little Bear Creek None +805 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 210 feet upstream of Canterbury Walk Way None +1132 Tributary A At confluence with Tanyard Branch None +1003 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 380 feet upstream of Twin Oak Drive None +1081 Tiger Creek At confluence with Anneewakee Creek None +1045 City of Douglasville. Approximately 650 feet upstream of Rose Avenue None +1152 Tributary A At confluence with Tiger Creek None +1086 City of Douglasville. Approximately 880 feet upstream of confluence with Tiger Creek None +1097 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Douglasville Maps are available for inspection at 6695 Church Street, Douglasville, GA 30134. Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County Maps are available for inspection at 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA 30134. Warrick County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas Kelly Ditch Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence with Cypress Creek None +388 Unincorporated Areas of Warrick County, City of Boonville. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of Baker Road None +398 Summer Pecka Ditch Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of Anderson Road None +383 Unincorporated Areas of Warrick County. Approximately 3,900 feet upstream of Martin Drive None +395 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Boonville Maps are available for inspection at 135 South Second Street, Boonville, IN 47601. Unincorporated Areas of Warrick County Maps are available for inspection at 107 West Locust Street, Historic Courthouse, Room 201, Boonville, IN 47601. Comanche County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas East Branch Wolf Creek Approximately 3435 feet downstream from intersection with Cache Road +1120 +1121 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 145 feet downstream from intersection with Interstate 62 +1138 +1142 East Cache Creek Approximately 1390 feet downstream from intersection with SE Coombs Rd. +1061 +1060 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 2930 feet downstream from confluence with Wratton Creek +1092 +1090 East Cache Creek Tributary A At confluence with East Cache Tributary A-1 +1080 +1076 City of Lawton. Approximately 2190 feet upstream from intersection with Flower Mound Rd. +1132 +1133 East Cache Creek Tributary B Approximately 5275 feet upstream from confluence with East Cache Creek +1074 +1077 City of Lawton. Approximately 4090 feet upstream from intersection with Flower Mound Rd. +1113 +1112 Meadowbrook Creek Approximately 137 feet downstream from intersection Meadow Brook Dr. +1122 +1124 City of Lawton. Approximately 2230 feet upstream from intersection with Northwest Creek Hollar Dr. +1171 +1170 Mission Creek Approximately 6088 feet downstream from intersection with Lawrie Tatum Rd. +1088 +1090 City of Lawton. Approximately 110 feet upstream from intersection with Interstate 62 +1137 +1134 Nine Mile Creek Tributary Approximately 170 feet upstream from intersection with Highway 7 +1132 +1131 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 2665 feet downstream from intersection with NE Cache Rd. +1172 +1171 Squaw Creek Approximately 127 feet upstream from intersection with Highway 44 +1079 +1072 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 1015 feet downstream from intersection with NW Denver Avenue +1159 +1161 Squaw Creek East Tributary B Approximately at the intersection of Avenue I and 11 Street +1100 +1099 City of Lawton. Approximately 220 feet downstream from intersection with Dearborn Avenue +1135 +1134 West Branch Squaw Creek Approximately 245 feet downstream from intersection with Arbuckle Avenue +1082 +1078 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 1743 upstream from confluence with West Branch Squaw Creek Tributary 4 +1104 +1107 West Branch Wolf Creek Approximately 710 feet downstream from intersection with 53rd Street +1120 +1119 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 255 feet downstream from intersection with NW Roger Lane +1223 +1226 West Branch Wolf Creek Tributary A Approximately 1092 feet upstream from confluence with West Branch Wolf Creek +1129 +1128 City of Lawton. At the intersection with Cache Rd. +1179 +1178 West Branch Wolf Creek Tributary B Approximately 5750 feet upstream from confluence with West Branch Wolf Creek +1179 +1180 City of Lawton. Approximately 144 feet downstream from intersection with NW Rogers Lane +1264 +1265 Wolf Creek Approximately 887 feet downstream from intersection with Highway 44 +1059 +1058 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 1050 feet downstream from intersection with Lee Boulevard +1095 +1094 Wratton Creek. Approximately 411 feet downstream from intersection with Wratton Creek Tributary +1099 +1102 Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County, City of Lawton. Approximately 5447 feet upstream from intersection with Flower Mound Rd +1120 +1122 Wratton Creek Tributary At the intersection with Flower Mound Rd. +1112 +1111 City of Lawton. Approximately 9175 feet upstream from intersection with Flower Mound Rd +1139 +1143 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Lawton Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 103 Southwest 4th Street, Lawton, OK 73501. Unincorporated Areas of Comanche County Maps are available for inspection at Comanche County Court House, 315 SW 5th Street, Lawton, OK 73501. Green County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Allen Creek At the confluence with Sugar River +811 +810 Unincorporated Areas of Green County Approximately 250 feet downstream of County Highway E +811 +810 Little Sugar River At the mouth at Albany Lake +808 +806 Unincorporated Areas of Green County Just upstream of Tin Can Road +808 +807 Sugar River Approximately 7,300 feet upstream of the Dam at Decatur Lake +794 +793 Unincorporated Areas of Green County Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Remy Road None +856 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Green County Maps are available for inspection at Government Services Building, N3150 Highway 81, Monroe, WI 53566 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: December 14, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-25316 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7755] 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 March 27, 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-7755, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, 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
(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 Camden County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas St. Marys River At the Charlton/Nassau/Camden County Boundary None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Camden County. Approximately 460 feet downstream of the Charlton/Nassau/Camden County Boundary None +8 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Camden County Maps are available for inspection at Camden County Planning and Building Department, 107 Gross Road, Suite 3, Kingsland, GA 31548. Rapides Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas Bayou Latanier Approximately 180 feet downstream of Texas and Pacific Railroad (BFE REMAINS CONSTANT) None +68 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 535 feet upstream of State Highway 1 (BFE stays constant) None +68 Bayou Maria Confluence with Red River +92 +87 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 425 feet downstream of Susek Drive intersection +95 +96 Tributary 13 Confluence with Bayou Maria +92 +87 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish, City of Pineville. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Stilley Road None +110 Tributary 7 Confluence with Bayou Maria +92 +87 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Intersection with Donohue Ferry Rd +134 +135 Tributary 8 Confluence with Bayou Maria +92 +87 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish, City of Pineville. Intersection with Cottingham Expressway +92 +88 Bayou Wilson Approximately 5400 feet upstream of Beauregard Road intersection None +59 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 7300 feet downstream of confluence with Bayou Wilson Tributary None +59 Tributary Confluence with Bayou Wilson None +59 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 5000 feet from confluence with Bayou Wilson None +61 Compton Lake Canal Approximately 150 feet downstream of intersection with LA HWY 1 None +62 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 3750 feet upstream of intersection with LA HWY 1 None +63 Kincaid Reservoir Approximately 2500 feet southeast of SH 28 intersection (BFE IS CONSTANT) None +80 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Oden Lake Approximately 700 feet East of SH 165 (BFE IS CONSTANT) None +73 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Poland Lateral Confluence with Tiger Lake None +62 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 6400 feet upstream of Pearl Road intersection None +64 Red River Approximately 1150 ft downstream of confluence with Huffman Creek +92 +87 City of Pineville, City of Alexandria, Town of Boyce, Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 11,000 ft upstream of Missouri Pacific Railroad intersection +98 +91 Roxana Lateral Confluence with Bayou Wilson None +59 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 150 feet downstream of intersection with SH 457 None +61 Sandy Bayou Confluence with Chatlin Lake Canal None +73 City of Alexandria. Approximately 80 feet downstream of 3rd Street intersection None +74 Tyler Lateral Approximately 470 feet upstream from confluence with Indian Bayou None +62 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Approximately 325 feet upstream of Tyler Road intersection None +65 Weems Canal Approximately 160 feet downstream of SH 71 intersection +71 +69 Town of Lecompte. Approximately 1200 feet upstream of St. Charles Street intersection +72 +73 Whittington Lateral Confluence with Compton Lake Canal None +64 Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish. Intersection with Texas And Pacific Railroad (BFE remains constant) None +64 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Alexandria Maps are available for inspection at 1546 Jackson St., Alexandria, LA 71309. City of Pineville Maps are available for inspection at 910 Main St., Pineville, LA 71360. Town of Ball Maps are available for inspection at 100 Municipal Lane, Ball, LA 71405. Town of Boyce Maps are available for inspection at PO Box 146, Boyce, LA 71409. Town of Lecompte Maps are available for inspection at 1302 Weems St., Lecompte, LA 71346. Unincorporated Areas of Rapides Parish Maps are available for inspection at 701 Murray, Alexandria, LA 71309. Goodhue County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas Belle Creek At the confluence with the Cannon River +708 +709 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County. Approximately 8,050 feet upstream of 390th Street None +1149 Cannon River Approximately 4,570 feet upstream of Railroad Bridge None +686 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County, City of Cannon Falls, City of Red Wing. Approximatley 8,120 feet upstream of State Highway 56 None +873 Gilbert Creek Approximately 115 feet upstream of Railroad Bridge None +689 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County. Approximately 980 feet upstream of County 5 Boulevard None +695 Hay Creek Approximately 400 feet upstream of Old West Main Street +690 +689 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County, City of Red Wing. Approximately 3,630 feet upstream of 350th Street None +1063 Little Cannon River At the confluence with the Cannon River +793 +790 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County, City of Cannon Falls. Approximately 7,045 feet upstream of 20th Avenue None +1094 Mississippi River Located at the Goodhue/Wabasha County Line +682 +681 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County, City of Lake City, City of Red Wing. Located at the Goodhue/Dakota County Line +690 +688 North Fork Zumbro River Approximately 7,370 feet downstream of Main Street +1012 +1008 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County, City of Wanamingo. Approximately 3,830 feet upstream of Main Street +1023 +1022 Pine Island Creek Approximately 8,550 feet downstream of 230th Avenue None +996 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County. Approximately 1,790 feet upstream of County 43 Boulevard None +1132 Wells Creek At the confluence with the Mississippi River +681 +682 Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County. Approximately 6,000 feet upstream of County 45 Boulevard None +855 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Cannon Falls Maps are available for inspection at City Offices Building, 918 River Road, Cannon Falls, MN 55009. City of Lake City Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 205 West Center Street, Lake City, MN 55041. City of Red Wing Maps are available for inspection at Community Development Building, 419 Bush Street, Red Wing, MN 55066. City of Wanamingo Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 401 Main Street, Wanamingo, MN 55983. Unincorporated Areas of Goodhue County Maps are available for inspection at Land Use Management Office, #102, 509 West Fifth Street, Red Wing, MN 55066. Merrimack County, New Hampshire, and Incorporated Areas Merrimack River Approximately 1 mile downstream of confluence of Contoocook River +251 +252 City of Concord. Approximately .7 miles downstream of confluence of Contoocook River +251 +252 Warner River Approximately 0.98 mile downstream of State Route 127 None +362 Town of Webster. Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of State Route 127 None +364 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Concord Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 41 Green Street, Concord, NH 03301. Town of Webster Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 945 Battle Street, Webster, NH 03303-7306. Mitchell County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Bear Creek At the confluence with North Toe River None +2459 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of State Road 1197 None +2689 Beaver Creek At the confluence with North Toe River +2521 +2515 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Spruce Pine. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Beaver Creek Road (State Road 1143) None +3350 Big Crabtree Creek At the confluence with North Toe River None +2411 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximatley 1.2 miles upstream of Seven Mile Ridge Road (State Road 1167) None +3129 Big Rock Creek At the confluence with North Toe River None +2124 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC Highway 226 None +2841 Brushy Creek At the confluence with Big Crabtree Creek None +2508 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Road B None +2692 Cane Creek At the confluence with North Toe River None +2243 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Bakersville. Approximately 800 feet upstream of State Road 1206 None +2894 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Cane Creek None +2449 Town of Bakersville. Approximately 620 feet upstream of Ridgeview Drive None +2477 Tributary 7 At the confluence with Cane Creek None +2450 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Bakersville. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence wiht Tributary of Cane Creek Tributary 7 None +2575 East Fork Grassy Creek At the confluence with Grassy Creek +2616 +2617 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of NC Highway 226 None +2677 English Creek At the confluence with North Toe River +2513 +2510 Town of Spruce Pine. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Greenwood Road None +2526 Grassy Creek At the confluence with North Toe River +2528 +2525 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Spruce Pine. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Dula Road (State Road 1106) None +2656 Greene Cove Creek At the confluence with Cane Creek None +2600 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Green Cove Road (State Road 1205) None +2671 Greene Creek At the confluence with Little Rock Creek None +3148 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Green Cove Road (State Road 1223) None +3514 Little Rock Creek At the confluence with Big Rock Creek None +2323 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of Greene Creek Road (State Road 1223) None +3731 Little Rose Creek At the confluence with North Toe River None +2560 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with North Toe River None +2592 Nolichucky River Approximately 5.4 miles upstream of North Carolina/Tennessee State boundary None +1981 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. At the confluence of North Toe River None +2044 North Toe River At the confluence with Nolichucky River None +2044 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Spruce Pine. Approximately 3.5 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 19 None +2681 Tributary 67 At the confluence with North Toe River None +2453 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with North Toe River None +2577 Tributary of Cane Creek Tributary 7 At the confluence with Cane Creek Tributary 7 None +2529 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Bakersville. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Cane Creek Tributary 7 None +2569 White Oak Creek At the confluence with Cane Creek None +2461 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Bakersville. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Crimson Laurel Way None +2489 Tributary 1 At the confluence with White Oak Creek None +2472 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County, Town of Bakersville. Approximately 770 feet upstream of Crimson Laurel Way None +2502 Young Cove Creek At the confluence with Cane Creek None +2550 Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County. Approximately 940 feet upstream of the confluence with Cane Creek None +2563 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Bakersville Maps are available for inspection at Bakersville Town Hall, 26 South Mitchell Street, Bakersville, NC. Town of Spruce Pine Maps are available for inspection at Spruce Pine Town Hall, 138 Highlands Avenue, Spruce Pine, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Mitchell County Maps are available for inspection at Mitchell County Administration Building, 26 Crimson Laurel Circle, Suite 5, Bakersville, NC. Kay County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas Tributary B (Arkansas River) At the confluence with Tributary C +940 +941 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately just downstream of the intersection of Hartford Avenue +1041 +1037 Tributary C (Arkansas River) Upstream of Lake Road at the Confluence with Tributary B +938 +941 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of the intersection of Donner Avenue +1037 +1038 Tributary D (Arkansas River) At intersection with Lake Road +939 +943 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 887 feet upstream from intersection with Kingston Road +1040 +1039 Tributary E (Arkansas River) Upstream of Virginia Avenue at the intersection of East Overbrook Avenue +968 +970 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of the intersection with Donahoe Drive +991 +994 Tributary G (Arkansas River) Approximately 100 feet downstream of Seventh Street at the intersection with Poplar Avenue +964 +961 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Second Street +988 +990 Tributary G Left Tributary 1 (Arkansas River) At the confluence with Tributary G (Arkansas River) +963 +962 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Virginia Avenue +965 +966 Tributary I (Arkansas River) At the intersection with Seventh Street +940 +945 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 290 feet upstream from intersection with S. 6th Street +950 +953 Tributary L (Bois d'Arc Creek) At the intersection with North Flormable Street +957 +958 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Olympia Street +975 +978 Tributary M (Bois d' Arc Creek) At the intersection with Highland Avenue +965 +967 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. At intersection with Bradley Avenue +1034 +1036 Tributary N (Bois d' Arc Creek) Approximately 168 feet upstream from intersection with Oriole Street +1027 +1034 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 2558 feet upstream from intersection with Oriole Street +1044 +1042 Tributary O (Bois d' Arc Creek) At the intersection with Liberty Avenue +984 +986 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 1038 feet upstream from intersection with Ast Street +1010 +1008 Tributary O Tributary (Bois d' Arc Creek) Approximately 767 feet upstream from intersection with Liberty Avenue +991 +990 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 2463 feet upstream from intersection with Liberty Avenue +1000 +1003 Tributary W (Arkansas River) Approximately 222 feet upstream from intersection with LA Cann Drive +934 +933 City of Ponca City, Unincorporated Areas of Kay County. Approximately 3099 feet upstream from intersection with LA Cann Drive +990 +985 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Blackwell Maps are available for inspection at 221 West Blackwell, Blackwell, OK 74631. City of Kaw City Maps are available for inspection at 115 South Maple, Newkirk, OK 74647. City of Newkirk Maps are available for inspection at 107 Main Street, Newkirk, OK 74647. City of Ponca City Maps are available for inspection at 516 East Grand, Ponca City, OK 74607. City of Tonkawa Maps are available for inspection at 113 South 7th Street, Tonkawa, OK 74653. Town of Braman Maps are available for inspection at 302 Broadway, Braman, OK 74632. Unincorporated Areas of Kay County Maps are available for inspection at 115 South Maple, Newkirk, OK 74647. Adams County, Pennsylvania, and Incorporated Areas Bermudian Creek At approximately 1600 feet downstream of Oxford Road LR-01004 None +612 Township of Tyrone. At approximately 175 feet upstream of Cranberry Road LR-010011 None +640 Little Marsh Creek. At approximately 735 feet downstream of Berry Patch Lane None +644 Township of Franklin. At approximately 935 feet upstream of Hickory Bridge Road TR-315 None +702 Marsh Creek At approximately 700 feet upstream of Pumping Station Road None +467 Township of Cumberland. At approximately 1725 feet downstream of the confluence with Little Marsh Creek None +498 Toms Creek At Approximately 3200 feet upstream of Jacks Mountain Road None +630 Township of Hamiltonban. At approximately 3500 feet upstream of Jacks Mountain Road None +635 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Township of Cumberland Maps are available for inspection at 1370 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. Township of Franklin Maps are available for inspection at 55 Scott School Road, Cashtown, PA 17353. Township of Hamiltonban Maps are available for inspection at 23 Carroll's Tract Road, Fairfield, PA 17320. Township of Tyrone Maps are available for inspection at 5280 Old Harrisburg Road, York Springs, PA 17372. Codington County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas East Branch Roby Creek 200 feet east of 11th Street Northeast None +1767 Unincorporated Areas of Codington County, City of Watertown. 