Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-01-16 · NOTICES SES · Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service NOTICES Committee Management; Renewal: Provincial Advisory Committee, 2881 E8-663 American American Battle Monuments Commission NOTICES SES Perfor · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

93,581 words·~425 min read·/register/2008/01/16/08-139

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-01-16.xml --- 73 11 Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service NOTICES Committee Management; Renewal: Provincial Advisory Committee, 2881 E8-663 American American Battle Monuments Commission NOTICES SES Performance Review Board, 2887 E8-617 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2905 E8-689 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration: Chester Bednar Rental Realty; Washington, PA, 2941 E8-594 Mark Eyelet, Inc., et al., 2941 E8-589 Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, etc. Shogren Hosiery Manufacturing Co., Inc. et al., 2941-2942 E8-588 Thomasville Furniture Industries, 2942 E8-587 Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, etc., 2942-2944 E8-586 Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adustment Assistance, etc., 2944-2945 E8-585 Revised Determination on Reconsideration:
Agilent Technologies, Inc.; Linerty Lake, WA, 2945 E8-591 Agrium U.S. Inc.; Kenai, AK, 2946 E8-590 Termination of Investigation: Carson's Furniture; Archdale, NC, 2946 E8-584 Employment Employment Standards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2946-2948 E8-649 E8-650 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2905 E8-644 Draft PEIS;
Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States; Hearing, 2905 E8-643 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerance; Acetamiprid, 2809-2812 E8-683 Pesticide Tolerance; Mandipropamid, 2812-2816 E8-677 PROPOSED RULES Clarification for Chemical Identification Describing Activated Phosphors; TSCA Inventory Purposes, 2854-2859 E8-681 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2907-2910 E8-602 Deletion of Risk Management Plan SORN, 2910 E8-659 Guidance for Conducting Prospective Ground-Water Studies, 2910-2912 E8-653 Organic Esters of Phosphoric Acid Risk Assessments Risk Reduction Options:
Availability, 2912-2914 E8-540 Pesticide Product Registration Approval, 2914-2915 E8-444 Pesticide Products; Registration Applications, 2915-2916 E8-601 Petition Request; Intent to Cancel Registrations of M-44 Sodium Cyanide Capsules and Sodium Fluoroacetate: Extension of Comment Period, 2916-2917 E8-676 Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations; Dichlorvos, 2917-2918 E8-539 Risk Assessments; Availability, and Risk Reduction Options: Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone, 2918-2920 E8-674 Executive Executive Office of the President See Trade Representative, Office of United States FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Airbus Model A300 Airplanes Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes, 2803-2807 E7-25503 Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes, 2795-2797 E8-370 EMBRAER Model EMB-120, 120ER, 120FC, 120QC, and 120RT Airplanes, 2793-2795 E8-170 EMBRAER Model EMB 135BJ Airplanes, 2797-2799 E8-470 EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes, 2799-2801 E8-469 Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 Airplanes, 2801-2803 E8-479 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 2920 08-151 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations, 2818-2830 E8-700 E8-703 E8-706 Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 2830-2842 E8-692 E8-695 Suspension of Community Eligibility, 2816-2818 E8-690 PROPOSED RULES Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations, 2859-2880 E8-722 E8-724 E8-725 Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations; Correction, 2880 E8-721 NOTICES Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Missouri, 2928 E8-658 Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration Missouri, 2928 E8-654 Nevada;
Major Disaster and Related Determinations, 2928-2929 E8-728 Washington; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration, 2929 E8-651 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, 2984-3143 E8-144 NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 2905-2907 E8-634 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California, 2978 E8-672 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Notice of Agreements Filed, 2920-2921 E8-682 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations, 2921-2922 E8-686 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petition for Waiver of Compliance, 2978-2979 E8-685 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices:
Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 2922 E8-546 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Co., 2922-2923 E8-547 E8-636 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List Six Foreign Birds as Endangered, 3146-3179 E8-492 NOTICES Issuance of Permits, 2936-2937 E8-664 Meetings: Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group, 2937 E8-633 Receipt of Applications for Permit, 2937-2938 E8-667 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;
Flunixin, 2808-2809 E8-699 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Firocoxib Tablets, 2808 E8-730 PROPOSED RULES Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices, 2848-2854 E8-702 NOTICES Animal Cloning Risk Assessment: Risk Management Plan; Guidance for Industry; Availability, 2923-2924 E8-675 Fee Program for Advisory Review of Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements for Prescription Drug and Biological Products: Program Will Not Be Implemented, 2924 E8-740 Meetings:
Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice, 2924-2925 E8-726 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2881-2882 E8-604 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, California, South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS/EIR, 2882-2887 E8-668 Health Health and Human Services Department See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S.
Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Class 9 Bonded Warehouse Procedures, 2843-2848 E8-522 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2932-2933 E8-660 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program Fiscal Year 2006, 2933-2934 E8-666 Privacy Act; systems of records, 2934-2935 E8-603 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2935-2936 E8-691 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Extension of Time Limit, 2887 E8-673 Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 2887-2889 E8-670 Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit, etc., 2889-2890 E8-687 Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission, 2890-2900 E8-671 Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2900 E8-661 The Manufacturing Council: Fact-Finding Meeting, 2900 08-139 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Employment Standards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2940-2941 E8-626 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings:
Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council; Cancellation, 2938 E8-632 Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council, 2938 E8-612 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Royalty-in-Kind
(RIK)Eligible Refiner, Determination of Need, 2938-2940 E8-624 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, 2948 E8-747 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Reports, Forms, and Record keeping Requirements; Correction, 2979 E8-731 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2925-2926 E8-606 E8-609 The Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 2926-2927 08-125 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish, 2900-2903 E8-688 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Public Hearings on the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Draft, 2903-2904 08-121 The Preliminary Report of the NOAA Science Advisory Board, 2904 E8-704 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring and Opportunity for Hearing: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. et al., 2948-2958 E8-635 E8-637 E8-638 E8-639 E8-640 E8-642 Office of U.S. Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2959-2960 E8-652 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 2960-2961 E8-627 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 2961-2962 E8-628 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 2963-2970 E8-645 E8-646 E8-647 E8-648 Options Clearing Corp., 2970-2974 E8-630 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 2974-2975 E8-629 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Committee Management; Establishment: Washington, D. C. District Advisory Council, 2975 08-111 Committee Management; Renewal: Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee, 2975-2976 E8-619 Buffalo, New York District Advisory Council, 2976 E8-618 Houston, Texas District Advisory Council, 2976 E8-611 National Advisory Council, 2976 E8-621 National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board, 2976-2977 08-142 National Womens Business Council, 2977 08-112 North Florida District Advisory Council, 2977 E8-613 Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, 2977 E8-608 Veterans Affairs Advisory Council, 2977-2978 08-141 State State Department NOTICES Meetings: Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 2978 E8-727 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Special 301: Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment, 2958-2959 E8-678 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2979-2981 E8-620 E8-656 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, 2981-2982 E8-655 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2929-2932 E8-693 E8-694 E8-696 E8-698 E8-701 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2984-3143 E8-144 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3146-3179 E8-492 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 11 Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28855; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-098-AD; Amendment 39-15323; AD 2007-26-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EMBRAER Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Icing tunnel tests on an EMB-120 wing section, conducted under a joint Embraer-NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)—FAA-CTA (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial) research program well after the EMB-120( ) was type-certificated, have shown that stick shaker to stick pusher speed margins may drop below the minimum required by the applicable regulations in certain icing conditions. Although flight tests have shown that the aircraft handling qualities are not adversely affected, these reduced speed margins may significantly increase crew workload in certain flight phases. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42328). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Icing tunnel tests on an EMB-120 wing section, conducted under a joint Embraer-NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)—FAA-CTA (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial) research program well after the EMB-120( ) was type-certificated, have shown that stick shaker to stick pusher speed margins may drop below the minimum required by the applicable regulations in certain icing conditions. Although flight tests have shown that the aircraft handling qualities are not adversely affected, these reduced speed margins may significantly increase crew workload in certain flight phases. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. The corrective action includes modification of certain electrical wiring and installation of a new Stall Warning Computer. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Requests To Change Certain Language The Air Line Pilots Association, International
(ALPA)asks that the unsafe condition specified in paragraph
(e)of the NPRM be clarified. ALPA states that “clearly, the accident/incident history of this aircraft indicates that handling qualities are adversely affected under icing conditions.” ALPA disagrees with EMBRAER on the statement that icing conditions do not adversely affect handling characteristics. EMBRAER also asks that the language specified in paragraph
(e)of the NPRM be clarified. EMBRAER suggests changing the language specified in paragraph
(e)as follows: “During icing tunnel research tests conducted by the FAA and NASA with the support of CTA (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial) and EMBRAER in the year 2000, new ice shapes were defined for testing on the Model EMB-120 airplane. These ice shapes are representative of icing (now defined as intercycle icing) that may accumulate in between consecutive boot cycles. Although flight testing of these new ice shapes indicated that they do not adversely affect the handling characteristics of the Brasilia, the testing did indicate that the stick shaker to stick pusher speed margins for the intercycle ice shapes may be reduced below the minimum standard values set forth in the applicable CTA and FAA Regulations. In order to preserve the original certification stick-shaker-to-stick-pusher margins when operating under the newly defined intercycle icing conditions, an upgraded Stall Warning Computer with new settings for shaker firing AOA is required to be installed.” EMBRAER adds that during the flight tests no noticeable increase in crew work load was experienced. We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. However, ALPA's comment addresses icing conditions in general; whereas EMBRAER's comment addresses stick-shaker-to-stick-pusher speed margins that may drop below the minimum required by the applicable regulations in certain icing conditions (defined as intercycle icing), which the MCAI identifies, in part, as the unsafe condition. Therefore, we have clarified the unsafe condition in paragraph
(e)by reiterating the content of EMBRAER's comment. Delay in Issuing AD ALPA states that, while a 36-month compliance time appears to be reasonable, given the number of aircraft in the U.S. registry, ALPA is disappointed that it has taken almost ten years to implement such a requirement. ALPA notes that its submission to the National Transportation Safety Board following the conclusion of the 1997 aircraft accident investigation included a proposed safety recommendation that was almost identical to the changes being suggested in the subject document. We understand the commenter's concern regarding a delay in issuing this AD. However, the FAA did issue AD 2001-13-14, amendment 39-12295 (66 FR 34083, June 27, 2001), and AD 2001-20-17, amendment 39-12465 (66 FR 52027, October 12, 2001). These ADs mitigated the subject unsafe condition. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 107 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 58 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost up to $2,000 per product, depending on airplane configuration. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be up to $710,480, or $6,640 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-26-21 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-15323. Docket No. FAA-2007-28855; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-098-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Icing tunnel tests on an EMB-120 wing section, conducted under a joint Embraer-NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)—FAA-CTA (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial) research program well after the EMB-120( ) was type-certificated, have shown that stick shaker to stick pusher speed margins may drop below the minimum required by the applicable regulations in certain icing conditions. Although flight tests have shown that the aircraft handling qualities are not adversely affected, these reduced speed margins may significantly increase crew workload in certain flight phases. During icing tunnel research tests conducted by the FAA and NASA in the year 2000, with the support of CTA (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial) and EMBRAER, new ice shapes were defined for testing on the Model EMB-120 airplane. These ice shapes are representative of icing (now defined as intercycle icing) that may accumulate in between consecutive boot cycles. Although flight testing of these new ice shapes indicated that they do not adversely affect the handling characteristics of the Brasilia, the testing did indicate that the stick-shaker-to-stick-pusher speed margins for the intercycle ice shapes may be reduced below the minimum standard values set forth in the applicable CTA and FAA Regulations. In order to preserve the original certification stick-shaker-to-stick-pusher margins when operating under the newly defined intercycle icing conditions, an upgraded Stall Warning Computer with new settings for shaker firing angle-of-attack
(AOA)is required to be installed. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. The corrective action includes modification of certain electrical wiring and installation of a new Stall Warning Computer. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Replace the current Stall Warning Computers with new improved ones in accordance with detailed instructions and procedures described in the EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0092, Revision 01, dated December 29, 2006.
(2)Before installing the improved Stall Warning Computers, accomplish the detailed instructions and procedures described in the EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0091, Change 02, dated September 29, 2003.
(3)As of 36 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may install a Stall Warning Computer; part number C-81806-1 or -2, Mod. A, or C-81806-3, on any airplane. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-03-03, effective April 10, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletins 120-27-0091, Change 02, dated September 29, 2003; and 120-27-0092, Revision 01, dated December 29, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0091, Change 02, dated September 29, 2003; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0092, Revision 01, dated December 29, 2006; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0091, Change 02, contains the following list of effective pages: Page Nos. Change level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 2, 51, 58 02 September 29, 2003. 3-50, 52-57, 59-87 01 October 15, 2002.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-170 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0171; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-220-AD; Amendment 39-15330; AD 2008-01-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), that applies to certain Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. That AD currently requires modification of certain wires in the right-hand
(RH)wing. This new AD requires further modification by installing an additional protection sleeve and segregating route 2S in the RH pylon area. This AD results from analysis of wire routing that revealed that route 2S of the fuel electrical circuit, located in the RH wing, does not provide adequate separation of fuel quantity indication wires from wires carrying 115-volt alternating current (AC). We are issuing this AD to ensure that fuel quantity indication wires are properly separated from wires carrying 115-volt AC. Improper separation of such wires, in the event of wire damage, could lead to a short circuit and a possible ignition source, which could result in a fire in the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 20, 2008. On September 3, 2004 (69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2004-15-16, amendment 39-13750 (69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63506). That NPRM proposed to continue to require modification of certain wires in the right-hand
(RH)wing. That NPRM also proposed to require further modification by installing an additional protection sleeve and segregating route 2S in the RH pylon area. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification (required by AD 2004-15-16) 35 $80 $4,459 $7,259 68 $493,612 Further Modification (new proposed action) 22 80 1,870 3,630 68 246,840 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13750 (69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-01-05 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15330. Docket No. FAA-2007-0171; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-220-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-15-16. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, has been done (Airbus Modifications 12427 and 12435). Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from analysis of wire routing that revealed that route 2S of the fuel electrical circuit, located in the right-hand
(RH)wing, does not provide adequate separation of fuel quantity indication wires from wires carrying 115-volt alternating current (AC). We are issuing this AD to ensure that fuel quantity indication wires are properly separated from wires carrying 115-volt AC. Improper separation of such wires, in the event of wire damage, could lead to a short circuit and a possible ignition source, which could result in a fire in the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-15-16 Modification
(f)Within 4,000 flight hours after September 3, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-15-16): Modify the routing of wires in the RH wing by installing cable sleeves, per the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002; or Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007. As of the effective date of this AD, Revision 02 must be used. Actions Accomplished Previously
(g)Modification of the routing of wires accomplished before September 3, 2004, per Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated January 23, 2002, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Modification (Additional Work)
(h)For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated January 23, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002; have been done before the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform further modification by installing additional protection sleeves in the outer wing area near the cadensicon sensor and segregating wire route 2S in the RH pylon area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(j)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2007-0230, dated August 15, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On September 3, 2004 (69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002.
(3)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-370 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0129; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-099-AD; Amendment 39-15331; AD 2008-02-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found that some adhesive tapes used in the interior furnishings do not comply with the applicable flammability requirements. In case of some nearby ignition source, fire may propagate to the aircraft. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 1, 2007 (72 FR 61822). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found that some adhesive tapes used in the interior furnishings do not comply with the applicable flammability requirements. In case of some nearby ignition source, fire may propagate to the aircraft. The corrective actions include an inspection to determine the presence of cotton adhesive tape, and replacement of the tape with new tape if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 41 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,560, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-02-01 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-15331. Docket No. FAA-2007-0129; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-099-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-25-0080, dated October 10, 2006. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found that some adhesive tapes used in the interior furnishings do not comply with the applicable flammability requirements. In case of some nearby ignition source, fire may propagate to the aircraft. The corrective actions include an inspection to determine the presence of cotton adhesive tape, and replacement of the tape with new tape if necessary. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 48 months or 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done: Carry out a general visual inspection
(GVI)for presence of cotton adhesive tape, part number (P/N) FMM 1121-5, in the interior of center-passenger cabin furnishings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-25-0080, dated October 10, 2006. If any cotton tape, P/N FMM 1121-5, is found, before further flight, replace it with new PVF adhesive tape bearing P/N KB42/75, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Replace cotton adhesive tapes, P/N FMM 1121-5, located under the center-passenger cabin carpet, with new PVF adhesive tapes bearing P/N KB42/75, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2)Replace cotton adhesive tapes, P/N FMM 1121-5, applied to electrical cables in the bottom of the forward galley assembly, to electrical cables and inside the left-hand
(LH)and right-hand
(RH)forward and LH aft side ledges, and to electrical cables, flexible hose of the video monitor, soundproofing blanket, and in the LH and RH forward and RH aft pocket door covers and partitions, with new PVF adhesive tapes bearing P/N KB42/75 with heat-shrinkable sleeve, P/N RNF-100-1-0, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a general visual inspection
(GVI)is: “A visual examination of the interior or exterior area of an installation or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance, unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-03-04, effective April 10, 2007, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-25-0080, dated October 10, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-25-0080, dated October 10, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 4, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-470 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-219-AD; Amendment 39-15332; AD 2008-02-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial Reference Units
(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle
(FPA)indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control the flight path of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60599). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial Reference Units
(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle
(FPA)indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control the flight path of the airplane. The corrective action is removal of certain wiring connections in the electrical connectors of both IRUs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Revision to Final Rule for New Service Information EMBRAER has issued a revision to a service bulletin identified in the NPRM as an appropriate source of service information for the AD. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007, incorporates an existing information notice that revises the wiring manual reference, and adds a serial number to the effectivity of the in-production airplanes that have an equivalent modification. We have changed paragraphs
(c)and
(f)of this AD accordingly, and added a statement in paragraph
(f)giving credit for work performed in accordance with the original version of the service bulletin. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 108 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $62 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $58,536, or $542 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-02-02 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-15332. Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-219-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 34: Navigation. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial Reference Units
(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle
(FPA)indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control the flight path of the airplane. The corrective action is removal of certain wiring connections in the electrical connectors of both IRUs. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, remove the wiring connections from pins 51 and 52 in the electrical connectors of both IRUs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; or 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007; as applicable. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0009, dated February 26, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-08-03 and 2007-08-04, both effective August 27, 2007, and to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; and 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343-CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos-SP, Brazil.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date 170-34-0019 Original February 26, 2007. 190-34-0009 01 October 9, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 4, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-469 Filed 1-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0116 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-082-AD; Amendment 39-15333; AD 2008-02-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found that some of the above mentioned MLG special bolts can be defective. The problem is only applicable to specific bolts with serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT. Investigations revealed that there is a possibility for hydrogen embrittlement which occurs during the manufacture process. Components in this condition can decrease the specific fatigue life and could lead to MLG collapse during operation with consequent loss of airplane control. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. On February 20, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4059; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2007 (72 FR 61580). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found that some of the above mentioned MLG special bolts can be defective. The problem is only applicable to specific bolts with serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT. Investigations revealed that there is a possibility for hydrogen embrittlement which occurs during the manufacture process. Components in this condition can decrease the specific fatigue life and could lead to MLG collapse during operation with consequent loss of airplane control. In order to correct the situation, this AD requires the identification of all MLG special bolts to determine if the bolts have serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT and the replacement of affected special bolts. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Comment Issue: Revision of Service Bulletin No. 32-020 PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. comments they have revised the applicable service information, and the latest version is PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Service Bulletin No. 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007. They request we incorporate the revised version of the service bulletin into our AD. We agree that we should incorporate the revised version of the service bulletin into our AD. We have discussed the revised service bulletin with the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland, and they also agree we should incorporate the revised version of the service bulletin into our AD. We will change the final rule AD action to incorporate PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Service Bulletin No. 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 480 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $19,200, or $40 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $2,300, for a cost of $2,620 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-02-03 Pilatus Aircraft Limited:** Amendment 39-15333; Docket No. FAA-2007-0116; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-082-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 749, certificated in any category; that have not incorporated the actions in their entirety of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, dated July 24, 2007; and with one or more of the following installed:
(1)Main landing gear
(MLG)assemblies delivered before December 31, 2006, with the following part numbers (P/N): 532.10.12.037, 532.10.12.038, 532.10.12.041, 532.10.12.042, 532.10.12.043, 532.10.12.044, 532.10.12.047, 532.10.12.048, 532.10.12.049, 532.10.12.050, 532.10.12.051, or 532.10.12.052;
(2)Special bolts P/N 532.10.12.110, 532.10.12.205, 532.10.12.077, or 532.10.12.202 delivered before December 31, 2006; or
(3)Modification kit numbers 500.50.12.267, 500.50.12.286, or 500.50.12.299 delivered before December 31, 2006. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found that some of the above mentioned MLG special bolts can be defective. The problem is only applicable to specific bolts with serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT. Investigations revealed that there is a possibility for hydrogen embrittlement which occurs during the manufacture process. Components in this condition can decrease the specific fatigue life and could lead to MLG collapse during operation with consequent loss of airplane control. In order to correct the situation, this AD requires the identification of all MLG special bolts to determine if the bolts have serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT and the replacement of affected special bolts. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after February 20, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 3 months after February 20, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the special bolts that attach the MLG retraction actuators and the special bolts that attach the shock absorbers to the MLG assemblies to identify the serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT following PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007.
(2)If during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD any special bolts with the serial number starting with the letters AT or special bolts with the supplier code AT are found, before further flight, replace the specified bolts with new bolts with the new part numbers in all MLG assemblies following PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007.
(3)As of February 20, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), do not install any of the special bolts that have serial numbers that start with the letters AT or have the supplier code AT on Models PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes as indicated in PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007. MLG assemblies, special bolts, and modifications kits, as referenced in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, delivered from PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. on or after December 31, 2006, will not incorporate the unsafe condition. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4059; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to Federal Office of Civil Aviation
(FOCA)AD HB-2007-382, dated August 27, 2007; and PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 32-020, Rev. No. 1, dated November 22, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 6208; fax: +41 41 619 7311; e-mail: *SupportPC12@pilatus-aircraft.com* .
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 8, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-479 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27926; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-050-AD; Amendment 39-15316; AD 2007-26-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair if necessary. This new AD retains those requirements, but reduces inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals, and adds related investigative and corrective actions. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections only for airplanes with cracking that is within certain limits, and a post-repair inspection program following the optional terminating action. This AD results from reports of additional cracking in airplanes that were inspected in accordance with the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the left and right upper radius at frame 47, which could propagate and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 20, 2008. On May 1, 2003 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2003-06-04, amendment 39-13091 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19818). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to reduce inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals, and to add related investigative and corrective actions. That NPRM also proposed to provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections only for airplanes with cracking that is within certain limits. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Clarify Requirements of Paragraph
(l)of the NPRM Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American Airlines (AA), and supported by Airbus, points out that paragraph (l)(2) of the NPRM specifies performing repetitive inspections on airplanes with cracks “30 millimeters
(mm)(1.181 inch) or less in length.” AA believes that the length should be 50 mm. AA explains that Table 2 (Figure 1, Sheet 1) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, dated October 19, 2005 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), allows repetitive inspections for cracks equal to or less than 50 mm. AA also points out that the table titled “Related Investigative and Corrective Actions Following Eddy Current Inspection” in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM states that repetitive inspections are applicable for cracks equal to or less than 50 mm in size. We agree that paragraph (l)(2) of the NPRM needs to be clarified. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (l)(2) of the AD to clarify the crack size that applies to each model. Request To Apply Certain Actions Only to Airplanes With Known Cracks ATA, on behalf of its member AA, states that paragraph (m), “Abnormal Load Events,” of the NPRM should apply only to airplanes with known cracks. Airbus supports this statement. AA explains that Figure 1, Sheet 1, of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, requires the inspections only if a crack exists. AA also points out that the table titled “Related Investigative and Corrective Actions Following Eddy Current Inspection” in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM states that the inspection is for an “abnormal load event on an airplane with any crack finding.” We agree with the commenters for the reasons stated by the commenters. Paragraph
(m)of the AD should apply only to airplanes with known cracks. We have revised paragraph
(m)of this AD to state that it applies only to airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection required by this AD. Request To Refer to Latest Revision of Service Bulletin Airbus states that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, dated July 16, 2004, which we referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the optional terminating action, has now been revised. Airbus requests that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, Revision 01, dated October 15, 2007. We agree with the request to refer to Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144. The procedures in Revision 01 and the original issue are essentially the same. Revision 01 revises the effectivity of the service bulletin, but states that no additional work is required for airplanes modified in accordance with the previous issue. We have revised paragraph
(n)of this AD to refer to Revision 01 of the service bulletin. We have also revised paragraph
(r)of this AD to give credit to operators that have accomplished the actions in accordance with the previous issue of the service bulletin. Request To Revise Contact Information Airbus requests that we revise the address for submitting reports of inspection findings in paragraph
(q)of the NPRM. We have revised paragraph
(q)of the AD to include the information provided by Airbus. Explanation of Clarifications We have clarified paragraph
(m)of the AD by replacing the “or” with an “and” in the statement “Do the actions in paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3), as applicable * * *” An “and” in this case more clearly conveys the intent of the paragraph because it is possible that operators might need to do more than one of those actions. We have also revised paragraph (s)(2) of the AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 163 U.S.-registered airplanes that are affected by this AD. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Actions required by AD 2003-06-04 9 $0 $720, per inspection cycle $117,360, per inspection cycle. Inspection (new action) 1 $0 $80, per inspection cycle $13,040, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13091 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-26-14 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15316. Docket No. FAA-2007-27926; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-050-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-06-04. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes; and all Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of additional cracking in airplanes that were inspected in accordance with AD 2003-06-04. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the left and right upper radius at frame 47, which could propagate and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2003-06-04 Model A300-600: Inspection
(f)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: At the earlier of the times specified by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the upper radius of the left and right forward fitting of frame 47, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994; Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 08 of the service bulletin may be used.
(1)Before the accumulation of 17,300 total flight cycles, or within one year after October 16, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-18-18, amendment 39-9744), whichever occurs later.
(2)At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or 26,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first after May 1, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-06-04). Model A300-600: Follow-On (Repetitive) Inspections
(g)For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD until the inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is done.
(1)If the initial inspection was accomplished before May 1, 2003, repeat the inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 6,100 flight cycles or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i)Re-inspect within 6,100 flight cycles after the initial inspection.
(ii)Re-inspect within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first after May 1, 2003.
(2)If the initial inspection was not accomplished before May 1, 2003, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,100 flight cycles or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A300-600: Corrective Action
(h)For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated representative); or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent); for instructions regarding repair or for an applicable re-inspection interval, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 08 may be used. Repair and/or re-inspection accomplished before May 1, 2003, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(h)of this AD. Model A300 B2 and B4: Repetitive Inspections and Follow-On Actions
(i)For Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, perform repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, left and right sides, per Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 06, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 06 may be used. Accomplishing this requirement terminates the corresponding inspection requirement of the A300 Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID)for Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes. (That SSID is mandated by AD 96-13-11, amendment 39-9679.)
(1)For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,400 flight cycles or 13,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is done.
(i)Before the accumulation of 16,500 total flight cycles or 21,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 1,000 flight cycles or 1,300 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first.
(2)For Model A300 B4-100 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,500 flight cycles or 16,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is done.
(i)Before the accumulation of 10,300 total flight cycles or 19,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first.
(3)For Model A300 B4-200 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight cycles or 13,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is done.
(i)Before the accumulation of 11,000 total flight cycles or 21,200 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first. New Requirements of This AD Inspections and Corrective Actions
(j)At the applicable time in paragraph
(k)or
(l)of this AD: Except as provided by paragraphs
(n)and
(p)of this AD, do an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where the service bulletins specify to contact Airbus for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Doing the inspections required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (g), and
(i)of this AD.
(1)For Airbus Model A300 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 06, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005.
(2)For Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005.
(k)For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (f), (g), or
(i)of this AD, as applicable, has not been done prior to the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(l)For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (f), (g), or
(i)of this AD, as applicable, has been done prior to the effective date of this AD: Inspect at the applicable times specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(1)For airplanes on which no cracking was found during any inspection required by this AD: Do the next inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)At the next repetitive interval specified in the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, or within 1,400 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii)At the next repetitive interval specified in paragraph
(g)or
(i)of this AD, as applicable.
(2)For airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection required by this AD, and the crack is the size specified in paragraph (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), or (l)(2)(iii) of this AD: Do the next inspection at the applicable times specified in paragraph (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), or (l)(2)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)For Airbus Model A300 airplanes on which the crack is 30 millimeters
(mm)(1.181 inch) or less in length: At the next repetitive interval specified in the service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii)For Airbus Model A300 airplanes on which the crack is greater than 30 millimeters
(mm)(1.181 inch) in length, but less than or equal to 50 mm in length (1.97 inch): At the next repetitive interval specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD (Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin).
(iii)For Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes on which the crack is 50 mm (1.97 inch) or less in length: At the next repetitive interval specified in the service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD; without, however, exceeding the previous inspection interval specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Abnormal Load Events
(m)For airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection required by this AD and on which any abnormal load event occurs after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, at the time specified in the applicable paragraph.
(1)Within 3 months after the event, or at the next applicable repetitive interval required by paragraph
(k)or
(l)of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the next repetitive inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD.
(2)Before further flight following any additional abnormal load event that occurs following the first event but before the next repetitive inspection required by paragraph
(k)or
(l)of this AD: Contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the EASA (or its delegated agent), for further instructions.
(3)Within 3 months after any abnormal load event: Report the event to Airbus in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(q)of this AD. Optional Terminating Action (Repair) for Certain Cracks
(n)Repairing any crack greater than 30 mm but less than or equal to 50 mm in size, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0370, including Appendix 01, dated July 16, 2004; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated July October 15, 2007; as applicable; terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph
(k)or
(l)of this AD for that area only. Where the service bulletins specify to contact Airbus for repair instructions: Repair the crack using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Repetitive Inspections Following Optional Terminating Action
(o)Within 6 months after repair in accordance with paragraph
(n)of this AD: Submit a post-repair inspection program for monitoring the repair to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, for approval. Repair of Any Crack Greater than 50 mm in Size
(p)If any crack that is greater than 50 mm in size is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j), (k), or
(l)of this AD: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. Reporting Requirement
(q)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (q)(1) or (q)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of all results of each inspection required by this AD to Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, Attention: Davide Cavazzini, fax 33-5-61-93-36-14. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For airplanes on which the inspection is accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.
(2)For airplanes on which the inspection has been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
(r)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (i), (j), and
(n)of this AD. Table 1.—Previous Issues of Service Bulletins Model Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300 airplanes A300-53-0246 03 April 11, 2001. A300-53-0246 04 November 12, 2002. A300-53-0246 05 January 19, 2004. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-53-6029 05 April 11, 2001. A300-53-6029 06 November 12, 2002. A300-53-6029 07 January 19, 2004. A300-53-6144 Original July 16, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (s)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-06-04 are approved as AMOCs with this AD until paragraph
(j)of this AD is accomplished. Related Information
(t)French airworthiness directive F-2006-016, dated January 18, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(u)You must use the service information listed in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 2.—All Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-53-0246, including Appendix 01 03 April 11, 2001. A300-53-0246, including Appendix 01 06 October 19, 2005. A300-53-0370, including Appendix 01 Original July 16, 2004. A300-53-6029 02 November 7, 1994. A300-53-6029, including Appendix 01 05 April 11, 2001. A300-53-6029, including Appendix 01 08 October 19, 2005. A300-53-6144, including Appendix 01 Original July 16, 2004.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 3 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Table 3.—New Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-53-0246, including Appendix 01 06 October 19, 2005. A300-53-0370, including Appendix 01 Original July 16, 2004. A300-53-6029, including Appendix 01 08 October 19, 2005. A300-53-6144, including Appendix 01 Original July 16, 2004.