14th Avenue Northeast None +1777 400 feet west of 7th Street Northeast None +1760 City of Watertown, Unincorporated Areas of Codington County. 200 feet west of 11th Street Northeast None +1765 Lake Kampeska 200 feet northeast of intersection of 448th Avenue and U.S. Highway 212 None +1725 Unincorporated Areas of Codington County, City of Watertown. 100 feet west of intersection of 452nd Avenue and Stadheim Drive None +1725 City of Watertown, Unincorporated Areas of Codington County. Pelican Lake 700 feet north of intersection of 174th Street and 452nd Avenue None +1717 Unincorporated Areas of Codington County, City of Watertown. Junction of 21st Street SW and 12th Avenue SW None +1717 City of Watertown, Unincorporated Areas of Codington County. Roby Creek 4500 feet downstream from U.S. Highway 212 None +1715 City of Watertown. 100 feet West of U.S. Highway 81 None +1770 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Watertown Maps are available for inspection at 23 Second St. NE, Watertown, SD 57201. Unincorporated Areas of Codington County Maps are available for inspection at 14 1st Avenue Southeast, Watertown, SD 57201. Adams County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas Paha Creek Approximately 1400 feet downstream of Division Street Bridge +1791 +1790 City of Ritzville, Unincorporated Areas of Adams County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Fairgrounds footbridge +1807 +1806 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Ritzville Maps are available for inspection at 216 E. Main Avenue, Ritzville, WA 99169. Unincorporated Areas of Adams County Maps are available for inspection at 210 W. Alder, Ritzville, WA 99169. Grant County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas Crab Creek Just above BNSF Railroad Bridge 338 +1282 +1277 Town of Wilson Creek, Unincorporated Areas of Grant County. Approximately 1300 feet upstream of Kappel Road Bridge +1284 +1283 Wilson Creek At confluence with Crab Creek +1284 +1283 Town of Wilson Creek, Unincorporated Areas of Grant County. At eastern corporate limits of the Town of Wilson Creek +1303 +1301 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Wilson Creek Maps are available for inspection at 254 Railroad Street, Wilson Creek, WA 98860. Unincorporated Areas of Grant County Maps are available for inspection at 124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata, WA 98823. Green Lake County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Silver Creek At County Highway A +803 +802 Unincorporated Areas of Green Lake County. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Spaulding Hill Road at the County Boundary +807 +804 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Green Lake County Maps are available for inspection at Zoning Department, 492 Hill Street, Green Lake, WI 54941. Racine County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Bartlett Branch At the confluence with Pike River +682 +686 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 70 feet downstream of County Highway C None +693 Chicory Creek Approximately 570 feet upstream of the confluence with Pike River +669 +668 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County, Village of Sturtevant. At the downstream side of 105th Street +723 +722 East/West Canal At the confluence with North Cape Lateral None +788 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 40 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 45 None +788 Fonk's Tributary Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence with Union Grove Industrial Tributary None +746 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 4,880 feet upstream of the confluence with Union Grove Industrial Tributary None +781 Kilbourn Road Ditch At County Line Road +729 +726 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 2,400 feet downstream of Interstate 94 None +734 Lamparek Creek At the confluence with the Pike River +661 +660 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. At the downstream side of 105th Street +714 +713 Nelson Creek At County Line Road None +619 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. At the upstream side of Garden Drive None +642 North Cape Lateral Approximately 30 feet upstream of Britton Road None +774 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 2,350 feet upstream of the confluence with East/West Canal None +789 Pike River At County Line Road +657 +658 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County, City of Racine. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Spring Street None +688 Root River At mouth at Lake Michigan +583 +584 City of Racine. Approximately 825 feet upstream of Memorial Drive +586 +587 Sorenson Creek. At County Line Road +614 +617 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County, City of Racine. Approximately 75 feet downstream of Meachem Road None +654 Union Grove Industrial Tributary. At County Line Road +738 +743 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County, Village of Union Grove. Approximately 30 feet downstream of Durand Avenue/State Highway 11 None +771 Unnamed Tributary No. 18 to Kilbourn Road Ditch Approximately 1,110 feet downstream of Interstate 94 +732 +733 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of Interstate 94 None +742 Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to West Branch Root River Canal Approximately 30 feet upstream of Raymond Avenue +704 +705 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 3,300 feet downstream of 65th Drive None +751 Unnamed Tributary No. 37 to Des Plaines River Approximately 2,675 feet downstream of 69th Street +713 +712 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 70 feet downstream of 69th Street None +730 Unnamed Tributary No. 38 to Des Plaines River At the confluence with the Des Plaines River None +710 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 2,750 feet upstream of Durand Avenue/State Highway 11 None +762 Unnamed Tributary No. 39 to Des Plaines River At the confluence with the Des Plaines River None +710 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 170 feet downstream of County Line Road None +746 Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to West Branch Root River Canal Approximately 250 feet upstream of 65th Drive None +720 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County. Approximately 125 feet downstream of Colony Avenue None +746 Waxdale Creek At the confluence with the Pike River +670 +671 Unincorporated Areas of Racine County, Village of Sturtevant. Approximately 70 feet downstream of West Road +736 +735 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Racine Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 730 Washington Avenue, Racine, WI 53403-1146. Unincorporated Areas of Racine County Maps are available for inspection at Planning and Development Department, 14200 Washington Avenue, Sturtevant, WI 53177. Village of Sturtevant Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 2801 89th Street, Sturtevant, WI 53177-2033. Village of Union Grove Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 925 15th Avenue, Union Grove, WI 53182-1608. Walworth County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Eagle Spring Lake All flooding affecting County None +822 Unincorporated Areas of Walworth County. Mukwonago River Approximately 1,700 feet North of the intersection of Marsh Road and County Highway J None +799 Unincorporated Areas of Walworth County. Approximately 1.2 miles Northeast of the intersection of County Highway J and County Highway E None +806 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Walworth County Maps are available for inspection at Office of Emergency Management, 1770 County Road NN, Elkhorn, WI 53121. Washington County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Edgewood Creek At the confluence with North Creek +946 +947 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Kewaskum Village Limits None +981 Overflow Approximately 115 feet downstream of Clinton Road None +937 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. At confluence with Edgewood Creek None +951 Kettleview Creek At the confluence with Kewaskum Creek +939 +940 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. Downstream side of County Highway B None +1025 Kewaskum Creek Just downstream of County Road H +937 +938 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Badger Road None +998 Overflow At the confluence with Kettleview Creek None +946 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County. At the confluence with Kewaskum Creek None +952 Knights Creek At the confluence with North Creek +953 +952 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. Approximately 725 feet downstream of Highland Drive None +1032 Milwaukee River Approximately 225 feet upstream of River Road +884 +887 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, City of West Bend. Downstream side of Barton Avenue +903 +902 Upstream side of Hickory Road None +835 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Newburg. Approximately 2,900 feet upstream of Main Street None +850 North Creek At the confluence with the Milwaukee River +939 +938 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Village of Kewaskum. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Highland Drive None +1042 Quass Creek Just upstream of County Highway I +873 +875 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, City of West Bend. Approximately 285 feet downstream of Paradise Drive +981 +979 Unnamed Tributary to Kewsaskum Creek At the confluence with Kewaskum Creek None +955 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County. Approximately 350 feet downstream of Kettleview Drive None +979 Unnamed Tributary to Wingate Creek At the confluence with Wingate Creek +873 +874 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, City of West Bend. Approximately 420 feet downstream of Wallace Lake Road None +890 Wingate Creek Just downstream of State Highway 33 +871 +870 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, City of West Bend. Approximately 420 feet downstream of Wallace Lake Road None +904 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of West Bend Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1115 South Main Street, West Bend, WI 53095. Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Maps are available for inspection at County Building, 432 East Washington Street, West Bend, WI 53095. Village of Kewaskum Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 204 First Street, Kewaskum, WI 53040. Village of Newburg Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 614 Main Street, Newburg, WI 53060. Washakie County, Wyoming, and Incorporated Areas Sage Creek Downstream—just upstream of confluence with Bighorn River None +4056 City of Worland, Unincorporated Areas of Washakie County. Upstream—approximately 400 ft downstream of intersection County Ln 13 and Upper Hanover Canal Rd None +4141 ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Worland Maps are available for inspection at 1001 Big Horn Avenue, Worland, WY 82401. Town of Ten Sleep Maps are available for inspection at 1001 Big Horn Avenue, Worland, WY 82401. Unincorporated Areas of Washakie County Maps are available for inspection at 1001 Big Horn Avenue, Worland, WY 82401. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: December 18, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-25307 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 07-198; DA 07-4688] Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Media Bureau extends the comment and reply comment deadlines on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. To facilitate the development of a thorough record, the deadline for filing comments in response to the NPRM is extended to January 4, 2008, and the deadline for filing reply comments is extended to January 22, 2008. DATES: Comments are due on or before January 4, 2008; reply comments are due on or before January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07-198, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Konczal, *David.Konczal@fcc.gov,* of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202)418-2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Order in MB Docket No. 07-198, DA 07-4688, released on November 20, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS ( *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Summary of the Order 1. On October 1, 2007, the Commission released an NPRM in MB Docket No. 07-198 on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 45 days, respectively, after publication of the NPRM in the **Federal Register** . A summary of the NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2007 (72 FR 61590, October 31, 2007). Accordingly, the comment filing dates were established as November 30, 2007 for comments and December 17, 2007 for reply comments. 2. On November 2, 2007, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Fox”) and Viacom Inc. (“Viacom”) filed requests for a 45-day extension of the comment deadline. Similar requests were subsequently filed by NBC Universal, Inc. (“NBCU”) and The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”). The parties argue that the issues raised in the NPRM are highly complex and that a 30-day comment period does not enable them to gather the necessary data to respond effectively. The parties argue that additional time will enable them to survey executives in their broadcast and cable divisions and to retain experts to perform economic analyses. The parties state that additional time to respond to the NPRM will serve the public interest by facilitating a more complete record. Fox also contends that the holiday season compounds the difficulties of responding to the NPRM by the comment deadline. Viacom argues that the issues raised in a recent class action lawsuit filed against Viacom and others regarding the offering of bundled and tiered programming packages are closely related to the issues raised in the NPRM. Viacom requests an extension of the comment deadline to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive response to this lawsuit and to the NPRM. The parties further assert that a 45-day extension of the comment deadline will cause no hardship or prejudice to other interested parties or to the Commission. 3. As set forth in Section 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, the Commission's policy is that extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings shall not be routinely granted. 47 CFR 1.46. In this case, however, an extension of the comment and reply comment period is warranted to enable commenters to gather sufficient data, including economic analyses, to facilitate the development of a thorough record in response to the issues raised in the NPRM. We decline, however, to grant the full 45-day extension requested by the parties. With the additional extension granted herein, interested parties will now have a total of 65 days to prepare comments. We believe that this provides parties with ample time to respond to the issues raised in the NPRM. 4. Accordingly, we hereby grant the Motions for Extension of Time filed in MB Docket No. 07-198 by Disney, Fox, NBCU, and Viacom to the extent detailed above. The time for filing comments is extended to January 4, 2008, and the time for filing reply comments is extended to January 22, 2008. 5. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46. 6. Specific instructions for filing comments are located at paragraphs 26-27 of the item as published in the **Federal Register** and at paragraphs 139-142 of the item as released by the Commission and that appears on the Commission's Web site: *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc* . Federal Communications Commission. Steven A. Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-25130 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 [Docket No. 071214845-7848-01] RIN 0648-XE13 Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Revise the Critical Habitat Designation for the Leatherback Turtle AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of petition finding; request for information and comments. SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a 90-day finding for a petition to revise leatherback turtle ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ) critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The leatherback turtle is currently listed as endangered throughout its range, and critical habitat consists of Sandy Point Beach and adjacent waters, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The petition seeks to include waters along the U.S. West Coast as critical habitat. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are initiating a review of the critical habitat of the species to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure a comprehensive review, we solicit information and comments pertaining to this species' essential habitat needs from any interested party. DATES: Written comments and information related to this petition finding must be received [see ADDRESSES ] by February 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [0648-XE13], by any one of the following methods:
(1)Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* ;
(2)Fax: 301-427-2522, attention: Therese Conant; and
(3)mail: addressed to the Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Therese Conant by phone 301-713-2322, fax 301-427-2522, or e-mail *therese.conant@noaa.gov* ; Christina Fahy by phone 562-980-4023, fax 562-980-4027, or e-mail *christina.fahy@noaa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Critical habitat is defined in the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) as: “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed... on which are found those physical or biological features
(I)essential to the conservation of the species and
(II)which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii)specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed... upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) describe those essential physical and biological features to include, but not be limited to:
(1)space for individual and population growth, and normal behavior;
(2)food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3)cover or shelter;
(4)sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and
(5)habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distribution of a species. We are required to focus on the primary constituent elements (PCEs), which best represent the principal biological or physical features. PCEs may include, but are not limited to: nesting grounds, feeding sites, water quality, tide, and geological formation. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.02) define “special management considerations or protection” as any method or procedure useful in protecting physical and biological features of the environment for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate and make revisions to critical habitat for listed species based on 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. The Secretary may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We are required to consider whether the petition contains information indicating that areas petitioned contain physical and biological features essential to, and that may require special management to provide for, the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires us to make a finding as to whether a petition to revise critical habitat presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In determining whether substantial information exists, we take into account several factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the **Federal Register** . If we find that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the revision may be warranted, within 12 months after receiving the petition, we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revision and promptly publish notice of such intention in the **Federal Register** . See ESA Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii). Analysis of Petition On October 2, 2007, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, and Turtle Island Restoration Network (Petitioners) to revise the leatherback sea turtle critical habitat designation. Current critical habitat consists of terrestrial shoreline at Sandy Point Beach, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 CFR 17.95), and adjacent waters up to and inclusive of the waters from the hundred fathom curve shoreward to the level of mean high tide with boundaries at 17° 42′12″ N. and 64° 50′00″ W (50 CFR 226.207). The Petitioners seek to revise the critical habitat designation to include the area we currently manage under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to reduce leatherback interactions in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery targeting swordfish and thresher shark. This area encompasses roughly 200,000 square miles (321,870 km 2 ) of the Exclusive Economic Zone from 45°deg; N latitude about 100 miles (160 km) south of the Washington/Oregon border southward to Pt. Sur and along a diagonal line due west of Pt. Conception, California, and west to 129° W longitude. Under the current regulations implementing the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, drift gillnet gear is prohibited in this area from August 15 th through November 15 th (50 CFR 660.713). The petition contains a detailed description of the species' natural history and status, including information on distribution and movements, feeding and prey selection, reproduction, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the current status of the species in the Pacific Ocean. The petition describes the marine area off Oregon and California as unique, characterized by distinctive oceanographic and geomorphic features that create a dynamic and highly productive ecosystem. The petition describes oceanographic conditions such as upwellings (i.e., the movement of nutrient-rich subsurface waters to the surface) that favor increased zooplankton production. The petitioners cite studies indicating a positive relationship with leatherback presence and these conditions (Benson *et al.* , 2007a) and that leatherbacks migrate to and forage in the area (Benson *et al.* , 2007b). The Petitioners claim the petitioned area provides space for population growth and normal behavior and is a known crucial feeding site for leatherbacks. The Petitioners believe the area contains physical and biological features essential to the conservation of leatherback sea turtles. They offer that the PCEs should be those habitat components that are essential for feeding, resting, migrating, and include all marine waters, along with associated marine aquatic flora and fauna in the water column, and the underlying marine benthic community. The petitioners argue that the area requires special management considerations as evidenced by the existing measures to reduce leatherback interactions with fisheries. They claim the area should be managed for other fisheries, marine debris, vessel strikes, oil spills, coastal development, and changing ocean conditions brought on by global warming. Finally, the Petitioners request that, if we determine some portion of the petitioned area does not meet the criteria for critical habitat, we analyze whether some subset of this area should be designated as critical habitat. Petition Finding Based on the above information and information readily available in our files, and pursuant to criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(c), we find the petitioners present substantial scientific information indicating that a revision to the critical habitat designation for leatherbacks may be warranted. Our Southwest Fisheries Science Center has conducted research on leatherbacks foraging within and migrating through the petition area. Several female leatherbacks nesting in Indonesia made trans-Pacific post-nesting migrations to foraging areas off the coasts of Oregon and Washington (Benson *et al.* , 2007a; Benson unpublished data, 2007). Benson *et al.* , (2007b) found that leatherbacks associate with areas along the U.S. West Coast where nutrient-rich, upwelling water is entrained nearshore. These areas provide increased retention of zooplankton, larval fish, crabs, and gelatinous organisms and represent important foraging grounds for leatherbacks. To ensure that the review to revise critical habitat for leatherbacks is complete and based on the best available data, we solicit information and comments on whether the petitioned area, or some subset, or some adjacent areas along the U.S. West Coast, qualify as critical habitat. Areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection should be identified. As stated earlier, essential features include, but are not limited to, space for individual growth and for normal behavior, food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements, cover or shelter, sites for reproduction and development of offspring, and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12). We request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address (see ADDRESSES ). Peer Review OMB issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005, and generally requires that all “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific information” disseminated on or after that date be peer reviewed. Because the information used to evaluate this petition may be considered “influential scientific information,” we solicit the names of recognized experts in the field that could serve as peer reviewers of such information we may disseminate as we evaluate this petition. Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific community, applicable tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups. References Cited Benson, S.R., K.A. Forney, J.T. Harvey, J.V. Carretta, and P.H. Dutton. 2007a. Abundance, distribution, and habitat of leatherback turtles ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ) off California, 1990-2003). Fisheries Bulletin. 105:337-347. Benson, S.R., P.H. Dutton, C. Hittipeuw, B. Samber, J. Bakarbessy, and D. Parker. 2007b. Post-Nesting Migrations of Leatherback Turtles ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ) from Jamursba-Medi, Bird's Head Peninsula, Indonesia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 6(1):150-154. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: December 20, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25268 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 RIN 0648-AU29 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 15A AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Amendment 15A to the South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 15A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region
(FMP)for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 15A proposes actions to update management reference points for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy based on the most recent stock assessments; modify rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper and black sea bass; define rebuilding strategies for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy; and redefine the minimum stock size threshold for the snowy grouper stock. The measures contained in the subject amendment are intended to satisfy a U.S. District Court Order to establish rebuilding plans for South Atlantic snowy grouper and black sea bass and for the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve, amend, or disapprove Amendment 15A by March 14, 2008. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on February 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: You many submit comments, identified by “0648-AU29”, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax: 727-824-8308, Attn: John McGovern. • Mail: John McGovern, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 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. Requests for copies of Amendment 15A, which includes an environmental impact statement, a regulatory impact review, a regulatory flexibility analysis, and a fishery impact statement, should be sent to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone 843-571-4366; fax 843-769-4520; e-mail *safmc@safmc.net* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McGovern, telephone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: *John.McGovern@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Background Stock assessments performed through the Southeast Data Assessment and Review process have revealed that the South Atlantic stocks of snowy grouper ( *Epinephelus niveatus* ), black sea bass ( *Centropristis striata* ), and red porgy ( *Pagrus pagrus* ) are overfished. Furthermore, snowy grouper and black sea bass are undergoing overfishing. The Council is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement rebuilding plans for these overfished species. The intent of a rebuilding plan is to increase biomass of overfished stocks to a sustainable level (B msy ) within a specified period of time. On August 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a ruling on Amendment 13C to the FMP ( *North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc., et al* ., v. *Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary, United States Department of Commerce* , Case No. 06-1815 (D.O.C. 2006)). The Court found that a plan to rebuild snowy grouper and black sea bass should have been included in Amendment 13C because those two species were overfished. The Court then issued an Order on October 2, 2007, requiring, among other things, the Secretary to approve, amend, or disapprove Amendment 15A by March 14, 2008. Amendment 15A is intended to fulfill the Court's Order in a timely manner. Proposed Provisions of Amendment 15A Amendment 15A proposes updated management reference points for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy based on the most recent stock assessments; modifies rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper and black sea bass; proposes rebuilding strategies for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy; and redefines the minimum stock size threshold
(MSST)for the snowy grouper stock. New biological reference points for snowy grouper would include a maximum sustainable yield
(MSY)of 313,056 lb (142,000 kg) whole weight (ww), an optimum yield
(OY)of 303,871 lb (137,834 kg) ww, and an MSST of 3,498,735 lb (1,587,000 kg) ww that would establish a larger buffer between what is considered to be an overfished and a rebuilt condition. This amendment proposes to establish a 34-year rebuilding schedule for snowy grouper based on the maximum recommended period of time needed to rebuild the stock, where 2006 is year 1. The rebuilding strategy for snowy grouper specifies a 2009 total allowable catch
(TAC)of 102,960 lb (46,702 kg) ww that would remain in effect until modified through subsequent action. Based on the most recent stock assessment, Amendment 15A proposes an MSY for red porgy equal to 625,699 lb (283,812 kg) ww, and an OY equal to 608,099 lb (275,829 kg) ww. The rebuilding strategy for red porgy would maintain a constant fishing mortality rate throughout the stock's rebuilding time frame of 18 years, which began in 1999. A proposed TAC of 395,281 lb (179,296 kg) ww would remain in effect until modified through subsequent action. Based on the most recent stock assessment for black sea bass in the South Atlantic region, Amendment 15A proposes an MSY equal to 2,777,825 lb (1,260,000 kg) ww, and an OY equal to 2,742,551 lb (1,244,000 kg) ww. Amendment 15A proposes a 10-year rebuilding schedule for black sea bass, based on the maximum recommended period of time needed to rebuild the stock, where 2006 is year 1. The rebuilding strategy for black sea bass would maintain constant catch during the rebuilding time frame, with a proposed 2009 TAC of 847,000 lb (384,193 kg) ww, which would remain in effect until modified through subsequent action. Procedural Aspects of Amendment 15A The Council has submitted Amendment 15A for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 15A will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability. After consideration of these factors, and consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, NMFS will publish a notice of agency action in the **Federal Register** announcing the Agency's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 15A, and the associated rationale. Because none of the measures included in the amendment involve regulatory changes, no proposed or final rule is required at this time. If approved, the provisions of Amendment 15A would not be specified in regulations but would be considered to be an amendment to the FMP. Any subsequent regulatory management measures resulting from the rebuilding plan, would be implemented via plan amendment or regulatory amendment with associated proposed rules, public comment, and final rules. Consideration of Public Comments Public comments received by 5 p.m. eastern time, on February 26, 2008, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision regarding Amendment 15A. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: December 20, 2007 James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25248 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070717340-7550-01] RIN 0648-AV40 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2008 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). This action also proposes to modify existing management measures. Specifically, it would clarify gear requirements for the *Loligo* squid fishery, standardize procedures for closing the Atlantic mackerel (mackerel) and butterfish fisheries, modify incidental possession limits for mackerel and butterfish, and establish a butterfish possession limit. Additionally, this action requests public comment concerning the possibility of an inseason adjustment to increase the mackerel harvest, if landings approach proposed harvest limits. These proposed specifications and management measures promote the utilization and conservation of the MSB resource. DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment
(EA)and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.nmfs.gov* . You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV40, by any one of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions:* Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* ; *Fax:*
(978)281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen; Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2008 MSB Specifications”. *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 (e.g., 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 formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries
(FMP)appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. Regulations governing foreign fishing appear at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. These regulations, at § 648.21 and 600.516(c), require that NMFS, based on the maximum optimum yield (Max OY) of each fishery as established by the regulations, annually publish a proposed rule specifying the amounts of the initial optimum yield (IOY), allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP), as well as, where applicable, the amounts for total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) and joint venture processing
(JVP)for the affected species managed under the FMP. In addition, these regulations allow *Loligo* squid specifications to be specified for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. The regulations found in § 648.21 also specify that IOY for squid is equal to the combination of research quota