(2)On May 1, 2003 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 4 of this AD. Table 4.—Material Incorporated by Reference in Previous AD Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-53-0246, including Appendix 01 03 April 11, 2001. A300-53-6029, including Appendix 01 05 April 11, 2001.
(3)On October 16, 1996 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994.
(4)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-25503 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Firocoxib Tablets AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Merial Ltd. The supplemental NADA provides for veterinary prescription use of firocoxib chewable tablets in dogs for the control of postoperative pain and inflammation associated with soft-tissue surgery. DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8337, e-mail: *melanie.berson@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth, GA 30096-4640, filed a supplement to NADA 141-230 for PREVICOX (firocoxib) Chewable Tablets. The supplemental application provides for the veterinary prescription use of firocoxib chewable tablets in dogs for the control of postoperative pain and inflammation associated with soft-tissue surgery. The NADA is approved as of December 18, 2007, and the regulations in 21 CFR 520.928 are amended to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is amended as follows: PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. In § 520.928, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows: § 520.928 Firocoxib tablets.
(c)* * *
(1)*Amount* . 5 mg/kg (2.27 mg/lb) body weight. Administer once daily for osteoarthritis. Administer approximately 2 hours before soft-tissue surgery.
(2)*Indications for use* . For the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis and for the control of postoperative pain and inflammation associated with soft-tissue surgery. Dated: January 4, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-730 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Flunixin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd. The supplemental ANADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of flunixin meglumine solution by intravenous injection in lactating dairy cattle for control of pyrexia associated with acute bovine mastitis. DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works, Newry BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland, filed supplemental ANADA 200-308 that provides for veterinary prescription use of Flunixin Injection intravenously in lactating dairy cattle for control of pyrexia associated with acute bovine mastitis. The supplemental ANADA is approved as of December 19, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.970 to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. In § 522.970, revise paragraph (b)(2) and add paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 522.970 Flunixin.
(b)* * *
(2)See Nos. 057561, 059130, and 061623 for use as in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i)(A), (e)(2)(ii)(A), and (e)(2)(iii), of this section.
(4)See No. 055529 for use as in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. Dated: January 4, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-699 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0733; FRL-8348-1] Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B; caneberry subgroup 13-07A; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective January 16, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 17, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0733. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5218; e-mail address: *stanton.susan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0733 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before March 17, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0733, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55468) (FRL-8091-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7051) by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., c/o Nisso America Inc., 45 Broadway, Suite 2120, New York, NY, 10006. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.578 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide acetamiprid, *N* 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- *N* 2-cyano- *N* 1-methylacetamidine, in or on bulb vegetables crop group 3 at 3 ppm; edible podded legume vegetables, crop subgroup 6a at 0.5 ppm; succulent shelled peas and beans, crop subgroup 6b, at 0.5 ppm; and berries, crop group 13 at 1 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0733, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. In the **Federal Register** of April 2, 2007 (72 FR 16352) (FRL-8119-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E7163) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.578 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide acetamiprid, *N* 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- *N* 2-cyano- *N* 1-methylacetamidine, in or on strawberry, bearberry, bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry, muntries and partridgeberry at 0.60 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0105, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. In the **Federal Register** of November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67256) (FRL-8340-6), EPA issued a final rule establishing tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in/on edible-podded legume vegetables and succulent shelled peas and beans but deferred to a later date the decision on the petitioned-for tolerances on the bulb vegetable and berry commodities requested in these petitions. EPA is establishing the bulb vegetable and berry tolerances at this time but has modified the commodity terms and most of the proposed tolerance levels. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit V. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of acetamiprid on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 1.6 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.6 ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G at 0.60 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.02 ppm; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 4.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. As noted above, on November 28, 2007, EPA issued a final rule in the **Federal Register** establishing tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in/on edible-podded legume vegetables and succulent shelled peas and beans. When the Agency conducted the risk assessments in support of this tolerance action it assumed that acetamiprid residues would be present on bulb vegetables and commodities in the aforementioned berry subgroups as well as on all foods covered by the proposed and established tolerances. Therefore, establishing the bulb vegetable and berry tolerances will not change the most recent estimated aggregate risks resulting from use of acetamiprid, as discussed in the November 28, 2007 **Federal Register** . Refer to the November 28, 2007 **Federal Register** document (72 FR 67256) (FRL-8340-6), available at *http://www.regulations.gov* , for a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety. EPA relies upon those risk assessments and the findings made in the **Federal Register** document in support of this action. Based on the risk assessments discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67256) (FRL-8340-6), EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to acetamiprid residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate residue analytical methods gas chromatography/electron-capture detection (GC/ECD) and high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detector (HPLC/UV)) are available for the enforcement of established and new tolerances for plant and animal commodities. These methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican MRLs established for acetamiprid on the commodities associated with these petitions. V. Conclusion The registrant, Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., petitioned for tolerances on bulb vegetables group 3 and berries group 13 as those crop groups were defined at the time of the petition. IR-4 also petitioned for individual tolerances on strawberry, bearberry, bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry, muntries and partridgeberry (PP 6E7163). In the **Federal Register** of December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150) (FRL-8340-6), EPA issued a final rule that revised the crop grouping regulations. As part of this action, EPA expanded and revised bulb vegetables group 3 and berries group 13. Changes to crop group 3 (bulb vegetables) included adding new commodities, creating subgroups for bulb and green onions, and changing the name of one of the representative commodities from “onion, dry bulb” to “onion, bulb”. Changes to crop group 13 (berries) included adding new commodities, revising existing subgroups and creating new subgroups (including a low growing berry subgroup consisting of the commodities requested in PP 6E7163 and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these). EPA indicated in the December 7, 2007 final rule as well as the earlier May 23, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 28920) (FRL-8126-1) that, for existing petitions for which a notice of filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA is establishing tolerances on bushberry subgroup 13-07B; caneberry subgroup 13-07A; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B. The low growing berry subgroup 13-07G consists of the berries for which tolerances were requested in PP 6E7163. The other subgroups include the remaining berries and bulb vegetables for which tolerances were requested in PP 6F7051. EPA concludes it is reasonable to revise the petitioned-for tolerances so that they agree with the recent crop grouping revisions because
(1)although the new crop groups/subgroups include several new commodities, the added commodities are closely related minor crops which contribute little to overall dietary or aggregate exposure and risk; and acetamiprid exposure from these added commodities was considered when EPA conducted the dietary and aggregate risk assessments supporting this action; and
(2)the representative commodities for the revised crop groups/subgroups have not changed. Based upon review of the data supporting PP 6F7051, EPA has also revised the tolerance levels for bushberry subgroup 13-07B and caneberry subgroup 13-07A to 1.6 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A to 0.02 ppm; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B to 4.5 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels based on analyses of the residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acetamiprid, *N* 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- *N* 2-cyano- *N* 1-methylacetamidine, in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 1.6 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.6 ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G at 0.60 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.02 ppm; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 4.5 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 8, 2008. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.578 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 180.578 Acetamiprid; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * *
(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Berry, low growing subgroups 13-07G 0.60 Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 1.6 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 1.6 * * * * * Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A 0.02 Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B 4.5 * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-683 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0461; FRL-8346-6] Mandipropamid; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of mandipropamid, 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-alpha-(2-propynyloxy)-benzeneacetamide in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; okra; vegetable, leafy except brassica, group 4; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; grape; grape, raisin; onion, dry bulb; onion, green; and potato, wet peel. Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective January 16, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 17, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0461. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Mary Kearns, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5611; e-mail address: *kearns.rosemary@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0461 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before March 17, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0461, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40877) (FRL-8137-1) and October 31, 2007 (72 FR 61637) (FRL 8154-8) EPA issued notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP7F7184 and 6F7057) by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition (6F7057) requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid, 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-alpha-(2-propynyloxy)-benzeneacetamide, in or on Brassica, head and stem, Subgroup 5A at 3 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 30 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at .3 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1 ppm; vegetable, leafy except Brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm; grape at 2 ppm; grape, raisin at 4 ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.05 ppm; onion, green at 4 ppm; and tomato paste at 1.3 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.B.. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has recommended the inclusion of okra in Crop Group 8 (Vegetable, Fruiting). However, a separate tolerance for okra must be listed in the 40 CFR 180.637, until the new crop group regulation is published. A tolerance for tomato paste was requested. However, the maximum expected residue in tomato paste and puree resulting from the proposed use will be covered by the recommended tolerance for vegetable, fruiting, crop group 8. A separate tolerance is being established for potato, wet peel, even though it was not requested. The maximum expected residue in potato, wet peel resulting from the proposed use is 0.03 ppm which was calculated by multiplying the HAFT of <0.01 ppm by the observed concentration factor of >3x. Potatoes have a separate tolerance under the vegetable, tuberous and corm subgroup 1C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of mandipropamid on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 3 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 25 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.6 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1 ppm; okra at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, leafy except Brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm; grape at 1.4 ppm; grape, raisin at 3 ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.05 ppm; onion, green at 4 ppm; and okra at 1 ppm and potato, wet peel at 0.03 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by mandipropamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as “Mandipropamid: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses” in that docket. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors
(UFs)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.* A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mandipropamid used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. **Table 1.—Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Mandipropamid for Use in Dietary Human Risk Assessment** Exposure/Scenario Point of Departure Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors RfD, PAD, Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (General Population, including Infants and Children) N/A N/A N/A No appropriate endpoint was identified. Acute Dietary(Females 13-49 years of age) N/A N/A N/A No appropriate endpoint was identified. Chronic Dietary (All Populations) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day UF <sup>A</sup> = 10X UF <sup>H</sup> = 10X FQPA SF = 1X Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day Chronic toxicity - dogs LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day, based on evidence of liver toxicity (increased incidence and severity of microscopic pigment in the liver and increased alkaline phosphatase activity in both sexes as well as increased alanine aminotransferase activity in males). Cancer “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” No treatment-related tumors observed in carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. A cancer risk assessment is not needed. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. N/A = not applicable. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to mandipropamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from mandipropamid in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for mandipropamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996, or 1998; CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon tolerance level residues and percent crop treated
(PCT)information for all commodities A unrefined chronic exposure assessment that assumes 100% crop treated was conducted for the proposed Section 3 uses of mandipropamid. The DEEM analysis incorporates estimates of drinking water concentrations from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division directly into the analysis. The chronic dietary exposure analysis for mandipropamid results in dietary risk estimates for food and water that are below the Agency's level of concern for chronic dietary exposure. iii. *Cancer* . There were no treatment-related tumors observed in carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Mandipropamid is classified as not likely to be a human carcinogen. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for mandipropamid in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of mandipropamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of mandipropamid for acute exposures are estimated to be 25.2 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 0.05 ppb for ground water. The EECs for the aquatic degradates SYN500003 and SYN504851 are estimated to be 2.32 and 8.99 ppb for surface water and 0.6 and 1.7 ppb for ground water. The combined level of mandipropamid and the degradates in surface water is 36.5 ppb. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the acute water concentration of value 36.5 ppb was used to conservatively assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Mandipropamid is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to mandipropamid and any other substances and mandipropamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that mandipropamid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no evidence (quantitative or qualitative) of increased susceptibility and no residual uncertainties with regard to prenatal toxicity following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits (developmental studies) and pre and/or post-natal exposures to rats (reproduction study). 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicological database for mandipropamid is complete. ii. The toxicity data showed no increase in qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in fetuses and pups with in utero and post-natal exposure. iii. The toxicity data indicates that there are no neurotoxic effects. iv. The dietary food exposure assessment is based on tolerance-level residues and assumes 100% crop treated for all commodities, which results in very high-end estimates of dietary exposure. v. The dietary drinking water assessment is based on values generated by model and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations. vi. No residential uses are proposed at this time. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . No acute dietary endpoint based on effects attributable to a single dose could be identified based on the toxicology data currently available for mandipropamid. Therefore, mandipropamid is not expected to pose an acute risk. 2. *Chronic risk* . There are no residential uses proposed or registered for mandipropamid, and therefore aggregate risk is equal to that from consumption of food and water. Chronic aggregate risk estimates associated with exposure to mandipropamid residues in food and water do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. For mandipropamid, the chronic dietary exposure estimate was 22% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and was 30% of the cPAD for the highest exposed population subgroup, children 1-2 years of age. 3. *Short-term and intermediate-term risk* . Short and intermediate-term dermal exposures and risks were not assessed for mandipropamid, since mandipropamid is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Aggregate cancer risk was not assessed because mandipropamid is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to mandipropamid residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology Analytical Method RAM 415/01 Residue Analytical Method for the Determination of Mandipropamid in Crop Samples. Final Determination by LC/MS/MS and the Analytical Method Development and Validation (German S-19) for the determination of residues of MA Mandipropamid in or on Plant Matrices is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no specific CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs)for mandipropamid. C. General Response to Comments Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to establishment of tolerances. The agency has received similar comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to **Federal Register** 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), 69 FR 63096-63098 (October 29, 2004) for the Agency's response to these objections. In addition, the commenter noted several adverse effects seen in animal toxicology studies with mandipropamid and claims because of these effects no tolerance should be approved. EPA has found, however, that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to humans after considering these toxicological studies and the exposure levels of humans to mandipropamid. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of mandipropamid, 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-alpha-(2-propynyloxy)-benzeneacetamide, in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 3 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 25 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.6 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.0 ppm; okra at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm; grape at 1.4 ppm; grape, raisin at 3.0 ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.05 ppm; onion, green at 4 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.03 ppm. A tolerance for tomato paste is not being established because residue expected will be covered by the vegetable, fruiting crop group 8. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 8, 2008. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.637 is added to read as follows: § 180.637 Mandipropamid; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid, 4-chloro-N-[2-(3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-alpha-(2-propynyloxy)-benzeneacetamide in or on the following commodities. Commodity Parts per million Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A 3 Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B 25 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.6 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 1.0 Vegetable, leafy except Brassica, group 4 20 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C 0.01 Grape 1.4 Grape, raisin 3.0 Okra 1.0 Onion, dry bulb 0.05 Onion, green 4 Potato, wet peel 0.03
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent tolerances* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E8-677 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-8007] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001, *et seq.;* unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 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. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region I Maine: Van Buren, Town of, Aroostook County 230036 July 3, 1975, Emerg; March 18, 1986, Reg; January 16, 2008, Susp 01/16/2008 01/16/2008 *-do-=Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: January 4, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-690 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These 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 modified BFEs 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. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This final 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. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 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. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Madison (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Huntsville (06-04-BT85P) June 22, 2007; June 29, 2007; *Madison County Record* The Honorable Loretta Spencer, Mayor, City of Huntsville, P.O. Box 308, Huntsville, Alabama 35804 September 28, 2007 010153 Madison (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Madison (06-04-BT85P) June 22, 2007; June 29, 2007; *Madison County Record* The Honorable Sandy Kirkindall, Mayor, City of Madison, 100 Hughes Road, Madison, Alabama 35758 September 28, 2007 010308 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Montgomery (07-04-2575P) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *The Montgomery Advertiser* The Honorable Bobby N. Bright, Mayor, City of Montgomery, P.O. Box 1111, Montgomery, AL 36101 July 25, 2007 010174 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (07-04-2575P) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *The Montgomery Advertiser* The Honorable Todd Strange, Chairman, Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, 100 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, AL 36104 July 25, 2007 010278 Arizona: Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Mesa (07-09-0549P) June 14, 2007; June 21,2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable Keno Hawker, Mayor, City of Mesa, P.O. Box 1466, Mesa, Arizona 85211-1466 September 20, 2007 040048 Pima (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Town of Marana (06-09-BA80P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Arizona Daily Star* The Honorable Ed Honea, Mayor, Town of Marana, Marana Municipal Complex, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 July 5, 2007 040118 Pima (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Tucson (07-09-0707P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, Arizona 85726 June 4, 2007 040076 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Town of Prescott Valley (07-09-0558P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Harvey Skoog, Mayor, Town of Prescott Valley, 7501 East Civic Circle, Prescott Valley, AZ 86314 October 25, 2007 040121 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated areas of Yavapai County (06-09-BA63P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Chip Davis, Chairman, Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, 10 South Sixth Street, Cottonwood, Arizona 86326 September 27, 2007 040093 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Yavapai County (07-09-0558P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Chip Davis, Chairman, Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, 10 South Sixth Street, Cottonwood, AZ 86326 October 25, 2007 040093 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Yavapai County (07-09-0736P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Chip Davis, Chairman, Yavapai County Board of Commissioners, 10 South Sixth Street, Cottonwood, AZ 86326 June 27, 2007 040093 California: Contra Costa (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Pittsburg (06-09-BG10P) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *Contra Costa Times* The Honorable Ben Johnson, Mayor, City of Pittsburg, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565 November 15, 2007 060033 Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Huntington Beach (07-09-1170P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *Huntington Beach Independent* The Honorable Gil Coerper, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 July 30, 2007 065034 Sacramento (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Sacramento County (06-09-BF61P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Daily Recorder* The Honorable Don Nottoli, Chair, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, 700 H Street, Suite 2450, Sacramento, CA 95814 November 22, 2007 060262 Santa Barbara (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County (07-09-0164P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Santa Barbara News-Press* The Honorable Brooks Firestone, Chairman, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 October 25, 2007 060331 Sonoma (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Town of Windsor (07-09-1484X) July 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; *The Press Democrat* The Honorable Steve Allen, Mayor, Town of Windsor, P.O. Box 100, Windsor, CA 95492 October 18, 2007 060761 Colorado: Broomfield (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City and County of Broomfield (07-08-0461P) July 18, 2007; July 25, 2007; *The Broomfield Enterprise* The Honorable Karen Stuart, Mayor, City and County of Broomfield, One DesCombe Drive, Broomfield, CO 80020 June 29, 2007 085073 Georgia: Columbia (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (07-04-1277P) July 18, 2007; July 25, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 October 24, 2007 130059 Columbia (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (07-04-1923P) July 18, 2007; July 25, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, 908 Nerium Trail, Evans, GA 30809 October 24, 2007 130059 Gwinnett (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Gwinnett County (07-04-3457P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *Gwinnett Daily Post* The Honorable Charles Bannister, Chairman, Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, GA 30045 November 22, 2007 130322 Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Chicago (07-05-1665P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Richard M. Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago, 121 North La Salle Street, Room 504, Chicago, Illinois 60602 July 2, 2007 170074 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Des Plaines (07-05-1665P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Anthony Arredia, Mayor, City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 July 2, 2007 170081 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Village of Rosemont (07-05-1665P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Donald Stephens, President, Village of Rosemont, 9501 West Devon Avenue, Rosemont, Illinois 60018 July 2, 2007 170156 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Cook County (07-05-1665P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Todd H. Stroger, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners, 118 North Clark Street, Room 537, Chicago, Illinois 60602 July 2, 2007 170054 De Kalb (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of De Kalb (05-05-2302P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *The Daily Chronicle* The Honorable Frank Van Buer, Mayor, City of De Kalb, 200 South Fourth Street, Room 203, De Kalb, IL 60115 October 25, 2007 170182 Indiana: Allen (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Allen County (07-05-2787P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Journal Gazette* The Honorable Linda K. Bloom, County Administrator, Allen County Board of Commissioners, City-County Building, One East Main Street, Room 200, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 September 27, 2007 180302 Lake (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Town of St. John (06-05-BA28P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Post-Tribune* The Honorable Michael S. Fryzel, President, Town Council, Town of St. John, 10955 West 93rd Avenue, St. John, Indiana 46373 May 29, 2007 180141 Kansas: Johnson (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Overland Park (07-07-0902P) July 26, 2007; August 2, 2007; *Johnson County Sun* The Honorable Carl R. Gerlach, Mayor, City of Overland Park, City Hall, 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, KS 66212 June 29, 2007 200174 Johnson (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Overland Park (07-07-1220P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Johnson County Sun* The Honorable Carl Gerlach, Mayor, City of Overland Park, City Hall, 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, KS 66212 June 25, 2007 200174 Johnson (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Johnson County (07-07-0902P) July 26, 2007; August 2, 2007; *Johnson County Sun* The Honorable Annabeth Surbaugh, Chairman, Johnson County Board of Commissioners, 111 South Cherry Street, Suite 3300, Olathe, KS 66061-3441 June 29, 2007 200159 Kentucky: Oldham (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Crestwood (07-04-1746P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Oldham Era* The Honorable Dennis L. Deibel, Mayor, City of Crestwood, P.O. Box 186, Crestwood, KY 40014 November 22, 2007 210027 Oldham (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Oldham County (07-04-1746P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Oldham Era* The Honorable Duane Murner, Oldham County Judge/Executive, 100 West Jefferson Street, LaGrange, KY 40031 November 22, 2007 210185 Maine: Lincoln (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Town of South Bristol (07-01-0772P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Lincoln County News* The Honorable Kenneth Lincoln, Chairman of Selectmen, Town of South Bristol, 470 Clarks Cove Road, South Bristol, ME 04573 July 31, 2007 230220 Maryland: Frederick (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Frederick County (07-03-0394P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Frederick News-Post* The Honorable John L. Thompson, Jr., Commissioner, County of Frederick, Winchester Hall, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, MD 21701 November 22, 2007 240027 Michigan: Macomb (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Charter Township of Clinton (07-05-2289P) July 20, 2007; July 27, 2007; *Macomb County Legal News* The Honorable Robert J. Cannon, Township Supervisor, Charter Township of Clinton, 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038 July 6, 2007 260121 Oakland (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Rochester Hills (06-05-BQ14P) July 13, 2007; July 20, 2007; *Oakland County Legal News* The Honorable James Rosen, Mayor, City of Rochester Hills, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive, Rochester Hills, MI 48309 June 19, 2007 260471 Minnesota: Marshall (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Warren (07-05-1900P) July 18, 2007; July 25, 2007; *Warren Sheaf* The Honorable Bob Kliner, Mayor, City of Warren, 120 East Bridge Avenue, Warren, MN 56762 June 27, 2007 270274 Marshall (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Marshall County (07-05-1900P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Messenger* The Honorable Sharon Bring, Chairman, Marshall County Board of Commissioners, County Courthouse, 208 East Colvin Avenue, Warren, MN 56762-1693 October 25, 2007 270638 Missouri: Greene (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated areas of Greene County (07-07-0395P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable David Coonrod, Presiding Commissioner, Greene County Board of Commissioners, 933 North Roberson, Springfield, Missouri 65802 September 27, 2007 290782 St. Charles (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Dardenne Prairie (07-07-0177P) August 15, 2007; August 22, 2007; *St. Charles Journal* The Honorable Pam Fogarty, Mayor, City of Dardenne Prairie, 7137 Scotland Drive, Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368 November 21, 2007 290899 St. Charles (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of O'Fallon (07-07-0177P) August 15, 2007; August 22, 2007; *St. Charles Journal* The Honorable Donna Morrow, Mayor, City of O'Fallon, 633 Hawk Run Drive, O'Fallon, MO 63366 November 21, 2007 290316 St. Charles (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of St. Charles County (07-07-0177P) August 15, 2007; August 22, 2007; *St. Charles Journal* The Honorable Steve Ehlmann, County Executive, St. Charles County, 201 North Second Street, St. Charles, MO 63301 November 21, 2007 290315 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Chesterfield (06-07-B058P) July 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, Missouri 63017-0670 August 23, 2007 290896 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Chesterfield (06-07-BA27P) August 2, 2007; August 9, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, Chesterfield City Hall, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017-0760 November 8, 2007 290896 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Maryland Heights (06-07-B058P) July 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable Mike Moeller, Mayor, City of Maryland Heights, 212 Millwell Drive, Maryland Heights, MO 63043 August 23, 2007 290889 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Area of St. Louis County (06-07-B058P) July 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable Charlie A. Dooley, County Executive, St. Louis County, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105 August 23, 2007 290327 New Mexico: Bernalillo (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Albuquerque (07-06-1930P) August 2, 2007; August 9, 2007; *The Albuquerque Journal* The Honorable Martin J. Chavez, Mayor, City of Albuquerque, P.O. Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103 July 24, 2007 350002 Bernalillo (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Bernalillo County (07-06-1930P) August 2, 2007; August 9, 2007; *The Albuquerque Journal* Mr. Thaddeus Lucero, County Manager, Bernalillo County, One Civic Plaza Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102 July 24, 2007 350001 Chaves (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Roswell (06-06-B007P) June 28, 2007; July 5, 2007; *Roswell Daily Record* The Honorable Sam D. LaGrone, Mayor, City of Roswell, P.O. Box 1837, Roswell, New Mexico 88202 October 4, 2007 350006 Chaves (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Chaves County (06-06-B007P) June 28, 2007; July 5, 2007; *Roswell Daily Record* Mr. Stanton Riggs, County Manager, Chaves County, P.O. Box 1817, Roswell, New Mexico 88202 October 4, 2007 350125 Ohio: Butler (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Fairfield (07-05-2018P) June 21, 2007; *Middletown Journal* June 28, 2007; *Journal News* The Honorable Ron D'Epifanio, Mayor, City of Fairfield, 5350 Pleasant Avenue, Fairfield, Ohio 45014 September 27, 2007 390038 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Brookville (07-05-1072P) July 28, 2007; August 4, 2007; *Centerville-Bellbrook Times* The Honorable David E. Seagraves, Mayor, City of Brookville, P.O. Box 10, Brookville, OH 45309 November 5, 2007 390407 Warren (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Mason (07-05-1898P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *The Pulse-Journal* The Honorable Charlene Pelfrey, Mayor, City of Mason, 6000 Mason-Montgomery Road, Mason, Ohio 45040 September 27, 2007 390559 Tennessee: Rutherford (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Murfreesboro (06-04-C283P) April 26, 2007; May 3, 2007; *Daily News Journal* The Honorable Tommy Bragg, Mayor, City of Murfreesboro, 111 West Vine Street, Murfreesboro, TN 37130 August 2, 2007 470168 Texas: Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of McKinney (06-06-BH77P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *McKinney Courier-Gazette* The Honorable Bill Whitfield, Mayor, City of McKinney, 222 North Tennessee, McKinney, TX 75069 August 27, 2007 480135 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Plano (07-06-0841P) July 5, 2007; July 12, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 October 11, 2007 480140 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Wylie (07-06-0948P) July 25, 2007; August 1, 2007; *The Wylie News* The Honorable John Mondy, Mayor, City of Wylie, 2000 State Highway 78 North, Wylie, TX 75098 June 28, 2007 480759 Comal (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Comal County (07-06-0880P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung* The Honorable Danny Scheel, Comal County Judge, 199 Main Plaza, New Braunfels, TX 78130 October 26, 2007 485463 Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Denton (07-06-0913P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Perry McNeill, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 October 25, 2007 480194 Harris (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Houston (06-06-BG37P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Bill White, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 July 30, 2007 480296 Harris (FEMA Docket No: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Harris County (06-06-B328P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 October 30, 2006 480287 Medina (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Medina County (07-06-0574P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Hondo Anvil Herald* The Honorable James E. Barden, Medina County Judge, Medina County Courthouse, 1100 16th Street, Room 101, Hondo, TX 78861 June 29, 2007 480472 Palo Pinto (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Mineral Wells (07-06-0680P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Mineral Wells Index* The Honorable Clarence Holliman, Mayor, City of Mineral Wells, 115 Southwest First Street, Mineral Wells, TX 76068 October 25, 2007 480517 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Fort Worth (07-06-1275P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton St., Fort Worth, TX 76102 November 22, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Keller (07-06-0822P) July 20, 2007; July 27, 2007; *The Southlake Journal* The Honorable Pat McGrail, Mayor, City of Keller, P.O. Box 770, Keller, TX 76244 June 29, 2007 480602 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Southlake (07-06-0822P) July 20, 2007; July 27, 2007; *The Southlake Journal* The Honorable Andy Wambsganss, Mayor, City of Southlake, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX 76092 June 29, 2007 480612 Utah: Salt Lake (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of West Jordan (07-08-0330P) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *Salt Lake Tribune* The Honorable David B. Newton, Mayor, City of West Jordan, 2555 West Carson Lane, West Jordan, UT 84084 July 20, 2007 490108 Wisconsin: La Crosse (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of La Crosse (07-05-2077P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *The La Crosse Tribune* The Honorable Mark Johnsrud, Mayor, City of La Crosse, City Hall, 400 La Crosse Street, La Crosse, WI 54601 June 29, 2007 555562 Racine (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of Racine County (07-05-1468P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *Journal Times* The Honorable William L. McReynolds, Racine County Executive, 730 Wisconsin Avenue, 10th Floor, Racine, WI 53403 June 25, 2007 550347 Virginia: Roanoke (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Roanoke (07-03-0789P) August 16, 2007; August 23, 2007; *The Roanoke Times* The Honorable C. N. Harris, Mayor, City of Roanoke, 215 Church Avenue Southwest, Room 452, Roanoke, VA 24011 September 29, 2007 510130 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-700 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These 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 modified BFEs 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. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This final 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. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 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. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (06-04-BU17P) June 28, 2007; July 5, 2007; *Birmingham News* The Honorable Bettye Collins, President, Jefferson County Commission, Jefferson County, 716 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 December 27, 2006 010217 St. Clair (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) St. Clair County (07-04-1138P) June 28, 2007; July 5, 2007; *St. Clair News-Aegis* The Honorable Stanley D. Batemon, Chairman, St. Clair County Board of Commissioners, 165 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100, Ashville, Alabama 35953 July 24, 2007 010290 Arizona: Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Prescott (07-09-0776P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Rowle Simmons, Mayor, City of Prescott, 201 South Cortez Street, Prescott, Arizona 86303 May 21, 2007 040098 Arkansas: Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Bentonville (06-06-B146P) January 5, 2007; January 12, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Terry Coberly, Mayor, City of Bentonville, City Hall, 117 West Central, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712 December 13, 2006 050012 Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Rogers (06-06-lBJ72P) April 18, 2007; April 25, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Steve Womack, Mayor, City of Rogers, 301 West Chestnut Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756 March 23, 2007 050013 Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Benton County (06-06-B146P) January 5, 2007; January 12, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Gary Black, Benton County Judge, 905 Northwest Eighth Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712 December 13, 2006 050419 Craighead (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Jonesboro (07-06-0299P) June 22, 2007; June 29, 2007; *The Jonesboro Sun* The Honorable Doug Forman, Mayor, City of Jonesboro, 515 West Washington Avenue, Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401 June 25, 2007 050048 Lonoke (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Ward (07-06-1213P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Lonoke Democrat* The Honorable Art Brook, Mayor, City of Ward, P.O. Box 237, Ward, AR 72176 April 30, 2007 050372 California: Riverside (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Corona (07-09-0879P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Eugene Montanez, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882 May 31, 2007 060250 Riverside (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Murrieta (07-09-0801P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *The Californian* The Honorable Douglas R. McAllister, Mayor, City of Murrieta, 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 August 30, 2007 060751 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Vista (07-09-0589P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *San Diego Transcript* The Honorable Morris Vance, Mayor, City of Vista, P.O. Box 1988, Vista, CA 92085 August 30, 2007 060297 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County (07-09-0601P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable Ron Roberts , Chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, California 92101 September 27, 2007 060284 Colorado: El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Colorado Springs (05-08-0638P) January 17, 2007; January 24, 2007; *El Paso County News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 April 18, 2007 080060 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Colorado Springs (06-08-B643P) May 23, 2007; May 30, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 August 29, 2007 080060 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (06-08-B643P) May 23, 2007; May 30, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Dennis Hisey, Chairman, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 August 29, 2007 080059 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of El Paso County (05-08-0638P) January 17, 2007; January 24, 2007; *El Paso County News* The Honorable Sallie Clark, Chairperson, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 April 18, 2007 080059 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Golden (06-08-B552P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Charles J. Baroch, Mayor, City of Golden, 701 Ridge Road, Golden, Colorado 80403 September 20, 2007 080090 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Golden (07-08-0043P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Charles J. Baroch, Mayor, City of Golden, 701 Ridge Road, Golden, Colorado 80403 September 27, 2007 080090 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Lakewood (07-08-0439P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Steve Burkholder, Mayor, City of Lakewood, Lakewood Civic Center, South 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado 80226 September 20, 2007 085075 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County (06-08-B552P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Jim Congrove, Chairman, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80419-5550 September 20, 2007 080087 Delaware: New Castle (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of New Castle County (07-03-0410P) June 15, 2007; June 22, 2007; *Newark Post* The Honorable Chris Coons, County Executive, New Castle County, 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720 May 18, 2007 105085 New Castle (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Unincorporated areas of New Castle County (07-03-0823P) July 13, 2007; July 20, 2007; *Newark Post* The Honorable Chris Coons, New Castle County Executive, 87 Read's Way, New Castle, DE 19720 October 19, 2007 105085 Florida: Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Orlando (05-04-A581P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Orlando Weekly* The Honorable Buddy Dyer, Mayor, City of Orlando, P.O. Box 4990, Orlando, Florida 32802 September 27, 2007 120186 Walton (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Walton County (07-04-2769P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Northwest Florida Daily News* The Honorable Kenneth Pridgen, Chairman, Walton County, Board of Commissioners, 17400 State Highway 83 North, DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 September 27, 2007 120317 Georgia: Bryan (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Richmond Hill (07-04-0419P) May 23, 2007; May 30, 2007; *Bryan County News* The Honorable Richard R. Davis, Mayor, City of Richmond Hill, P.O. Box 250, Richmond Hill, Georgia 31324 August 30, 2007 130018 Whitfield (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Dalton (07-04-3918X) June 1, 2007; June 8, 2007; *Dalton Daily Citizen* The Honorable Raymond A. Elrod, Sr., Mayor, City of Dalton, P.O. Box 1205, Dalton, Georgia 30722 September 20, 2007 130194 Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Village of Elk Grove (07-05-2483P) June 13, 2007; June 25, 2007; *Elk Grove Journal* The Honorable Craig B. Johnson, Mayor, Village of Elk Grove, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove, Illinois 60007 August 30, 2007 170088 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Village of Tinley Park (06-05-C262P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Edward J. Zabrocki, Mayor, Village of Tinley Park, 16250 South Oak Park Avenue, Tinley Park, IL 60477 April 25, 2007 170169 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Unincorporated areas of Cook County (06-05-C262P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Daily Herald* The Honorable Todd H. Stroger, President, Cook County Board of Supervisors, 118 North Clark Street, Room 537, Chicago, IL 60602 April 25, 2007 170054 Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Cook County (07-05-2483P) June 13, 2007; June 25, 2007; *Elk Grove Journal* The Honorable Todd H. Stroger, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners, 118 North Clark Street, Room 537, Chicago, Illinois 60602 August 30, 2007 170054 Kane (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Batavia (06-05-BP93P) May 10, 2007; May 17, 2007; *Kane County Chronicle* The Honorable Jeffery Schielke, Mayor, City of Batavia, 100 North Island Avenue, Batavia, IL 60510 May 16, 2007 170321 Kane (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Unincorporated areas of Kane County (06-05-BP93P) May 10, 2007; May 17, 2007; *Kane County Chronicle* The Honorable Karen McConnaughay, County Board Chairman, Kane County, 719 South Batavia Avenue, Building A, Geneva, IL 60134 May 16, 2007 170896 Lake (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Lake County (07-05-0638P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Lake County News-Sun* The Honorable Suzi Schmidt, Chair, Lake County Board, 18 North County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 June 18, 2007 170357 Lake (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Village of Round Lake Park (07-05-0638P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Lake County News-Sun* The Honorable Jean McCue, Mayor, Village of Round Lake Park, 203 East Lake Shore Drive, Round Lake, Illinois 60073 June 18, 2007 170391 Will (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Lockport (07-05-0135P) April 11, 2007; April 25, 2007; *Homer Glen Sun* The Honorable Tim Murphy, Mayor, City of Lockport, 222 East Ninth Street, Lockport, Illinois 60441 July 18, 2007 170703 Will (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Naperville (07-05-0767P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Naperville Sun* The Honorable A. George Pradel, Mayor, City of Naperville, 400 South Eagle Street, Naperville, Illinois 60540 May 24, 2007 170213 Will (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Will County (07-05-0135P) April 11, 2007; April 25, 2007; *Homer Glen Sun* The Honorable Lawrence M. Walsh, Will County Executive, 302 North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illinois 60432 July 18, 2007 170695 Will (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Will County (07-05-0767P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Naperville Sun* The Honorable Lawrence M. Walsh, Will County Executive, 302 North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illinois 60432 May 24, 2007 170695 Indiana: DeKalb (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Butler (07-05-2078P) May 8, 2007; May 15, 2007; *The Butler Bulletin* The Honorable Floyd Coburn, Mayor, City of Butler, 201 South Broadway, Butler, IN 46706 August 14, 2007 180047 DeKalb (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Unincorporated areas of DeKalb County (07-05-2078P) May 8, 2007; May 15, 2007; *The Butler Bulletin* The Honorable William C. Ort, Chairman, De Kalb County Board of Commissioners, 100 South Main Street, Auburn, IN 46706 August 14, 2007 180044 Maine: Knox (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Rockland (07-01-0484P) July 19, 2007; July 26, 2007; *The Courier-Gazette* The Honorable Brian Harden, Mayor, City of Rockland, 270 Pleasant Street, Rockland, ME 04841 June 25, 2007 230076 York (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Town of Kittery (07-01-0122P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *York County Coast Star* The Honorable Glenn Shwaery, Chair, Kittery Town Council, 200 Rogers Road, Kittery, ME 03904 July 19, 2007 230171 Minnesota: Anoka (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Blaine (07-05-3169P) May 18, 2007; May 25, 2007; *Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life* The Honorable Thomas Ryan, Mayor, City of Blaine, 10801 Town Square Drive Northeast, Blaine, Minnesota 55449-8101 April 24, 2007 270007 Mississippi: Leflore (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Greenwood (06-04-BU48P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Greenwood Commonwealth* The Honorable Sheriel Perkins, Mayor, City of Greenwood, P.O. Box 907, Greenwood, Mississippi 38935-0907 September 27, 2007 280102 Leflore (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Leflore County (06-04-BU48P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Greenwood Commonwealth* The Honorable Robert Moore, Chairman, Leflore County Council, P.O. Box 250, Greenwood, Mississippi 38935 September 27, 2007 280101 Missouri: Phelps (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Rolla (07-07-0005P) June 20, 2007; June 27, 2007; *Rolla Daily News* The Honorable William Jenks III, Mayor, City of Rolla, P.O. Box 979, Rolla, Missouri 65402 September 26, 2007 290285 Nebraska: Saunders (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Ashland (06-07-B193P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *The Ashland Gazette* The Honorable Ronna Wigg, Mayor, City of Ashland, 2304 Silver Street, Ashland, Nebraska 68003 August 30, 2007 310196 Saunders (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Saunders County (06-07-B193P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *The Ashland Gazette* The Honorable Kenneth Kuncl, Chairman, Saunders County Board of Supervisors, 109 North Railway, Prague, Nebraska 68050 August 30, 2007 310195 Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (06-09-BC35P) November 9, 2006; November 16, 2006; *Las Vegas Review-Journal* The Honorable Rory Reid, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89106 October 24, 2006 320003 New York: Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Town of Chester (06-02-B447P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Times Herald-Record* Mr. William J. Tully, Town Supervisor, Town of Chester, 1786 Kings Highway, Chester, New York 10918 November 9, 2007 360870 Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Village of Chester (06-02-B447P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Times Herald-Record* The Honorable Joseph Battiato, Mayor, Village of Chester, 47 Main Street, Chester, New York 10918 November 9, 2007 361541 Ohio: Licking (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Newark (06-05-BP23P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Newark Advocate* The Honorable Bruce Bain, Mayor, City of Newark, 40 West Main Street, Newark, Ohio 43055 September 20, 2007 390335 Stark (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of North Canton (07-05-0382P) May 10, 2007; May 17, 2007; *The Repository* The Honorable David J. Held, Mayor, City of North Canton, 145 North Main Street, North Canton, OH 44720 April 12, 2007 390521 Oklahoma: Cleveland (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Norman (06-06-B933P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *The Norman Transcript* The Honorable Harold Haralson, Mayor, City of Norman, P.O. Box 370, Norman, OK 73070 May 25, 2007 400046 Oklahoma (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Oklahoma City (07-06-0604P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Oklahoman* The Honorable Mick Cornett, Mayor, City of Oklahoma City, 200 North Walker Street, Third Floor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 May 22, 2007 405378 Oregon: Columbia (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of St. Helens (07-10-0169P) June 20, 2007; June 27, 2007; *Scappoose South County Spotlight* The Honorable Randy Peterson, Mayor, City of St. Helens, P.O. Box 278, St. Helens, Oregon 97051 September 26, 2007 410040 Pennsylvania: Blair (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Borough of Tyrone (07-03-0770P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *Altoona Mirror* Mr. George Mason, Borough Manager, Borough of Tyrone, 1100 Logan Avenue, Tyrone, PA 16686 April 30, 2007 420164 Blair (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Township of Snyder (07-03-0770P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *Altoona Mirror* The Honorable Charles Diehl, Chairman, Snyder Township Board of Supervisors, Township Building. R.D. 3, Tyrone, PA 16686 April 30, 2007 421393 Berks (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) Township of Lower Heidelberg (07-03-0867X) July 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; *Readling Eagle* The Honorable R. David Seip, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Lower Heidelberg Township, Township Offices, 720 Brownsville Road, Sinking Spring, PA 19608 October 18, 2007 421077 Chester (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Borough of South Coatesville (07-03-0866X) June 28, 2007; July 5, 2007; *The Daily Local* The Honorable Gregory V. Hines, Council President, Borough of Coatesville, 136 Modena Road, South Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 June 11, 2007 420288 Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (06-02-B001P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *The San Juan Star* The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 82, La Fortaleza, San Juan, PR 00901 August 23, 2007 720000 Puerto Rico (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (07-02-0196P) May 25, 2007; May 31, 2007; *The San Juan Star* The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 82, La Fortaleza, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 July 19, 2007 720000 South Carolina: Anderson (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Anderson County (06-04-C085P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Anderson Independent-Mail* Mr. Joey R. Preston, County Administrator, Anderson County, P.O. Box 8002, Anderson, South Carolina 29622 July 26, 2007 450013 Berkeley (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Berkeley County (06-04-C284P) June 20, 2007; June 27, 2007; *The Berkeley Independent* The Honorable Daniel W. Davis, Supervisor and County Council Chairman, Berkeley County, 1003 Highway 52, Moncks Corner, South Carolina 29461 September 26, 2007 450029 Richland (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Richland County (07-04-3361P) June 15, 2007; June 22, 2007; *The Columbia Star* The Honorable Joseph McEachern, Chairman, Richland County Council, Richland County Administrative Building, 2020 Hampton Street, Second Floor, Columbia, South Carolina 29204 September 21, 2007 450170 Texas: Bandera (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Bandera County (06-06-BJ92P) June 20, 2007; June 27, 2007; *The Bandera Bulletin* The Honorable Richard A. Evans, Bandera County Judge, P.O. Box 877, Bandera, Texas 78003 September 26, 2007 480020 Bastrop (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Elgin (07-06-0779P) May 16, 2007; May 23, 2007; *Elgin Courier* The Honorable Gladys Markert, Mayor, City of Elgin, 310 North Main Street, Elgin, Texas 78621 August 30, 2007 480023 Bexar (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of San Antonio (07-06-0242P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable Phil Hardberger, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 April 30, 2007 480045 Bexar (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of San Antonio (07-06-0434P) July 5, 2007; July 12, 2007; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable Phil Hardberger, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, Texas 78283 October 11, 2007 480045 Bexar (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Shavano Park (06-06-BK20P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable David A. Marne, Mayor, City of Shavano Park, 900 Saddle Tree Court, Shavano Park, Texas 78231 September 27, 2007 480047 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Allen (06-06-B489P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *The Allen American* The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, Texas 75013 July 2, 2007 480131 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Melissa (07-06-0946P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *McKinney Courier-Gazette* The Honorable David Dorman, Mayor, City of Melissa, 901 State Highway 121, Melissa, TX 75454 August 23, 2007 481626 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Plano (07-06-0506P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, P.O. Box 860358, Plano, TX 75086-0358 August 23, 2007 480140 Comal (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Comal County (06-06-BB92P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Herald-Zeitung* The Honorable Danny Scheel, Comal County Judge, 199 Main Plaza, New Braunfels, Texas 78130 May 24, 2007 485463 Cooke (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Gainesville (06-06-BH22P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *Gainesville Daily Register* The Honorable Glenn Loch, Mayor, City of Gainesville, 200 South Rusk Street, Gainesville, TX 76240 August 30, 2007 480154 Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Coppell (06-06-BE95P) June 13, 2007; June 20, 2007; *Coppell Gazette* The Honorable Doug Stover, Mayor, City of Coppell, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas 75019 September 19, 2007 480170 Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Dallas (06-06-BE95P) June 13, 2007; June 20, 2007; *Coppell Gazette* The Honorable Laura Miller, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Room 5/F/N, Dallas, Texas 75201 September 19, 2007 480171 Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Irving (06-06-BE95P) June 13, 2007; June 20, 2007; *Coppell Gazette* The Honorable Herbert A. Gears, Mayor, City of Irving, 825 West Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas 75060 September 19, 2007 480180 Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Lewisville (07-06-0282P) May 16, 2007; May 23, 2007; *Lewisville Leader* The Honorable Gene Carey, Mayor, City of Lewisville, P.O. Box 299002, Lewisville, TX 75029 April 30, 2007 480195 Hood (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Granbury (07-06-0376P) June 20, 2007; June 27, 2007; *Hood County News* The Honorable David Southern, Mayor, City of Granbury, 116 West Bridge Street, Granbury, Texas 76048 September 26, 2007 480357 Jones and Taylor (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Abilene (07-06-1080P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Abilene Reporter-News* The Honorable Norm Archilbald, Mayor, City of Abilene, 717 Byrd Drive, Abilene, Texas 79601 September 27, 2007 485450 McLennan (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Waco (07-06-0187P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Waco Tribune-Herald* The Honorable Virginia Dupuy, Mayor, City of Waco, P.O. Box 2570, Waco, Texas 76702 September 27, 2007 480461 McLennan (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of McLennan County (07-06-0187P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *Waco Tribune-Herald* The Honorable Jim Lewis, McLennan County Judge, McLennan County Courthouse, 501 Washington Avenue, Waco, Texas 76701 September 27, 2007 480456 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7738) City of Benbrook (07-06-1470X) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *Benbrook News* The Honorable Jerry Dittrich, Mayor, City of Benbrook, 911 Winscott Road, Benbrook, TX 76126 August 30, 2007 480586 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Colleyville (07-06-0840P) June 22, 2007; June 29, 2007; *The Colleyville Courier* The Honorable David Kelly, Mayor, City of Colleyville, 100 Main Street, Colleyville, Texas 76034 May 30, 2007 480590 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Fort Worth (07-06-0791P) April 12, 2007; April 19, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 July 12, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Fort Worth (07-06-0825P) May 24, 2007; May 31, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 August 30, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Haslet (07-06-1421P) June 15, 2007; June 22, 2007; *Haslet Harbinger* The Honorable Gary Hulsey, Mayor, City of Haslet, 105 Main Street, Haslet, Texas 76052 May 29, 2007 480600 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Mansfield (07-06-1272P) June 22, 2007; June 29, 2007; *Mansfield News Mirror* The Honorable Mel Neuman, Mayor, City of Mansfield, 1200 East Board Street, Mansfield, Texas 76063 September 28, 2007 480606 Travis (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Unincorporated areas of Travis County (07-06-0283P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Samuel T. Biscoe, Travis County Judge, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767 August 23, 2007 481026 Wichita (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) City of Wichita Falls (07-06-0210P) May 17, 2007; May 24, 2007; *Wichita Falls Times/Record News* The Honorable Lanham Lyne, Mayor, City of Wichita Falls, P.O. Box 1431, Wichita Falls, TX 76307 May 30, 2007 480662 Virginia: Loudoun (FEMA Docket No: B-7722) Town of Leesburg (07-03-0584P) May 16, 2007; May 23, 2007; *Loudoun Times Mirror* The Honorable Kristen C. Umstattd, Mayor, Town of Leesburg, P.O. Box 88, Leesburg, VA 20178 April 27, 2007 510091 Frederick (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Frederick County (06-03-B184P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Winchester Star* Mr. John Riley, Jr., County Administrator, Frederick County, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 September 12, 2007 510063 Frederick (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of Winchester (06-03-B184P) June 14, 2007; June 21, 2007; *Winchester Star* The Honorable Elizabeth Minor, Mayor, City of Winchester, 422 National Avenue, Winchester, Virginia 22601 September 12, 2007 510173 West Virginia: Greenbrier (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) Unincorporated Areas of Greenbrier County (07-03-0022P) April 14, 2007; April 21, 2007; *Mountain Messenger* The Honorable Betty Crookshanks, President, Greenbrier County Commission, 200 North Court Street, Lewisburg, West Virginia 24901 July 30, 2007 540040 Greenbrier (FEMA Docket No: B-7727) City of White Sulphur Springs (07-03-0022P) April 14, 2007; April 21, 2007; *Mountain Messenger* The Honorable Debra Fogus, Mayor, City of White Sulphur Springs, 34 West Main Street, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia 24986 July 30, 2007 540045 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-703 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7754] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These 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 the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim 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. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 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. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Arizona: Mohave City of Kingman (06-09-BH12P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *The Kingman Daily Miner* The Honorable Lester Byram, Mayor, City of Kingman, 310 North Fourth Street, Kingman, AZ 86401 February 7, 2008 040060 California: San Diego Unincorporated areas of San Diego County (07-09-1709P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable Ron Roberts, Chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101 January 17, 2008 060284 Shasta City of Anderson (07-09-1859P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Tri-Valley Post* The Honorable Keith Webster, Mayor, City of Anderson, 1887 Howard Street, Anderson, CA 96007 January 22, 2008 060359 Stanislaus Unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County (08-09-0041X) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Modesto Bee* The Honorable William O'Brien, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 6500, Modesto, CA 95354 October 19, 2007 060384 Ventura City of Simi Valley (07-09-1419P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Ventura County Star* The Honorable Paul Miller, Mayor, City of Simi Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 January 24, 2008 060421 Colorado: El Paso City of Colorado Springs (07-08-0414P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 January 16, 2008 080060 El Paso Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (07-08-0414P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Dennis Hisey, Chairman, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2208 January 16, 2008 080059 Florida: Sarasota Unincorporated areas of Sarasota County (07-04-3837P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Sarasota Herald-Tribune* The Honorable Nora Patterson, Chairman, Sarasota County Board of Commissioners, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, FL 34236 January 17, 2008 125144 St. Johns Unincorporated areas of St. Johns County (07-04-5711P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The St. Augustine Record* The Honorable Ben Rich, Chairman, Saint Johns County Board of Commissioners, 4020 Lewis Speedway, Saint Augustine, FL 32084 September 28, 2007 125147 Georgia: Athens-Clarke Unincorporated areas of Athens-Clarke County (07-04-1274P) October 5, 2007; October 12, 2007; *Athens Banner-Herald* The Honorable Heidi Davison, Mayor, Athens-Clarke County, 235 Wells Drive, Athens, GA 30606 September 14, 2007 130040 Illinois: St. Clair City of Belleville (06-05-C230P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Mark W. Eckert, Mayor, City of Belleville, 101 South Illinois Street, Belleville, IL 62220 January 24, 2008 170618 St. Clair City of O'Fallon (07-05-4876P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Bellenille News-Democrat* The Honorable Gary L. Graham, Mayor, City of O'Fallon, 255 South Lincoln Avenue, O'Fallon, IL 62269 September 28, 2007 170633 St. Clair Unincorporated areas of St. Clair County (06-05-C230P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Mark Kern, Chairman, St. Clair County Board of Supervisors, County Courthouse 10 Public Square, Belleville, IL 62220-1623 January 24, 2008 170616 Will Village of Mokena (07-05-5016P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The Herald News* The Honorable Joseph W. Werner, Village President, Village of Mokena, 11004 Carpenter Street, Mokena, IL 60448 September 21, 2007 170705 Maine: Waldo City of Belfast (07-01-0609P) August 11, 2007; August 16, 2007; *The Republican Journal* Mr. Terrence St. Peter, City Manager, City of Belfast, 131 Church Street, Belfast, ME 04915 July 23, 2007 230129 Maryland: Cecil Unincorporated areas of Cecil County (06-03-B926P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Cecil Whig* The Honorable William C. Manlove, President, Cecil County Board of Commissioners, 107 North Street, Elkton, MD 21921 January 24, 2008 240019 Massachusetts: Berkshire City of Pittsfield (07-01-0973P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Berkshire Eagle* The Honorable James M. Ruberto, Mayor, City of Pittsfield, 70 Allen Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201 January 24, 2008 250037 Suffolk City of Revere (07-01-0489P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *The Revere Journal* The Honorable Thomas G. Ambrosino, Mayor, City of Revere, City Hall, 281 Broadway, Revere, MA 02151 September 20, 2007 250288 Michigan: Oakland Township of West Bloomfield (07-05-3615P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Spinal Column Newsweekly* The Honorable David Flaisher, Supervisor, Township of West Bloomfield, P.O. Box 250130, West Bloomfield, MI 48325-0130 October 2, 2007 260182 Minnesota: Benton City of St. Cloud (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *St. Cloud Times* The Honorable Dave Kleis, Mayor, City of Saint Cloud, 400 Second Street South, Saint Cloud, MN 56301 January 23, 2008 270019 Benton City of Sauk Rapids (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sauk Rapids Herald* The Honorable Mark Campbell, Mayor, City of Sauk Rapids, 914 Arbor Way, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 January 23, 2008 270023 Benton Unincorporated areas of Benton County (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sauk Rapids Herald* The Honorable Dick Soyka, Chairman of Benton County, 531 Dewey Street, P.O. Box 129, Foley, MN 56329 January 23, 2008 270019 Hennepin City of Brooklyn Park (07-05-2478P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Brooklyn Park Sun* The Honorable Steve Lampi, Mayor, City of Brooklyn Park, 1209 88th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55424 October 29, 2007 270152 Hennepin City of Edina (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Edina Sun-Current* The Honorable James Hovland, Mayor, City of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424 September 28, 2007 270160 Hennepin City of Hopkins (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Hopkins Sun-Sailor* The Honorable Eugene Maxwell, Mayor, City of Hopkins, 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 September 28, 2007 270166 Hennepin City of St. Louis Park (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor* The Honorable Jeff Jacobs, Mayor, City of St. Louis Park, 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 300, Edina, MN 55437-2302 September 28, 2007 270184 Missouri: St. Louis City of Chesterfield (06-07-B578P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017-0670 January 17, 2008 290896 St. Louis City of Chesterfield (07-07-1386P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017-0760 September 27, 2007 290896 St. Louis Unincorporated areas of St. Louis County (06-07-B578P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable Charlie A. Dooley; County Executive, St. Louis County, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105 January 17, 2008 290327 Mississippi: DeSoto City of Southaven (07-04-4518P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *DeSoto Times Today* The Honorable Charles G. Davis, Mayor, City of Southaven, 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 October 9, 2007 280331 Montana: Richland City of Sidney (07-08-0006P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sidney Herald* The Honorable Brett Smelser, Mayor, City of Sidney, 115 Second Street Southeast, Sidney, MT 59270 January 23, 2008 300065 Richland Unincorporated areas of Richland County (07-08-0006P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sidney Herald* The Honorable Don Steppler, Chairman, Richland County Board of Commissioners, 201 West Main Street, Sidney, MT 59270 January 23, 2008 300165 Nebraska: Hall City of Grand Island (07-07-0780P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Grand Island Independent* The Honorable Margaret Hornady, Mayor, City of Grand Island, 100 East First Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 September 28, 2007 310103 Lancaster City of Hickman (07-07-1852P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *Lincoln Journal Star* The Honorable Jim Hrouda, Mayor, City of Hickman, P.O. Box 127, Hickman, NE 68372 November 5, 2007 310136 North Carolina: Mecklenburg Town of Huntersville (07-04-0542P) October 15, 2007; October 22, 2007; *The Charlotte Observer* The Honorable Kim Phillips, Mayor, Town of Huntersville, P.O. Box 667, Huntersville, NC 28078 January 21, 2008 370478 Ohio: Lake Village of Perry (07-05-0261P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *The News-Herald* The Honorable Lee Lydic, Mayor, Village of Perry, P.O. Box 100, Perry, OH 44081 October 1, 2007 390320 Oklahoma: Tulsa City of Tulsa (07-06-2371P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Kathy Taylor, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, OK 74103 January 24, 2008 405381 Tulsa Unincorporated areas of Tulsa County (07-06-2371P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Randi Miller, Chair, Tulsa County Board of Supervisors, 500 South Denver Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74103 January 24, 2008 400462 Pennsylvania: Bucks Township of Wrightstown (07-03-1222P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Bucks County Courier Times* The Honorable Chester Pogonowski, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Wrightstown Township, 2203 Second Street Pike, Wrightstown, PA 18940 September 24, 2007 421045 York Township of Dover (07-03-0878P) September 13, 2007; September 20, 2007; *The York Dispatch* The Honorable Shane Patterson, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Dover Township Municipal Building, 2480 West Canal Road, Dover, PA 17315 December 20, 2007 420920 South Carolina: Horry City of Conway (07-04-4404P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Gregory K. Martin, Mayor, City of Conway, P.O. Box 1075, Conway, SC 29528 January 24, 2008 415106 Horry Unincorporated areas of Horry County (07-04-4404P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Liz Gilland, Council Chairman, Horry County, 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 January 24, 2008 415104 Horry Unincorporated areas of Horry County (07-04-5516P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Liz Gilland, Council Chairman, Horry County, 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 January 24, 2008 415104 Texas: Cameron Village of Laguna Vista (08-06-0039P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Brownsville Herald* The Honorable David Privett, Mayor, Village of Laguna Vista, 122 Fernandez Street, Laguna Vista, TX 78578 October 29, 2007 485483 Cameron Unincorporated areas of Cameron County (08-06-0039P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Brownsville Herald* The Honorable Carlos H. Cascos, CPA, Cameron County Judge, 1100 East Monroe Street, Second Floor, Brownsville, TX 78520 October 29, 2007 480101 Collin City of Allen (07-06-1312P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Allen American* The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 January 17, 2008 480131 Collin City of Murphy (07-06-0453P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Wylie News* The Honorable Bret Baldwin, Mayor, City of Murphy, 206 North Murphy Road, Murphy, TX 75094 January 23, 2008 480137 Collin City of Plano (07-06-0947P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 January 17, 2008 480140 Collin City of Plano (07-06-1312P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 January 17, 2008 480140 Hays City of Buda (07-06-1313P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Hays Free Press* The Honorable Bobby Lane, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Buda, 217 Arikara Street, Buda, TX 78610 January 23, 2008 481640 Travis Unincorporated areas of Travis County (07-06-0940P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Samuel T. Biscoe, Travis County Judge, 314 West 11th Street, Suite 520, Austin, TX 78701 January 24, 2008 481026 Virginia: Independent City City of Winchester (07-03-1291P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Winchester Star* The Honorable Elizabeth Minor, Mayor, City of Winchester, 422 National Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601 January 24, 2008 510173 West Virginia: Jefferson Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (07-03-0242P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Journal* The Honorable Frances Morgan, President, Jefferson County Commission, Post Office Box 250, Charles Town, WV 25414 January 24, 2008 540065 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-706 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final 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. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final 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 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. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Larimer County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: B-7734 & D-7818 Dry Creek (North of Canal) Just upstream of the confluence with Larimer and Weld Canal +4993 Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. Approximately 900 feet downstream of Shields Street +5016 Dry Creek (South of Canal) Just upstream of the confluence with the Cache La Poudre River +4916 City of Fort Collins, Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. Approximately 850 feet upstream of Redwood Street +4964 East Vine Diversion Just upstream of the confluence with Dry Creek (South of Canal) +4944 City of Fort Collins, Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. Just downstream of Larimer and Weld Canal +4983 East Vine Diversion—Left Overbank Flow Just upstream of Vine Drive +4944 City of Fort Collins, Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. Approximately 1900 feet upstream of Vine Drive +4948 Larimer and Weld Canal At the confluence with East Vine Diversion +4983 City of Fort Collins, Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. At the upstream diversion from Dry Creek (North of Canal) +4993 Old Dry Creek (Historic Channel) Just downstream of Mulberry Street +4919 Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Dry Creek (South of Canal) +4930 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Fort Collins Maps are available for inspection at Stormwater Utilities Department, 700 Wood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County Maps are available for inspection at 200 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Baker County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7724 Barber Bay Tributary At confluence with South Prong Saint Marys River +85 City of Macclenny. At confluence with South Prong Saint Marys River +85 1100 feet upstream of County Road 228 +124 3000 Feet upstream of County Road 228 +128 South Prong Saint Marys River 6459 feet downstream from the confluence with Barber Bay Tributary +79 Baker County (Unincorporated Areas). 8800 feet upstream from the confluence with South Prong St. Marys River Tributary 8 +100 South Prong Saint Marys River, Tributary 8 At confluence with South Prong Saint Marys River +97 Baker County (Unincorporated Areas). Turkey Creek At confluence with South Prong Saint Marys River +94 Baker County (Unincorporated Areas). 1680 feet upstream of the confluence with Turkey Creek Tributary 2 +111 1250 feet upstream of Barber Road +116 810 feet downstream of Barber Road +117 At confluence with Turkey Creek +95 Baker County (Unincorporated Areas). Tributary 1 8960 feet upstream of State Highway 121 +138 Tributary 1.1 At confluence with Turkey Creek Tributary 1.1 +98 Baker County/Unincorporated Areas). 1190 feet upstream of Woodlawn Road +117 1280 feet upstream of Woodlawn Road +118 1940 feet upstream of Woodlawn Road +119 Tributary 2 At confluence with Turkey Creek +109 City of Macclenny. 3080 feet upstream of the confluence with Turkey Creek Tributary 2.1 +125 3080 feet upstream of the confluence with Turkey Creek Tributary 2.1 +125 145 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 90 +129 At Interstate 10 +129 Tributary 2.1 At confluence with Turkey Creek Tributary 2 +115 City of Macclenny. At Powerline Road +122 At Powerline Road +122 3040 feet upstream of Canal Road +132 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Macclenny Maps are available for inspection at 32 South 5th Street, Macclenny, FL 32063. Baker County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 55 North 3rd Street, Macclenny, FL 32063. Hancock County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7715 Ohio River Daviess County Line +392 City of Hawesville. Breckinridge County Line +407 City of Lewisport Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Hawesville Maps are available for inspection at 385 Main Street, Hawesville, KY 42348. City of Lewisport Maps are available for inspection at 590 Old Mill Road, Lewisport, KY 42351. Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 385 Main Street, Hawesville, KY 42348. Santa Fe County, New Mexico and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7470 Admin Arroyo At the confluence of Admin Arroyo and Rio Tesuque +6291 Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4000 feet upstream of the intersection of Admin Arroyo and Highway 84 +6509 Arroyo Saiz Confluence of Arroyo Saiz and Santa Fe River +7033 City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4600 feet upstream from confluence with Santa Fe River +7171 Arroyo Seco Approximately 2500 feet upstream of the intersection of Highway 399