(RQ)and DAH, with no TALFF specified for squid. For butterfish, the regulations specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF will be specified only if TALFF is specified for mackerel. At its June 12-14, 2007, meeting in Hampton, VA, the Council recommended 2008 MSB specifications. The recommended specifications for *Loligo* squid and *Illex* squid are the same as those implemented in 2007. For mackerel, the Council recommended a reduced ABC, based on an updated fishing mortality target from the most recent stock assessment. The IOY, DAH, DAP, JVP, and TALFF recommended for mackerel are the same as those implemented in 2007. For butterfish, the Council recommended reducing the ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP to levels approximating recent landings while a butterfish rebuilding program is being developed in Amendment 10 to the FMP. The Council also recommended modifying existing management measures. Specifically, it recommended clarifying gear requirements for the *Loligo* squid and butterfish fisheries, adjusting triggers and incidental possession limits associated with closures of the mackerel and butterfish fisheries, and establishing a butterfish possession limit. For 2008, the Council recommended the consideration of RQ of up to 3 percent of the IOY for *Loligo* and *Illex* squid, butterfish, and mackerel. The RQ would fund research and data collection for those species. A Request for Research Proposals was published to solicit proposals for 2008 based on research priorities previously identified by the Council (71 FR 77726, December 27, 2006). The deadline for submission was February 12, 2007. On June 12, 2007, NMFS convened a Review Panel to review the comments submitted by technical reviewers. Based on discussions between NMFS staff, technical review comments, and Review Panel comments, one project proposal requesting *Loligo* squid set-aside landings was recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award, for a total RQ of up to 23 mt. The commercial *Loligo* squid quota in this proposed rule has been adjusted to allow for RQ. If the award is not made by the NOAA Grants Office for any reason, NMFS will give notice of an adjustment to the annual quota to return the unawarded set-aside amount to the fishery. Disapproval of Increased Incidental Loligo Squid Possession Limit for the Illex Squid Vessels The issue of incidental catch of *Loligo* squid in the *Illex* squid fishery was identified several years ago when large amounts of *Loligo* squid discards were reported in vessel trip reports by *Illex* squid vessels during closures of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery in the summer and fall of 2000. Analyses developed for Amendment 9 to the FMP indicated that the *Illex* squid fishery occurs primarily during June-November in offshore waters and that both squid species can co-occur during September-November on the *Illex* squid fishery grounds, when the *Loligo* squid begin to move offshore. Because of the seasonal co-occurrence of the two squid species, members of the directed *Illex* squid fishery testified at Council meetings that the 2,500-lb (1.13-mt) incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit during closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery creates compliance problems for the *Illex* squid fishery because vessels catch more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of *Loligo* squid when the species mix. In an effort to reduce regulatory discarding and allow more accurate quantification of the removals of *Loligo* squid taken in the directed *Illex* squid fishery, the Council recommended increasing the incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit for vessels engaged in the directed *Illex* squid fishery during *Loligo* squid fishery closures. Specifically, during closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery in August-October, *Illex* squid moratorium vessels fishing seaward of the small mesh exemption line (approximately the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour) would be permitted to possess and land up to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of *Loligo* squid, provided they possess a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* squid on board. This measure is similar to the measure proposed by the Council in the 2007 MSB specifications, but not implemented due to concerns about NMFS's ability to administer the measure effectively. The small mesh exemption line, which approximates the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour, was implemented for the *Illex* squid fishery because *Illex* squid are not generally available to the fishery shoreward of this line. The *Illex* squid fishery is exempt from the 1-7/8-inches (48-mm) minimum mesh requirement for the *Loligo* squid fishery in the exemption area. However, *Loligo* squid are widely distributed shoreward of this line, which would make it difficult to determine if the *Loligo* squid is truly incidentally caught within the *Illex* squid exemption area. Currently, there is no mechanism to determine if *Illex* squid moratorium vessels fish for *Loligo* squid shoreward of the small mesh exemption line. Tools to collect spatial effort information on the *Illex* squid fleet were discussed by the Council, but implementation of those tools would require an FMP amendment or framework adjustment. Therefore, for 2008, the incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit for *Illex* squid moratorium vessels, during closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery, will remain at 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) per trip per day. 2008 Proposed Specifications and Management Measures Table 1.—Proposed Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish for 2008 Fishing Year. Specifications Loligo Illex Mackerel Butterfish Max OY 26,000 24,000 N/A 12,175 ABC 17,000 24,000 156,000 1,500 IOY 1 16,977 24,000 2 115,000 500 DAH 16,977 24,000 3 115,000 500 DAP 16,977 24,000 100,000 500 JVP 0 0 0 0 TALFF 0 0 0 0 1 Excludes 23 mt for Research Quota (RQ). 2 IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 156,000 mt. 3 Includes a 15,000 mt catch of Atlantic mackerel by the recreational fishery. Atlantic Mackerel The status of the Atlantic mackerel stock was most recently assessed at the 42nd Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC)in late 2005. SARC 42 concluded that the mackerel stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. According to the FMP, mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T−C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year and T is the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate that is equal to the target fishing mortality rate (F). Based on projections from SARC 42, the yield associated with an F of 0.12 in 2008 is 211,000 mt. Canadian catch of mackerel has been increasing in recent years; therefore, the estimate of Canadian catch for 2008 has been increased from the 2007 estimate of 52,000 mt to 55,000 mt. Thus, 211,000 mt minus 55,000 mt results in a proposed 2008 mackerel ABC of 156,000 mt. NMFS proposes a mackerel IOY of 115,000 mt. The Council believes that this level of harvest would provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and would allow for an increase in domestic landings. In recent years, domestic mackerel landings have been increasing due to major investments in the domestic mackerel processing sector. Mackerel landings in 2003 totaled 35,071 mt, while landings for 2006 totaled 58,279 mt. The 115,000-mt IOY is consistent with mackerel regulations at § 648.21(b)(2)(ii), which state that IOY is a modification of ABC, based on social and economic factors, and must be less than or equal to ABC. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall be that portion of the optimum yield
(OY)of a fishery that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. TALFF catches would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry efforts to expand exports. The Council expressed its concern, supported by industry testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would threaten the expansion of the domestic industry. The Council noted that this would prevent the U.S. industry from taking advantage of declines in the European production of Atlantic mackerel that have resulted in an increase in world demand for U.S. fish. The only economic benefit associated with a TALFF is the foreign fishing fees it generates. On the other hand, there are economic benefits associated with the development of the domestic mackerel fishery. Increased mackerel production generates jobs both for plant workers and other support industries. More jobs generate additional sources of income for people resident in coastal communities and generally enhance the social fabric of these communities. For these reasons, and as recommended by the Council, NMFS proposes to specify IOY at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, in order to assist the U.S. mackerel industry to expand. This would yield positive social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors. Given the trends in landings, and the industry's testimony that the fishery is poised for significant growth, NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to assume that, in 2008, the commercial fishery will harvest 100,000 mt of mackerel. Thus, DAH would be 115,000 mt, which is the commercial harvest plus the 15,000 mt allocated for the recreational fishery. Because IOY = DAH, this specification is consistent with the Council's recommendation that the level of IOY should not provide for a TALFF. NMFS proposes to maintain JVP at zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004), consistent with the Council's recommendation. In previous years, the Council recommended a JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S. processors lacked the capability to process the total amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 2 years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because the surplus between DAH and DAP has been declining as U.S. shoreside processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council received testimony from processors and harvesters that the shoreside processing sector of this industry has continued to expand since 2002-2003. Subsequent industry testimony estimated current processing capacity at 2,500 mt per day. The Council also heard from the industry that the availability (i.e., the size, distribution, and abundance) of mackerel to the fishery, rather than processing capacity, has curtailed catch in recent years. Based on this information, the Council concluded that processing capacity is no longer a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel. Furthermore, the Council concluded that the U.S. mackerel processing sector has the potential to process the DAH, so JVP would be specified at zero. Closure of the Mackerel Fishery Regulations at § 648.22(a) specify that NMFS shall close the directed mackerel fishery when 80 percent of the mackerel DAH is landed, if such a closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. To facilitate achieving the mackerel DAH, NMFS is proposing to close the mackerel fishery when 90 percent of the mackerel DAH is projected to be landed in 2008, consistent with the Council's recommendation. Mackerel Incidental Possession Limit Regulations at § 648.22(c) specify that, during closures of the mackerel fishery, the incidental possession limit for mackerel is 10 percent, by weight, of the total amount of fish on board. In general, possession limits that are a percent of the total catch on board are difficult to estimate and enforce. At its June 2007 meeting, the Council discussed revising the incidental possession limit for mackerel, such that it is easier to estimate and enforce, and that it is similar to incidental possession limits for squid and butterfish. The Council considered several competing objectives in the development of a revised incidental possession limit for mackerel. First, the possession limit needed to be low enough to ensure that the mackerel ABC would not be exceeded. Secondly, the possession limit needed to be set high enough to minimize regulatory discarding of mackerel in fisheries where mackerel is taken incidentally, but not so high as to encourage directed fishing. Lastly, because small-scale mackerel fisheries contribute only minimally to the overall mackerel harvest, the Council wanted the incidental possession limit to be high enough to allow small-scale fisheries to continue after the directed fishery was closed. After considering these factors, NMFS is proposing a mackerel incidental possession limit of 20,000 lb (4.54 mt) for 2008, consistent with the Council's recommendation. Inseason Adjustment of the Mackerel IOY Regulations at § 648.21(e) provide that specifications may be adjusted inseason during the fishing year by the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Council, by publishing a notice in the **Federal Register** and providing a 30-day public comment period. At the June 2007 Council meeting, in response to recent growth in the domestic harvesting and processing sectors of the mackerel fishery, both the mackerel industry and the Council voiced interest in increasing the 2008 mackerel IOY if landings approach 115,000 mt during the most active part of the fishing year (January-April). However, the mackerel fishing season is short and it would be difficult to implement a separate inseason action during the fishing season. To facilitate a timely inseason adjustment to the mackerel IOY, if necessary, this action proposes and seeks comment on such an inseason adjustment. In 2008, NMFS's Northeast Fishery Statistic Office
(FSO)will summarize mackerel landings from dealer reports on a weekly basis and post this information on the Northeast Regional Office Web site ( *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/* ). NMFS staff will closely monitor these landings and industry trends to determine if an inseason adjustment is necessary. If, using landings projections and all other available information, the Regional Administrator determines that 70 percent of the Atlantic mackerel IOY will be landed during the 2008 fishing year, the Regional Administrator will make available additional quota for a total IOY of 156,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel for harvest during 2008. Additionally, if an inseason adjustment of the IOY is warranted, the Regional Administrator will notify the Council and the inseason adjustment will be published in the **Federal Register** . Atlantic Squids Loligo Squid While the annual quota and other measures for *Loligo* squid can be specified for up to 3 years, the Council chose to recommend *Loligo* squid specifications and management measures for 1 year only. After a review of available information, the Council recommended no change to the *Loligo* squid Max OY and ABC from 2007; NMFS concurs with this recommendation. Therefore, the proposed 2007 *Loligo* squid Max OY is 26,000 mt and the proposed ABC is 17,000 mt. The Council recommended that the *Loligo* squid RQ for 2007 be up to 3 percent (510 mt) of the ABC. One scientific research project proposal requesting *Loligo* squid RQ was recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award. The proposed *Loligo* squid IOY, DAH, and DAP were adjusted to reflect the RQ and equal 16,977 mt. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the *Loligo* squid fishery because of the domestic industry's capacity to harvest and process the OY for this fishery; therefore, there would be no JVP and TALFF in 2008. Distribution of the *Loligo* Squid DAH Prior to 2000, the DAH for *Loligo* squid was specified as an annual quota. In 2000, the quota was subdivided into three trimester allocations. During 2001-2006, the annual DAH for *Loligo* squid was allocated into four quarter allocations, as follows: Quarter I (January-March) with 33.23 percent of the quota, Quarter II (April-June) with 17.61 percent of the quota, Quarter III (July-September) with 17.30 percent of the quota, and Quarter IV (October-December) with 31.86 percent of the quota. In an effort to improve the monitoring and management of the *Loligo* squid fishery, the 2007 DAH was allocated by trimester. Managing the DAH by trimesters, rather than quarters, results in allocations that can be higher than the quarterly allocations. Higher allocations may increase the length of time the fishery is open and allow closure projections to be based on more information, potentially increasing projection accuracy. Additionally, managing by trimesters rather than quarters streamlines administration because only three closures, rather than four, of the directed fishery could occur during a fishing year. For these reasons, NMFS is proposing that the 2008 *Loligo* squid DAH be allocated into trimesters, consistent with the Council's recommendation. The proposed 2008 trimester allocations would be as follows: Table 2. Proposed Trimester Allocation of Loligo Squid Quota in 2008 Trimester Percent metric tons 1 RQ
(mt)I (Jan-Apr) 43 7,300 NA II (May-Aug) 17 2,886 NA III (Sep-Dec) 40 6,791 NA Total 100 16,977 23 1 Trimester allocations after 23 mt RQ deduction. For 2008, the Council recommended that the percentage at which the directed *Loligo* squid fishery would close and the handling of quota overages and underages would be the same as in 2007. Therefore, this action proposes the directed *Loligo* squid fishery would close when 90 percent of the DAH is harvested in Trimesters I and II, and when 95 percent of the DAH is harvested in Trimester III. Additionally, it proposes that any underages from Trimesters I and II would be applied to Trimester III, and any overages from Trimesters I and II would be subtracted from Trimester III. Clarification of *Loligo* Squid Gear Requirements Regulations at § 648.23(d) specify that net strengtheners have a minimum mesh size of 4-1/2 inches (11.43cm) and that any device, including net strengtheners, may not be used on the top 50 percent of a codend (i.e., the portion of the codend that is not in contact with the ocean floor when the net is fishing) if it constricts the minimum mesh size to less than the required 1- 7/8 inch (48 mm). However, any time a 1- 7/8 -inch (48-mm) codend is used with a 4- 1/2 -inches (11.43-cm) net strengthener, the actual mesh size will be less than 1- 7/8 inches (48 mm) because the meshes from the codend and the net strengthener will not be in alignment and will overlap. Last fall, the U. S. Coast Guard brought it to NMFS's attention that *Loligo* squid vessels have net strengtheners covering the top 50 percent of the codend. When questioned about the need for and use of net strengtheners, members of the Loligo squid fishing industry explained that codends with a minimum mesh size of 1- 7/8 inches (48 mm) are of such fine gauge that they will burst if a net strengthener does not surround the entire circumference of the codend. Therefore, current gear regulations are inconsistent with the way the Loligo squid fishery needs to operate. At its June 2007 meeting, the Council discussed clarifying *Loligo* squid gear requirements such that net strengtheners would be permissible around the entire circumference of a codend, provided the minimum mesh size was 4-1/2 inches (11.43 cm). Therefore, this action proposes that net strengtheners, splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire may be used around the entire circumference of the codend, provided they do not have an effective mesh opening of less than 4-1/2 inches (11.43 cm), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. Illex Squid NMFS proposes to maintain the *Illex* squid specifications in 2008 at the same levels as they were for the 2007 fishing year, consistent with the Council's recommendation. Specifically, this action proposes that the specification of Max OY, IOY, ABC, and DAH would be 24,000 mt. The overfishing definition for *Illex* squid states that overfishing for *Illex* squid occurs when the catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate of F <sup>MSY</sup> is exceeded. Max OY is specified as the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of F <sup>MSY</sup> , while DAH is specified as the level of harvest that corresponds to a target fishing mortality rate of 75 percent F <sup>MSY</sup> . The biomass target is specified as B <sup>MSY</sup> . The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 B <sup>MSY</sup> . The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the *Illex* squid fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery. Butterfish The status of the butterfish stock was most recently assessed at the 38th SARC in late 2004. The assessment concluded that, while overfishing of the stock is not occurring, the stock is overfished because estimates of stock biomass are below the minimum biomass threshold (1/2 B <sup>MSY</sup> ). SARC 38 estimated the butterfish stock at 8,700 mt, 1/2 B <sup>MSY</sup> at 11,400 mt, and B <sup>MSY</sup> at 22,798 mt. Based on this information, the Council was notified by NMFS on February 11, 2005, that the butterfish stock was designated as overfished, pursuant to the requirements of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Council is developing a rebuilding plan for the butterfish stock in Amendment 10 to the FMP (Amendment 10). One of the goals of Amendment 10 is to develop a program to allow the butterfish stock to rebuild to B <sup>MSY</sup> and protect the long-term health and stability of the rebuilt stock. Rebuilding of the butterfish stock will be dependent upon increases in recruitment, which recently has been poor to intermediate. Rebuilding is further complicated because the natural mortality of butterfish is high, butterfish have a short lifespan, and fishing mortality is primarily attributed to discards (discards equal twice the annual landings). While a butterfish rebuilding program is being developed in amendment 10, the Council recommended restricting butterfish landings to recent landings levels to prevent an expansion of the fishery and to protect the rebuilding stock. Without a current market for butterfish, an intense, directed butterfish fishery has not existed for several years. Since 2003, butterfish landings have ranged between 437mt-554mt. SARC 38 re-estimated butterfish maximum sustainable yield as 12,175 mt and the overfishing threshold as F = 0.38. The MSB FMP specifies that maximum sustainable yield equals MAX OY. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that butterfish MAX OY be set at 12,175 mt in 2008. While a butterfish rebuilding program is being developed in Amendment 10, the Council recommended restricting butterfish landings to recent landings levels to prevent an expansion of the fishery and to protect the rebuilding stock. Without a current market for butterfish, an intense, directed butterfish fishery has not existed for several years. Since 2003, butterfish landings have ranged between 437 mt-554 mt. Based on SARC 38, an F of 0.34 was associated with butterfish catch (landings plus discards) of 2,700 mt. Assuming that butterfish discards equal twice the level of landings, the amount of butterfish discards associated with approximately 500 mt of landings is approximately 1,000 mt. Therefore, in 2008, the proposed specifications would set the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 500 mt and would set ABC at 1,500 mt. Harvest at these proposed levels should prevent overfishing on the butterfish stock in 2008. Additionally, consistent with MSB regulations, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, zero TALFF for butterfish in 2008 because zero TALFF is proposed for mackerel. Closure of the Butterfish Fishery and the Incidental Butterfish Possession Limit Existing regulations specify that the butterfish fishery close when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the butterfish DAH is projected to be landed. Once the butterfish fishery is closed, the current incidental butterfish possession limit is 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) per day. In previous years, when the butterfish DAH was set at approximately twice the level of landings, a 95-percent closure threshold and 2,500-lb (1.13-mt) incidental possession limit encouraged the entire DAH to be taken, while preventing the DAH from being exceeded. However, consistent with the lower butterfish DAH that is proposed for 2008, the Council also wanted to consider a lower fishery closure threshold and incidental possession limit. Council staff used butterfish landings data from 2004-2006 to evaluate a range of closure thresholds (e.g., 80-95 percent) and associated incidental possession limits (e.g., 500 lb (0.23 mt)—2,500 lb (1.13 mt)). The analysis suggested that butterfish were landed at a relatively steady rate throughout the year, but with substantial week-to-week variability. Based on this analysis, the Council recommended that, in 2008, an 80-percent closure threshold and a scaled incidental possession limit, such that a 250-lb (0.11-mt) incidental possession limit would be associated with a fishery closure prior to October 1 and a 600-lb (0.27-mt) incidental possession limit would be associated with a fishery closure on or after October 1. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, this action proposes that, in 2008, if 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is projected to be landed prior to October 1, a 250-lb (0.11-mt) incidental butterfish possession limit would be in effect for the remainder of the year. Additionally, if 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is projected to be landed on or after October 1, a 600-lb (0.27-mt) incidental butterfish possession limit would be in effect for the remainder of the year. These measures should prevent the 500-mt butterfish DAH from being exceeded, while allowing for butterfish taken incidentally in other fisheries to be landed, thus reducing discards. Incidental possession limits for butterfish apply not only during a fishery closure but also year-round to vessels issued incidental catch permits. While the Council did not explicitly recommend an incidental butterfish possession limit for vessels issued a butterfish incidental catch permit, this action proposes a year-round, 250-lb (0.11-mt) butterfish possession limit for vessels issued incidental butterfish catch permits, similar to the Council's recommended incidental butterfish possession limit during a fishery closure. NMFS invites the Council to comment whether this measure is consistent with the Council's intent. Butterfish Possession Limits Regulations at § 648.23(a)(2) specify that trawl vessels possessing 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm). Consistent with the Council's intent to prevent expansion of the butterfish fishery and protect the rebuilding stock as Amendment 10 is being developed, the Council recommended reducing the butterfish possession limit associated with using small mesh (i.e., a minimum mesh size of less than 3 inches (76 mm)), as well as establishing an additional butterfish possession limit for the 2008 fishing year. To discourage targeting butterfish and help ensure the butterfish DAH is available for much of the year, so that butterfish catch does not result in additional discarding, NMFS is proposing reducing the possession limit on trips using small mesh and establishing an additional butterfish possession limit for all trips, consistent with the Council's recommendation. Therefore, this action proposes that trawl vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm) and that a vessel issued a butterfish moratorium permit may not fish for, possess, or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip per day. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after pubic comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). The Council prepared an IRFA, 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 summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov.* Statement of Objective and Need This action proposes 2008 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish, and modifications to existing management measures to improve the monitoring and management of these fisheries. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply Based on permit data for 2006, the number of potential fishing vessels in the 2008 fisheries are as follows: 383 for *Loligo* squid/butterfish, 78 for *Illex* squid, 2,495 for mackerel, and 2,016 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, permit numbers are not additive. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities Proposed Actions The mackerel IOY proposed in this action (115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to recreational catch) represents no constraint on vessels in this fishery. This level of landings has not been achieved by vessels in this fishery in recent years. Mackerel landings for 2001-2003 averaged 24,294 mt. Landings in 2004 were 55,528 mt, landings in 2005 were 43,246 mt, and landings for 2006 were 58,279 mt. This action also proposes an in-season adjustment, if landings approach the IOY early in the fishing year, to increase the IOY up to the ABC (156,000 mt). Therefore, no reductions in revenues for the mackerel fishery are expected as a result of this proposed action; in fact, an increase in revenues as a result of the proposed action is possible. Based on 2006 data, the mackerel fishery could increase its landings by 56,721 mt in 2008, if it takes the entire IOY. In 2006, the last year with complete financial data, the average value for mackerel was $418 per mt. Using this value, the mackerel fishery could see an increase in revenues of $23,709,378 as a result of the proposed 2008 IOY (115,000 mt), and an additional increase in revenues of $17,138,000 as a result of the proposed adjustment to increase the IOY up to the ABC (156,000 mt). Additionally, this action is proposing to change the percentage at which the directed mackerel fishery would close (from 80 percent to 90 percent of OY) and the incidental mackerel possession limit after the directed fishery is closed (from 10 percent, by weight, of the total fish on board to a fixed possession limit of 20,000 lb (4.54 mt)). Under these proposed changes, it is likely that a higher level of revenue could be realized by vessels engaged in the directed mackerel fishery compared to the other alternatives. An increase in revenues of 10 percent of OY in the directed fishery could be realized, amounting to a potential increase in landings in the directed fishery on the order of about 10,000 mt. Given recent prices, this would translate into increased revenues of about $4.2 million, or $15,000 per vessel. The *Loligo* squid IOY (17,000 mt) proposed in this action represents status quo as compared to 2007. *Loligo* squid landings for 2001-2003 averaged 14,092 mt. Landings in 2004 were 15,447, landings in 2005 were 16,984 mt, and landings in 2006 were 15,880 mt. In 2006, the last year for which complete financial data are available, the average value for *Loligo* squid was $1,751 per mt. Implementation of this proposed action would not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on restraint on the fishery in 2008. The *Illex* squid IOY (24,000 mt) proposed in this action represents status quo as compared to 2007. *Illex* squid landings for 2001-2003 averaged 4,350 mt. Landings in 2004 were 26,098 mt, landings in 2005 were 12,032 mt, and landings in 2006 were 13,944 mt. In 2006, the last year for which complete financial data are available, the average value for *Illex* squid was $578 per mt. Implementation of this proposed action would not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on restraint on the fishery in 2008. The butterfish IOY (500 mt) proposed in this action represents no constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. Due to market conditions, there has been not been a directed butterfish fishery in recent years; therefore, recent landings have been low. Landings in 2004 were 537 mt, landings in 2005 were 437 mt, and landings in 2006 were 554 mt. Given the lack of a directed butterfish fishery and low butterfish landings, the proposed action is not expected to reduce revenues in this fishery. Based on 2006 data, the value of butterfish was $1,472 per mt. This action also proposes modifying the trigger for closing the directed butterfish fishery and reducing butterfish possession limits. Specifically, this action is proposing to change to the percentage at which the directed butterfish fishery would close (from 95 percent to 80 percent of DAH) and the incidental butterfish possession limit after the directed fishery is closed (from 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) to either 600 lb (0.27 mt) or 250 lb (0.11 mt)). Additionally, this action proposes a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) butterfish possession limit for all trips and reducing the possession limit for trips using small mesh (i.e., less than 3 inches (76 mm)) from 5,000 lb (4.54 mt) to 1,000 lb (0.45 mt). These proposed measures potentially limit the amount of fishing effort for butterfish as the stock rebuilds compared to the other alternatives. Therefore, there could be some minor losses in revenue for vessels that wanted to direct on butterfish in the short term (i.e., during the rebuilding period). Alternatives to the Proposed Rule The Council analysis evaluated three alternatives for mackerel, and all of them would have set IOY at 115,000 mt, maintained the status quo trigger for closing the directed fishery, and maintained the status quo incidental mackerel possession limit. This IOY and these management measures do not represent a constraint on vessels in this fishery, so no negative impacts on revenues in this fishery are expected as a result of these alternatives. One of these alternatives (status quo) would have set the ABC at 186,000 mt, and the other could have set the ABC at 335,000 mt. These alternatives were not adopted by the Council because that level of ABC is not consistent with the overfishing definition in the FMP, as updated by the most recent stock assessment. Furthermore, alternatives that would set a higher harvest were not adopted because they proposed harvest that was too high in light of social and economic concerns relating to TALFF. The specification of TALFF would have limited the opportunities for the domestic fishery to expand, and therefore would have resulted in negative social and economic impacts to both U.S. harvesters and processors (for a full discussion of the TALFF issue, see the earlier section on Atlantic mackerel). For *Loligo* squid, all alternatives would have set Max OY at 26,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 17,000 mt. While the annual quota under all alternatives represents status quo, alternatives differ in their allocation of the annual quota and incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit for *Illex* squid vessels. Two alternatives would have allocated quotas by trimester. Of these, both include an increase of the *Loligo* squid incidental possession limit for *Illex* squid vessels during August-October closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery; one alternative specifies a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) limit for vessels fishing seaward of the small-mesh exemption line (approximating the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour), and the other specifies a 10,000-lb (4.54-mt) limit for vessels fishing seaward of a boundary approximating the 80-fm (146-m) depth contour. As described in the preamble of this proposed rule, there are no tools in place for NMFS to monitor spatial activities of the *Illex* squid fleet; therefore, this possession limit provision of these alternatives will not be implemented because it cannot be administered effectively. The third alternative would allocate quota by quarters (status quo). Difference in seasonal quota distribution may have distributive effects on seasonal participants in the fishery; however, all alternatives are expected to result in the same total landings for 2008. For *Illex* squid, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This alternative would allow harvest far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated with this alternative. However, the Council considered this alternative unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of *Illex* squid. Another alternative considered would have set MAX OY at 24,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 19,000 mt. The Council considered this alternative unacceptable because it was unnecessarily restrictive. For butterfish, one alternative considered would have set the ABC at 4,525 mt and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 1,861 mt, while another would have set ABC at 12,175 mt and IOY, DAH, and DAP 9,131 mt. These amounts exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Both alternatives would have maintained the status quo trigger for closing the directed fishery, incidental possession limit, and possession limit for trips using mesh smaller than 3 inches (76 mm). Therefore, neither alternative represents a constraint on vessels in this fishery or would reduce revenues in the fishery. However, neither of these alternatives were adopted because they would likely result in overfishing and the additional depletion of the spawning stock biomass of an overfished species. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: December 20, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out 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 § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(73), (p)(3), (p)(5), and (p)(11) are revised to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a)* * *
(73)Take, retain, possess, or land more mackerel, squid, or butterfish as specified at § 648.25.
(p)* * *
(3)Take, retain, possess, or land mackerel, squid, or butterfish in excess of a possession allowance specified at § 648.25.
(5)Fish with or possess nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh requirements for *Loligo* or butterfish specified in § 648.23, or that are modified, obstructed, or constricted, if subject to the minimum mesh requirements, unless nets or netting is stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b) or the vessel is fishing under an exemption specified in § 648.23(a)(3)(ii).
(11)Possess 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish, unless the vessel meets the minimum mesh size requirement specified in § 648.23(a)(2). 3. In § 648.22, paragraph
(c)is removed and paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.22 Closure of the fishery.
(a)*Closing procedures.*
(1)NMFS shall close the directed mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the mackerel DAH is harvested, if such a closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.25. When the Regional Administrator projects that the DAH for mackerel shall be landed, NMFS shall close the mackerel fishery in the EEZ and the incidental catches specified for mackerel at § 648.25 will be prohibited.
(2)NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for *Loligo* when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the *Loligo* quota is harvested in Trimesters I and II, and when 95 percent of the *Loligo* DAH has been harvested in Trimester III. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.25.
(3)NMFS shall close the directed *Illex* fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the *Illex* DAH is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.25.
(4)NMFS shall close the directed butterfish fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.25. 4. In § 648.23, paragraphs (a)(4) and
(d)are removed and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to read as follows: § 648.23 Gear restrictions.
(a)* * *
(2)Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net, measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope.
(3)Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing *Loligo* harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing consistent with exceptions specified in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(i)*Net obstruction or constriction.* Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing *Loligo* shall not use any device, gear, or material, including, but not limited to, nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear, on the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net that results in an effective mesh opening of less than 1- 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. “Top of the regulated portion of the net” means the 50 percent of the entire regulated portion of the net that would not be in contact with the ocean bottom if, during a tow, the regulated portion of the net were laid flat on the ocean floor. However, owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing *Loligo* may use net strengtheners (covers), splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire around the entire circumference of the codend, provided they do not have a mesh opening of less than 4 1/2 inches (11.43 cm), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. For the purpose of this requirement, head ropes are not to be considered part of the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net.
(ii)*Illex fishery.* Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing *Loligo* harvested in or from the EEZ and fishing during the months of June, July, August, and September for *Illex* seaward of the following coordinates (copies of a map depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request) are exempt from the *Loligo* gear requirements specified at paragraph (a)(3) of this section, provided they do not have available for immediate use, as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section, any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size less than 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh or any net, or any piece of net, with mesh that is rigged in a manner that is prohibited by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, when the vessel is landward of the specified coordinates. Point N. Lat. W. Long. M1 43°58.0′ 67°22.0′ M2 43°50.0′ 68°35.0′ M3 43°30.0′ 69°40.0′ M4 43°20.0′ 70°00.0′ M5 42°45.0′ 70°10.0′ M6 42°13.0′ 69°55.0′ M7 41°00.0′ 69°00.0′ M8 41°45.0′ 68°15.0′ M9 42°10.0′ 67°10.0′ M10 41°18.6′ 66°24.8′ M11 40°55.5′ 66°38.0′ M12 40°45.5′ 68°00.0′ M13 40°37.0′ 68°00.0′ M14 40°30.0′ 69°00.0′ M15 40°22.7′ 69°00.0′ M16 40°18.7′ 69°40.0′ M17 40°21.0′ 71°03.0′ M18 39°41.0′ 72°32.0′ M19 38°47.0′ 73°11.0′ M20 38°04.0′ 74°06.0′ M21 37°08.0′ 74°46.0′ M22 36°00.0′ 74°52.0′ M23 35°45.0′ 74°53.0′ M24 35°28.0′ 74°52.0′ 3. Section 648.25 is added to read as follows: § 648.25 Possession restrictions.
(a)*Atlantic mackerel.* During a closure of the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
(b)*Loligo.* During a closure of the directed fishery for *Loligo,* vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of *Loligo* per trip at any time, and may only land *Loligo* once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel has been issued a *Loligo* incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of *Loligo* per trip at any time and may only land *Loligo* once on any calendar day.
(c)*Illex.* During a closure of the directed fishery for *Illex,* vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* per trip at any time, and may only land *Illex* once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel has been issued an *Illex* incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* per trip at any time, and may only land *Illex* once on any calendar day.
(d)*Butterfish.*
(1)During a closure of the directed fishery for butterfish that occurs prior to October 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 250 lb (0.11 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the directed fishery for butterfish that occurs on or after October 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day. If a vessel has been issued a butterfish incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 250 lb (0.11 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day.