(106)and Jara Lane +5640 Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Intersection of Arroyo Seco and Highway 84/285 +5723 Batchelor Draw Intersection of Batchelor Draw and Abajo Drive +6622 Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Intersection of Batchelor Draw and Quiet Valley Loop +6693 Pojoaque River Approximately 2300 feet upstream from confluence with Rio Grande +5543 Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Confluence of the Pojoaque River and Pojoaque Creek +5774 Rio Tesuque At the confluence of Rio Tesuque and Pojoaque Creek +5783 Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Downstream face of intersection of Rio Tesuque and Highway 502 +5811 Santa Fe River Approximately 2000 feet downstream from the intersection of Sante Fe River and Paseo Real +6261 City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream from intersection of Santa Fe River and Cerro Gordo Road +7290 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Santa Fe Maps are available for inspection at 200 Lincoln Ave., P.O. Box 909, Santa Fe, NM 87504. Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County Maps are available for inspection at Santa Fe County Courthouse, 102 Grant Ave., Santa Fe, NM 87504. Franklin County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7725 Whims Ditch 950 feet upstream of Little Avenue +704 City of Columbus. Franklin County (Unincorporated Areas). At Frank Road +704 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Bexley Maps are available for inspection at 2242 East Main Street, Bexley, OH 43215. City of Columbus Maps are available for inspection at 757 Carolyn Avenue, Columbus, OH 43224. City of Dublin Maps are available for inspection at 5800 Shier-Rings Road, Dublin, OH 43016. City of Gahanna Maps are available for inspection at 200 Hamilton Road, Gahanna, OH 43230. City of Grandview Heights Maps are available for inspection at 1016 Grandview Avenue, Grandview Heights, OH 43212. City of Grove City Maps are available for inspection at 4035 Broadway, Grove City, OH 43123. City of Hilliard Maps are available for inspection at 3800 Municipal Way, Hilliard, OH 43026. City of Reynoldsburg Maps are available for inspection at 7232 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068. City of Upper Arlington Maps are available for inspection at 3600 Tremont Road, Upper Arlington, OH 43220. City of Westerville Maps are available for inspection at 64 East Walnut Street, Westerville, OH 43081. City of Whitehall Maps are available for inspection at 360 S. Yearling Road, Whitehall, OH 43213. City of Worthington Maps are available for inspection at 374 Highland Avenue, Worthington, OH 43085. Franklin County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 280 East Broad Street, Room 202, Columbus, OH 43215. Village of Brice Maps are available for inspection at 5990 Columbus Street, Brice, OH 43109. Village of Canal Winchester Maps are available for inspection at 36 South High Street, Canal Winchester, OH 43110. Village of Groveport Maps are available for inspection at 655 Blacklick Street, Groveport, OH 43125. Village of Harrisburg Maps are available for inspection at 1100 High Street, Harrisburg, OH 43126. Village of Lithopolis Maps are available for inspection at 33 N. Market Street, Lithopolis, OH 43136. Village of Lockbourne Maps are available for inspection at 99 Williams Street, Lockbourne, OH 43137. Village of Marble Cliff Maps are available for inspection at 1600 Fernwood Avenue, Marble Cliff, OH 43212. Village of New Albany Maps are available for inspection at 99 W. Main Street, New Albany, OH 43054. Village of Obetz Maps are available for inspection at 4175 Alum Creek Drive, Obetz, OH 43207-5140. Village of Riverlea Maps are available for inspection at 229 W. Southington Avenue, Worthington, OH 43085. Village of Urbancrest Maps are available for inspection at 3492 First Avenue, Urbancrest, OH 43123. Village of Valleyview Maps are available for inspection at 432 N. Richardson Avenue, Valleyview, OH 43204. Clackamas County, Oregon, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7725 Lake Oswego Lake Oswego +107 City of Lake Oswego. Oswego Canal At the confluence with Oswego +107 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1500 feet upstream of Childs Road +125 City of Lake Oswego. Richardson Creek At the confluence with Richardson Creek +302 City of Damascus. Anderson RD Tributary 50 feet upstream of SE Sunnyside Road +533 Richardson Creek At the confluence with Richardson Creek +402 City of Damascus. Royer Road Tributary Approximately 2200 feet upstream of confluence with Richardson Creek +448 Richardson Creek At the Confluence with Richardson Creek +164 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas). Keller Road Tributary Approximately 200 feet upstream of SE Keller Road +378 City of Damascus. Richardson Creek At the confluence with Clackamas River +116 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of State Highway 212 +590 City of Damascus. Rock Creek At the confluence with Clackamas River +94 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Damascus. Approximately 100 feet upstream of SE Bohna Park Road +453 City of Happy Valley. Rock Creek 172nd Avenue Tributary At the confluence with Rock Creek +231 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet upstream of SE Big Timber Lane +328 City of Happy Valley. Rock Creek Hemrick Road Tributary At the confluence with Rock Creek +315 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Damascus. Approximately 200 feet upstream of SE Tillstrom Road +407 City of Happy Valley. Rock Creek Highway 224 Tributary At confluence with Rock Creek +94 City of Happy Valley. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Goosehollow Drive +213 City of Damascus. Rock Creek N Golf Course Tributary At the confluence with Rock Creek +302 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of SE 162nd Avenue +381 City of Happy Valley. Rock Creek S Golf Course Tributary At confluence with Rock Creek +293 City of Happy Valley. Approximately 50 feet upstream of SE 162nd Avenue +383 Tualatin River At the confluence with Willamette River +75 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Lake Oswego. Just downstream of R. H. Baldock Freeway +127 City of Rivergrove, City of West Linn. Tualatin River Overflow to Rivergrove Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Childs Road +121 Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Rivergrove. At the intersection of Marlin Avenue and Southeast Dogwood Drive +125 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Damascus Maps are available for inspection at Damascus City Hall, 19920 Highway 212, Damascus, OR 97089. City of Happy Valley Maps are available for inspection at Michael Walter Planning Services Manager, 12915 SE King Road, Happy Valley, OR 97086. City of Lake Oswego Maps are available for inspection at Rob D. Amsberry Surface Water Management, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. City of Rivergrove Maps are available for inspection at Larry Barrett City Manager, 5311 Childs Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035. City of West Linn Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 22500 Salamo Road, West Linn, OR 97068. Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Steve F. Hanschka Floodplain Administrator Sunnybrook Service Center, 9101 SE Sannybrook Boulevard, Clackamas, OR 97015. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-692 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final 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. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final 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 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. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground. Modified Communities affected Jackson County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7724 Big Muddy River Approximately 4,050 ft above South 20th Street +372 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,810 ft above North Cleveland Street +375 Crab Orchard Creek Approximately 100 feet downstream of Helm Road +380 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet South of Dillinger Road +383 Drury Creek Approximately 1,500 feet north of the termination of Church Street +434 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of Giant City Road and Springer Ridge Road +437 Mississippi River Approximately 900 feet downstream of Grand Tower Road extended +370 City of Grand Tower. Approximately 720 feet above 25th Street extended +371 Approximately at Muntz Road Alignment (Mouth of Big Muddy River) Union/Jackson County Boundary +368 Village of Gorham, Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately at Levee Road (Mouth of Degognia Creek) Randolph/Jackson County Boundary +383 North Fork 280 feet east of 8th Street +387 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). 200 feet east of 8th Street +388 North Tributary Approximately at the railroad +402 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately at Town Road (West Road) +402 Pond Creek Approximately at the railroad crossing at the North boundary of Murphysboro +399 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately at Cochran Road +401 South Tributary East of Roosevelt Street (US 51) +394 Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas). At Town Road (West Road) +403 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Grand Tower Maps are available for inspection at 201 Market Street, Grand Tower City Hall, Grand Tower, IL 62942. Jackson County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection 20 South 10th Street, County Assessment Officer, Murphysboro, IL 62966. Village of Gorham Maps are available for inspection at 306 Washington Street, Gorham City Hall, Gorham, IL 62940. Union County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7724 Mississippi River Alexander/Union County Boundary, approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the Mouth of Picayune Chute in Alexander County +354 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5,480 feet above Muddy Levee Road +369 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Union County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 311 West Market Street, Union County Clerk, Jonesboro, IL 62952. Rutherford County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7714 Arrowood Branch At the confluence with McKinney Creek +708 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with McKinney Creek +723 Beaverdam Creek (near State Road 1733) At the confluence with First Broad River +1,035 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Old C C Road (State Road 1731) +1,449 Big Camp Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +862 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 970 feet upstream of Frog Creek Road +984 Big Horse Creek At the confluence with Broad River +697 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of State Line Road (State Road 2105) +749 Big Spring Branch At the confluence with Second Broad River +815 Town of Forest City. Approximately 230 feet downstream of East Trade Street +974 Bills Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek +868 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Shumont Estates Drive +1,206 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Bills Creek +991 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Brookside Parkway +1,243 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bills Creek +1,056 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Bills Creek Road (State Road 1008) +1,239 Bowen Branch At the confluence with Sandy Run +865 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Gene Walker Road (State Road 1763) +875 Box Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +953 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Second Broad River +1,010 Bracketts Creek At the confluence with Floyds Creek +781 Town of Forest City, Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 490 feet upstream of Withrow Road +973 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Bracketts Creek +902 Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of South Church Street +941 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Bracketts Creek +955 Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Oak Street +980 Brier Creek At the confluence with First Broad River +962 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence of Pot Branch +1,120 Broad River At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +680 Village of Chimney Rock, Town of Lake Lure, Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. At the Rutherford/Henderson County boundary +1,411 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Broad River +694 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Island Ford Road +697 Buck Branch (into Second Broad River) At the confluence with Second Broad River +818 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Forest City. Approximately 300 feet downstream of West Trade Street +949 Buck Branch (into West Fork Sandy Run) At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +801 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +820 Buffalo Creek (into Lake Lure) At the confluence with Broad River +998 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 7.0 miles upstream of confluence with the Broad River +2,818 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Buffalo Creek (Lake Lure) +1,192 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of Buffalo Creek Road (State Road 1314) +2,795 Cane Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +855 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary +975 Cane Creek (into Broad River) At the confluence with Broad River +693 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River +694 Cane Creek (into Lake Lure) At the confluence with Broad River +998 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Girl Scout Camp Road (State Road 1186) +1,354 Catheys Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +829 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Thermal City Road (State Road 1321) +1,051 Tributary 16 At the confluence with Catheys Creek +872 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Catheys Creek +878 Cedar Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek +877 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence of Taylor Creek +1,154 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Cedar Creek +1,032 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek +1,151 Charles Creek At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +755 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +755 Cherry Creek At the confluence with Catheys Creek +913 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Railroad +951 Cleghorn Creek At the confluence with Broad River +755 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Reece Street +953 Tributary 10 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +865 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 50 feet downstream of West 3rd Street +910 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +868 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 20 feet downstream of Laurel Drive +1,041 Tributary 12 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +892 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +988 Tributary 13 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +898 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Main Street/U.S. Highway 221 +954 Tributary 7 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +795 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Hugh Street +990 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek +832 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 150 feet downstream of NC Highway 108 +886 Copper Mine Branch At the confluence with Morrow Creek +804 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Forest City. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Fairview Street +953 Cove Creek At the confluence with Broad River +836 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Painters Gap Road (State Road 1328) +1,129 Crawley Branch At the confluence with Big Camp Creek +936 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Camp Creek +947 Dills Creek At the confluence with Broad River +714 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River +716 Duncans Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +914 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Duncans Creek Road (State Road 1749) +987 East Branch Mountain Creek At the confluence with Mountain Creek and West Branch Mountain Creek +823 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 350 feet downstream of Piney Knob Road (State Road 1331) +981 First Broad River Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +931 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Golden Valley Church Road (State Road 1726) +1,110 Floyds Creek At the confluence with Broad River +699 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Sunset Memorial Road (State Road 2179) +941 Frasheur Creek At the confluence with Greasy Creek +1,125 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary +1,152 Goodes Creek At the confluence with Broad River +695 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Island Ford Road +695 Grab Branch At the confluence with Floyds Creek +886 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 90 feet downstream of U.S. 221S Highway +943 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Grab Branch +924 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Burch Hutchins Road (State Road 2171) +944 Grays Creek At the confluence with Broad River +747 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of confluence with Broad River +762 Greasy Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek +1,125 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary +1,153 Grog Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +833 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 74 Bypass +892 Heaveners Creek At the confluence with Roberson Creek +902 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Joe Bostic Road (State Road 1712) +915 Hensons Creek At the confluence with Broad River +720 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 20 feet upstream of County Line Road (State Road 1101) +822 Hills Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +722 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Dobbins Road +825 Hinton Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +979 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Hinton Creek Road (State Road 1753) +1,054 Holland Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +792 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Old Caroleen Road (State Road 1901) +807 At the confluence with Catheys Creek +836 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Ruth, Town of Rutherfordton, Town of Spindale. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 221 +950 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Hollands Creek +909 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Ruth. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Shady Woods Lane +959 Hunting Creek At the confluence with Roberson Creek +875 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Depriest Road (State Road 1713) +1,067 Jarrets Creek At the confluence with Broad River +727 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River +744 Knob Creek (into Broad River) At the confluence with Broad River +816 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of McEntire Road (State Road 1341) +921 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into Broad River) +874 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Pleasant Grove Road (State Road 1345) +1,070 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into Broad River) +862 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of McEntire Road (State Road 1341) +1,006 Little Camp Creek At the confluence with Big Camp Creek +870 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Old Morganton Road (State Road 1513) +926 Maple Creek At the confluence with Mountain Creek +784 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of U.S. 64/74A Highway +903 McKinney Creek At the confluence with Broad River +705 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Ted Smith Road (State Road 1104) +789 Mill Creek (into Catheys Creek) At the confluence with Catheys Creek +957 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Catheys Creek +967 Morrow Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +803 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Pine Street (State Road 1903) +873 Mountain Creek At the confluence with Broad River +758 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. At the confluence with East Branch Mountain Creek and West Branch Mountain Creek +823 Tributary 16 At the confluence with Mountain Creek +816 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Clearwater Parkway +954 Mountain Creek Tributary of Tributary 16 At the confluence with Mountain Creek Tributary 16 +834 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 700 feet downstream of Thompson Road (State Road 1367) +987 North Fork First Broad River At the confluence with First Broad River +1,082 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence of Sally Queen Creek +1,397 Piney Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +895 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 310 feet upstream of the confluence of Piney Creek Tributary 1 +982 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Piney Creek +967 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Bills Creek Road (State Road 1008) +1,328 Piney Knob Creek At the confluence with West Branch Mountain Creek +879 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Elliott Road (State Road 1348) +908 Pool Creek At the confluence with Broad River (Lake Lure) +998 Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Bottomless Pools Drive +1,122 Pot Branch At the confluence with Brier Creek +1,102 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Brier Creek +1,415 Puzzle Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +804 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Bostic. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Piney Mountain Church Road (State Road 1007) +893 Reynolds Creek At the confluence with Hollands Creek +897 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Spindale. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of West Street +1,046 Richardson Creek At the confluence with Broad River +705 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Sulphur Springs Church Road (State Road 1135) +807 Roberson Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +825 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Bostic. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Calton Road (State Road 1745) +1,056 Rosy Branch At the confluence with Taylor Creek +1,962 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Twin Chimneys Road +2,727 Sally Queen Creek At the confluence with North Fork First Broad River +1,292 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the confluence with North Fork First Broad River +1,706 Sandy Run At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +835 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Hopewell Road (State Road 1760) +906 Second Broad River At the confluence with Broad River +680 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County, Town of Forest City. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Box Creek Road (State Road 1500) +990 Tributary 7 At the confluence with Second Broad River +750 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Old Henrietta Road (State Road 2129) +786 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Second Broad River +758 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 40 feet upstream of Chime Lane +799 Somey Creek At the confluence with First Broad River +1,110 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Camp McCall Road (State Road 1749) +1,231 South Creek At the confluence with First Broad River +1,075 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Golden Valley Church Road (State Road 1726) +1,121 Stoney Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +974 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Thermal City Road (State Road 1321) +1,001 Suck Creek (into Broad River) Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of Kirby Road +769 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Kirby Road (State Road 1978) +779 Taylor Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +1,147 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of Rosy Branch +2,009 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Taylor Creek +1,841 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Bison Meadows +2,535 Webbs Branch At the confluence with Second Broad River +805 Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Railroad +907 Webbs Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River +789 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 340 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 74 +833 West Branch Mountain Creek At the confluence with East Branch Mountain Creek and Mountain Creek +823 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Darlington Road (State Road 1351) +884 West Fork Sandy Run At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary +801 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Hollis Road (State Road 1749) +901 Tributary 7 At the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run +825 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run +842 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-695 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 73 11 Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 19 and 144 [USCBP-2007-0080] RIN 1505-AB85 Class 9 Bonded Warehouse Procedures AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the requirements applicable to the operation of Class 9 bonded warehouses, which are also known as “duty-free sales enterprises” or “duty-free stores.” The proposed amendments would extend the blanket withdrawal procedure for Class 9 bonded warehouses to cover vessel supplies under certain circumstances and expand and create a uniform time period for Class 9 proprietors to file an entry, provide written confirmation of certain shortages, overages, and damages, and to pay duties, taxes, and interest on overages and shortages. In addition, the proposed amendments would permit Class 9 warehouses to utilize technological systems more effectively. The proposed changes would facilitate the efficient operation of Class 9 warehouses and also ensure adequate records are maintained for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) trade enforcement purposes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by *one* of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2007-0080. • Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW. (5th Floor), Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Joseph Clark at
(202)572-8768. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rosenthal, Cargo Control Branch, Office of Field Operations,
(202)344-2673. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments. Background Section 1555 of title 19 of the United States Code (19 U.S.C. 1555) sets forth provisions governing the establishment and operation of customs bonded warehouses. Section 1555(b) provides for a type of bonded warehouse, Class 9, also called a “duty-free sales enterprise” or “duty-free store.” As defined in § 1555(b)(8)(D), duty-free sales enterprise means a person that sells, for use outside the customs territory, duty-free merchandise that is delivered from a bonded warehouse to an airport or other exit point for exportation by, or on behalf of, individuals departing from the customs territory of the United States. The regulations implementing § 1555(b), and which govern the operation of duty-free stores, are found within parts 19 and 144 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 19 and 144). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) proposes to amend certain regulations governing the operation of duty-free stores in order to align the regulations with actual business practices and the use of modern technologies. The amendments proposed in this document are intended to facilitate the operation of duty-free stores in a technological environment by streamlining outdated processes and requirements while ensuring adequate records are maintained for audit purposes. In addition, this document proposes non-substantive amendments to §§ 19.6, 19.12, 19.36, and 144.37 of the CFR to reflect the nomenclature changes effected by the transfer of CBP to the Department of Homeland Security. Explanation of Amendments Sections 19.6, 19.12, 19.36, and 144.37 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 19.6, 19.12, 19.36, and 144.37) are proposed to be amended as described below. Some of these provisions involve general rules for all bonded warehouses, but CBP is proposing exceptions to these general procedures for duty-free stores or Class 9 warehouses. Class 9 warehouses are more akin to retail establishments since they cater to the traveling public and undertake many sales transactions in a given day. Therefore, the exceptions to the general procedures proposed in this document are intended to eliminate unnecessary requirements for duty-free stores without changing the requirements applicable to the other classes of bonded warehouses. I. Section 19.6 Deposits, Withdrawals, Blanket Permits To Withdraw and Sealing Requirements Section 19.6 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 19.6) describes the requirements for depositing merchandise into or withdrawing merchandise from a warehouse, including the requirements pertaining to blanket permits to withdraw. Under § 19.6(d), such blanket permits to withdraw are currently permitted only when goods are delivered within the same port from which the goods are withdrawn. Therefore, the regulation does not currently permit blanket permits for withdrawal to be used in situations where vessel supplies are delivered from a warehouse to a cruise ship at a nearby port if that port is different from the warehouse port. Rather, in such cases, approval from both ports is required for withdrawal. This notice proposes to amend § 19.6(d) in order to allow the appropriate Director, Field Operations, to extend the blanket withdrawal procedure for vessel supplies in situations where the Class 9 warehouse and destination port are within that Director's authority. To this end, the new blanket withdrawal procedure for a withdrawal of vessel supplies from a Class 9 warehouse would allow, upon a showing of good cause and with the written approval of the appropriate Director, Field Operations, the transportation in bond of the vessel supplies from the port where the warehouse is located to the port where the vessel is located. This new procedure would permit subject merchandise to be transported in a more timely and efficient manner. II. Section 19.12 Inventory Control and Recordkeeping System Section 19.12 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 19.12) provides for inventory control and recordkeeping systems. This notice proposes to amend § 19.12(d)(3), which sets forth the requirements for the accounting of merchandise in bonded warehouses and for the reporting of inventory theft, shortages, overages, and damages to set forth specific rules for Class 9 warehouses. The regulation currently requires the proprietor to immediately bring to the attention of the port director any theft or suspected theft or overage or any extraordinary shortages or damage, and to provide confirmation in writing within five business days after the shortage, overage, or damage has been so reported. The regulation additionally provides that entries for warehouse must be filed for all overages within five business days of the date of discovery. The applicable duties, taxes, and interest on thefts and shortages so reported must be paid within 20 calendar days following the end of the calendar month in which the shortage was discovered. According to the International Association of Airport Duty Free Stores (“IAADFS”), five business days provides insufficient time for Class 9 proprietors to provide the required written confirmation or to file the appropriate entries for routine overages. Accordingly, in order to provide adequate time to comply with the reporting and filing requirements, this document proposes to modify § 19.12(d)(3) so as to afford the Class 9 proprietor with 20 calendar days to provide the required written confirmation and to require that an entry for warehouse be filed for all overages by the person with the right to make entry within 20 calendar days of the date of discovery. As with the current regulation, applicable duties, taxes, and interest on thefts and shortages so reported will be required to be paid by the Class 9 proprietor within 20 calendar days following the end of the calendar month in which the shortage was discovered. This notice also proposes to amend § 19.12(h)(2), which sets forth the information required for the annual reconciliation report, to set forth special rules for Class 9 warehouses. The regulation currently provides that the report must contain the company name, address of the warehouse, class of warehouse, date of inventory or information on cycle counts, a description of merchandise for each entry or unique identifier, quantity on hand at the beginning of the year, cumulative receipts and transfers (by unit), quantity on hand at the end of the year, and cumulative positive and negative adjustments (by unit) made during the year. Requiring this level of detail on the annual reconciliation report for Class 9 proprietors creates a large volume of paperwork for the operators who are responsible for thousands of open warehouse entries each year. In addition, the current regulation requires that operators approved as integrated locations provide the details of all transactions by location, in effect requiring a separate annual report for each integrated location. Class 9 proprietors are having difficulty complying with the current system because summarizing every transaction for each unit in every entry is burdensome given the volume of transactions and because units transferred under the FIFO (first in, first out) accounting system are not assigned an entry number until they are sold or are otherwise disposed of. Therefore, the information required for the annual reconciliation report for transferred units may not even be available. Accordingly, this notice proposes to amend § 19.12(h)(2) to provide for a reduced reporting requirement for Class 9 proprietors in cases where the proprietor successfully demonstrates, by application to the appropriate CBP port director, that shortages will be reported within 20 calendar days of discovery. If such application is approved by the port director, the Class 9 proprietor would be permitted to submit a report that sets forth the company name; address of the warehouse; class of warehouse; dates when physical inventories and cycle counts occur; dates when resulting shortages and overages are reported to CBP; and a listing of all entries open at the beginning of the year, added during the year, and closed during the year. In such cases, it is believed that this level of information would both address the above-referenced reporting concerns and ensure that CBP is provided with the information required for enforcement purposes. III. Section 19.36 Requirements for Duty-Free Store Operations Section 19.36 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 19.36) sets forth the requirements for duty-free store operations, including guidance on the type of merchandise permitted in the bonded sales or crib area of a Class 9 warehouse. Under § 19.36(e), domestic merchandise and merchandise previously entered or withdrawn for consumption may be brought into the bonded sales or crib area of a Class 9 warehouse for display or sale, and in the case of a crib, for delivery to purchasers only if the merchandise is identified or marked “DUTY-PAID” or “U.S.-ORIGIN”, or similar markings, such that CBP officers can easily distinguish conditionally duty-free merchandise from other merchandise in the sales or crib area. CBP notes, however, that modern technology permits duty-free store proprietors to electronically scan and read merchandise bar codes that contain detailed product information. Therefore, this notice proposes to amend § 19.36(e) so as to provide an alternative to marking merchandise for those proprietors of Class 9 warehouses who maintain an electronic system capable of immediately identifying “DUTY- PAID” or “U.S.-ORIGIN” merchandise. In addition, it is proposed to eliminate the requirement that conditionally duty-free merchandise be physically separated from other merchandise in the sales or crib area for those Class 9 warehouse proprietors who can immediately identify the duty status of goods through an electronic system. IV. Section 144.37 Withdrawal for Exportation Section 144.37of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 144.37) sets forth the procedures for withdrawing merchandise from a warehouse for exportation. Paragraph
(h)of this section pertains to Class 9 warehouses. Under § 144.37(h)(2), a sales ticket, in triplicate, must be made out in the name of the purchaser with at least one copy to be retained by the proprietor. However, current technology permits a sales ticket to be reprinted as often as needed and enables duty-free store proprietors to match bags of purchased merchandise with departing customers. In addition, it is noted that the requirement that sales tickets be produced in triplicate is no longer necessary for verification or audit purposes if the proprietor utilizes current technology. Thus, the triplicate paper procedure has been rendered costly, wasteful, and inefficient. Therefore, this notice proposes to amend § 144.37(h)(2) in order to remove the “in triplicate” requirement and to allow the proprietor's copy to be maintained electronically, provided the port director is satisfied that the proprietor has the technological capability to immediately print the sales ticket upon the request of a CBP officer. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not considered to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735, October 1993). Accordingly, a regulatory assessment is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act CBP has prepared this section to examine the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”, *See* 5 U.S.C. 601-612). A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). According to the IAADFS, there are approximately 25 companies with duty-free operations in the United States and approximately 15 of them would be considered small businesses. As described elsewhere in this preamble, this rule is expected to result in enhanced efficiency and should lead to uniform operations at customs bonded warehouses. Thus, while the number of small entities affected would be considered substantial, the economic impacts, while important and beneficial, would not rise to the level of a “significant economic impact.” CBP thus certifies that the proposed amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP welcomes comments on this certification. Comments regarding impacts to small entities may be submitted by any of the methods described under the ADDRESSES section of this document. Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information in this document are contained in §§ 19.6, 19.12, 19.36, and 144.37. This information is required and will be used by CBP to ensure that merchandise that was intended for exportation from duty-free stores was accounted for and was exported in accordance with law. This notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to facilitate the operation of duty-free stores in a technological environment by streamlining outdated paper accounting processes and requirements with electronic equivalents while ensuring that adequate records are maintained for audit purposes. The likely respondents are Class 9 proprietors. Although this notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to facilitate the efficient operation of Class 9 warehouses, the resulting paperwork implications are expected to be minor. As the burden hours associated with the collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking are not substantively changed, the Office of Management and Budget has already approved the collections of information in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control numbers 1651-0003 for bonded warehouse proprietor's submissions and 1651-0041 concerning the establishment of bonded warehouses and other bonded warehouse regulations. Signing Authority This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions. List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 19 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Warehouses. 19 CFR Part 144 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Warehouses. Proposed Amendments to the CBP Regulations It is proposed to amend parts 19 and 144 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 19 and 144) as set forth below. PART 19—CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES, CONTAINER STATIONS, AND CONTROL OF MERCHANDISE THEREIN 1. The general authority citation and specific authority citations for part 19 continue to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624; Section 19.6 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1555; Sections 19.35-19.39 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1555; 2. In § 19.6: a. In paragraph (a)(1), the first sentence is amended by removing the word “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; the second and last sentences are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and adding the word “will” in its place; and the fourth sentence is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “must”. b. Paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(4), and (d)(5) are amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. c. Paragraph (b)(2) is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. d. Paragraph
(c)is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “will”. e. Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) is amended by removing the term “Customs territory” and, in its place, adding the term “customs territory”. f. In paragraph (d)(2), the first and second sentences are amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP” and by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “must”; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “must”; and the last sentence of the paragraph is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “will” and by removing the phrase “without Customs permit” and, in its place, adding the phrase “without a CBP permit”. g. Paragraph (d)(3) is amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. h. In paragraph (e), the first sentence is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; the second sentence is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the term “will” and by removing the word “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and the last sentence of the paragraph is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “must”. i. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 19.6 Deposits, withdrawals, blanket permits to withdraw and sealing requirements.
(d)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)Blanket permits to withdraw may be used only for delivery at the port where withdrawn and not for transportation in bond to another port, except blanket permits to withdraw may be used for a withdrawal for transportation to another port by a duty-free sales enterprise which meets the requirements for exemption as stated in § 144.34(c) of this chapter or for a withdrawal from a Class 9 warehouse for transportation in bond to another port for vessel supplies when expressly authorized in writing by the appropriate Director, Field Operations, provided that both the Class 9 warehouse and port of destination are under that Director's authority. Blanket permits to withdraw may not be used for delivery to a location for retention or splitting of shipments under the provisions of § 18.24 of this chapter. A withdrawer who desires a blanket permit must state on the warehouse entry, or on the warehouse entry/entry summary when used as an entry, that “Some or all of the merchandise will be withdrawn under blanket permit per § 19.6(d), CBP Regulations.” CBP's acceptance of the entry will constitute approval of the blanket permit. A copy of the entry will be delivered to the proprietor, whereupon merchandise may be withdrawn under the terms of the blanket permit. The permit may be revoked by the port director in favor of individual applications and permits if the permit is found to be used for other purposes, or if necessary to protect the revenue or properly enforce any law or regulation CBP is charged with administering. Merchandise covered by an entry for which a blanket permit was issued may be withdrawn for purposes other than those specified in this paragraph if a withdrawal is properly filed as required in subpart D, part 144, of this chapter. 3. In § 19.12: a. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and the word “shall” is removed and the word “must” is added in its place. b. Paragraphs (a)(3), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iii), (f)(2), (h)(1), and (h)(3) are amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. c. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. d. Paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), and
(e)are amended by removing the term “Customs entry” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “customs entry”. e. Paragraphs (f)(5), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(8), (f)(9), and
(i)are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. f. Paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(5), and (f)(1) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”; and by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. g. In paragraph (g), the word “Customs” is removed each place it appears and, in its place, the term “CBP” is added; in the first sentence, “(CF)” is removed; the term “CF 300” is removed each place it appears and, in its place, the term “CBP Form 300” is added; and the word “shall” is removed and, in its place, the word “must” is added. h. In paragraph (j), the term “(CF 300)” is removed and, in its place, the term “(CBP Form 300)” is added. i. Paragraphs (d)(3) and (h)(2) are revised to read as follows: § 19.12 Inventory control and recordkeeping system.