(2)A vessel issued a butterfish moratorium permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(I)) may not fish for, possess, or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. [FR Doc. E7-25251 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 72 248 Friday, December 28, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Correction December 20, 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. Food Safety and Inspection Service *Title:* Marking, Labeling, and Packaging of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products. *OMB Control Number:* 0583-0092. On page 72342 of the **Federal Register** of December 20, 2007, the total burden hours shown was incorrect. The total burden hours should be 155,288. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-25132 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to CrispTek, LLC of Columbia, Maryland, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 6,224,921, “Rice Flour Based Low Oil Uptake Frying Batters”, issued on May 1, 2001. DATES: Comments must be received within thirty
(30)days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as CrispTek, LLC of Columbia, Maryland, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty
(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-25140 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) will meet in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in urban and community forestry and introduce the new “Council” members. DATES: The meeting will be held February 5-7, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Downtown, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, DC 20005. Written comments and individuals who wish to speak at the meeting or to propose agenda items should send their names and proposals to Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 201 14th Street SW., MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *nstremple@fs.fed.us* or via facsimile to
(202)690-5792. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the U.S. Forest Service, Sidney R. Yates Building, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council,
(202)205- 7829, or via e-mail at *nstremple@fs.fed.us* . Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public, February 5-7, 2008. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by January 15, 2008, will have the opportunity to address the Council at those sessions. Dated: December 19, 2007. Kent Connaughton, Associate Deputy Chief, NFS. [FR Doc. E7-25122 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Direction for Processing Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Proposals on National Forest System Lands AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of issuance of agency directive. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is amending its Forest Service Manual chapter 2720, to incorporate without change, an interim directive to guide its employees in processing proposals for interstate natural gas pipeline projects. This amendment is designed to update existing direction in the Forest Service Manual chapter 2720, consistent with a May 2002 interagency agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The agreement establishes procedures for responding to and processing applications for interstate natural gas pipeline projects when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will be the lead agency in conducting the required environmental and historic preservation reviews. DATES: This amendment is effective December 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: This amendment is available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.* Single paper copies of the Amendment are also available by contacting Julett Denton, Lands Staff (Mail Stop 1124), Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1124 (telephone 202-205-1256). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julett Denton, Lands Staff (202-205-1256). Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The amendment to FSM 2720 provides Forest Service field officers with specific procedures to assure that the agency carries out the streamlining processes in the interagency agreement and directs that field officers fully engage as a cooperating agency in the FERC's processing of these types of applications. Dated: December 19, 2007. Abigail R. Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E7-25163 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-888] Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Second Antidumping Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0409. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 11, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of this antidumping administrative review. *Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 51781 (September 11, 2007). The period of review for this administrative review is August 1, 2005, to July 31, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. In the instant review, the Department finds that the current deadline for the final results of January 9, 2008, is not practicable. The Department requires additional time to conduct surrogate value research and review and analyze interested party comments. As a result, the Department has determined to extend the current time limits of this administrative review. For these reasons, the Department is extending by 23 days the time limit for the completion of these final results until no later than February 1, 2008. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: December 20, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-25242 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812] Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. The review covers five firms, two of which were selected as mandatory respondents (see “Background” section of this notice for further explanation). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have not been made below the normal value by both mandatory respondents during the period of review. In addition, we will preliminarily apply the average of the dumping margins calculated for both ACA and Seylinco as the review-specific rate for the three companies subject to this review but not selected as respondents ( *i.e.* , Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), Naiman S.A. (Naiman), and El Mana S.A. (El Mana)). For more detail, *see* the “Background” section below; *see also* “Preliminary Results of Review,” below. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke, Deborah Scott, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-5604,
(202)482-2657, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2006, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 29, 2006, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. Petitioners requested that the Department review entries of subject merchandise made by nine Argentine producers/exporters, six of which also filed individual requests for review with the Department. In addition, the Department received one request from a producer/exporter that was not included in petitioners' request for review. On February 2, 2007, the Department initiated a review of these ten 1 companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). 1 The **Federal Register** notice lists 11 companies; however, in a previous segment of this proceeding the Department treated two affiliates as a single entity. No new evidence has been presented in this segment of the proceeding to warrant changing this treatment. On January 23, 2007, the Department issued quantity and value questionnaires to each of the ten companies covered by the review. On March 9, 2007, petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of three of the ten companies. On March 27, 2007, the Department determined that, because it was not feasible to examine all seven of the remaining producers/exporters of subject merchandise, the most appropriate methodology for purposes of this review was to select the four largest producers/exporters by export volume as respondents: ACA, Seylinco, Mielar/CAA, and Nexco S.A. (Nexco). The Department stated it would apply a review-specific average margin to those companies not selected, *i.e.* , Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), Naiman S.A. (Naiman), and El Mana S.A. (El Mana). *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Selection of Respondents,” dated March 27, 2007. Also, on March 27, 2007, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to the review. On April 23, 2007, Nexco withdrew its request for a review; petitioners also withdrew their request for a review of Nexco on April 24, 2007. Accordingly, the Department published a notice of partial rescission in response to petitioners' and respondent's withdrawal of the review of Nexco, as well as petitioners' original request for withdrawal of the three following companies: Agroin Las Piedras Ltda., Seabird Argentina S.A., and Ultramar Argentina S.A. *See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 33740 (June 19, 2007). On July 17, 2007, both petitioners and respondent company Mielar/CAA withdrew their requests for an administrative review. Accordingly, on September 4, 2007, the Department published a notice of partial rescission of review with regard to Mielar/CAA and also extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of this administrative review to December 20, 2007. *See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 50661 (September 4, 2007). With respect to the two remaining mandatory respondents, ACA and Seylinco, the chronology of this review is as follows. We received ACA's response to section A on April 25, 2007, and its response to sections B and C on May 22, 2007. On April 27, 2007, we received Seylinco's response to section A, and we received its response to sections B and C on June 5, 2007. On July 5, 2007, petitioners filed separate deficiency comments regarding the responses by ACA and Seylinco to sections A through C of the Department's questionnaire. ACA submitted a response to petitioners' comments on July 25, 2007, and Seylinco responded to petitioners' comments on July 31, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to ACA for section A on August 24, 2007, to which ACA responded on September 19, 2007. The Department then issued ACA a supplemental questionnaire for sections B and C on September 28, 2007, to which ACA responded on October 31, 2007. The Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to ACA for sections A, B, and C on November 21, 2007. ACA submitted its narrative response and sales files to this supplemental questionnaire on December 4, 2007 and the related attachments on December 5, 2007. Finally, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to ACA on December 14, 2007, to which ACA provided a response on December 18, 2007. For Seylinco, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C on August 31, 2007; Seylinco responded to section A of the supplemental questionnaire on September 21, 2007 and sections B and C on September 27, 2007. On October 3, 2007, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Seylinco for sections A, B, and C, to which Seylinco responded on October 22, 2007. On October 25, 2007, the Department requested clarification of Seylinco's second supplemental questionnaire response to which Seylinco provided support documentation on November 16, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File, “Honey from Argentina; Clarification of Respondent's Second Supplemental Response,” dated November 9, 2007. Finally, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Seylinco on November 26, 2007, to which Seylinco responded on December 5, 2007. On June 18, 2007, petitioners submitted a letter alleging that ACA had made comparison market sales of honey at prices below the cost of production
(COP)during the POR. On August 23, 2007, the Department determined that petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis on which to initiate a sales below cost investigation for ACA. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, “Petitioners Allegations of Sales Below the Cost of Production in the December 1, 2005-November 30, 2006 Administrative Review,” dated August 23, 2007 (Cost Initiation Memorandum). On September 6, 2007, we issued a memorandum indicating we had selected ACA's three largest beekeeper suppliers as respondents in the sales below cost investigation. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, “Selection of Cost of Production Respondents,” dated September 6, 2007 (Cost Selection Memorandum). On September 21, 2007, the Department issued section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire to solicit COP data from the three selected beekeeper suppliers (Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 3). 2 We received Beekeeper 1's response to section D on October 19, 2007, Beekeeper 3's response on October 22, 2007, and Beekeeper 2's response on October 26, 2007. On November 9, 2007, we issued supplemental questionnaires for section D to each of the beekeepers, to which each beekeeper responded on November 27, 2007. On November 30, 2007, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to Beekeepers 1, 2, and 3; each beekeeper provided its response on December 10, 2007. 2 The three beekeepers' names are business proprietary information. Scope of the Review The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Intent Not To Revoke In Part The Department's procedures for revoking an antidumping duty order, whether in whole or in part, are found at 19 CFR 351.222. Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation submit the following:
(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than normal value in the future;
(2)a certification that the company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of such a request; and
(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise at not less than normal value ( *i.e.* , at zero or *de minimis* margins) for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); *see also Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 39997 (July 12, 2005). On December 29, 2006, Seylinco submitted a request for revocation of the antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(e). Seylinco based its request on the absence of dumping for the four most recent review periods, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and the current administrative review. The Department found zero dumping margins in the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 administrative reviews. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005); *see also Honey from Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 2006) *and Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 72 FR 25245 (May 4, 2007), respectively. In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin of zero percent for Seylinco. The margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of the reviews cited by Seylinco in support of its request for revocation under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations. However, we have also examined Seylinco's shipments over the past three PORs and have preliminarily determined that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), Seylinco has not shipped in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the request for revocation. Accordingly, we hereby preliminarily find that, relative to shipment levels characteristic of the respondent and the industry as a whole, Seylinco is not eligible for revocation of the order. *See* undated 2004-2005 Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, through Robert James, Program Manager, from Maryanne Burke, Case Analyst, “Request by Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco) for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina,” placed on the record of this review on November 9, 2007. Product Comparison In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, *supra* , which were sold in the appropriate third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. For our discussion of market viability and selection of comparison market, *see* the “Normal Value” section of this notice, *infra* . We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by ACA and Seylinco. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as export price
(EP)or the constructed export price (CEP). The normal value LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. In this review, both ACA and Seylinco claimed only EP sales. To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than EP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For sales in both the third-country market and the United States, ACA reported two LOTs corresponding to differing channels of distribution:
(1)sales to packers and
(2)sales to importers. Differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We found that the selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying only by the degree to which testing and warranty services were provided. We do not find the varying degree of testing and warranty services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different marketing stages. Thus, we have preliminarily determined there is only one LOT for ACA's sales in both the comparison and U.S. markets, and have not made a LOT adjustment. *See* “Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on Honey from Argentina for Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas” (ACA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated December 19, 2007. Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. Seylinco claimed its sales were made directly to unaffiliated customers in both the United States and Germany and that the selling activities in both markets are identical. For Seylinco, we preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and therefore we have not made a LOT adjustment. *See* “Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on Honey from Argentina for Seylinco S.A.” (Seylinco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated December 19, 2007. Transactions Reviewed Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. For ACA, consistent with its practice, the Department used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both the third-country and U.S. market. 3 Petitioners have argued the Department should use date of contract as the date of sale in this review, claiming that all of the terms of sale were set at the time of contract and remained unaltered through shipment to both the United States and all third country markets. *See* , *e.g.* , petitioners' letter dated November 15, 2007. However, we examined this issue thoroughly in the original investigation of honey from Argentina involving ACA and found that changes to the essential terms of sale did and do occur between the contract date and the time of the actual shipment by ACA. *See* Memorandum to the File from Deborah Scott, dated December 19, 2007. As a result, in each subsequent POR, we used the date of shipment for ACA as the date of sale. Furthermore, in the instant POR, we found that actual changes did occur between contract date and shipment date with respect to the type of honey sold to the customer. Consequently, we determine that changes to the essential terms of sale continue to occur between the contract date and shipment date and therefore shipment date continues to be the appropriate date of sale with respect to ACA's sales in the U.S. and comparison markets. For Seylinco, the Department used the invoice date as the date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales. However, in some instances shipment occurred prior to invoice, and consistent with past segments of this proceeding and the Department's practice, we used the shipment date as the date of sale for those sales. 3 When shipment occurs prior to invoice date, as in the case of ACA's sales in both the U.S. and third-country markets, it is the Department's practice to use the shipment date as the date of sale rather than the invoice date. *See* , *e.g.* , *Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 76766, 76768 (December 28, 2005), unchanged in *Honey from Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 2006); *see also Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,” as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). ACA and Seylinco have classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. For ACA, we based EP on prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States and made adjustments for movement expenses. For Seylinco, we calculated EP based on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States and made adjustments for billing adjustments and movement expenses. Normal Value 1. Selection of Comparison Market In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared each company's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have any home market sales, we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market does not provide a viable basis for calculating NV. ACA did have some home market sales; however, the volume of its home market sales was less than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales. As a result, we preliminarily find that ACA's home market does not provide a viable basis for calculating NV. When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if
(i)the prices in such market are representative;
(ii)the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and
(iii)the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. Seylinco reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR in terms of volume of sales. The aggregate quantity of such sales is greater than five percent of sales to the United States, and there is no information on the record to suggest that any other market would provide greater product similarity. The Department preliminarily determines that the prices in Germany are representative and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, for Seylinco we based NV on its sales to Germany for these preliminary results. ACA reported its sales to the United Kingdom, the largest third-country market in terms of sales volume when date of shipment is used to determine date of sale. Based on information on the record, we find that while the United Kingdom does constitute the largest third-country market, the sales volumes to ACA's three reported largest third-country markets are comparable. Petitioners have claimed the Department should select one of ACA's other reported third-country markets as the comparison market since prices to the United Kingdom are not representative and the merchandise sold in the other third-country markets was more similar in terms of product standards ( *i.e.* , level of contamination) and not homogenized. *See* , *e.g.* , petitioners' letters dated July 5, 2007 and October 4, 2007. The record shows, however, that ACA's sales to the United Kingdom have more product matches to its sales in the United States than do ACA's sales to its other two largest third-country markets. *See* section 351.404(e) of the Department's regulations. Further, we do not find that the price differences among ACA's third-country markets support petitioners' assertion that prices to the United Kingdom are not representative. Since we preliminarily find ACA's sales volume to the United Kingdom is greater than five percent of its sales to the United States, prices to the United Kingdom are representative, greater product similarity exists with respect to ACA's sales to the United Kingdom and the United States, and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we preliminarily find that ACA's sales to the United Kingdom serve as the most appropriate basis on which to base NV. In summary, therefore, NV for ACA and Seylinco is based on each exporter's third-country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. 2. Cost of Production As noted above, in response to petitioners' allegation that ACA sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP, the Department initiated a sales below cost investigation of ACA. With respect to Seylinco, because we did not find sales below cost in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding and because petitioners made no allegation of sales below cost in the context of this review, the Department determined there were not reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Seylinco made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. Therefore, the Department did not initiate a sales below cost investigation of Seylinco. A. Cost of Production Analysis To calculate a COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, the Department selected the three largest beekeepers by volume who supplied honey to ACA during the POR. *See* Cost Selection Memorandum. B. Calculation of COP We calculated a simple average COP for ACA based on the costs of the three respondent suppliers, Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 3. For additional detail, *see* Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas' Beekeeper Respondents,” dated December 19, 2007. We relied on the COP data submitted by the three respondent beekeepers in their cost questionnaire responses, with the following adjustments. We adjusted the reported feed costs for Beekeepers 1, 2, and 3 to reflect the data available from public sources, as the Beekeepers provided insufficient documentation to support their reported feed costs. In addition, we revised Beekeeper 1's reported general and administrative (G&A) and financial expenses by including the land use cost for Beekeeper 1's dairy and beekeeping activities, as well as the adjusted feed cost and revenue from the sale of by-products, in the denominator used to calculate the G&A and financial expense rate for this beekeeper so that the ratio would be on the same basis as the costs to which it was applied. For Beekeepers 2 and 3 we also adjusted the denominator of the G&A ratio to include the adjusted feed costs. C. Test of Third-Country Prices and Results of the Cost of Production Test We calculated a simple average COP using the COP of ACA's three respondent suppliers (Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 3) which was applied to these beekeepers as well as all other beekeeper suppliers from whom information was not requested. In determining whether to disregard third-country market sales made at prices below the COP, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act, we examined:
(1)whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and
(2)whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's third-country market sales of a given model ( *i.e.* , control number, or CONNUM) were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's third-country market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:
(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Tariff Act; and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the COP for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. We found ACA did not have any models for which 20 percent or more of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore we did not disregard any of ACA's third-country market sales and included all such sales in our calculation of normal value. Price-to-Price Comparisons ACA We based normal value on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We preliminarily reclassified some of ACA's reported direct selling expenses (namely, certain of its expenses related to testing) as indirect selling expenses, consistent with our treatment of testing expenses in the 2003-2004 administrative review. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 2006) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. In addition, for those direct selling expenses which ACA reported as being associated with the homogenization process, we preliminarily find these are properly considered as production costs, not selling expenses. Thus, we have not included ACA's testing and homogenization expenses among the direct selling expenses for which we made adjustments in these preliminary results. For more information, see ACA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Seylinco We based normal value on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. *See* Seylinco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Additionally, we adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, where applicable. Currency Conversions The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), remaining unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions from Argentine pesos to U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary. For variables that ACA reported in pounds sterling or euros, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006: Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentina 0.00 Seylinco S.A. 0.00 Patagonik S.A. 0.00 Naiman S.A. 0.00 El Mana S.A. 0.00 The Department has, for these preliminary results, applied the average of the rates calculated for the two remaining mandatory respondents, ACA and Seylinco, to the non-reviewed companies, Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana. The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all ACA and Seylinco entries made during the POR. For entries made during the POR from the non-reviewed companies, *i.e.* , Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana, we will apply the average of the assessment rates calculated for ACA and Seylinco. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for all companies covered by this review ( *i.e.* , ACA, Seylinco, Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana) will be the rates established in the final results of review;
(2)for any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001); *see also Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 58434 (November 21, 2001), *and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: December 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-25261 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-839] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the 2006-2007 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Andrew McAllister, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone
(202)482-3813 or
(202)482-1174, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Background On June 29, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), covering the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than January 31, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The Department requires additional time to review and analyze the respondent's sales and cost information and to issue supplemental questionnaires. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the previously established time limit (i.e., by January 31, 2008). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of these preliminary results by 120 days to not later than May 30, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 18, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-25313 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas
(TRQ)on the Import of Certain Cotton Woven Fabrics for Calendar Year 2008 December 21, 2007. AGENCY: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. ACTION: Notice of allocation of 2008 cotton fabric tariff rate quota. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined the allocation for Calendar Year 2008 of imports of certain cotton fabrics under tariff rate quotas established by Division B, Title IV of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law No. 109-432). The companies that are being provided an allocation are listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On December 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law No. 109-432) (“the Act”). Under Division B, Title IV, section 406(b)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is required to allocate tariff rate quotas on the import of certain cotton woven fabrics through December 31, 2009. Section 406(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses to eligible manufacturers under headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, specifying the restrictions under each such license on the quantity of cotton woven fabrics that may be entered each year on behalf of the manufacturer. Section 406(a)(1) of the Act created an annual tariff rate quota providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009 in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). Section 406(a)(2) provides that the reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boys' cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. The Act requires that the tariff rate quotas be allocated to persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who, during calendar year 2000, were manufacturers cutting and sewing men's and boys' cotton shirts in the United States from imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton of the kind described in HTS 9902.52.08 through 9902.5219 purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. On July 24, 2007, the Department published regulations establishing procedures for allocating the TRQ. 72 FR 40235, 15 CFR 336. On October 22, 2007 the Department published a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 59513) soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2008 tariff rate quotas with a closing date of November 21, 2007. The Department received timely applications from 5 firms. All applicants were determined eligible for an allocation. Most applicants submitted data on a business confidential basis. As allocations to firms were determined on the basis of this data, the Department considers individual firm allocations to be business confidential. FIRMS THAT RECEIVED ALLOCATIONS: HTS headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19, woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton, used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boys' cotton shirts in the United States. Amount allocated: 3,085,461 square meters. Companies Receiving Allocation: The Hancock Company, DBA Gitman & Company - Ashland, PA Individualized Shirt Company - Perth Amboy, NJ Kenneth Gordon/IAG, Inc. - New Orleans, LA The Pickett Co., DBA Measure Up - Lafayette, TN Retail Brand Alliance - Enfield, CT Dated: December 21, 2007. R. Matthew Priest, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel. [FR Doc. E7-25225 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate. SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM)announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the Sapelo Island (Georgia) National Estuarine Research Reserve. The National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluation will be conducted pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA and regulations at 15 C.F.R. Part 921, Subpart E and Part 923, Subpart L. The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of Coastal Management Programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves requires findings concerning the extent to which a state has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document or Reserve final management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA. This evaluation will include a site visit, consideration of public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. A public meeting will be held as part of each site visit. Notice is hereby given of the dates of the site visit for the listed evaluation, and the date, local time, and location of the public meeting during the site visit. *Dates and Times:* The Sapelo Island (Georgia) National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluation site visit will be held February 11-15, 2008. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 6 p.m., at the Sapelo Island Visitor Center, Dock Landing Road, Meridian, Georgia. ADDRESSES: Copies of the state's most recent performance reports, as well as OCRM's evaluation notification and supplemental information request letters to the state, are available upon request from OCRM. Written comments from interested parties regarding this National Estuarine Research Reserve are encouraged and will be accepted until 15 days after the public meeting. Please direct written comments to Kate Barba, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. When the evaluation is completed, OCRM will place a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Barba, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,
(301)563-1182. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration Dated: December 21, 2007. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-25257 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE63 Endangered Species and Marine Mammals; File No. 10014 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of Science, Research and Technology, P.O. Box 409, Trenton, NJ 08625-0409 has been issued a permit to take marine mammals and sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 16, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 38825) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtle and marine mammals species had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The permit authorizes the permit holder to conduct research to elucidate the distribution and abundance of baleen whales, odontocete whales, pinnipeds, and sea turtles. Research will include take by survey approach during shipboard and aircraft transect surveys. The study area includes U.S. waters offshore of New Jersey out to a distance of 20 nautical miles. The permit is issued for five years. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: December 20, 2007. Patrick Opay, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25249 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE33 Fisheries of the Northeast Region; Overfished Determination of Summer Flounder AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has determined that summer flounder is overfished. NMFS notified the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) of its determination by letter. The Council is required to take action within 1 year following notification by NMFS that a stock is overfished or existing remedial action taken to end overfishing or rebuild an overfished stock has not resulted in adequate progress. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Lambert, telephone:
(301)713-2341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 304(e)(2) and (e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2) and (e)(7), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2), NMFS sends written notification to fishery management councils when overfishing is occurring, a stock is approaching overfishing, a stock is overfished, a stock is approaching an overfished condition, or existing action taken to end previously identified overfishing or rebuilding a previously identified overfished stock or stock complex has not resulted in adequate progress. On December 3, 2007, the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator sent a letter notifying the Council that summer flounder is overfished. Summer flounder is currently under a rebuilding plan. The Council must therefore ensure that overfishing is ended and that the stock rebuilds on schedule. A copy of the notification letter sent to the Council for the aforementioned determination is available at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm* . Dated: December 20, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25271 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD81 Notice of Availability of Final Eastern Pacific Northern Fur Seal Stock Conservation Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; response to comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has revised the conservation plan
(Plan)for northern fur seals to incorporate new information obtained since the original plan was completed. The Plan is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)and was initially completed in 1993. The goal of the Plan is to promote the recovery of northern fur seals to their optimum sustainable population levels. The Plan is available to the public. ADDRESSES: The Plan is available on the Internet at the following address: *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/fur.htm* . Copies of the Plan may also be obtained from the NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 222 W. 7th Ave., #43, Anchorage, AK 99513; or from the Alaska Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 709 W. 9th St., P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Williams, NMFS, Alaska Region, Anchorage Field Office,
(907)271 5006, email: *Michael.Williams@noaa.gov* , or Kaja Brix, NMFS, Alaska Region,
(907)586 7235, email: *Kaja.Brix@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The MMPA requires NMFS to prepare a conservation plan to promote the conservation and recovery of any species or stock designated as depleted. NMFS published the northern fur seal conservation plan in 1993, after the Pribilof Islands stock was listed as depleted. The goal of the Plan is to return the population to its optimum sustainable population
(OSP)level. Significant new ecological information is available, and the Plan required updating. New information includes trends in abundance, estimation of lactating female and juvenile male summer foraging habitat, continued entanglement in fishing nets and plastic packing bands, estimates of prey consumption from scats and regurgitations, estimation of migration routes by adult females and weaned pups, development and implementation of comanagement agreements with Alaska Native Tribes, development of oil spill contingency plans, and assessments of interactions with commercial fisheries. The four objectives of the plan are to
(1)identify and eliminate or mitigate the cause or causes of human related mortality;
(2)assess and avoid or mitigate adverse effects of human related activities on or near the Pribilof Islands and other habitat essential to the survival and recovery of fur seals;
(3)continue and as necessary expand research or management programs to monitor trends and detect natural or human related change in fur seals or habitat essential to its survival and recovery; and
(4)coordinate and assess the implementation of the conservation plan. The plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years. The goal of the Plan will be met when the depleted designation for northern fur seals can be removed. The notice of availability of the draft revised conservation plan was published June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32306), and the comment period closed August 4, 2006. Seven sets of comments were received during the comment period. Summaries of comments and responses to those comments are organized by subject area below. Harvest Issues *Comment 1:* NMFS should verify, assess, quantify, and enforce all potentially illegal harvests as a source of unaccounted mortality. *Response:* NMFS Office for Law Enforcement and both tribal governments are cooperating to determine if illegal harvests occur and to develop solutions. If unreported harvests are discovered, these will be included in future summaries of harvest activity. *Comment 2:* NMFS should present substantive text from the subsistence harvest Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including details of recent subsistence harvests such as reduced harvest due to availability or reduced interest and implications for management. *Response:* NMFS will incorporate available subsistence harvest data. Although the harvest has been lower since 2000 than in the 1980s and 1990s, the cause for the reduction is unknown. *Comment 3:* NMFS should analyze archived samples or data and subsequently collaborate with the tribes to discuss and design any directed subsistence harvest research. *Response:* NMFS has coordinated and continues to coordinate any research associated with the subsistence harvest. NMFS is assessing archived samples and data to improve the collection of samples from subsistence harvests. Fisheries Interactions *Comment 4:* NMFS should recognize the establishment of the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation
(MCAF)to fund and coordinate a comprehensive marine debris clean-up program in Alaska. The MCAF program also includes efforts to identify the age composition, and origin of lost or discarded gear. *Response:* NMFS recognizes MCAF's efforts as a result of over $1 million in grant funding from NOAA's Marine Debris Program to help reduce the accumulation of derelict fishing gear and marine debris in nearshore areas of Alaska in the past few years. *Comment 5:* NMFS should change the disentanglement program emphasis to prioritize adult females. Low impact focal captures of females in rookeries after mid-August can occur after primary breeding males vacate territories. *Response:* NMFS continues to evaluate its disentanglement efforts and will modify them as appropriate. Although it would be less disruptive and safer to approach adult females after the adult males have departed their breeding territories, the potential disruption of female-pup pairs must be weighed against the benefits of disentangling adult females. *Comment 6:* NMFS should convene an entanglement workshop to discuss the state of entanglement research, appropriate methods, practical hypothesis-driven studies, and resulting management actions. *Response:* NMFS agrees and is working to fund, organize and coordinate such a workshop. *Comment 7:* NMFS or suitable partners should investigate the use of remote-sensing data on pirate fishing vessel distribution for comparison with satellite tracking data to evaluate the overlap in illegal fishing and migrating/foraging fur seals. *Response:* NMFS remains interested in developing partnerships and utilizing remote sensing data to better manage interactions between the fur seals and human activities. Fisheries Effects-Competition *Comment 8:* NMFS should consider the competition hypothesis speculative and inconsistent with the following available data:
(1)absence of nutritional stress signals in fur seals sampled on land,
(2)similar rates of decline on rookeries where females forage in areas of both high and low commercial fisheries pressure,
(3)size at age of pups has been consistent over a long time period suggesting mothers are able to support healthy well-suckled pups,
(4)pup mortality rates are quite low compared to mortality rates at other northern fur seal rookery sites and other pinniped populations, and
(5)the Pribilof northern fur seal decline has coincided with high levels of pollock abundance in eastern Bering Sea. *Response:* Hypothesis testing is the best approach to examine the effects of commercial fishing, and further hypothesis testing is warranted based on overlap between northern fur seal diets and commercial fisheries catch. NMFS
(2001)determined conditionally significant adverse effects might be occurring due to the magnitude of overlap and changes in the proportion of trawl effort in the foraging ranges of specific northern fur seal breeding areas. *Comment 9:* The following statement is overly broad and inaccurate, “Currently, all marine areas used by northern fur seals are commercially fished”. *Response:* The statement is a practical generalization that is relevant to all aspects of interactions between foreign and domestic fisheries and northern fur seals throughout their range, not just the Bering Sea. The statement suggests that fur seals interact with commercial fishing operations in all marine areas of the Bering Sea and North Pacific. NMFS has added clarifications to the statement. *Comment 10:* NMFS has not adequately described the effects of competition between northern fur seals and commercial fisheries near the Pribilof Islands. NMFS should include recent temporal and spatial changes in fishing and the relevant focal species. No clear plan exists to test the potential causal relationship between commercial fishing and the current decline. NMFS has documented increasing pollock catches in Pribilof Islands northern fur seal foraging habitat in response to Steller Sea Lion critical habitat protection measures; NMFS identified conditionally significant adverse effects of fishing on northern fur seals (NMFS 2001; NMFS 2005; EA FRFA: NMFS 2006). *Response:* NMFS has added additional text reflecting recent literature and previous analyses. The contrasting comments about competition between northern fur seals and commercial fisheries indicate more focused work needs to be done. Further hypothesis testing is warranted based on archived population data, historic fur seal foraging data, environmental data and fishery information to inform future investigations. *Comment 11:* NMFS should present management efforts related to protecting fur seal foraging habitat; identifying important marine canyons for foraging; mitigating impacts from the pollock fleet on fur seals; using marine protected areas; prescribing site-specific management actions to address the adverse impacts of commercial fisheries on fur seals. Site-specific examples could include the following:
(1)ensure adequate food availability in fur seal foraging habitat, and
(2)if adequate prey to achieve optimum sustainable population cannot be quantified and accounted in the total allowable catch specifications, then NMFS should employ the F75 percent (the level of fishing mortality which reduces the estimated spawning biomass to 75 percent of its pre-exploitation level) used by the Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources for fur seal prey. Actions would include closures of fur seal foraging habitat to trawl fisheries; if fur seal foraging habitat cannot be precisely delineated, expand the Pribilof Islands Area Habitat Conservation Zone to encompass all areas within at least 25 miles of the Pribilof Islands. *Response:* Ecosystem complexity, data and model limitations, and indirect linkages confound NMFS current ability to quantify interactions among northern fur seals, their prey, and commercial fisheries. Place-based management of human activities may be a productive and sustainable approach consistent with a growing impetus for ecosystem approaches to management. However, it may not be productive to further alter commercial fishing effort in time and space without additional analysis of archived data and refinements to previous analyses that corroborate the earlier identification of “conditionally significant adverse effects” (NMFS 2001). Moving, reducing, or altering commercial fishing effort to reduce “conditionally significant adverse effects” for northern fur seals may in turn result in significant adverse effects for other components of the ecosystem. *Comment 12:* NMFS needs to increase details in section 2.7.4 (Determine impact from fisheries) consistent with section 2.6.4 (Develop oil spill response plans and mitigation strategies). *Response:* Section 2.7.4 represents the integration of subheadings 2.7 (Quantify relationships between fur seals, fisheries and fish resources) and 1.1 (Effects of marine debris), and as such covers the details we currently understand and those requiring further investigation. Mitigation and response plans to suspected fishery-related threats must be developed following the outline and priorities described in the Plan. *Comment 13:* NMFS should measure the significance of impacts relative to the lack of recovery by northern fur seals to their OSP. *Response:* NMFS does not have clear causative factors linked to the lack of recovery of the northern fur seal population. In the absence of such factors it is impossible to measure their influence on the rate recovery to OSP. As those factors are identified they will be incorporated into evaluations of their effect on recovery. *Comment 14:* NMFS must assess fisheries effects by manipulating the fishery rather than sampling large numbers of fur seals. *Response:* An adaptive management scenario is one way of assessing the impact of fishing on northern fur seals. However, manipulating the fishery is not a substitute for investigating fur seal biology and life history in areas where the interactions indicate problems may exist. *Comment 15:* NMFS should prioritize assessment of potential illegal driftnet take of fur seals and the development of a more concrete plan. NMFS should reconsider priority 3 for the observer program; salmon drift gillnet fisheries may be an area of concern. *Response:* NMFS is evaluating the likelihood of significant population effects from all of the potential sources identified in the plan to determine their priority along with the funding realities of the implementation costs and population benefits. Climate Change *Comment 16:* NMFS should include a brief section on the indirect behavioral implications of increased temperatures on northern fur seals reproduction and hyperthermia. *Response:* The impacts of climate change on northern fur seal behavior, reproduction, and survival are highly uncertain. NMFS will continue to examine the contribution of environmental factors to the health, survival and abundance of northern fur seals. Differential growth of breeding northern fur seal populations worldwide in recent years suggests a complex array of factors influence northern fur seals, but efforts to manage threats and conserve populations will need to be adaptive and supported by an integrated inter-disciplinary research and monitoring program. *Comment 17:* NMFS must consider indices of commercial and non-commercial fish abundance are complicated by regime shifts, temporal and spatial changes in sampling, changes in fishery effort, resolution of fisheries and fur seal data, and density dependent fur seal population changes. *Response:* NMFS will work to capture the complexity of the ecosystem changes, fish abundance, fishery effort, fur seal response, and climate change. Text related to these factors has been clarified based on the available references. *Comment 18:* NMFS should formally recommend the U.S. immediately ratify the Kyoto Protocol. *Response:* NMFS, through DOC, will continue to participate in the process to develop the Administration's policies regarding climate change. Coordination *Comment 19:* Coordination of research is necessary to assure results that are applicable to management. *Response:* Coordination of research and communication of results of that research are essential, and NMFS has identified this as one of the four primary objectives of the plan. Implementing conservation plan priorities, reviewing conservation action effectiveness, and updating the plan at 5-year intervals also assures relevance to short and long-term management. Harassment *Comment 20:* The human presence and research section should be updated to incorporate summary information from the current environmental analysis of Steller Sea lion and northern fur seal research. *Response:* The Plan has been revised to include the main findings from the EIS. The EIS is available on the Internet at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/fur.htm* . *Comment 21:* Resighting previous marks should be prioritized above new marking to reiterate the importance of a resighting program with any marking program. *Response:* Many of the previously marked fur seals from the last large-scale marking program are no longer alive or have lost their marks. NMFS is currently evaluating the applicability of a resighting program based on the few individuals marked from other studies. The results of such a resighting program based on so few marks may have such high variability that the effort is not warranted. Further evaluation is required. Melin et al.