(d)* * *
(3)*Theft, shortage, overage or damage* — *(i) General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, any theft or suspected theft or overage or any extraordinary shortage or damage (equal to one percent or more of the value of the merchandise in an entry or covered by a unique identifier; or if the missing merchandise is subject to duties and taxes in excess of $100) must be immediately brought to the attention of the port director, and confirmed in writing within five business days after the shortage, overage, or damage has been brought to the attention of the port director. An entry for warehouse must be filed for all overages by the person with the right to make entry within five business days of the date of discovery. The responsible party must pay the applicable duties, taxes and interest on thefts and shortages reported to CBP within 20 calendar days following the end of the calendar month in which the shortage is discovered. The port director may allow the consolidation of duties and taxes applicable to multiple shortages into one payment; however, the amount applicable to each warehouse entry is to be listed on the submission and must specify the applicable duty, tax and interest. These same requirements apply when cumulative thefts, shortages or overages under a specific entry or unique identifier total one percent or more of the value of the merchandise or if the duties and taxes owed exceed $100. Upon identification, the proprietor must record all shortages and overages in its inventory control and recordkeeping system, whether or not they are required to be reported to the port director at the time. The proprietor must also record all shortages and overages as required in the CBP Form 300 or annual reconciliation report under paragraphs
(g)or
(h)of this section, as appropriate. Duties and taxes applicable to any non-extraordinary shortage or damage and not required to be paid earlier must be reported and submitted to the port director no later than the date the certification of preparation of CBP Form 300 is due or at the time the certification of preparation of the annual reconciliation report is due, as prescribed in paragraphs
(g)or
(h)of this section. *(ii) Class 9 warehouses.* With respect to Class 9 warehouses, any theft or suspected theft or overage or any extraordinary shortage or damage (equal to one percent or more of the merchandise in an entry or covered by a unique identifier; or if the missing merchandise is subject to duties and taxes in excess of $100) must be immediately brought to the attention of the port director, and confirmed in writing within 20 calendar days after the shortage, overage, or damage has been brought to the attention of the port director. An entry for warehouse must be filed for all overages by the person with the right to make entry within 20 calendar days of the date of discovery. The responsible party must pay the applicable duties, taxes and interest on thefts and shortages reported to CBP within 20 calendar days following the end of the calendar month in which the shortage is discovered. The port director may allow the consolidation of duties and taxes applicable to multiple shortages into one payment; however, the amount applicable to each warehouse entry is to be listed on the submission and must specify the applicable duty, tax and interest. These same requirements apply when cumulative thefts, shortages or overages under a specific entry or unique identifier total one percent or more of the value of the merchandise or if the duties and taxes owed exceed $100. Upon identification, the proprietor must record all shortages and overages in its inventory control and recordkeeping system, whether or not they are required to be reported to the port director at the time. The proprietor must also record all shortages and overages as required in the CBP Form 300 or annual reconciliation report under paragraphs
(g)or
(h)of this section, as appropriate. Duties and taxes applicable to any non-extraordinary shortage or damage and not required to be paid earlier must be reported and submitted to the port director no later than the date the certification of preparation of CBP Form 300 is due or at the time the certification of preparation of the annual reconciliation report is due, as prescribed in paragraphs
(g)or
(h)of this section. Discrepancies found in a Class 9 warehouse with integrated locations as set forth in § 19.35(c) will be the net discrepancies for a unique identifier (see § 19.4(b)(8)(ii) of this part) such that overages within one sales location will be offset against shortages in another location that is within the integrated location. A Class 9 proprietor who transfers merchandise between facilities in different ports without being required to file a rewarehouse entry in accordance with § 144.34 of this chapter may offset overages and shortages within the same unique identifier for merchandise located in stores in different ports (see § 19.4(b)(8)(ii) of this part).
(h)* * *
(2)*Information required—*
(i)*General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section, the report must contain the company name; address of the warehouse; class of warehouse; date of inventory or information on cycle counts; a description of merchandise for each entry or unique identifier, quantity on hand at the beginning of the year, cumulative receipts and transfers (by unit), quantity on hand at the end of the year, and cumulative positive and negative adjustments (by unit) made during the year.
(ii)*Class 9 warehouses* . If the proprietor of a Class 9 warehouse successfully demonstrates, by application to the appropriate port director, that shortages will be reported within 20 calendar days of discovery, the port director may approve the submission of a report that contains the company name; address of the warehouse; class of warehouse; date of inventory or information on cycle counts; date when resulting shortages and overages are reported to CBP; a description of merchandise for each entry or unique identifier; and a listing of all entries open at the beginning of the year, added during the year, and closed during the year.
(iii)*Multiple facilities* . If the proprietor of a Class 2 or Class 9 warehouse has merchandise covered by one warehouse entry, but stored in multiple warehouse facilities as provided for under § 144.34 of this chapter, the reconciliation report must cover all locations and warehouses of the proprietor at the same port. If the annual reconciliation includes entries for which merchandise was transferred to a warehouse without filing a rewarehouse entry, as allowed under § 144.34, the annual reconciliation must contain sufficient detail to show all required information by location where the merchandise is stored. For example, if merchandise covered by a single entry is stored in warehouses located in 3 different ports, the annual reconciliation should specify individually the beginning and ending inventory balances, cumulative receipts, transfers, and positive and negative adjustments for each location. 4. In § 19.36: a. Paragraphs
(a)and
(f)are amended by removing the term “Customs territory” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “customs territory”. b. In paragraph (b), the first sentence is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “must” and by removing the term “Customs territory” and, in its place, adding the term “customs territory”; the third sentence is amended by removing the term “shall” and, in its place, adding the term “will” and by removing the two references to “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and the fourth sentence is amended by removing the reference to “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. c. In paragraph (c), the first and fourth sentences are amended by removing the term “shall” each place it appears and adding the term “must” in its place; and the fifth sentence is amended by removing the term “shall” and, in its place, adding the term “will” and by removing the two references to “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. d. Paragraph
(g)is amended by removing the term “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “must”; and by removing the term “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. e. Paragraph
(e)is revised to read as follows: § 19.36 Requirements for duty-free store operations.
(e)*Merchandise eligible for warehousing—(1) General* . Only conditionally duty-free merchandise may be placed in a bonded storage area of a Class 9 warehouse. However, domestic merchandise and merchandise which was previously entered or withdrawn for consumption, may be brought into the bonded sales or crib area of a Class 9 warehouse for display and sale, and in the case of a crib, for delivery to purchasers. *(2) Marking requirement* . Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, merchandise must either be identified or marked “DUTY-PAID” or “U.S.-ORIGIN”, or similar markings, as applicable, to enable CBP officers to easily distinguish conditionally duty- free merchandise from other merchandise in the sales or crib area. *(3) Exception to marking requirement* . If the proprietor has an electronic inventory system capable of immediately identifying other merchandise from conditionally duty-free merchandise, the proprietor need not separate domestic merchandise and merchandise which was previously entered or withdrawn for consumption from conditionally duty-free merchandise or mark the merchandise. PART 144—WAREHOUSE AND REWAREHOUSE ENTRIES AND WITHDRAWALS 5. The general authority citation and specific authority citation for part 144 continue to read as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1557, 1559, 1624. Section 144.37 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1555, 1562. 6. In § 144.37: a. Paragraph
(a)is amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”; and by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”. b. Paragraphs (b)(1), (f), and (h)(3) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. c. In paragraph (b)(2), the first sentence is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “must” and by removing the reference to “Customs” and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; the second and third sentences are amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “will”; and the last sentence is amended by removing the word “shall” and, in its place, adding the word “must”. d. Paragraph
(d)is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the term “CBP”; and by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and, in its place, adding the word “must”. e. Paragraphs (h)(2) introductory text and (h)(2)(vi) are revised to read as follows: § 144.37 Withdrawal for exportation.
(h)* * *
(2)*Sales ticket content and handling* . Sales ticket withdrawals must be made only under a blanket permit to withdrawal (see § 19.6(d) of this chapter) and the sales ticket will serve as the equivalent of the supplementary withdrawal. A sales ticket is an invoice of the proprietor's design which will include:
(vi)A statement on the original copy (purchaser's copy) to the effect that goods purchased in a duty-free store will be subject to duty and/or tax with personal exemption if returned to the United States. At the time of purchase, the original sales ticket must be made out in the name of the purchaser and given to the purchaser. One copy of the sales ticket must be retained by the proprietor. This copy may be maintained electronically provided the port director is satisfied that the proprietor has the ability to print the sales ticket upon the request of a CBP officer. A permit file copy will be attached to the parcel containing the purchased articles unless the proprietor has established and maintained an effective method to match the parcel containing the purchased articles with the purchaser. Additional copies may be retained by the proprietor. W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: January 10, 2008. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. E8-522 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 314, 601, and 814 [Docket No. 2008N-0021] Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is proposing to amend its regulations regarding changes to an approved new drug application (NDA), biologics license application (BLA), or medical device premarket approval application
(PMA)to codify the agency's longstanding view on when a change to the labeling of an approved drug, biologic, or medical device may be made in advance of the agency's review of such change. FDA is proposing to reaffirm its longstanding position that a supplemental application submitted under those provisions is appropriate to amend the labeling for an approved product only to reflect newly acquired information, as well as to clarify that such a supplemental application may be used to add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction only if there is sufficient evidence of a causal association with the drug, biologic, or device. The amendments proposed by this document are intended to reflect the agency's existing practices with respect to supplemental applications submitted to FDA. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the amendments proposed by this document by March 17, 2008. See section VIII of this document for the proposed effective date of any final rule that may publish based on this proposal. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2007M-0468 and/or RIN number __ (if a RIN number has been assigned), by any of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions* Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. *Written Submissions* Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under *Electronic Submissions* . *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)(if a RIN number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Mettler, Office of Policy (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3360, FAX: 301-594-6777, e-mail: *erik.mettler@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Proposed Amendments FDA is proposing to amend its regulations regarding changes to an approved NDA, BLA, or PMA to codify the agency's longstanding view on when a change to the labeling of an approved drug, biologic, or medical device may be made in advance of the agency's review and approval of such change. With respect to drugs, FDA's current regulation, 21 CFR 314.70(c)(6)(iii), provides that certain labeling changes related to an approved drug may be implemented upon receipt by the agency of a supplemental new drug application
(sNDA)that includes the change. 1 The corresponding regulation for biologics, 21 CFR 601.12(f)(2), provides that products with certain labeling changes may be distributed before FDA approval. Similarly, with respect to devices, 21 CFR 814.39(d) provides that certain labeling changes may be placed into effect upon submission of a PMA supplement, but prior to the sponsor's receipt of a written FDA order approving the supplement. The supplements described by §§ 314.70(c), 601.12(f)(2), and 814.39(d) are commonly referred to as “changes being effected supplements” or “CBE supplements.” 2 FDA is proposing to amend these provisions to reaffirm that a CBE supplement is appropriate to amend the labeling for an approved product only to reflect newly acquired information and to clarify that a CBE supplement may be used to add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction only if there is sufficient evidence of a causal association with the drug, biologic, or medical device. 1 CBE changes are not available for generic drugs approved under an abbreviated new drug application under 21 U.S.C. 355(j). To the contrary, a generic drug manufacturer is required to conform to the approved labeling for the listed drug. *See* 21 CFR 314.150(b)(10); *see also* 57 FR 17950, 17953, and 17961. 2 For devices, such supplements are also referred to as Special PMA Supplements. For convenience, this document will use the term CBE supplement. FDA is the expert public health agency charged by Congress with ensuring that drugs, biologics, and medical devices are safe and effective, and ensuring that the labeling for approved products appropriately informs users of the risks and benefits of the product. Accordingly, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) requires new drugs, biologics, and certain Class III medical devices to be approved by FDA prior to their distribution in interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. 505(a); 42 U.S.C. 262(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. 360e(a). Under these provisions, FDA's review and prior approval of both the product and its proposed labeling is a necessary condition of lawful distribution of the product in interstate commerce. The CBE supplement procedures set forth in §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii), 601.12(f)(2), and 814.39(d) must be understood in light of these statutory requirements. Allowing sponsors to unilaterally amend the labeling for approved products without limitation—even if done to add new warnings—would undermine the FDA approval process required by Congress. Indeed, permitting a sponsor to unilaterally rewrite the labeling for a product following FDA's approval of a product and its labeling would disrupt FDA's careful balancing of how the risks and benefits of the product should be communicated. Accordingly, FDA has issued regulations providing that, prior to a sponsor making most labeling changes, it must submit a supplemental application fully explaining the basis for the change and obtain the prior approval by FDA of the supplemental application. See §§ 314.70(b), 601.12(f)(1), 814.39(a)(2). The CBE supplement procedures are narrow exceptions to this general rule. Although CBE supplements permit sponsors to implement labeling changes before FDA approval of the change, FDA views a CBE supplement as a mechanism primarily designed to provide information to FDA so that the agency can decide when safety information should be included in the labeling for a product. As with prior approval supplements, FDA will carefully review any labeling change proposed in a CBE supplement, as well as the underlying information or data supporting the change. FDA has the authority to accept, reject, or request modifications to the proposed changes as the agency deems appropriate, and has the authority to bring an enforcement action if the added information makes the labeling false or misleading. See 21 U.S.C. 352(a). For these reasons, as a practical matter, FDA encourages sponsors to consult with FDA prior to adding safety-related information to the labeling for an approved product even when such a change is submitted in a CBE supplement, and sponsors typically do so. The ultimate authority over drug, biologic, and medical device labeling, therefore, continues to rest with FDA. The history of the CBE procedure supports this narrow understanding of these provisions. The CBE procedure can be traced to a 1965 policy that was based on FDA's enforcement discretion. In 1965, the agency stated that “certain kinds of changes in the labeling and manufacturing of new drugs, proposed in supplemental new drug applications, should be placed into effect at the earliest possible time.” (30 FR 993, January 30, 1965). FDA announced, therefore, that agency would “take no action” if a sponsor implemented certain labeling changes “prior to his receipt of a written notice of approval of the supplemental new-drug application,” assuming certain conditions were satisfied. (30 FR 993 at 994.) FDA proposed what is essentially the current CBE procedure in 1982. When proposed, the agency made clear that CBE supplements were intended to apply only if the sponsor became aware of newly discovered safety information that was appropriate for inclusion in the labeling for the product. Indeed, in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CBE provision for drugs, the agency stated: “[S]ome information, although still the subject of a supplement, would no longer require agency preclearance. These supplements would describe changes placed into effect to correct concerns about *newly discovered* risks from the use of the drug.” (47 FR 46622, 46623, October 19, 1982) (emphasis added). In that preamble, the agency also emphasized that the CBE procedure was a limited exception to the general requirement of prior FDA approval for a labeling change: Although most changes in labeling would require the applicant to submit a supplement and obtain FDA approval before making a change, the following changes in labeling, which would make available important *new information* about the safe use of a drug product, could be made if the applicant submits a supplement when the change is made: Changes that add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or statement about an adverse reaction, drug abuse, dependence, or overdosage, or any other instruction about dosage and administration that is intended to improve the safe use of the product. (47 FR 46622 at 46635) (emphasis added). Similarly, in the preamble to the final rule, FDA again emphasized that CBE supplements were intended as a narrow exception to the general rule that labeling changes require FDA's prior approval: Drug labeling serves as the standard under which FDA determines whether a product is safe and effective. Substantive changes in labeling * * * are more likely than other changes to affect the agency's previous conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of the drug. Thus, they are appropriately approved by FDA in advance, unless they relate to important safety information, like a new contraindication or warning, that should be immediately conveyed to the user. (50 FR 7452-01, 7470, February 22, 1985). Recent changes to the act made by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), Public Law 110-85, 121 Stat. 823 (September 27, 2007) confirm that Congress intends FDA to carefully regulate the content of labeling for approved products. Among other provisions, FDAAA provided new authority to FDA to initiate labeling changes for approved drugs and biologics. Under the act as amended, “[i]f the Secretary becomes aware of new safety information that the Secretary believes should be included in the labeling of the drug,” the agency may trigger a process to rapidly amend the labeling for the product (21 U.S.C. 355(o)(4)(A)). The FDAAA provisions were intended to ensure that FDA-initiated labeling changes would be made quickly in order to respond to new or emerging information about an approved drug or biologic. These provisions provide streamlined authority for FDA to respond to new and emerging safety information. 3 FDA believes that its understanding of §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii) and 601.12(f)(2) as reflected in this document is consistent with this enhanced authority for FDA to control the labeling for drugs and biologics. 3 As FDA has stated, Federal law governs not only what information must appear in labeling, but also what information may not appear. (71 FR 3922 at 3935, January 24, 2006) (“FDA interprets the act to establish both a ‘floor’ and a ‘ceiling,’ such that additional disclosures of risk information can expose a manufacturer to liability under the act if the additional statement is unsubstantiated or otherwise false or misleading.”) In the device context, FDA has previously stated that a CBE supplement constitutes “a narrow exception to the general rule that prior FDA approval of changes to a PMA, including the labeling for a device, is a condition of lawful distribution.” See Draft Guidance: Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Approval (PMA)—The PMA Supplement Decision-Making Process (March 9, 2007) ( *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/1584.pdf* ). “Allowing a manufacturer to add a safety-related warning using a [CBE supplement] based on information that was known to the FDA during the rigorous PMA review process would undermine that important process.” Id. For this reason, a CBE supplement may only be utilized where “the manufacturer has newly acquired safety-related information.” Id. Moreover, “any such change should be considered temporary while FDA reviews the supplement, including the basis for * * * how the change enhances the safety of the device or the safety in the use of the device.” Id. For these reasons, FDA believes it necessary to amend its regulations to make explicit the agency's understanding that a sponsor may utilize the limited CBE provisions only to reflect *newly acquired* safety information. FDA intends to consider information “newly acquired” if it consists of data, analyses, or other information not previously submitted to the agency, or submitted within a reasonable time period prior to the CBE supplement, that provides novel information about the product, such as a risk that is different in type or severity than previously known risks about the product. For example, if a postmarket study demonstrates that an approved product has a more severe risk of a significant adverse reaction than previously known, a CBE supplement may be appropriate. However, if a postmarket study provides data about a product that is cumulative of information previously submitted to FDA, a CBE supplement would not be appropriate. Similarly, if a sponsor receives reports of adverse events of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA, such information may be considered newly acquired information that could form the basis for an appropriate CBE supplement. However, if the reports of adverse events are consistent in type, severity, and frequency with information previously provided to FDA, such reports may not constitute newly acquired information appropriate for a CBE supplement. FDA also intends to consider significant new analyses of previously submitted data (e.g., meta-analyses) that provide novel information about the product to constitute newly acquired information. FDA invites comments regarding the circumstances when information regarding a safety issue associated with a drug, biologic, or medical device should be considered newly acquired and thus appropriate to be included in a CBE supplement. Moreover, FDA proposes to clarify that a CBE supplement may be used only to implement labeling changes regarding contraindications, 4 warnings, precautions, or adverse reactions in circumstances when there is sufficient evidence of a causal association with the drug, biologic, or medical device. 4 For drugs and biologics subject to the labeling requirements codified at § 201.57 (21 CFR 201.57), see also § 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56), generally contraindications cannot be substantively amended by a CBE supplement. Because all contraindications must be described in Highlights, 21 CFR 201.57(a)(9), and because Highlights cannot be amended by a CBE supplement, §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii), 601.12(f)(2), adding or substantively amending a contraindication requires a prior approval supplement, unless FDA requests that the change be made under § 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(E) or § 601.12(f)(2)(E) or the sponsor submits, and FDA approves, a waiver request under § 314.90. FDA's regulations regarding the content and format of labeling for prescription drugs and biologics are codified in §§ 201.57 and 201.80 (21 CFR part 201). 5 Section 201.57(c) provides criteria for when safety information is appropriate for inclusion in the labeling for an approved drug or biologic. With respect to warnings and precautions, a sponsor is obligated to update labeling for an approved product to include “a warning about a *clinically significant* hazard as soon as there is *reasonable evidence of a causal association* with a drug”, even though a causal relationship “need not have been definitely established.” (§ 201.57(c)(6) (emphasis added)). With respect to adverse reactions, the rule requires the listing of adverse reactions that are “ *reasonably associated* with use of a drug” (§ 201.57(c)(7) (emphasis added)). The rule provides that not all adverse events observed during use of a drug are eligible for inclusion in labeling, but rather “only those adverse events for which there is *some basis to believe there is a causal relationship* between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.” Id. (emphasis added), c.f. § 314.80(e) (sponsor need not submit a 15-day alert report for an adverse drug experience obtained from a postmarketing study “unless the applicant concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that the drug caused the adverse experience”). Similarly, with respect to contraindications, § 201.57 provides that labeling should include situations in which the drug should not be used because the risk of use clearly outweighs any possible therapeutic benefit. The rule directs that sponsors list only “[k]nown hazards and not theoretical possibilities” as contraindications (§ 201.57(c)(5); see also 71 FR 3922 at 3927) (“FDA believes that including relative or hypothetical hazards [as contraindications] diminishes the usefulness of this section.”). 5 Section 201.57 is applicable to recently approved drugs and biologics and certain other products (see also § 201.56) (describing implementation schedule). Older products generally are subject to the labeling requirements set forth in § 201.80. Section 201.80 sets forth similar, although not identical, criteria for the inclusion of safety-related information in the labeling for products subject to that provision. Because § 201.57 represents the agency's most recent consideration of this topic, (see 71 FR 3922), FDA proposes that, if a sponsor intends to utilize the limited CBE procedure set forth in § 314.70(c)(6)(iii) or § 601.12(f), it must possess information regarding causation sufficient to satisfy the criteria set forth in § 201.57(c), regardless of whether the drug or biologic is subject to the labeling requirements of § 201.57 or § 201.80. FDA invites comments on this topic. Medical devices subject to PMA approval follow similar labeling standards. For example, in 1991 FDA published a memorandum describing the agency's approach to device labeling. See Device Labeling Guidance, General Program Memorandum G91-1 (March 8, 1991) ( *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/g91-1.htm* ). In that guidance, the agency stated that the labeling for a medical device should include a warning “if there is *reasonable evidence of an association* of a serious hazard with the use of the device,” even though a causal relationship “need not have been proved.” Id. at section V (emphasis added). With respect to adverse reactions, the agency advised that labeling should include a listing of adverse reactions that are “ *reasonably associated* with use of a device.” Id. at section VI (emphasis added). With respect to contraindications, the guidance recommended that labeling include situations in which the device should not be used because the risk of use clearly outweighs any possible benefit. Labeling should include only “[k]nown hazards and not theoretical possibilities.” Id. at section V. For example, if a hypersensitivity to an ingredient in a device has not been demonstrated, it should not be listed as a contraindication in the labeling. Id. Accordingly, FDA proposes that in order to utilize the limited CBE exception, there should be, at minimum, reasonable evidence of a causal association between the device and the warning, precaution, adverse event, or contraindication sought to be added. Explicitly requiring that CBE supplements are utilized in a manner proposed by this amendment ensures that only scientifically justified information is provided in the labeling for an approved product. Exaggeration of risk, or inclusion of speculative or hypothetical risks, could discourage appropriate use of a beneficial drug, biologic, or medical device or decrease the usefulness and accessibility of important information by diluting or obscuring it. As FDA has stated, labeling that includes theoretical hazards not well-grounded in scientific evidence can cause meaningful risk information to lose its significance. See, e.g., “Write it Right: Recommendations for Developing User Instruction Manuals for Medical Devices Used in Home Health Care” (August 1993) ( *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsma/897.pdf* ) (“Overwarning has the effect of not warning at all. The reader stops paying attention to excess warnings.”) For this reason, sponsors should seek to utilize §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(A), 601(f)(2)(A), and 814.39(d)(2)(i) only in situations when there is sufficient evidence of a causal association between the drug, biologic, or medical device and the information sought to be added. For example, Draft Guidance, Public Availability of Labeling Changes in “Changes Being Effected Supplements” (September 2006) ( *http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/7113dft.htm* ) (“FDA would not allow a change to labeling to add a warning in the absence of reasonable evidence of an association between the product and an adverse event.”); *Colacicco* v. *Apotex Inc.* , No. 06-3107, Br. of United States (3d Cir. filed December 4, 2006) (stating that § 314.70(c)(6)(iii) “does not alter the requirement that any warning must be based on 'reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug.'” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, FDA is proposing to amend §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(A), 601.12(f)(2)(A), and 814.39(d)(2)(i) to make explicit the agency's view that CBE supplements may be used to strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction only when there is sufficient evidence of a causal association. These proposed amendments to FDA's CBE regulations are consistent with the agency's role in protecting the public health. Before approving an NDA, BLA, or PMA, the FDA undertakes a detailed review of the proposed labeling, allowing only information for which there is scientific basis to be included in the FDA-approved labeling. Under the act, the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and FDA regulations, the agency makes approval decisions, including the approval of supplemental applications, based on a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the product's risks and benefits under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. See, *e.g.* , 21 U.S.C. 355(d); 42 U.S.C. 262; 21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(2). FDA's comprehensive review is embodied in the labeling for the product which reflects thorough FDA review of the pertinent scientific evidence and communicates to health care practitioners the agency's formal, authoritative conclusions regarding the conditions under which the product can be used safely and effectively. FDA's approval of an application is expressly conditioned upon the applicant incorporating the specified labeling changes exactly as directed. For example, §§ 314.105(b), 814.44(d)(1). Moreover, after approval, FDA continuously works to evaluate the latest available scientific information to monitor the safety of products and to incorporate information into the product's labeling when appropriate. Allowing a sponsor, without prior FDA approval, to add information to the labeling for a product based solely on data previously submitted to the FDA would undermine FDA's approval process and could result in unnecessary or confusing information being placed in the labeling for a drug, biologic, or medical device. For these reasons, FDA is proposing to amend its regulations to make explicit the agency's longstanding position and practice regarding CBE supplements. FDA does not consider this amendment to be a substantive change, and it would not alter the agency's existing practices with respect to accepting or rejecting labeling changes proposed by a CBE supplement. II. Legal Authority This rule, if finalized, would amend §§ 314.70, 601.12, and 814.39 in a manner consistent with the agency's current understanding and application of those provisions. FDA's legal authority to modify §§ 314.70, 601.12, and 814.39 arises from the same authority under which FDA initially issued these regulations. Both the act and the PHS Act provide FDA with authority over the labeling for approved drugs, biologics, and medical devices, and authorizes the agency to enact regulations to facilitate FDA's review and approval of applications regarding the labeling for such products. Section 502 of the act (21 U.S.C. 352) provides that a drug, biologic, 6 or medical device will be considered misbranded if, among other things, the labeling for the product is false or misleading in any particular (21 U.S.C. 352(a)). Under section 502(f) of the act, a product is misbranded unless its labeling bears adequate directions for use, including adequate warnings against, among other things, unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application. Moreover, under section 502(j) of the act, a product is misbranded if it is dangerous to health when used in the manner prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling. 6 Although the language of section 502 of the act refers only to drugs and devices, it is also applicable to biologics. (See 42 U.S.C. 262(j)). In addition to the misbranding provisions, the premarket approval provisions of the act authorize FDA to require that product labeling provide adequate information to permit safe and effective use of the product. Under section 505 of the act (21 U.S.C. 355), FDA will approve an NDA only if the drug is shown to be both safe and effective for its intended use under the conditions set forth in the drug's labeling. Similarly, under section 515(d)(2) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(2)), FDA must assess whether to approve a PMA according to the “conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling” of the device. Section 701(a) of the act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) authorizes FDA to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the act. Section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262) provides additional legal authority for the agency to regulate the labeling of biological products. Licenses for biological products are to be issued only upon a showing that the biological product is safe, pure, and potent (42 U.S.C. 262(a)). Section 351(b) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(b)) prohibits any person from falsely labeling any package or container of a biological product. FDA's regulations in part 201 apply to all prescription drug products, including biological products. III. Analysis of Impacts FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 as amended, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed amendments to existing regulations are intended only to clarify the agency's interpretation of current policy, the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $127 million, using the most current
(2006)Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. The objective of the proposed rule is to make explicit the agency's longstanding view of when a change to the labeling of an approved drug, biologic, or medical device may be made in advance of the agency's review of the change. More specifically, the purpose of the proposed rule is to codify the agency's understanding that a CBE supplement is appropriate to amend the labeling for an approved product only to reflect newly acquired information, and to clarify that a CBE supplement may be used to add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction only if there is sufficient evidence of a causal association with the approved product. FDA does not consider this to be a substantive policy change, and it does not alter the agency's current practices with respect to accepting or rejecting labeling changes proposed by a CBE supplement. Because the proposed rule does not establish any new regulatory or record keeping requirements, the agency does not expect that there will be any associated compliance costs. The proposed rule simply codifies the agency's longstanding interpretation of when sponsors are allowed to add information regarding the risks associated with a product to the labeling without prior approval from FDA. It is expected that the proposed codifications would promote more effective and safe use of approved products. The agency believes that any potential impacts of the proposed rule would be minimal because this action does not represent a substantive policy change. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This proposed rule refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in: 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0001 (expires May 31, 2008); 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0338 (expires June 30, 2010); and 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0231 (expires November 30, 2010). Therefore, FDA tentatively concludes that the proposed requirements in this document are not subject to review by OMB because they do not constitute a “new collection of information” under the PRA. V. Environmental Impact The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.31(a) and 25.34(e) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. VI. Federalism The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the Executive order requires agencies to “construe * * * a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.” Under the principles of implied conflict preemption, courts have found state law preempted where it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law or where the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” See *English* v. *General Electric Co.* , 496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990); *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc.* , 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963); *Hines* v. *Davidowitz* , 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). If finalized as proposed, this rule codifies longstanding agency policy and understanding with respect to §§ 314.70(c)(6)(iii), 601.12(f) and 814.39(d). To the extent that state law would require a sponsor to add information to the labeling for an approved drug or biologic without advance FDA approval based on information or data as to risks that are similar in type or severity to those previously submitted to the FDA, or based on information or data that does not provide sufficient evidence of a causal association with the product, such a state requirement would conflict with federal law. In such a situation, it would be impossible to market a product in compliance with both federal and state law, and the state law would “stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” *Hines* , 312 U.S. at 67. Moreover, such a state law requirement relating to a medical device would constitute a requirement that is different from, or in addition to, a federal requirement applicable to the device, and which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device. 21 U.S.C. 360k(a). FDA believes that the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would be consistent with Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of the Executive order provides that when adjudication or rulemaking could have a preemptive effect on state law, “the agency shall provide all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.” By publication of this proposed rule, FDA invites comments from State and local officials. FDA also intends to provide separate notice of this proposed rule to the States. VII. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or three paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document and may be accompanied by a supporting memorandum or brief. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that in January 2008, the FDA Web site is expected to transition to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. After the transition date, electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only. When the exact date of the transition to FDMS is known, FDA will publish a **Federal Register** notice announcing that date. VIII. Proposed Effective Date FDA is proposing that any final rule that may issue based on this proposal be effective on the date of its publication in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 314 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 601 Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Confidential business information. 21 CFR Part 814 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Medical devices, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR parts 314, 601, and 814 be amended as follows: PART 314—APPLICATIONS FOR FDA APPROVAL TO MARKET A NEW DRUG 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 314 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 356a, 356b, 356c, 371, 374, 379e. 2. Section 314.3 is amended in paragraph
(b)by alphabetically adding the definition for “newly acquired information” to read as follows: § 314.3 Definitions.
(b)* * * *Newly acquired information* means data, analyses, or other information not previously submitted to the agency, which may include (but are not limited to) data derived from new clinical studies, reports of adverse events of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA, or new analyses of previously submitted data (e.g., meta-analyses). 3. Section 314.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) introductory text and (c)(6)(iii)(A) to read as follows: § 314.70 Supplements and other changes to an approved application.
(c)* * *
(6)* * *
(iii)Changes in the labeling to reflect newly acquired information, except for changes to the information required in § 201.57(a) of this chapter (which must be made under paragraph (b)(2)(v)(C) of this section), to accomplish any of the following:
(A)To add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction for which the evidence of a causal association satisfies the standard for inclusion in the labeling under 201.57(c) of this chapter; PART 601—LICENSING 4. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 601 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C 1451-1561; 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356b, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 371, 374, 379e, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 263, 264; sec 122 Pub. L. 105-115, 111 Stat. 2322 (21 U.S.C. 355 note). 5. Section 601.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) introductory text and (f)(2)(i)(A), and by adding paragraph (f)(6) to read as follows: § 601.12 Changes to an approved application.
(f)* * *
(2)*Labeling changes requiring supplement submission—product with a labeling change that may be distributed before FDA approval* .
(i)An applicant shall submit, at the time such change is made, a supplement for any change in the package insert, package label, or container label to reflect newly acquired information, except for changes to the package insert required in § 201.57(a) of this chapter (which must be made under paragraph (f)(1) of this section), to accomplish any of the following:
(A)To add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction for which the evidence of a causal association satisfies the standard for inclusion in the labeling under § 201.57(c) of this chapter;
(5)For purposes of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, information will be considered newly acquired if it consists of data, analyses, or other information not previously submitted to the agency, which may include (but are not limited to) data derived from new clinical studies, reports of adverse events of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA, or new analyses of previously submitted data ( *e.g.* , meta-analyses). PART 814—PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES 6. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 814 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 353, 360, 360c-360j, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 379, 379e, 381. 7. Section 814.3 is amended by adding paragraph
(o)to read as follows: § 814.3 Definitions.
(o)*Newly acquired information* means data, analyses, or other information not previously submitted to the agency, which may include (but are not limited to) data derived from new clinical studies, reports of adverse events of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA, or new analyses of previously submitted data ( *e.g.* , meta-analyses). 8. Section 814.39 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) introductory text and (d)(2)(i) to read as follows: § 814.39 PMA supplements. (d)(1) After FDA approves a PMA, any change described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section to reflect newly acquired information that enhances the safety of the device or the safety in the use of the device may be placed into effect by the applicant prior to the receipt under § 814.17 of a written FDA order approving the PMA supplement provided that:
(2)* * *
(i)Labeling changes that add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or information about an adverse reaction for which there is reasonable evidence of a causal association. Dated: December 4, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-702 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 704, 720, 721, and 723 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392; FRL-8131-8] RIN 2070-AJ21 Proposed Clarification for Chemical Identification Describing Activated Phosphors for TSCA Inventory Purposes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed clarification. SUMMARY: This document proposes a clarification under which activated phosphors that are not on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)section 8(b) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) would be considered to be new chemical substances under TSCA section 5, thus would be subject to the notification requirements under TSCA section 5(a) new chemical notification requirements. In certain letters and other interpretations issued by EPA from 1978 to 2003, it appears that the Agency erroneously indicated that activated phosphors constitute solid mixtures for purposes of the TSCA Inventory, and thus that they were not separately reportable as chemical substances under TSCA section 5(a) new chemical notification requirements. This proposed clarification is necessary because EPA’s interpretations in this area have not been consistent. Given this past inconsistency, EPA is seeking comment on its proposed clarfication. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : David Schutz, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-9262; e-mail address: *schutz.david@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be affected by this action if you are, or may in the future be, a manufacturer or importer of an activated phosphor that requires submission of a premanufacture notification
(PMN)or exemption request under TSCA section 5. Special procedures would apply to persons who manufactured these chemicals after the publication of the Initial TSCA Inventory and before a date 12 months following the publication of a final chemical identification clarification document in the **Federal Register** . Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical manufacturers or importers (NAICS codes 325, 3251), e.g., anyone who manufactures or imports, or who plans to manufacture or import, an activated phosphor for a non-exempt commercial purpose. • Electric Lighting Equipment Manufacturing, Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing (NAICS codes 3351, 33511), e.g., anyone who manufactures or imports, or who plans to manufacture or import, lighting equipment containing an activated phosphor for a non-exempt commercial purpose. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? This action proposes a clarification in the approach used for the chemical identification of activated (doped) phosphors for purposes of listing on the TSCA Inventory. A doped or activated phosphor is a substance resulting from the chemical combination of a mixture of metal oxides, carbonates, phosphates or acid phosphates, chlorides, and/or fluorides, most frequently by sintering, along with a small amount of one or more dopants. Dopants can include such chemical substances as antimony, europium, gallium, germanium, magnesium, manganese, strontium, or yttrium. When this material is electrically excited, it emits light. The color and electrical efficiency of light emission is a function of the parent phosphor and of the dopant which is present. EPA is required under TSCA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. 2607(b), to compile and keep current an inventory of chemical substances manufactured, imported, or processed for commercial purposes in the United States. This inventory is known as the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (TSCA Inventory). In 1977, EPA promulgated a rule published in the **Federal Register** issue of December 23, 1977 (42 FR 64572) under TSCA section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 2607(a), to compile an inventory of chemical substances in commerce at that time. In 1983, and building on several earlier interim policies, EPA promulgated a rule published in the **Federal Register** issue of May 13, 1983 (48 FR 21722) under TSCA section 5, 15 U.S.C. 2604, to keep the TSCA Inventory up-to-date through a procedure for the submission, receipt, and health and safety review of PMNs covering chemical substances not yet in commerce from their intending manufacturers and importers. Manufacturing, importing, or processing of a new chemical is illegal prior to the expiration of the PMN review period. Once EPA receives a PMN, the Agency has 90 days to review the notice (unless for good cause EPA extends the review period). During the review period, EPA may act under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to regulate the new chemical substance. If EPA has not prohibited manufacture or import of the chemical substance during the review period, these activities may begin subject to any restrictions or testing requirements imposed upon the submitter during the review period (these restrictions may be imposed upon others via a Significant New Use Rule
(SNUR)and subsequent action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) taken in follow-up to a significant new use notification (SNUN)). When manufacture or import begins, the notice submitter must provide a notice of commencement, after which EPA adds the chemical substance to the TSCA Inventory. If the Agency receives a PMN submission for a chemical substance which EPA determines is excluded from consideration as a chemical substance under TSCA (generally because it meets the criteria for one of the excepted categories at TSCA section 3(2)(B), which include mixtures, pesticides, tobacco, food, drugs, etc.) it will not accept the PMN. A similar practice was followed as well during the period 1978-1979, when the EPA was accepting submissions for the Initial TSCA Inventory, and during 1979-1983, prior to promulgation of the May 13, 1983 PMN rule. Partly as a result of the Agency’s incomplete information and understanding of the chemistry involved in manufacturing activated phosphors, from 1978 through 2003 EPA has been inconsistent in its interpretation to potential submitters and in its actions regarding whether activated phosphors are considered distinct chemical substances for purposes of the TSCA Inventory. During the period 1978-1979, when EPA received submissions for the Initial TSCA Inventory, it accepted a number of doped phosphors for listing, but in other cases it sent “problem letters” to the manufacturers of doped phosphors indicating that they were mixtures. In October 1979, the Agency wrote to a lighting manufacturer and stated that such listings could be “unnecessary” and that their continued inclusion on the TSCA Inventory would be “closely examined.” In January 1980, a lighting manufacturer wrote to the Agency to challenge problem letters it had received. The manufacturer stated that the materials it manufactured should be excluded from mixture status because they had characteristic crystal structures and that volatile reaction products given off during their manufacture showed that chemical synthesis was occurring. In March 1982, the Agency wrote to a lighting manufacturer and suggested that activated phosphors could be regarded either as physically altered chlorophosphates or as mixtures, thus not subject to PMN. In August 1983, the Agency wrote to the lighting manufacturer which had challenged the problem letters and informed it that the materials had, in fact, been placed on the TSCA Inventory, and in addition that a PMN was appropriate for another activated phosphor but that “low levels” of an activator would not require separate PMN. In January 1993, a lighting manufacturer submitted a Low Volume Exemption
(LVE)Application for an activated phosphor with a letter referencing much of the history as described in this unit and asserting that, based on Agency positions, no submission should be necessary, but the Agency did accept the application and granted the LVE. After that LVE was granted, the manufacturer submitted a letter making the case that activated phosphors should, in fact, be considered to be mixtures and requesting that the Agency issue a clarifying statement. In response, the Agency met with the manufacturer on the issue and indicated that activated phosphors should be considered chemical substances instead of mixtures, but did not issue a written clarification. In 1995, EPA issued the publication entitled *Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Representation for Products Containing Two or More Substances: Formulated and Statutory Mixtures* ( *Formulated and Statutory Mixtures* ), available at *http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/mixtures.txt* ), which interpreted the mixture definition given at 40 CFR 710.3(d) and 720.3(u): *Mixture* means any combination of two or more chemical substances if the combination does not occur in nature and is not, in whole or in part, the result of a chemical reaction; except “mixture” does include
(1)any combination which occurs, in whole or in part, as a result of a chemical reaction if the combination could have been manufactured for commercial purposes without a chemical reaction at the time the chemical substances comprising the combination were combined, and if all of the chemical substances comprising the combination are not new chemical substances, and
(2)hydrates of a chemical substance or hydrated ions formed by association of a chemical substance with water, so long as the nonhydrated form is itself not a new chemical substance. *Formulated and Statutory Mixtures* discusses common examples of mixtures, including paints, blended fuels, and solvent combinations. “Mixture” can include, as well, solid solutions—homogeneous crystalline phases composed of several distinct chemical species. Alloys are solid solutions, and are considered mixtures. For the purposes of TSCA, multi-component blends or formulations of chemical substances, or certain reaction product combinations which can be completely characterized as consistently formed sets of their constituent chemical substances, are considered to be mixtures of chemical substances. Mixtures are not reportable, although their constituent chemical substances are. Most important in the context of this clarification, a mixture can often provide its function over some range of constituent ratios, consequently it is unusual if the ratios of chemical substances which comprise a mixture are necessarily definite or stoichiometric, and if the mixture components are deliberately reacted together to manufacture a chemical substance, this reaction product cannot be considered a mixture for TSCA purposes except in very specialized circumstances which are not present in the case of the activated phosphors. In June 1998, a lighting manufacturer wrote to the Agency and stated that, in the absence of any negative response by the Agency within 60 days of the letter, it intended to rely on the interpretation in *Formulated and Statutory Mixtures* , and that it believed that that interpretation precluded TSCA Inventory listing for activated phosphors. The Agency did not respond to that letter. Based on a 2003 request from a lighting manufacturer, and cognizant of the history described in this unit, EPA held a meeting with the manufacturer in September 2003 and as a result has reexamined some earlier assumptions—particularly about non-stoichiometry and non-reaction between chemical substances used to make activated phosphors—which may have led it to believe that activated phosphors could be considered mixtures. The result of this reexamination is this clarification that individual activated phosphors should be considered to be distinct chemical substances under TSCA. EPA’s clarification on the potential need to report activated phosphor materials is based on its updated understanding about reactions and stoichiometry in activated phosphors, as follows: Activated phosphors are in general synthesized by means of a solid state reaction at high temperature and using precise quantities of the precursor chemical substances, both for the base materials and for the dopants which control the quality of light emitted. Precise ratios of component materials are used to maintain strict stoichiometry in the end product, and component materials are thoroughly blended before reaction for uniformity of the product. Heat may be absorbed or released by the reactant mixture at certain temperatures, typically by the release of water: This is generally an indication of chemical substance synthesis. During the manufacture of activated phosphors, other volatile reaction products are often emitted, another indication that chemical substances are being formed. The phosphor and the amount of dopant added need to be controlled with high precision, and during sintering the doped phosphor undergoes oxidation state changes. Consequently, EPA believes that activated phosphors cannot be manufactured for commercial purposes without chemical reaction. Additionally, activated phosphor products have a different function from the material which would be produced by the same synthetic process in the absence of dopant, and which would not emit the characteristic light, which is the primary property sought. Because dopants provide the primary property sought from these materials, small or even trace amounts of dopant must be considered to be reactants which must be included in the chemical identity. These factors preclude these materials from being considered as “mixtures.” B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical substance (i.e., a chemical substance not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA at least 90 days in advance and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemical substances for non-exempt commercial purposes. Section 8(b) of TSCA requires EPA to compile, keep current, and publish a list of each chemical substance which is manufactured or processed in the United States (the TSCA Inventory). This requirement includes defining the scope of the listings on the TSCA Inventory. C. Why is this Proposed Chemical Identity Clarification Necessary? Because activated phosphors are precluded by the factors identified in the last paragraph of Unit II.A. from being considered to be formulated or statutory mixtures, some previous EPA interpretations that such materials need not be reviewed through the new chemicals process were incorrect. As a result of certain past EPA interpretations, some manufacturers of activated phosphors have not submitted new chemical notifications under TSCA section 5 because those interpretations incorrectly indicated that activated phosphors were covered for TSCA purposes if the substances used in their manufacture were already on the TSCA Inventory. Other manufacturers have submitted notices for these materials, and they have been given TSCA Inventory listings in some cases. Several industry representatives have asked EPA to clarify the Agency's chemical identity policy for activated phosphors. EPA now agrees that it is necessary to add listings to the TSCA Inventory for activated phosphors which have been manufactured but not listed, and that it is possible that some existing listings should be altered to describe certain metal components as dopants. This document proposes a clarification to previous interpretations on chemical identity for activated phosphors. With this proposed clarification, activated phosphors that are not on the TSCA Inventory would be considered new chemical substances under TSCA section 5. Because some of the interpretations provided by the agency prior to 2003 led some manufacturers to believe that the products they manufactured were already on the TSCA Inventory if their precursor substances were on the TSCA Inventory, some manufacturers of activated phosphor products have not submitted PMNs required under TSCA section 5. This chemical identification problem is similar to one involving monomer acid and its derivatives, which was resolved through Agency-industry dialog and a period for submission of new notices (Correction to Chemical Nomenclature for Monomer Acid and Derivatives for TSCA Inventory Purpose published in the **Federal Register** issue of June 27, 2001 (66 FR 34193) (FRL-6784-6). The Agency is proposing to address this activated phosphor situation in a similar manner. III. Proposed TSCA New Chemicals Program Policy for Activated Phosphor Chemical Identity EPA is proposing that the portion of EPA's earlier interpretations indicating that activated phosphors are mixtures rather than chemical substances in their own right was erroneous, and that TSCA Inventory listing would be required for these materials. Under this proposal, PMNs would be required for activated phosphors not on the TSCA Inventory (and for which a TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption has not been granted) and which are manufactured on or after the effective date of the final clarification. In accordance with TSCA Inventory correction guidelines published in the **Federal Register** issue of July 29, 1980 (45 FR 50544), activated phosphors that were never reported for the Initial TSCA Inventory are not eligible for TSCA Inventory correction as an alternative to PMN submission. A. What is the Basis for and Scope of this Proposed Chemical Identification Clarification? EPA no longer considers to be valid the chemical identity interpretation that activated phosphors are mixtures rather than chemical substances in their own right. Thus listing on the TSCA Inventory established at TSCA section 8(b) is required for these chemical substances. The proposed chemical identity clarification would affect anyone who manufactures or imports, or who plans to manufacture or import, an activated phosphor not now listed on the TSCA Inventory. B. What Are the Key Dates and Provisions of this Proposed Chemical Identification Clarification? The effective date for this proposed new chemical identity clarification, described in Unit II.B. would be 12 months following the date of publication of the final chemical identification clarification document in the **Federal Register** . Prior to this effective date, companies would be allowed to continue commercial production of non-TSCA Inventory listed activated phosphors under the old, incorrect chemical identity interpretation. After the effective date, any manufacturer making non-TSCA Inventory listed activated phosphors for non-exempt commercial purposes would no longer be in compliance with TSCA section 5. Therefore, companies would need to submit PMNs or exemption applications at least 90 days before the effective date to ensure that Agency review is completed before this chemical identification clarification takes effect. Continued commercial production prior to expiration of the applicable review period would be allowed if it were during the year following the date of publication of the final chemical identification clarification document in the **Federal Register** and applies only to activated phosphor materials already being made. EPA will work closely with chemical manufacturers and importers to resolve chemical identity issues for any specific material for which the manufacturer believes the incorrect activated phosphor interpretations may still have applicability. To facilitate the PMN process for activated phosphors currently using the incorrect chemical identification, EPA would allow an exception to its TSCA new chemicals program policy of a limit of six chemical substances per consolidation notice for these chemical substances. However, consistent with the Agency's chemical identification requirements for consolidated notices, submitters must use the Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS)Inventory Expert Service to develop correct Chemical Abstracts
(CA)names for all of their reported chemical substances, in accordance with Method 1 as described in the Premanufacture Notification regulations, 40 CFR 720.45(a)(3)(i). EPA encourages persons intending to manufacture activated phosphors to file PMNs using the proper chemical identity immediately instead of delaying their submissions to near the effective date of this proposed document. PMNs filed in response to this chemical identification clarification should, as specified in 40 CFR 720.50, include all information normally included with a PMN submission, such as toxicity data on the PMN chemical substance that are in the possession or control of the PMN submitter, or known to or reasonably ascertainable by the PMN submitter. C. What Are the Consequences of Not Submitting a PMN and Completing PMN Review on an Activated Phosphor Before the Effective Date of this Proposed Chemical Identification Clarification? Starting on the effective date of the final chemical identification clarification document, anyone manufacturing (includes import) for a non-exempt commercial purpose an activated phosphor that is not specifically listed on the TSCA Inventory would be in violation of TSCA. Penalties of $32,500 per violation per day are possible. D. Would a PMN Be Required for Persons Who Did Not Submit One Due to an Incorrect EPA Interpretation, Regardless of Whether They Still Manufacture the Chemical Substance? A PMN would have to be submitted by any person who intends to manufacture or import an activated phosphor not on the TSCA Inventory for a non-exempt commercial purpose on or after the effective date of the final chemical identification clarification document. If future manufacture is not intended, no PMN need be submitted. For example, if you manufactured such a phosphor in 1986 but are not currently manufacturing nor intending to resume manufacture, you would not be required to submit a PMN at this time. However, if you later form an intention to manufacture the activated phosphor after the effective date of the final chemical identification clarification document, you would need to submit a PMN 90 days before commencing manufacture. IV. Do Certain Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? No. This document presents the Agency’s clarification of the TSCA Inventory chemical identification principles. This action is not a regulatory action or significant guidance document under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13422 (72 FR 2763, January 23, 2007). As such, this action does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. In addition, Executive Orders 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) and 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), do not apply to this action because it is not “economically significant” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Nor does this action establish an environmental standard that may have a negatively disproportionate effect on children, or otherwise have any significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This document does not contain any new information collection requirements that would require additional review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .). The information collection activities related to the submission of information pursuant to TSCA section 5 are already approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0012 (EPA Information Collection Request [ICR] No.574). The burden for that ICR is estimated to average 100 hours per respondent, including time for reading the regulations, processing, compiling, and reviewing the requested data, generating the request, storing, filing, and maintaining the data. Under PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, or is otherwise required to submit the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations that are codified in 40 CFR chapter I, after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list at 40 CFR 9.1. As indicated previously, this action is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq* .) or any other statute. As such, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .). Further, this action is expected to only have a limited impact because only entities which are now manufacturing such a chemical substance, and which have not already prepared and submitted a PMN to EPA, must submit a PMN as a result of this action if they intend to continue manufacturing it. Based on EPA's experience with review of PMNs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these activities, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this action. As such, this action will not have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship between the national government and the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Nor does this action significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments as specified by Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In addition, EPA has determined that this regulatory action would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). This action will not have an adverse impact on the environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority communities. Therefore, under Executive Order 12898, entitled * Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations * (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency is not required to and has not considered environmental justice-related issues. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 704 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 720 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 721 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 723 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Photographic industry, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 10, 2008. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E8-681 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7756] 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 to 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 April 15, 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-7756, 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 Pulaski County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas Arkansas River Intersection with IH 440 +246 +247 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County, City of Little Rock, City of Maumelle, City of North Little Rock. Confluence with Palarm Creek +269 +268 Bayou Two Prairie Intersection with Highway 5 (county line) None +280 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Private Road None +314 Blue Branch Confluence with Bayou Two Prairie None +286 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 2,180 feet upstream of Highway 89 intersection None +318 Ferndale Creek Confluence with Little Maumelle River None +362 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Ferndale Rd. (county line) None +453 Fletcher Creek Confluence with Little Maumelle River None +328 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 3,200 feet upstream of Walnut Grove Trail None +429 Glade Branch Approximately 580 Feet upstream of Highway 67/167 None +266 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 6,300 feet upstream of Roland Rd intersection None +353 Good Earth Drain Confluence with Taylor Loop Creek None +280 City of Little Rock. Divergence from Taylor Loop Creek None +285 Isom Creek Confluence with Taylor Loop Creek +264 +265 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County, City of Little Rock. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Russ Street None +345 Jacks Bayou Approximately 500 feet downstream of Union Pacific Railroad intersection (county line) +254 +252 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County, City of Jacksonville. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Peters Rd. intersection None +283 Jacks Bayou Tributary 10 Confluence with Jacks Bayou None +271 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Hercules Dr. intersection None +279 Kinley Creek Approximately 8,010 feet downstream from intersection with Garrison Rd +350 +349 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,130 feet upstream from intersection with Garrison Rd +425 +424 Little Maumelle River Approximately 2,570 feet downstream from confluence with Arkansas River +257 +262 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 5,300 feet upstream from intersection with Carnation Lane +564 +561 Neal Creek Confluence with Kinley Creek None +380 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 7,200 feet upstream of intersection with Condor Rd None +514 Nowlin Creek Approximately 25,098 feet upstream from intersection with Goodson Rd +497 +495 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 25,348 feet upstream from intersection with Goodson Rd +500 +497 South Loop Approximately 1,358 feet upstream from confluence with Taylor Loop Creek None +266 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,801 feet downstream from confluence with Taylor Loop Creek None +299 South Split At confluence with South Loop None +280 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 194 feet downstream from confluence with South Loop None +290 Taylor Loop Creek Approximately 475 feet downstream from intersection with Railroad None +266 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,451 feet downstream from intersection with Jennifer Dr None +430 Tributary 4 to Little Maumelle River Confluence with Little Maumelle River None +240 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County, City of Little Rock. Intersection with Cantrell Rd None +301 Tributary 5 to Little Maumelle River Confluence with Little Maumelle River None +266 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 120 feet downstream of Guenther Rd None +282 Tributary 6 to Fletcher Creek Confluence with Fletcher Creek None +366 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 6,150 feet upstream of intersection with Walnut Grove Rd None +427 Tributary 7 to Little Maumelle River Approximately 3,275 feet downstream from intersection with Ferndale Rd None +316 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 12,163 feet upstream from intersection with Ferndale Rd None +455 Tributary 8 to Fletcher Creek Approximately 233 feet upstream from confluence with Fletcher Creek None +404 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 3,488 feet upstream from intersection with Autumn Blaze Trail None +509 Tributary 9 to Little Maumelle River Approximately 748 feet upstream from confluence with Little Maumelle River None +330 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 1,160 feet upstream of intersection with Garrison Rd None +512 White Oak Branch Approximately 123 feet upstream from intersection with Highway 5 None +288 Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County. Approximately 6,051 feet upstream from intersection with Mount Pleasant None +329 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Jacksonville Maps are available for inspection at 15412 Main St., Alexander, AR 72002. City of Little Rock Maps are available for inspection at 701 West Markham St., Little Rock, AR 72201. City of Maumelle Maps are available for inspection at 550 Edgewood Dr., Maumelle, AR 72113. City of North Little Rock Maps are available for inspection at 120 Main St., North Little Rock, AR 72114. City of Sherwood Maps are available for inspection at 2199 East Kiehl Ave., Sherwood, AR 72120. Town of Alexander Maps are available for inspection at 15412 Main St., Alexander, AR 72002. Town of Cammack Maps are available for inspection at 2710 N. Mckinley, Cammack Village, AR 72207. Unincorporated Areas of Pulaski County Maps are available for inspection at 501 W. Markham, Suite A, Little Rock, AR 72201. Oxford County, Maine, and Incorporated Areas Barkers Brook Approximately 625 feet downstream of Cushing Road None +634 Town of Bethel. Approximately 680 feet downstream of Gore Road None +662 Barkers Pond At ponding area north of approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Pine Cove Point and Narrow Gauge Trail and east of Narrow Gauge Trail None +497 Town of Hiram. Crooked River Approximately 500 feet downstream of Jesse Mill Road +330 +333 Town of Otisfield. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Harrison Road +400 +398 Hancock Brook Approximately 600 feet downstream of Scribner Mill Road +362 +361 Town of Hiram. Approximately 180 feet southeast of the intersection of Pine Cove Point and Narrow Gauge Trail None +494 Moose Pond. At ponding area north of approximately 600 feet upstream of the intersection of Evergreen Drive and Hemlock Road, east of Pine Drive and west of Fox Run Line None +524 Town of Otisfield. Saturday Pond At ponding area approximately 875 feet northwest of Peaco Hill Road, west of Great Oaks Line and east of west Shore Drive None +533 Town of Otisfield. Stony Brook Approximately 100 feet downstream of Buckfield Road None +479 Town of Paris. Approximately 155 feet downstream of Christian Road None +577 Twitchell Brook Approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Buckfield Road and Emery Avenue None +395 Town of Paris. Approximately 2,750 feet upstream of Hebron Road None +487 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Town of Bethel Maps are available for inspection at Town Office, 19 Main Street, Bethel, ME 04217. Town of Hiram Maps are available for inspection at Town Office, 25 Allard Circle, Hiram, ME 04041. Town of Otisfield Maps are available for inspection at Town Office, 403 State Route 121, Otisfield, ME 04270. Town of Paris Maps are available for inspection at Town Office, 33 Market Square, South Paris, ME 04281. Hancock County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas Bayou Coco Approximately 300 feet upstream of Sam Farve Road +15 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Just downstream of Cuevas Road None +38 Bayou Coco Tributary 1 At the confluence with Bayou Coco None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 6,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Bayou Coco None +55 Bayou La Terre Approximately 3,100 feet upstream of Kiln Delisle Road +14 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 8,976 feet upstream of Kiln Delisle Road +20 +21 Bayou Lasalle Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Kiln Delisle Road +14 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 2,100 feet downstream of confluence with Bayou LaSalle Tributary 1 +20 +21 Bayou Talla Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of confluence with Bayou Talla Tributary 3 None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Just downstream of Kiln Picayune Road None +25 Bayou Talla Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bayou Talla None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 2,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Bayou Talla None +28 Catahoula Creek At the confluence with Jourdan River None +18 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 3,100 feet downstream of Mitchell Road None +47 Dead Tiger Creek At the confluence with Catahoula Creek None +27 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Just downstream of Flat Top Road None +34 Hickory Creek At the confluence with Catahoula Creek None +45 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 450 feet downstream of the confluence with Crane Pond Branch None +50 Hickory Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Hickory Creek None +81 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 7,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Hickory Creek None +113 Jourdan River Approximately 10,560 feet downstream of confluence with Bayou Bacon None +16 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. At the confluence with Bayou Bacon None +18 Mississippi Sound/Gulf of Mexico Near the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lafitte Drive +13 +18 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County, City of Bay St. Louis, City of Waveland. Near the intersection of Hancock Street and St. Charles Street +17 +27 Pearl River/Mississippi Sound Just west of the intersection of State Highway 607 and Old Highway 43 +13 +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. South of La France Road at railroad along coastline +18 +25 St. Louis Bay/Bayou La Croix/Bayou Philip/Jourdan River Approximately 15,840 feet east of intersection of Interstate 10 and State Highway 607 None +9 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County, City of Bay St. Louis, City of Waveland. Eastern county boundary south of Interstate 10 +16 +26 Stall Branch At the confluence with Dead Tiger Creek None +30 Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County. Approximately 14,600 feet upstream of the confluence with Dead Tiger Creek None +42 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Bay St. Louis Maps are available for inspection at Courthouse, 688 Highway 90, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520. City of Waveland Maps are available for inspection at Permit Department, 335 Coleman Avenue, Building 5, Waveland, MS 39576. Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County Maps are available for inspection at Building Department, 3068 Longfellow Drive, Building 6, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520. Jackson County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas Bay of Biloxi Approximately 5,000 feet downstream of Interstate 10 +10 +12 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County, City of Ocean Springs. At Jackson/Harrison county boundary at the shoreline just south of the intersection of Beach Bayou Avenue and Racetrack Road +16 +23 Bayou Costapia At Jackson/Harrison county boundary +13 +14 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 780 feet upstream of Jackson/Harrison county boundary +14 +15 Bluff Creek Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence with Woodmans Branch +10 +11 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 650 feet downstream of Highway 57 +12 +13 Cypress Creek Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Jackson/Harrison county boundary +12 +14 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. At the confluence with Ditch No. 1 +15 +16 Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi Sound/Pascagoula River At the intersection of Frank Griffin Road and Interstate 10 +7 +8 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County, City of Gautier, City of Moss Point, City of Ocean Springs, City of Pascagoula. Petit Bois Island +10 +17 Horn Island +8 +18 At the western end of Point Aux Chenes Road +17 +23 Jackson Creek At the confluence with Escatawpa River None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. At Mississippi/Alabama state boundary None +19 Jackson Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Jackson Creek None +16 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 4,150 feet upstream of the confluence with Jackson Creek None +20 Old Fort Bayou Approximately 3,200 feet downstream of Interstate 10 +10 +12 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of confluence with Bayou Castelle +12 +13 Old Fort Bayou Tributary 7 Appproximately 3,800 feet upstream of the confluence with Old Fort Bayou None +18 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 500 feet downstream of Humphrey Road None +41 Old Fort Bayou Tributary 8 Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of the confluence with Old Fort Bayou Tributary 7 None +18 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. Approximately 4,600 feet upstream of the confluence with Old Fort Tributary 7 None +25 Ponding Area Ponding area bound by State Highway 613 to the north, Highway 90 to the south, 14th Street to the west, and Hospital Street to the east None +13 City of Moss Point. Ponding area bound by Elder Street to the north, Dr. Martin Luther King Drive to the south, State Highway 613 to the west, and Palmetto Street to the east None +14 Approximately 750 feet east of intersection of Slag Road and Gautier Street None +16 Ponding Area Ponding area bound by Nottingham Road to the north, Highway 90 to the south, Bristol Boulevard to the west, and Guilford Road to the east None +20 City of Ocean Springs. Ponding Areas Ponding areas bound by Groveland Road to the north, Highway 90 to the south, Industrial Park Circle to the west, and Parktown Drive to the east None +19 City of Ocean Springs. Waters Creek At McGregor Road None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County. At the confluence with Waters Creek Tributary 4 None +38 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Gautier Maps are available for inspection at Code Enforcement, 3330 Highway 90, Gautier, MS 39553. City of Moss Point Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 4412 Denny Street, Moss Point, MS 39563. City of Ocean Springs Maps are available for inspection at Building Department, 1018 Porter Avenue, Ocean Springs, MS 39564. City of Pascagoula Maps are available for inspection at Code Enforcement Department, 4015 14th Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567. Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County Maps are available for inspection at Jackson County Civic Center, 2902 Shortcut Road, Pascagoula, MS 39567. Marion County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Pryor Cove Branch Confluence with Standifer Branch None +640 Town of Jasper. Confluence with West Fork Pryor Cove Branch +715 +714 Sequatchie River At confluence with Tennessee River None +616 Town of Jasper. Approximately 575 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 41 None +620 Standifer Branch At confluence of Town Creek None +619 Town of Jasper. At confluence of Pryor Cove Branch None +639 West Fork Pryor Cove Branch At confluence with Pryor Cove Branch None +714 Town of Jasper. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Pryor Cove Road None +786 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Town of Jasper Maps are available for inspection at 4460 Main Street, Jasper, TN 37347. Dallas County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Bear Creek Approximately 406 feet upstream from intersection with S. Beltline Rd +443 +446 City of Irving, City of Grand Prairie. Approximately 481 feet upstream from intersection with County Line Rd +475 +472 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Grand Prairie Maps are available for inspection at 206 West Church St., Grand Prairie, TX 75051. City of Irving Maps are available for inspection at 825 West Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75015. Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Airport Creek At the confluence with Pike Creek +679 +677 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, City of Kenosha. Approximately 4,910 feet upstream of its confluence None +688 Brighton Creek At the confluence with the Des Plaines River +696 +695 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the downstream side of State Highway 75 None +789 Center Creek At the confluence with the Des Plaines River +681 +679 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the downstream side of State Highway 50 None +705 Des Plaines River From the Wisconsin-Illinois State Line +674 +676 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1,190 feet from the Kenosha County-Racine County Line +705 +706 Dutch Gap Canal From the Wisconsin-Illinois State Line None +575 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the downstream side of County Highway C None +579 Jerome Creek Approximately 1,575 feet downstream of 88th Avenue +677 +676 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 750 feet upstream of Johnson Road None +715 Kenosha Branch At the confluence with the Pike River +595 +593 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, City of Kenosha. Approximately 700 feet upstream of 22nd Avenue None +619 Kilbourn Road Ditch At the confluence with the Des Plaines River +680 +679 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Pleasant Prairie. Kenosha County-Racine County Line +727 +726 Mud Lake Outlet At the confluence with Dutch Gap Canal +757 +758 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of 187th Street None +765 Nelson Creek At the confluence with Sorenson Creek +601 +600 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Kenosha County-Racine County Line None +616 Pike Creek Just upstream of State Highway 31 +647 +645 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, City of Kenosha. Just upstream of State Highway 50 None +684 Pike River At the confluence with Lake Michigan +585 +584 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, City of Kenosha. Just upstream of State Highway 31 +654 +653 Pleasant Prairie Tributary Approximately 1,900 feet downstream of County Highway C +678 +677 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of its confluence with the Des Plaines River None +685 Salem Branch Approximately 150 feet upstream of its confluence with Brighton Creek None +721 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Paddock Lake. Approximately 2.37 miles upstream of its confluence with Brighton Creek None +756 Somers Branch At the confluence with Pike Creek +661 +659 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 110 feet downstream of 12th Street +703 +704 Sorenson Creek At the confluence with the Pike River +601 +600 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the Kenosha County-Racine County Line +614 +611 Union Grove Industrial Tributary At the confluence with the Des Plaines River +704 +706 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Kenosha County-Racine County Line None +739 Unnamed Tributary No. 1E to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to the Des Plaines River +674 +676 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Johnson Road None +726 Unnamed Tributary No 1. to Center Creek At the confluence with Center Creek None +684 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 5,702 feet upstream of State Highway 50 None +756 Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to Des Plaines River From the Wisconsin-Illinois State Line +674 +675 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 5,400 feet upstream of Springbrook Road None +713 Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to Hooker Lake At the confluence with Hooker Lake None +757 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 5,637 feet upstream of 89th Street None +813 Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to Kilbourn Road Ditch At the confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch +680 +679 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 3,800 feet upstream of its confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch None +686 Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to Salem Branch Brighton Creek At the confluence with Salem Branch None +729 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the downstream side of 85th Street None +761 Unnamed Tributary No. 13 to Kilbourn Road Ditch At the confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch +716 +715 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the upstream side of Frontage Road None +736 Unnamed Tributary No. 15 to Kilbourn Road Ditch At the confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch +724 +723 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 2,286 feet upstream of its confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch None +726 Unnamed Tributary No. 1A to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to the Des Plaines River +674 +678 Village of Pleasant Prairie. At the Wisconsin-Illinois State Line None +715 Unnamed Tributary No. 1B to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1 to the Des Plaines River None +683 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Just downstream of its confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1C to the Des Plaines River None +698 Unnamed Tributary No. 1C to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1B None +698 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 8,500 feet upstream of its confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1B None +736 Unnamed Tributary No. 1F to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1E to the Des Plaines River None +691 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1,560 feet upstream of its confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1E None +746 Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1E to the Des Plaines River +675 +676 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1 mile upstream of Johnson Road None +748 Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to Jerome Creek At the confluence with Jerome Creek None +680 Village of Pleasant Prairie. At the divergence from Unnamed Tributary No. 3 to Jerome Creek None +681 Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to Salem Branch Brighton Creek and Paddock Lake At the confluence with Salem Branch None +751 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Paddock Lake. Approximately 968 feet upstream of State Highway 50 None +794 Unnamed Tributary No. 2A to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 2 to the Des Plaines River None +712 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of its confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 2 None +727 Unnamed Tributary No. 3 to Dutch Gap Canal At the confluence with Dutch Gap Canal None +759 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 4,965 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 45 None +791 Unnamed Tributary No. 3 to Jerome Creek At the confluence with Jerome Creek None +681 Village of Pleasant Prairie, City of Kenosha. At the downstream side of 70th Avenue None +688 Unnamed Tributary No. 3 to Salem Brighton Creek and Montgomery Lake At the confluence with Salem Branch None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 2,847 feet upstream of 84th Street None +801 Unnamed Tributary No. 4 to Dutch Gap Canal At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 3 to the Dutch Gap Canal None +763 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 3,370 feet upstream of 107th Street None +772 Unnamed Tributary No. 4 to Jerome Creek At the confluence with Jerome Creek None +681 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of Johnson Road None +715 Unnamed Tributary No. 4 to Jerome Creek Overflow At the confluence with Jerome Creek None +682 Village of Pleasant Prairie. At the divergence from Unnamed Tributary No. 4 to Jerome Creek None +690 Unnamed Tributary No. 5 to Des Plaines River Approximately 500 feet downstream of County Highway H +676 +677 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Johnson Road None +680 Unnamed Tributary No. 5 to Kilbourn Road Ditch Approximately 670 feet upstream of 120th Avenue None +701 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, City of Kenosha. At the downstream side of 128th Avenue None +736 Unnamed Tributary No. 5B to Des Plaines River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 5 to the Des Plaines River None +679 Village of Pleasant Prairie. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of its confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 5 None +685 Unnamed Tributary No. 6 to Brighton Creek and League Lake At the confluence with Brighton Creek None +742 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Paddock Lake. Approximately 1,681 feet upstream of 60th Street None +789 Unnamed Tributary No. 7 to Des Plaines River Approximately 815 feet downstream of 120th Avenue None +676 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County, Village of Pleasant Prairie. At the downstream side of 136th Avenue None +710 Unnamed Tributary No. 8 to Kilbourn Road Ditch Approximately 670 feet upstream of the confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch +709 +710 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. At the upstream side of Frontage Road None +724 Unnamed Tributary No. 8 to Kilbourn Road Ditch Overflow Approximately 800 feet upstream of its confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch +707 +708 Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County. Approximately 2,464 feet upstream of its confluence with Kilbourn Road Ditch None +716 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Kenosha Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 625 52nd Street, Kenosha, WI 53140-3738. Unincorporated Areas of Kenosha County Maps are available for inspection at County Courthouse, 912 56th Street, Kenosha, WI 53140-3738. Village of Paddock Lake Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 6969 236th Avenue, Salem, WI 53168. Village of Pleasant Prairie Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 9915 39th Avenue, Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158-6501. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-725 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7757] 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 April 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community is 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-7757, 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 Kenton County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Banklick Creek Eaton Drive bridge +498 +499 City of Covington, City of Erlanger, City of Fort Wright, City of Independence, Unincorporated Areas of Kenton County. 3,500 feet upstream of Webster Lane bridge +649 +648 Bullock Pen Creek (Banklick Creek backwater) 140′ upstream of CSX railroad crossing of Bullock Pen Creek None +517 City of Edgewood. City of Edgewood and City of Erlanger corporate limits None +517 DeCoursey Creek (Licking River backwater) City of Fairview and Kenton County Unincorporated corporate limits None +504 City of Fairview. 4,670 feet upstream of City of Fairview and Kenton County Unincorporated corporate limits None +504 Fowler Creek Mouth at Banklick Creek +554 +562 City of Independence, Unincorporated Areas of Kenton County. Pelly Road bridge +710 +713 Unnamed Tributary (Backwater from Licking River) 870 feet downstream of CSX Railroad Bridge None +518 Unincorporated Areas of Kenton County. 1,010 feet upstream of CSX Railroad None +518 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 Covington Maps are available for inspection at 638 Madison Avenue, Covington, KY 41011. City of Edgewood Maps are available for inspection at 385 Dudley Road, Edgewood, KY 41017. City of Erlanger Maps are available for inspection at 505 Commonwealth Avenue, Erlanger, KY 41018. City of Fairview Maps are available for inspection at 303 Court Street, Covington, KY 41011. City of Fort Wright Maps are available for inspection at 409 Kyles Lane, Fort Wright, KY 41011. City of Independence Maps are available for inspection at 5292 Madison Pike, Independence, KY 41051. Unincorporated Areas of Kenton County Maps are available for inspection at 303 Court Street, Covington, KY 41011. Harrison County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas Back Bay of Biloxi/Big Lake Near the intersection of Popps Ferry Road and Causeway Drive +11 +15 City of D'Iberville, City of Biloxi, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Near the intersection of Interstate 110 and Bay Shore Drive +13 +21 Bay of Biloxi Near the intersection of D'Iberville Boulevard and Lamey Bridge Road +11 +16 City of Biloxi, City of D'Iberville, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. At Harrison/Jackson county boundary near U.S. Highway 90 +16 +23 Bernard Bayou Approximately 350 feet upstream of Interstate 10 +11 +15 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Gulfport. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Mennonite Road None +87 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bernard Bayou None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 5,808 feet upstream of Orange Grove Road None +44 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Bernard Bayou Tributary 3 None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Gulfport. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Lambrecht Road None +64 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Bernard Bayou Tributary 4 None +40 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Gulfport. Approximately 850 feet upstream of Pheasant Drive None +65 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Bernard Bayou None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Orange Grove Road None +52 Big Creek Approximately 29,040 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +55 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 32,208 feet upstream of the confluence with Wolf River None +58 Biloxi River Approximately 100 feet upstream of Lorraine Rd +11 +15 City of Biloxi, City of Gulfport, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. At Harrison/Stone county boundary None +104 Brickyard Bayou Approximately 200 feet upstream of 8th Avenue +10 +13 City of Gulfport. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Stewart Avenue None +30 Brickyard Bayou/Bernard Bayou/Turkey Creek Near intersection of 8th Avenue and Pass Road +10 +12 City of Gulfport. Near the intersection of Ridge Road and Taylor Road +11 +18 Canal No. 1 Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of Epsy Avenue +16 +18 City of Pass Christian, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 2,900 feet upstream of Epsy Ave +17 +18 Canal No. 3 Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Epsy Avenue +14 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Long Beach. Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Beatline Road +18 +19 Crow Creek Approximately 19,008 feet upstream of the confluence with Biloxi River None +95 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 24,816 feet upstream of the confluence with Biloxi River None +101 Flat Branch At the confluence with Bernard Bayou +11 +15 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Gulfport. Approximately 8,976 upstream of the confluence with Flat Branch Tributary 2 None +66 Tributary 1 Approximately 1,450 feet downstream of Hamilton Street None +22 City of Gulfport. Approximately 3,900 feet upstream of Robinson Road None +58 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Flat Branch None +53 City of Gulfport. Approximately 2,450 feet upstream of the confluence with Flat Branch None +56 Fritz Creek Approximately 3,400 feet upstream of Lorraine Road +11 +15 City of Gulfport. Approximately 850 feet upstream of Three Rivers Road None +56 Tributary 1 Shallow flooding area bound by O'Neal Road to the North, Mays Road to the South, Crystal Weel Court to the West, and Three Rivers Road to the East None #2 City of Gulfport. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Three Rivers Road None +52 Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of O'Neal Road None +60 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Fritz Creek None +39 City of Gulfport, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of Three Rivers Road None +58 Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi Sound Near the intersection of Main Street and Water Street +12 +17 City of Biloxi, City of Gulfport, City of Long Beach, City of Pass Christian, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Near the intersection of Espy Avenue and U.S. Highway 90 +18 +26 Hickory Creek Approximately 3,850 feet upstream of McHenry Road None +121 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 7,920 feet upstream of McHenry Road None +128 Hog Branch Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence with Tuxachanie Creek +35 +36 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 10,032 feet upstream of South Carr Bridge Road None +98 Howard Creek Approximately 2,700 feet upstream of Old Highway 67 +13 +15 City of Biloxi. Approximately 3,300 feet upstream of Old Highway 67 +15 +16 Little Biloxi River Approximately 150 feet downstream of McHenry Road None +120 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 6,700 feet upstream of McHenry Road None +129 Mill Creek Approximately 4,900 feet upstream of State Highway 53 None +104 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 8,976 feet upstream of State Highway 53 None +114 Palmer Creek Approximately 3,800 feet upstream of Wortham Road None +76 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 9,200 feet upstream of Wortham Road None +87 Parker Creek Approximately 430 feet upstream of Woolmarket Road +13 +15 City of Biloxi, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 9,504 feet upstream of State Highway 67 None +75 Pole Branch Approximately 270 feet downstream of Cable Bridge Road None +61 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 3,200 feet upstream of Cable Bridge Road None +68 Ponding Area Ponding area bound by Irish Hill Drive to the North, West Howard Avenue to the South, Porter Avenue to the West, and Iroquois Street to the East None +21 City of Biloxi. Ponding Areas Near intersection of Big Lake Road and Lejuene Drive None +25 City of Biloxi. Near intersection of Irish Hill Drive and Brister Place None +29 Sandy Creek Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Steel Bridge Road None +72 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of Steel Bridge Road None +75 Saucier Creek Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of State Highway 67 None +92 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Just downstream of Martha Redmond Road None +111 Shallow Flooding Shallow flooding bounded by West 2nd Street to the North, Scenic Drive to the South, Leovy Avenue to the West, and Paul Dunbar Avenue to the East None #1 City of Pass Christian. St. Louis Bay/Wolf River/Canal No. 1/Canal No. 3 Near the intersection of Red Creek Road and Menge Avenue +12 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County, City of Pass Christian. At Harrison/Hancock county boundary south of Interstate 10 +16 +26 Tchoutacabouffa River Approximately 5,400 feet upstream of State Highway 15 +11 +14 City of Biloxi, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Railroad Creek None +75 Tchoutacabouffa River/Biloxi River Near intersection of Old Highway 67 and Woolmarket Road +11 +13 City of Gulfport, City of Biloxi, City of D'Iberville, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Near the intersection of Pin Oak Drive and Oaklawn Road +14 +19 Turkey Creek Approximately 2,250 feet downstream of Airport Road +11 +14 City of Gulfport, Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 3,350 feet upstream of Ohio Avenue +15 +16 Tuxachanie Creek Approximately 1,050 feet downstream of Whit Plains Road +33 +34 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 21,120 feet upstream of Bethel Road None +95 West Creek Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of State Highway 67 None +85 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 10,032 feet upstream of State Highway 67 None +95 Wolf River Approximately 9,700 feet upstream of Bells Ferry Road +17 +19 Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County. Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of I-10 +20 +21 * 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 Biloxi Maps are available for inspection at Floodplain Management, 676 Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard, Biloxi, MS 39533. City of D'Iberville Maps are available for inspection at 10383 Automall Parkway, D'Iberville, MS 39540. City of Gulfport Maps are available for inspection at Department of Urban Development-Building Codes Services, 2200 15th Street, Trailer B-5, Gulfport, MS 39501. City of Long Beach Maps are available for inspection at Building Code Office, 645 Klondike Road, Long Beach, MS 39560. City of Pass Christian Maps are available for inspection at Building Code Office, 203 Fleitas Avenue, Pass Christian, MS 39571. Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County Maps are available for inspection at County Code Office, 15309 Community Road, Gulfport, MS 39503. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-724 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7758] 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 April 15, 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-7758, 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 Warren, Ohio Ohio City of Warren Duck Creek Mouth at Mahoning River None +891 About 600 feet downstream of Risher St None +891 * 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 Warren Maps are available for inspection at 540 Laird Avenue SE, Warren, OH 44484. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Randall County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Palo Duro Creek Confluence with Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red River *3482 +3484 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Intersection with West Country Club Road *3560 +3562 Playa Lake 11 Approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Bell St. and Attebury Dr None +3646 City of Amarillo, Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 13 Approximately 2500 feet southeast of the intersection of West 335 South LP and Valleyview Drive None +3626 City of Amarillo, Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 14 Approximately 100 feet south of Winners Circle *3657 +3658 City of Amarillo. Playa Lake 16 Approximately 350 feet south of S. Hayden and SW 48th Ave. intersection *3625 +3627 City of Amarillo. Playa Lake 18 Approximately 1000 feet south of Farmers Ave. and Tradewind St None +3583 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 19 Approximately 1200 feet east of SW 42nd Ave. and S. Harrison St. intersection *3633 +3635 City of Amarillo. Playa Lake 20 (Gooch Lake) Approximately 5000 ft. south of SE 34th Ave. and S. Manhattan St. intersection *3574 +3579 City of Amarillo. Playa Lake 3 Approximately 1000 feet north of Ascension Parkway None +3710 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 34 Approximately 4600 feet southwest of Highway 287 and S. Parsley Rd. intersection None +3553 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 4 W CR 58 and Helium Road None +3699 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 5 (McDonald Lake) Approximately 1100 feet southeast of S. Coulter St. and SW 45th St. intersection *3688 +3687 City of Amarillo. Playa Lake 7 Approximately 100 feet north of W. 77th Ave. and Cody Dr None +3675 City of Amarillo, Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 8 Approximately 100 feet south of FM 2186 and 335 South LP None +3681 City of Amarillo, Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Playa Lake 9 Approximately 480 feet north of W. Sundown St. and Elaine St. interesection None +3683 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red River Approximately 100 feet downstream from the intersection of Exmoor Road and Canyon Creek Road *3394 +3395 Unincorporated Areas of Randall County, Village of Lake. Confluence with Tierra Blanca Creek *3482 +3484 Tanglewood, Village of Palisades. Tierra Blanca Creek Confluence with Palo Duro Creek *3482 +3484 City of Canyon, Unincorporated Areas of Randall County. Approximately 1500 feet downstream from Gordon Cummings Road *3545 +3547 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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., Wasington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Amarillo Maps are available for inspection at 509 E. 7th Ave., Amarillo, TX 79105. City of Canyon Maps are available for inspection at 301 16th St., Canyon, TX 79015. Unincorporated Areas of Randall County Maps are available for inspection at 301 Hwy. 60, Canyon, TX 79015. Village of Lake Tanglewood Maps are available for inspection at 1000 Tanglewood Dr., Amarillo, TX 79118. Village of Palisades Maps are available for inspection at 115 Brentwood, Amarillo, TX 79118. Brown County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Ash Street Tributary to Lancaster Creek Approximately 510 feet downstream of Ash Street None +602 Village of Howard. Approximately 160 feet upstream of Ash Street None +608 Ashwaubenon Creek Approximately 2,990 feet downstream of Memorial Park Road +585 +586 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, City of De Pere, Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 3,940 feet upstream of Scheuring Road None +613 Ashwaubenon Creek (Middle) Approximately 3,980 feet downstream of Creamery Road None +618 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, City of De Pere. Approximately 8,085 feet upstream of Creamery Road None +629 Ashwaubenon Creek (Upper) Approximately 240 feet downstream of William Grant Drive None +652 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 185 feet upstream of William Grant Drive None +661 Baird Creek Approximately 425 feet upstream of U.S. Route 141 +590 +589 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, City of Green Bay. Just upstream of Northview Road None +778 Tributary Approximately 6,340 feet downstream of Erie Road None +701 City of Green Bay. Approximately 1,465 feet upstream of Finger Road None +778 Tributary 6 Approximately 450 feet downstream of Fox Valley and Western Railroad None +619 City of Green Bay. Approximately 910 feet upstream of Fox Valley and Western Railroad None +673 Bakers Creek Approximately 155 feet downstream of Belmont Road None +649 Village of Howard. Approximately 940 feet upstream of Hillcrest Heights Road None +658 Tributary Approximately 125 feet upstream of railroad None +603 Village of Howard. Approximately 2,325 feet upstream of railroad None +617 Barina Creek Approximately 320 feet downstream of Church Road None +613 City of Green Bay. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Church Road None +621 Beaver Dam Creek Approximately 420 feet downstream of Velp Avenue +586 +588 Village of Howard, City of Green Bay, Oneida Tribe. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Packerland Drive None +677 Bower Creek At the confluence with the East River None +591 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 10,570 feet upstream of Lime Kiln Road None +635 Tributary Approximately 396 feet downstream of Pine Grove Road None +827 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 52 feet upstream of Dickinson Road None +833 Tributary 1 Approximately 40 feet downstream of Monroe Road None +591 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 4,610 feet upstream of Bower Creek Road None +618 Tributary 2 Approximately 110 feet downstream of Bower Creek Road None +595 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 3,260 feet upstream of Meadow Sound Drive None +733 Tributary A Approximately 860 feet downstream of its confluence with Bower Creek Tributary B None +604 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 4,465 feet upstream of its confluence with Bower Creek Tributary B None +639 Tributary B At the confluence with Bower Creek Tributary A None +606 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 2,420 feet upstream of its confluence with Bower Creek Tributary A None +630 Branch River Approximately 400 feet downstream of Park Road +844 +845 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 3,960 feet upstream of Park Road +853 +852 Branch of Plum Creek Approximately 610 feet upstream of Holland Court None +765 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 1,245 feet upstream of Holland Court None +766 Lower Tributary At the confluence with Branch of Plum Creek None +766 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 1,590 feet upstream of its confluence with Branch of Plum Creek None +773 Upper Tributary At the confluence with Branch of Plum Creek None +765 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 1,190 feet upstream of its confluence with Branch of Plum Creek None +769 Duck Creek Approximately 90 feet downstream of State Highway 41 +585 +586 Village of Howard, City of Green Bay, Oneida Tribe, Village of Hobart. Approximately 4,825 feet upstream of State Highway 54 +675 +676 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Duck Creek None +606 City of Green Bay, Oneida Tribe. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Open Gate Trail None +673 Tributary 12 Approximately 925 feet downstream of West Mason Street None +630 City of Green Bay, Oneida Tribe, Village of Hobart. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of West Mason Street None +677 Dutchman Creek Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Broadway Street +585 +586 Village of Ashwaubenon, Oneida Tribe, Village of Hobart. Approximately 1,950 feet upstream of Packerland Drive None +651 North Tributary Approximately 90 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 41 None +605 Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 120 feet upstream of North Road None +677 South Tributary Approximately 1,095 feet downstream of Parkview Road None +611 Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 1,845 feet upstream of Glory Road None +624 Southeast Tributary Approximately 1,350 feet downstream of Main Avenue None +623 Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 5,550 feet upstream of Main Avenue None +637 Southwest Tributary Approximately 1,350 feet downstream of Main Street None +624 Village of Ashwaubenon, Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 5,350 feet upstream of County Highway G None +637 East River Approximately 1,650 feet downstream of North Monroe Avenue +585 +586 City of Green Bay, City of De Pere, Town of Ledgeview, Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, Village of Allouez, Village of Bellevue. Just upstream of Wrightstown Road None +631 Tributary Approximately 60 feet downstream of Monroe Road None +589 Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 65 feet upstream of Dickinson Road None +595 Tributary A Approximately 990 feet downstream of Dickinson Road +591 +592 Town of Ledgeview, City of De Pere. Approximately 670 feet upstream of Heritage Road None +613 Tributary B At the confluence with East River Tributary A +591 +592 Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 1,825 feet upstream of its confluence with East River Tributary A +591 +595 East Verlin North Tributary to Willow Creek At the confluence with East Verlin Tributary to Willow Creek None +606 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 15 feet upstream of Fox Valley and Western Railroad None +606 East Verlin Tributary to Willow Creek At the confluence with Willow Creek None +591 Village of Bellevue, City of Green Bay. Approximately 2,900 feet upstream of Lime Kiln Road None +622 Ellis Creek Approximately 2,625 feet downstream of Edgewood Drive None +651 City of Green Bay. Approximately 1,105 feet upstream of Edgewood Drive None +670 Fox River Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of Interstate 43 +585 +583 City of Green Bay, City of De Pere, Town of Ledgeview, Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, Village of Allouez, Village of Ashwaubenon, Village of Wrightstown. Just downstream of State Highway 96 +602 +601 Lancaster Creek Approximately 20 feet downstream of Riverview Drive +585 +586 Village of Howard. Approximately 3,980 feet upstream of Shawano Avenue +618 +623 Tributary Just upstream of Rockwell Road None +618 Village of Howard. Approximately 1,775 feet upstream of Rockwell Road None +630 Mahon Creek Approximately 1,125 feet downstream of Nicolet Drive None +586 City of Green Bay. Approximately 1,485 feet upstream of Spartan Road None +775 Middle Branch of Little Suamico River Approximately 40 feet downstream of Summit Street None +795 Village of Pulaski. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Lincoln Street +806 +807 North Branch Ashwaubenon Creek At the confluence with South Branch Ashwaubenon Creek None +661 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County, Oneida Tribe, Village of Hobart. Just downstream of North County Line Road None +681 Bakers Creek At the confluence with Bakers Creek None +655 Village of Howard. Approximately 2,020 feet upstream of its confluence with Bakers Creek None +665 Willow Creek Approximately 175 feet downstream of Main Street None +629 Village of Bellevue, City of Green Bay. Approximately 9,680 feet upstream of Manitowoc Road None +736 North Tributary South Branch Ashwaubenon Creek At the confluence with South Branch Ashwaubenon Creek None +664 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 2,200 feet from the confluence of South Branch Ashwaubenon Creek None +675 Oneida Creek Approximately 1,270 feet downstream of Country Club Court None +596 City of Green Bay, Oneida Tribe. Approximately 4,755 feet upstream of Country Club Court None +640 Pioneer Tributary to Duck Creek Approximately 895 feet downstream of Cardinal Lane None +591 Village of Howard. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Cardinal Lane None +596 Plum Creek Approximately 675 feet downstream of Washington Street None +602 Village of Wrightstown, Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 11,250 feet upstream of Washington Street +619 +618 Sorensons Creek At the confluence with Spring Creek None +602 Village of Bellevue, Town of Ledgeview. Approximately 80 feet upstream of Big Creek Road None +683 Tributary Approximately 4,720 feet downstream of Santa Monica Drive None +644 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 3,430 feet upstream of Manitowoc Road None +747 South Branch Ashwaubenon Creek Approximately 3,325 feet downstream of Noah Road None +661 Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 990 feet upstream of Freedom Road None +671 Little Suamico River Approximately 80 feet downstream of Corporate Way None +783 Village of Pulaski, Unincorporated Areas of Brown County. Approximately 1,935 feet upstream of Pelican Drive None +799 South Tributary to Willow Creek At the confluence with Willow Creek None +590 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 630 feet upstream of Lime Kiln Road None +601 Spring Creek Approximately 1,305 feet downstream of Lime Kiln Road None +595 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 1,520 feet upstream of Willow Road None +784 Tributary A Approximately 950 feet downstream of Madrid Drive None +703 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 170 feet upstream of Ontario Road None +743 Tributary A Ditch At the confluence with Spring Creek Tributary A None +736 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 580 feet upstream of the confluence with Spring Creek Tributary A None +740 Tributary B Approximately 2,910 feet downstream of Cottage Road None +732 Village of Bellevue. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Cottage Road None +760 Suamico River Approximately 7,880 feet downstream of Lakeview Road +585 +586 Village of Suamico. Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of Bridge Road +605 +606 Tributary 1 to Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary Approximately 310 feet downstream of Lost Lane None +642 Village of Ashwaubenon, Oneida Tribe, Village of Hobart. Approximately 490 feet upstream of South Packerland Drive None +665 Tributary 2 to Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary At the confluence with Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary None +642 Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 2,550 feet upstream of the confluence with Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary None +666 Tributary 3 to Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary At the confluence with Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary None +646 Village of Ashwaubenon. Approximately 1,950 feet upstream of the confluence with Dutchman Creek Southwest Tributary None +664 Trout Creek Approximately 1,060 feet downstream of North Hillcrest Drive +608 +610 Village of Hobart, Oneida Tribe. Just upstream of Sunlite Drive +720 +727 Unnamed Tributary to Green Bay Approximately 525 feet downstream of Nicolet Drive None +588 City of Green Bay. Approximately 1,755 feet upstream of Nicolet Drive None +624 Vanguard Way Tributary to Lancaster Creek At the confluence with Lancaster Creek None +610 Village of Howard. Approximately 755 feet upstream of the confluence with Lancaster Creek None +629 West Verlin Tributary to Willow Creek Approximately 1,220 feet downstream of Bellevue Street None +590 Village of Bellevue, City of Green Bay. Approximately 2,990 feet upstream of Verlin Road None +597 Willow Creek At the confluence with the East River None +590 Village of Bellevue, City of Green Bay. Approximately 1,740 feet upstream of Ontario Road None +760 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and 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 De Pere Maps are available for inspection at Building Inspection Department, 335 South Broadway, De Pere, WI 54115. City of Green Bay Maps are available for inspection at Department of Public Works, Inspection Division, 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 403, Green Bay, WI 54301-5026. Oneida Tribe Maps are available for inspection at Village Office, 2990 South Pine Tree Road, Oneida, WI 54155. Town of Ledgeview Maps are available for inspection at Building Department, Ledgeview Municipal Building, 3700 Dickinson Road, De Pere, WI 54115. Unincorporated Areas of Brown County Maps are available for inspection at Zoning Department, 320 East Walnut, Northern Building, Room 320, Green Bay, WI 54301. Village of Allouez Maps are available for inspection at Public Works Department, Municipal Building, 1900 Libal Street, Green Bay, WI 54301-2499. Village of Ashwaubenon Maps are available for inspection at Public Works Department, Village Hall, 2155 Holmgren Way, Ashwaubenon, WI 54304. Village of Bellevue Maps are available for inspection at Building, Zoning and Development Department, Village Office, 305 East Walnut, Room 320, Green Bay, WI 54311. Village of Hobart Maps are available for inspection at Planning Department, Village Office, 2990 South Pine Tree Road, Oneida, WI 54155. Village of Howard Maps are available for inspection at Department of Code Administration, Village Hall, 2456 Glendale Avenue, Green Bay, WI 54313. Village of Pulaski Maps are available for inspection at Village Clerk's Office, 421 South St. Augustine Street, Pulaski, WI 54162. Village of Suamico Maps are available for inspection at Building Inspection Department, Village Hall, 2999 Lakeview Drive, Suamico, WI 54173. Village of Wrightstown Maps are available for inspection at Building Inspection Department, Village Hall, 529 Main Street, Wrightstown, WI 54180. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-722 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURTIY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7734 & D-7818] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations; Correction AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects the table to a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** of September 11, 2007. This correction clarifies the table representing the flooding source(s), location of referenced elevation, the effective and modified elevation in feet and the communities affected for Graham County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas; specifically, for flooding source “Cochran Creek,” than was previously published. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before February 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. B-7734 and D-7818, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2903. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)publishes proposed determinations of Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 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 BFEs 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. Correction In proposed rule FR Doc. E7-17821, beginning on page 51762 in the issue of September 11, 2007, make the following corrections, in the table published under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. On page 51764, in § 67.4, in the table with center heading Graham County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas, the flooding source, location of referenced elevation, the effective and modified elevation in feet and the communities affected for flooding source “Cochran Creek”, need to be corrected to read 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 * * * * * * * Graham County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas * * * * * * * Cochran Creek At the confluence with Cheoah River None +1,693 Graham County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Cochrans Creek Road (State Road 1250) None +1,930 * * * * * * * Dated: January 3, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-721 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 73 11 Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Provincial Advisory Committees AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to renew the Provincial Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, intends to renew the Provincial Advisory Committees
(PACs)for the five provinces in California, Oregon, and Washington. This renewal is in response to the continued need for the PACs to provide advice on coordinating the implementation of the Record of Decision
(ROD)of April 13, 1994, for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The PACs also provide advice and recommendations to promote integration and coordination of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities. ADDRESSES: Copies of the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision can be obtained electronically at *http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newsandga.pdf* . Paper copies can be obtained from the Office of Strategic Planning, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geraldine Bower, Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA
(202)205-1022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, intends to renew the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), which will advise the Provincial Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC). The purpose of the PIEC is to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the ROD of April 13, 1994, for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The PIEC consists of representatives of the following Federal agencies: Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecosystem management at the province level requires improved coordination among governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public those agencies serve. Each PAC will provide advice and recommendations regarding implementation to promote integration and coordination of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities. Each PAC will provide advice regarding implementation of a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy for Federal land within a province (provinces are defined in the ROD at E19). The chair of each PAC will alternate annually between representatives of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. When the Bureau of Land Management is not represented on the PIEC, the Forest Service representative will serve as chair. The chair, or a designated agency employee, will serve as the Designated Federal Officer under sections 10(e) and
(f)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). Any vacancies on the committee will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. A meeting notice will be published in the **Federal Register** within 15 to 45 days before a scheduled meeting date. All meetings are generally open to the public and may include a “public forum” that may offer 5-10 minutes for participants to present comments to the advisory committee. Alternates may choose not to be active during this session on the agenda. The chair of the given committee ultimately makes the decision whether to offer time on the agenda for the public to speak to the general body. Renewal of the PACs does not require an amendment of Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service planning documents because the renewal does not affect the standards and guidelines or land allocations. The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service will provide further notice, as needed, for additional actions or adjustments when implementing interagency coordination, public involvement, and other aspects of the ROD. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the advisory committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the PACs have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Departments, membership will, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Dated: November 28, 2007. Boyd Rutherford, Assistant Secretary for Administration. [FR Doc. E8-663 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Forest Products Removal Permits and Contracts AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; Request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection, Forest Products Removal Permits and Contracts. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before March 17, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Director, Forest Management Staff, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mail Stop 1103, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 202-205-1045 or by e-mail to *forest_products_forms@fs.fed.us* . The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Management Staff Office, Third Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates Building, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-1766 to facilitate entrance into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Nygaard-Scott, Forest Management Staff, at 202-205-1766, or Richard Fitzgerald, Forest Management Staff, at 202-205-1753. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Forest Products Removal Permits and Contracts. *OMB Number:* 0596-0085. *Expiration Date of Current Approval:* August 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension. *Abstract:* Under 16 U.S.C. 551, individuals planning to remove forest products from the National Forests must obtain a permit. To obtain a permit, applicants must meet the criteria at 36 CFR 223.1, 223.2, and 223.5-223.13, which authorizes free use or sale of timber or forest products. Upon receiving a permit, the permittee must comply with the terms of the permit (36 CFR 261.6), which designates forest products that can be harvested and under what conditions, such a limiting harvest to a designated area or permitting harvest of only specifically designated material. The collected information will help the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (for form FS-2400-1) oversee the approval and use of forest products by the public. When applying for forest product removal permits, applicants (depending on the products) must complete one of the following: • FS-2400-1, Forest Products Removal Permit and Cash Receipt, is used to sell timber or forest products such as fuel wood, Christmas trees, or pine cones (36 CFR 223.1, 223.2). The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)and the Forest Service share this form, which the Bureau of Land Management identifies as BLM-5450-24 (43 U.S.C. 1201, 43 CFR 5420). • FS-2400-4, Forest Products Contract and Cash Receipt, is used to sell timber products such as saw timber or forest products such as fuel wood. • FS-2400-8, Forest Products Free Use Permit, allows use of timber or forest products at no charge to the permittee (36 CFR 223.5-223.13). Each form listed above implements different regulations and has different provisions for compliance, but collects similar information from the applicant for related purposes. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management will use the information collected on form FS-2400-1 to ensure identification of permittees in the field by agency personnel. The Forest Service will use the information collected on forms FS-2400-4 and FS-2400-8 to: • Ensure that permittees obtaining free use of timber or forest products qualify for the free-use program and do not receive product value in excess of that allowed by regulations (36 CFR 223.8). • Ensure that applicants purchasing timber harvest or forest products permits non-competitively do not exceed the authorized limit in a fiscal year (16 U.S.C. 472 (a)). • Ensure identification of permittees in the field by Forest Service personnel. Applicants may apply for more than one forest products permit or contract a year. For example, an applicant may obtain a free use permit for a timber product such as pinecones (FS-2400-8) and still purchase fuel wood (FS-2400-4). Individuals and small business representatives usually request and apply for permits and contracts in person at the office issuing the permit. Applicants provide the following information: • Name. • Address. • Personal identification number such as tax identification number, social security number, driver's license number, or other unique number identifying the applicant. Agency personnel enter the information into a computerized database to use for subsequent requests by individuals and businesses for a forest product permit or contract. The information is printed on paper, which the applicant signs and dates. Agency personnel discuss the terms and conditions of the permit or contract with the applicant. The data gathered is not available from other sources. The collected data is used to ensure that applicants for free use permits meet the criteria for free use of timber or forest products authorized by regulations at 36 CFR 223.5-113.13; and that applicants seeking to purchase and remove timber of forest products from Agency lands meet the criteria under which sale of timber or forest products is authorized by regulations at 36 CFR 223.80, and to ensure that permittees comply with regulations and terms of the permit at 36 CFR 261.6. The collection of this information is necessary to ensure that applicants meet the requirements of the forest products program; those obtaining free-use permits for forest products qualify for the program; applicants purchasing non-competitive permits to harvest forest products do not exceed authorized limits; and that Federal Agency employees can identify permittees when in the field. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 5 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals and small businesses. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 207,600. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 34,600. Comment is invited on:
(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;
(2)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: January 7, 2008. Anne J. Zimmerman Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E8-604 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, California, South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS/EIR AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/report. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), together with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/EIR) and Environmental Inpact Report
(EIR)to disclose the impacts associated with the following proposed action: Reduction of hazardous fuels and restoration of healthy forest conditions on approximately 12,500 acres within the South Shore area of the LTBMU, extending from the southeast shore of Cascade Lake eastward to the border between the States of California and Nevada and extending from the southern shore of Lake Tahoe southward to include the California State Highway 89 corridor. This project is proposed under authority of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The Forest Service is the lead Federal agency for the preparation of this EIS/EIR in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and all other applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and direction. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) is the lead State of California agency for the preparation of the EIS/EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all other applicable laws and regulations. Both agencies have determined an EIS/EIR is needed to effectively analyze the proposal and evaluate impacts. Reduction of hazardous fuels would be accomplished by thinning to remove ladder fuels and reduce over-crowding in forest stands, removal of excessive fuel loads on the ground, mastication, chipping, and prescribed burning. Resoration of Healthy forest conditions would be accomplished by removal of conifer encroachement from meadows and aspen stands, retention of Jeffrey and sugar pine species to restore a historic species mix more resistant to fire, and thinning to improve resistance to crown fire, drought, insects, and disease. DATES: The comment period on the proposed action will extend 30 days from the date this Notice of Intent is published in the **Federal Register** . Because there have been no changes to the proposed action since it was initially scoped in July 2007, previously submitted comments on this project will be retained; those who previously submitted comments on this project need not repeat their comments. Completion of the joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) is expected in April 2008 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) is expected in August 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to South Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to *comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the Proposed Action or further information may be addressed to South Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Telephone or e-mail contacts for the project are the Interdisciplinary Team Co-leaders: Duncan Leao (phone 530-543-2660, e-mail *dleao@fs.fed.us* ); or Sue Rodman, (phone 530-621-5298, e-mail *srodman@fs.fed.us* ). The complete proposed action, including a map of proposed treatment areas, is available on the LTBMU Web site, at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/projects* , under South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project Proposed Action—July 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal was developed through coordination and collaboration with the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, Fallen Leaf Fire Department, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB), Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the public during February and March of 2007. The Proposed action was mailed to interested and affected parties in July of 2007. Field trips to a series of 3 sites for an on-the-ground look at types of areas proposed to receive fuel treatments by the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration project were hosted by members of the Interdiciplinary Team on a Tuesday and a Saturday in August of 2007, along with an evening open house to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and gather information about this project. It is clear that existing conditions within the project area have the potential for fire to spread rapidly within the wildland urban intermix (WUI), communities, infrastructure, and other natural resources. Without treatment, hazardous fuels will increase annually, adding to an already high risk for catastrophic wildfire. This proposal will reduce fuel hazards and restore ecosystem health through vegetation treatments. All of the proposed treatment areas are within the WUI, in close proximity to homes, communities, and vital egress routes. Over 80 percent of the proposed treatments are within the WUI Defense Zone, defined as the zone within approximately a quarter mile of the places where people live and work. A primary objective of these fuel treatments would be reduction of hazardous fuels in order to change fire behavior, resulting in lower fire intensity and reduced rates of spread. While it is not possible to eliminate wildfire from the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, effective hazardous fuel reduction provides defensible space where fire suppression crews can work to reduce wildfire threat to communities. Streamside environment zones
(SEZ)need thinning of live trees and removal of dead trees and hazardous ground fuels to reduce the potential for negative effects of a catastrophic wildfire in these environmentally sensitive areas. Wildlife habitat for sensitive species such as California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, osprey, and bald eagle are currently at risk for loss due to wildfire, and would benefit from thinning to change fire behavior while retaining forest habitat structure characteristics needed for wildlife. Providing healthy wildlife habitat and restoration of a forest structure with increased resistance to drought, disease, and insects are objectives that also reduce tree mortality and the rate of hazardous fuel build-up. Treatment prescriptions would modify fire behavior, provide defensible space for adjoining developed private lands, and where applicable, restore riparian vegetation communities (meadows, aspen stands, willow, etc.) through the removal of encroaching conifers. Urban lots owned by the National Forest System exhibit the same fuel loads and need for treatment as other areas in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Removal of hazardous fuels and thinning of dense stands is needed to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and to provide defensible space for private land adjoining these urban lots. Urban lots with stream environment zones
(SEZ)where conifer encroachment and fuels build up exists, and urban parcels in excess of 5 acres contiguous land base are included for treatment in the South Shore project area. No activities are proposed within Wilderness, and treatments would not create any new roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas. Purpose and Need for Action The following needs have been identified for this proposal: 1. There is a need for defensible space adjacent to communities in the South Shore area where fire suppression operations can be safely and effectively conducted in order to protect homes and communities from wildfires. (Fire Planning Process for the Urban-Wildland Interface in the City of South Lake Tahoe (Citygate Associates 2004); Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake Valley Fire Protection District, 2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Fallen Leaf Fire Department, 2004, Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District, 2004; Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 175, 2000; South Shore Watershed Assessment, USDA Forest Service, 2004; Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration for the Lake Tahoe Basin Wildland Urban Interface, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2007). 2. There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South Shore area where stands of trees have become overly dense and surface fuels have accumulated to such a degree that uncharacteristic wildfires with sustained crown fire and long range spotting could quickly develop causing severe resource damage and threatening human life and property. In addition, overly dense forest stands often suffer stress from drought and competition for nutrients, which subjects them to widespread forest dieback from insects and diseases. 3. There is a need for restoration of meadows and aspen stands in the South Shore area in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire to spread through these areas, promote maintenance of meadows and aspen stands consistent with the TRPA and Pacific Southwest Research Station “Aspen Community Mapping and Condition Assessment Report” (USDA Forest Service, PSW-GTR-185), and provide wildlife habitat for species that are dependent on meadows and/or aspen. In meeting the aforementioned needs the proposed action must also achieve the following purposes: 1. Meet wildlife habitat condition requirements for sensitive species of native (and desired non-native, for example rainbow trout) plants and animals, consistent with the Forest Plan and TRPA goshawk disturbance zones. 2. Achieve management direction in the LTBMU Management Plan as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment where the “desired condition” is for forests that “are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees” within the WUI. 3. Assure that treatments in streamside environment zones
(SEZs)favor riparian species while providing for large woody debris recruitment and stream shading needs. 4. Meet Water Quality Standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. 5. Meet scenic quality objectives and stabilize scenic resources over the long-term in concert with achieving the desired conditions of stands that “are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees.” 6. Meet air quality standards for the Lake Tahoe basin. 7. Prevent post-treatment establishment of user-created motorized or non-motorized routes or trails. 8. Address public safety during implementation of the project. Proposed Action The South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project (South Shore project) would implement vegetative treatments to modify dense vegetation conditions on National Forest System lands within the project area, including Forest Service owned urban parcels containing Stream Environment Zones
(SEZs)or parcels in excess of 5 contiguous acres in size. The South Shore project would use vegetative treatments to help restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resilient forest structure by reducing stand densities and fuel loads. The desired vegetative and fuels conditions would be stand densities that are within a range of 100-150 square feet basal area per acre. Treatments would retain tree species that are more drought-tolerant, and resistant to insects, diseases, and air pollution. Treatments would also retain tree species that have higher rates of survival after wildfire. Desired surface and ladder fuels would be less than 15 tons per acre so that the probability of crown fire ignition is reduced. The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels both horizontally and vertically would result in low probability of sustained crown fire. Within the 21 watersheds in the South Shore project area (90,000 acres), approximately 12,000 acres would be prioritized for treatment based on their proximity to places where people live and work (Defense and Threat Zones of the WUI). Existing fuel hazard levels, and other resource concerns such as watershed recovery, wildlife habitat requirements, and visual quality objectives will also factor into prioritization. Mechanical or hand fuels treatments are selected based on soil type, slope, and water quality concerns such as delivery of sediments to surface water. Treatment methods would include: Whole tree yarding, cut-to-length, biomass chipping, mastication, and prescribed burning, depending on the vegetation removal needs. Prescribed burning would be used to reduce fuels, remove slash created by treatment activities, and to re-introduce fire's ecological function. Scheduling of prescribed burn activities would comply with air quality standards and restrictions. Riparian conservation areas (RCAs), SEZs, meadows, and aspen stands needing fuels treatments would be evaluated for mechanical treatments, or would receive hand treatments. Treatment options would consider ground based mechanical treatments whenever slope, soils, and access allow (including SEZ areas). Mechanical and hand thinning of both uplands and SEZs in National Forest urban lots would follow the same design features as described for vegetation and fuels objectives. Hand thinning of urban lots may remove trees up to 30” diameter at breast height
(DBH)where necessary to meet fuels objectives and fuelwood utilization is feasible. On urban lots where fuelwood access is limited or impossible, hand thinning would be limited to trees up to 14″ DBH. Due to the close proximity of homes, roads, utilities and other improvements associated with development adjacent to urban lots, dead, dying, and diseased trees of all sizes often present a hazard to life and property. All trees identified as a hazard to life and property on National Forest urban lots would be removed regardless of diameter, including trees greater than 30″ DBH. Sensitive plant locations would be flagged for avoidance where they may be negatively affected by project activities, buffered from mechanized equipment, and treated by hand to reduce hazardous fuels. Burn piles would not be located within the flagged sensitive plant area. Treat or flag noxious weed locations for avoidance where feasible prior to project implementation. Noxious weed prevention practices, such as washing equipment if the previous location is either unknown or is infested with weeds, would be implemented in compliance with the state and SNFPA
(2004)standards. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments are designed for WUI wildlife habitat areas to meet fuel objectives to change fire behavior and retain needed habitat charcteristics. Within northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers
(PACs)and California spotted owl PACs fuel treatements are designed to result in at least:
(1)Two tree canopy layers;
(2)dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of 24 inches DBH;
(3)60 to 70 percent canopy cover;
(4)an average of five to eight snags per acre larger than 20 inches DBH and of variable decay classes; and
(5)15 tons of coarse woody debris
(CWD)per acre larger than 20 inches in diameter (at the large end) and of variable decay classes. Within California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs), and TRPA goshawk disturbance zones fuel reduction treaments are designed to result in at least:
(1)Two tree canopy layers;
(2)dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of 24 inches DBH;
(3)50 to 70 percent canopy cover;
(4)an average of three to six snags per acre larger than 20 inches DBH and of variable decay classes; and
(5)10 tons of coarse woody debris per acre larger than 20 inches in diameter (at the large end) and of variable decay classes. Within TRPA bald eagle wintering habitat area located near Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek adjacent to wetland, wet meadow, and open water habitats, fuel reduction treatments are designed to result in:
(1)Late successional forest type, with an emphasis on Jeffrey pine-dominated stands;
(2)retention of trees that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with an emphasis on trees greater than 40 inches DBH and greater than 98 feet tall and on dead topped trees with robust, open branch structures;
(3)an average of six snags per acre larger than 20 inches DBH and of variable decay classes. Within osprey habitats adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake and Lower Echo Lake fuel reduction treatments are designed to result in:
(1)Retention of all known standing osprey nest trees; and
(2)retention of an average of three trees per acre that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with an emphasis on dead topped trees with robust, open branch structures. Within streamside zones with an overload of standing and down fuels, such as stream reaches that exceed 75% stream shading from dead and down or ladder fuels, hazardous fuel reduction is designed to maintain sufficient shade to ensure that daily mean water temperatures do not increase. Shaded bank conditions on trout streams would be maintained by retaining at least 50% of the stream bank site potential for herbaceous and shrub cover and at least 25% of the site potential for tree cover. Where natural tree cover is less than 20%, 80% of the potential would be retained. Thirty-five to 70% of the stream would be shaded from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Large woody debris would remain in place unless stream channel stability needs dictate removal, and for streams lacking large woody debris for fish habitat, trees larger than 12″ DBH would be placed into the stream in locations prescribed by the LTBMU Fisheries Biologist. Mechanical treatments in RCAs/SEZs are designed to occur at the time of year when soils are sufficiently dry and to avoid impacts to fish migration and/or spawning. Mechanical treatment techniques that are successful in the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ Demonstration project, the Celio Ranch Project (private land), or other successful projects that occur in RCAs and SEZs would be used for South Shore SEZ areas. Use of equipment that is lighter on the land, rubber-tired equipment, equipment that operates on a bed of slash, and other innovative technologies would reduce impacts to soils. Best Management Practices would be implemented during project activities. Burn piles would be located outside of SEZs. Fuel reduction activities are scheduled to reduce the Risk Ratio by providing watershed recovery time between treatments within the same watersheds. Within areas of greater than 30 percent slope or soils too wet to withstand mechanical equipment, hand treatments would be used in RCAs/SEZs needing fuels treatments. Mechanical equipment use would not be allowed in and adjacent to special aquatic features (springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, and marshes); hand treatments would be used in these areas. Chipping and/or mastication would be used to provide soil cover for bare areas such as temporary roads and landings. Heavy equipment operations would be limited to dry soils, and extensive areas of detrimentally compacted soils (temporary roads and large landings) would be treated to reduce compaction. Mechanical treatments would be used to reduce upland hazardous fuels on slopes generally less than 30% and less sensitive soils, while hand treatments would be used to reduce hazardous fuels on slopes generally greater than 30% and sensitive soils. Prescribed fire would be planned to avoid fire intensity and duration resulting in detrimentally burned soils. No new permanent road construction would occur. Roads would be maintained and/or restored to Forest Service standards needed to support equipment and trucks needed for activities as well as to protect soil and water quality resources from the impacts of equipment use. Some temporary road construction would be needed. Road BMPs would be implemented during and at the conclusion of project activities. At the conclusion of the project, temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would be closed and stabilized to provide drainage and prevent water accumulation on the roadbed and sedimentation into stream channels. Barriers along open areas adjacent to road or trail access (i.e. boulders, split rail fence) and signs would be strategically established to prevent post-treatment establishment of user-created routes within treatment areas. Schedule treatment timing to minimize user disturbance from fuel treatments on Forest Service lands within and surrounding special use permit properties, and avoid peak visitor use recreation times in developed recreation areas, when practical. For public safety, temporary area closures to recreation access would be implemented while fuel reduction activities are in progress. Environmental education and notification of area closures would be provided to the public for the project. To protect historic and pre-historic heritage resources, discrete sites would be flagged for mechanical equipment avoidance. Heritage sites would receive hand treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. In order to preserve arborglyphs, conifer invasion in aspen stands would be reduced, and arborglyphs would be protected during prescribed fire. Fuel treatments would be used to increase scenic viewing opportunities where existing fuels concentrations prevent attractive views, for example, views of meadows, views of Lake Tahoe, and views of aspen. Cover would be placed on landings, temporary roads, or other cleared areas to blend these areas visually into the surrounding landscape at completion of the project. Fuel reduction treatments would be scheduled to disperse visual impacts both over time and spatially in the landscape. Within foreground views from major travel routes, cut stump heights would be low and burn piles would be located to minimize their visibility. Fuel reduction would be designed to maintain visual variety in the landscape while meeting goals to change wildfire behavior. Possible Alternatives Implementation of the South Shore Project would occur entirely within the Wildland Urban Interface of at-risk communities as defined under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (PL 108-148; 16 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* ). The proposed action and no action alternatives are currently being considered, consistent with section 104(c). Lead and Cooperating Agencies The USDA Forest Service and the LWQCB will be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will serve as the lead agency under NEPA. The LWQCB will serve as the lead agency under CEQA. Responsible Official The Forest Service responsible official for the preparation of the EIS/EIR is Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor for the LTBMU will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to reduce hazardous fuels and restore healthy forest conditions on approximately 12,500 acres in the South Shore area of the LTBMU. Once the decision is made, the LTBMU will publish a record of decision to disclose the rationale for selection of an alternative for implementation. Scoping Process The Forest Service has been and will continue to seek information, comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The proposed action was originally mailed to interested and affected parties in July of 2007. During this initial scoping phase, it was determined that this proposal could have significant effects on the human environment. Therefore the responsible official elected to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/environmental impact report in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7—Scoping, publication of this notice of intent precedes the scoping period for an EIS/EIR. However, since there have been no changes to the proposed action since it was initially scoped in July 2007, those who previously submitted comments on this project need not resubmit them. Scoping comments submitted previously on this project will be retained and treated the same as those received subsequent to this notice. One joint Forest Service and Lahontan Water Quality Control Board scoping meeting is scheduled for January 23, 2008 from 10 a.m. to noon in the Board Room at Lake Tahoe Community College, 1 College Dr., South Lake Tahoe, CA. The notice of intent is expected to be published in the **Federal Register** on January 18, 2008. The comment period on the proposed action will extend 30 days from the date the notice of intent is published in the **Federal Register** . The draft environmental impact statement/draft environmental impact report is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and to be available for public review by April 2008. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS/EIR in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the draft EIS/EIR will extend 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the **Federal Register** . At that time, copies of the draft EIS/EIR will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit participate at that time. The final EIS/EIR is scheduled to be completed in August 2008. In the final EIS/EIR, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS/EIR and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision. Substantive comments are defined as “comments within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider” (36 CFR 215.2). Submission of substantive comments is a prerequisite for eligibility to object under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. Permits or Licenses Required Lahontan Water Quality Control Board—2007 Timber Waiver and/or Permit for Waste Discharge. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In accordance with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
(HFRA)of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148; 16 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* ), this project is subject to a special administrative review process whereby a person may seek relief for issues concerning this proposal before the responsible official makes her final decision. To be eligible to request an administrative review, a person must comment during scoping or the public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement by providing specific written comments that relate to the proposed action. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and to be available for public review by April 2008. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS/EIR in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the draft EIS/EIR will extend 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the **Federal Register** . At that time, copies of the draft EIS/EIR will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit participate at that time. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: January 8, 2008. Terri Marceron, LTBMU Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-668 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION SES Performance Review Board AGENCY: American Battle Monuments Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the ABMC Performance Review Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theodore Gloukhoff, Director of Personnel and Administration, American Battle Monuments Commission, Courthouse Plaza II, Suite 500, 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22201-3367, Telephone Number:
(703)696-6908. American Battle Monuments Commission SES Performance Review Board Mr. Wilbert Berrios, Director, Corporate Information, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Michael Ensch, Chief, Operations and Regulatory CoP, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Mohan Singh, Chief, Interagency & International Services Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Kristine Allaman, Chief, Installation Support Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Theodore Gloukhoff, Director, Personnel and Administration. [FR Doc. E8-617 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5760 or
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background At the request of interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom for 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). On November 16, 2007, we rescinded in part the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 72 FR 64577 (November 16, 2007). The preliminary results of the reviews still underway are currently due no later than January 31, 2008. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 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 determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month. We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of these reviews within the original time limit because of the number of respondents covered by these reviews and complex issues involving, *inter alia,* several respondents' recent changes in corporate structure. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of these reviews by 75 days until April 15, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: January 10, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-673 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-820] Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of termination of suspension agreement, termination of five-year sunset review, and resumption of antidumping investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2008. SUMMARY: On November 26, 2007, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of Commerce of their withdrawal from the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Because the suspension agreement will no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico once this withdrawal becomes effective, the Department of Commerce is terminating the suspension agreement, terminating the sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resuming the antidumping investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Wey Rudman or Jay Carreiro at
(202)482-0192 or
(202)482-3674, respectively; Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applicable Statute and Regulations Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1996). Background On April 18, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV)(61 FR 18377, April 25, 1996). On May 16, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury determination. On October 10, 1996, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement suspending the antidumping investigation. On October 28, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being sold at LTFV in the United States. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico,* 61 FR 56608 (November 1, 1996) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). On the same day the *Preliminary Determination* was signed, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed an agreement to suspend the investigation (1996 Suspension Agreement). *See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico,* 61 FR 56618 (November 1, 1996). On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 1996 Suspension Agreement, effective July 30, 2002. Because the 1996 Suspension Agreement would no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective July 30, 2002, the Department terminated the 1996 Suspension Agreement, terminated the sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resumed the antidumping investigation. *See Notice of Termination of Suspension Agreement, Termination of Sunset Review, and Resumption of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico,* 67 FR 50858 (August 6, 2002). On November 8, 2002, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement suspending the resumed antidumping investigation on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. On December 4, 2002, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed a new suspension agreement (“2002 Suspension Agreement”). *See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico,* 67 FR 77044 (December 16, 2002). On November 3, 2003, the Department published the *Final Results of Analysis of Reference Prices and Clarifications and Corrections; Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico,* 68 FR 62281 (November 3, 2003). On November 26, 2007, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 2002 Suspension Agreement, effective 90 days from the date of their withdrawal letter ( *i.e.* , February 24, 2008), or earlier, at the Department's discretion. Because, as of February 24, 2008, the 2002 Suspension Agreement would no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, the Department published a notice of intent to terminate the 2002 Suspension Agreement, intent to terminate the five-year sunset review of the suspended investigation, and intent to resume the antidumping investigation. *See Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico: Notice of Intent to Terminate Suspension Agreement, Intent to Terminate the Five-Year Sunset Review, and Intent to Resume Antidumping Investigation,* 72 FR 70820 (December 13, 2007). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise subject to this investigation is all fresh or chilled tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) which have Mexico as their origin, except for those tomatoes which are for processing. For purposes of this investigation, processing is defined to include preserving by any commercial process, such as canning, dehydrating, drying, or the addition of chemical substances, or converting the tomato product into juices, sauces, or purees. Fresh tomatoes that are imported for cutting up, not further processing ( *e.g.* , tomatoes used in the preparation of fresh salsa or salad bars), are covered by this Agreement. Commercially grown tomatoes, both for the fresh market and for processing, are classified as Lycopersicon esculentum. Important commercial varieties of fresh tomatoes include common round, cherry, grape, plum, greenhouse, and pear tomatoes, all of which are covered by this investigation. Tomatoes imported from Mexico covered by this investigation are classified under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), according to the season of importation: 0702 and 9906.07.01 through 9906.07.09. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is March 1, 1995, through February 29, 1996. Termination of Suspension Agreement The 2002 Suspension Agreement is an agreement to eliminate injury under section 734(c) of the Act. Under this type of suspension agreement, the Department may suspend an investigation based upon an agreement with exporters accounting for substantially all of the imports of the subject merchandise. The regulations in turn define “substantially all” as exporters (growers and resellers) which have accounted for not less than 85 percent by value or volume of the merchandise during the period for which the Department is measuring dumping in the investigation or such other period that the Secretary considers representative. See 19 CFR 353.18(c). On November 26, 2007, signatory growers/exporters accounting for a large percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 2002 Suspension Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the 2002 Suspension Agreement, signatory growers/exporters may withdraw from the agreement upon 90 days written notice to the Department. Therefore, these withdrawals from the 2002 Suspension Agreement become effective on February 24, 2008, or earlier at the Department's discretion. Virtually all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico into the United States are accounted for by those growers/exporters which have withdrawn from the 2002 Suspension Agreement; the few signatories remaining in the 2002 Suspension Agreement will not account for substantially all of the imports of subject merchandise once the withdrawal becomes effective. Accordingly, because the 2002 Suspension Agreement will not cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico without the participation of the growers/exporters which provided their notice of withdrawal on November 26, 2007, the Department is terminating the 2002 Suspension Agreement, effective