(2006)describes the history of northern fur seal marking programs and the results of a 2005 workshop on the topic. NMFS encourages readers to obtain a copy of AFSC Processed Report 2006-15 on the Internet at *http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-15.pdf* . *Comment 22:* The plan should acknowledge mortality can result from research (e.g., capture myopathy). *Response:* NMFS has revised the plan to include actual and potential research mortality. *Comment 23:* NMFS must prioritize disturbance research, carefully plan ongoing, additional, or expanded research, use archived data, and support independent review to determine cost-effective and environmentally sensitive fur seal field studies. *Response:* NMFS and other northern fur seal research permit holders are authorized to conduct studies within the scope of their permits, much of which is related to research described in the Plan. Those research projects are implemented as funding is available. NMFS is not issuing new permits or major amendments to existing permits until the completion of the Steller sea lion and northern fur seal research EIS. The results of these investigations will inform subsequent study design and the development of hypothesis-driven studies. Those studies will be authorized by current and future scientific research permit applications and modifications that will be reviewed by NMFS, the Marine Mammal Commission and the public. NMFS is examining archived data to better understand potential correlations between research and fur seal survival and reproduction. *Comment 24:* An independent workshop to evaluate study design, sample size, appropriate and least intrusive research should be included as a component of the plan. *Response:* NMFS will consider convening such a workshop. *Comment 25:* Add a subsection titled: 2.6.5. Assess noise pollution. *Response:* NMFS continues to evaluate noise related to biologically significant harassment as individual projects are proposed. Given the available evidence regarding the effects of airborne and underwater noise exposure, adding an entire subsection to the topic is not warranted at this time. *Comment 26:* Section G.8.1 oversimplifies the problem of harassment associated with aircraft flying near and over resting and breeding northern fur seals. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. Currently the intensity and duration of aircraft overflights has been reduced to levels much lower than the early 1990s, and a detailed elaboration of the situation is not warranted. Comanagement *Comment 27:* The priority goal for tribal governments should be to develop a long-term marine mammal research plan as a central part of their comanagement program and strengthen partnering opportunities. *Response:* NMFS considers long-term planning and strategic partnering with the tribes to be an essential part of the comanagement process. NMFS intends to work closely with the tribes to develop short and long-term plans together to support ongoing conservation and recovery actions for northern fur seals and Steller sea lions, respectively. *Comment 28:* NMFS must make a stronger commitment to environmental justice in the conservation plan. *Response:* Local involvement is essential to successful conservation and continues via comanagement to ensure the consumers of northern fur seals are involved in northern fur seal research and management. Miscellaneous Comments *Comment 29:* Consider the following additions to the oil spill response section:
(1)mention Island Sentinel in monitoring for spills year-round,
(2)implement a local response training program so locals can respond, and
(3)plan for use of carcasses for research consistent with bycatch section. *Response:* The oil spill response section is based on the current oil spill contingency plan for the Pribilof Islands. NMFS has supported similar revisions to the draft oil spill contingency plans (early 2007) for the Pribilof Islands; however, that plan has not yet been finalized. When the oil spill contingency plan is finalized NMFS will incorporate revisions as appropriate. *Comment 30:* Suggest adding new section “B.8 Complex Social Behavior” in “II. CONSERVATION STRATEGY”. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that such a section is warranted at this time because fur seal social behavior is not characterized or quantified to a level useful for conservation, recovery and research. *Comment 31:* References to unpublished and non-refereed literature, some unavailable for review, should not be given the same weight as peer-reviewed literature. *Response:* NMFS used the best available science (published and unpublished) and traditional ecological knowledge in developing this plan. References are appropriately cited to acknowledge the source of information. *Comment 32:* In section 1.2 “Incidental takes” add to this section the mandatory recording of all northern fur seal sightings from vessels (platforms of opportunity). Observers must be trained and tested for reliability to distinguish fur seals in water from other pinnipeds. Data records should include exact location, distance, and position with respect to vessel, vessel state, animal state, and animal age and sex if possible. *Response:* The platform of opportunity program is voluntary and provides marine mammal sighting data to NMFS. In addition, NMFS observers also collect marine mammal sightings and are trained to meet needs across numerous disciplines. Accordingly, marine mammal observations and identification are part of the training received by each observer. *Comment 33:* NMFS should include relevant data on behavior and vital rate information from fur seals breeding on Bogoslof Island. *Response:* NMFS has added relevant data from northern fur seals breeding on Bogoslof Island. *Comment 34:* Consider revising section I.C.3 “Carrying Capacity” to include more information from Fritz et al. (in review) and a summary of recent work by Fowler regarding the concept of carrying capacity in ecosystems. *Response:* NMFS has included a summary of Fowler's work evaluating ecosystem carrying capacity. Fritz et al. (in review) continues to develop and, in it's draft stage, is not appropriate to include at this time. *Comment 35:* Oil spill simulation models should be updated with the recent satellite and radio tracking data. *Response:* NMFS will consider such revisions and their implementation as appropriate. NMFS has and will continue to meet with other federal agencies to determine the state of oil spill risk assessment and oil spill trajectory simulations in northern fur seal marine habitat. *Comment 36:* NMFS should add the following section: Determine the importance of social interactions to lifetime reproductive success (e.g., mother-offspring relocation behavior, non-random associations such as between kin, observational learning). Determine how these interactions may be affected by changes in population size, climate, and whether there could be additive or positive feedback effects on a decreasing population (i.e., exacerbate a decline). *Response:* NMFS did not add the suggested section regarding social interactions among northern fur seals. NMFS is not aware of any published or unpublished reports on the topic. *Comment 37:* The plan needs a clear vision of the specific tasks that can be accomplished in the next 5 years: e.g., COFFS (Consequences of Female Foraging Strategies); population models; diet research. *Response:* NMFS has prioritized various conservation actions and research. NMFS will follow the mandates under the relevant legislation to continue to collect basic population data and investigate critical management priorities. The completion of these priorities is funding-dependent. *Comment 38:* NMFS should develop criteria for recovery and listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. *Response:* This plan addresses a depleted species as required by the MMPA. An evaluation for listing or recovery criteria for a population listed under the ESA is not appropriate for this document. Threats Table *Comment 39:* The threats table is difficult to understand, is inconsistent, and has arbitrary and non-quantitative scales. *Response:* NMFS re-evaluated and revised the threats table to resolve inconsistencies and increase understanding for the reader. Research Priorities *Comment 40:* In section 3.1.5, trends in age structure and age-specific reproductive rates should be separated from the diet studies also recommended in this section. Longitudinal studies of marked females (e.g., Gentry, 1998) or cross-sectional studies of female vibrissae color (Scheffer, 1962; Baba et al., 1991) should be designed to develop stage-based structural models (e.g., Holmes and York, 2003). *Response:* NMFS separated and consolidated diet and foraging into sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. In addition NMFS discussed numerous factors related to vital rates during a workshop convened in September 2005. A longitudinal and cross-sectional study was discussed at length and deemed the most time and cost-effective approach to obtaining accurate estimates for key vital rates. See response to comment 21. *Comment 41:* In section 3.1.5, alternative methods including live-capture at sea should be investigated as a replacement for lethal collections. Japanese scientists have used live captures at sea and in combination with lavage (diet), tooth extraction (age-structure), and ultra-sound or hormone assay (repro) as suitable alternatives for lethal sampling. *Response:* NMFS discussed all these factors related to vital rates during a workshop convened in September 2005. See response to comment 21. Also see G.P. Adams, J.W. Testa, C.E.C. Goertz, R.R. Ream, and J.T. Sterling. 2006. Ultrasonographic characterization of reproductive anatomy and early embryonic detection in the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) in the field. Marine Mammal Science 23(2): 445-452. *Comment 42:* NMFS should initiate a survey of late season (Sept/Oct) pup mortality surveys at selected study sites to assess the level of pup mortality following the regular August pup mortality surveys. *Response:* NMFS discussed factors related to vital rates during a workshop convened in September 2005. See response to comment 21. Reliable estimates of pup mortality at any time of the year can only be obtained by substantial disturbance and additional mother-pup separations associated with clearing an entire nursery area. Therefore, the recommended surveys are not warranted at this time. *Comment 43:* NMFS should use guidance from Bowen et al.
(2001)regarding experimental design to measure the success of management actions. *Response:* Evaluating fur seal response to conservation actions in this plan is consistent with the guidance of Bowen et al. (2001). Dated: December 20, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25281 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XE68 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public committee meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Crab Committee will meet January 9-10, 2008, in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meeting will be held on January 9-10, 2008. The meeting will be held on January 9th, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on January 10th, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hawthorne Suites, 1110 West 8th Avenue, Ballroom B, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Fina, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will have discussions on the following items: purpose and need statement; potential elements and options; crew proposal and alternatives to those proposals; data issues; Community protections; possible emergency relief from regionalization; Arbitration issues. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,
(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: December 21, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-25177 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Publication of North American Datum of 1983 State Plane Coordinates in feet in Nebraska AGENCY: National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Geodetic Survey
(NGS)will publish North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) State Plane Coordinate
(SPC)grid values in both meters and U.S. Survey Feet (1 ft = 1200/3937 m) in Nebraska, for all well defined geodetic survey control monuments maintained by NGS in the National Spatial Reference System
(NSRS)and computed from various geodetic positioning utilities. The adoption of this standard is implemented in accordance with NGS policy and a request from the Nebraska State Surveyor, Nebraska Department of Roads, the Professional Surveyors Association of Nebraska. DATES: Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the Publication of North American Datum of 1983 State Plane Coordinates in feet in Nebraska, should do by January 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the attention of David Doyle, Chief Geodetic Surveyor, Office of the National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service (N/NGS2), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910, fax 301-713-4324, or via e-mail *Dave.Doyle@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to David Doyle, Chief Geodetic Surveyor, National Geodetic Survey (N/NGS2), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; Phone:
(301)713-3178. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abstract In 1991, NGS adopted a policy that defines the conditions under which NAD 83 State Plane Coordinates
(SPCs)would be published in feet in addition to meters. As outlined in that policy, each state or territory must adopt NAD 83 legislation (typically referenced as Codes, Laws or Statutes), which specifically defines a conversion to either U.S. Survey or International Feet as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Standards in Federal Register Notice 59-5442. To date, 48 states have adopted the NAD 83 legislation however, for various reasons, only 33 included a specific definition of the relationship between meters and feet. This lack of uniformity has led to confusion and misuse of SPCs as provided in various NGS products, services and tools, and created errors in mapping, charting and surveying programs in numerous states due to inconsistent coordinate conversions. Dated: December 20, 2007. David B. Zilkoski, Director, Office of National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [FR Doc. 07-6233 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
U.S. Code
- Flood elevation determinations§ 4104
- Rule making§ 553
- Disaster mitigation requirements; notification to flood-prone areas§ 4105
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Licensing federally owned inventions§ 209
- Congressional findings and declaration of policy§ 1361
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Action by Secretary§ 1854
CFR
- Exclusive, co-exclusive, and partially exclusive licenses.§ 404.7
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
25 references not yet in our index
- 44 CFR 67
- 44 CFR 67.4(a)
- 44 CFR 60.3
- 44 CFR 10
- 5 USC 601-612
- 47 CFR 76
- 47 CFR 1.46
- 47 CFR 0.61
- 50 CFR 226
- 50 CFR 424.12
- 50 CFR 424.02
- 50 CFR 424.14
- 50 CFR 17.95
- 50 CFR 226.207
- 50 CFR 660.713
- 50 CFR 424.14(c)
- 50 CFR 622
- 50 CFR 648
- 50 CFR 600
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 109-432
- 15 CFR 336
- 15 CFR 921
- 50 CFR 216
- 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Cite44 CFR 67
Cite44 CFR 67.4(a)
Cite44 CFR 60.3
Cites 46 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources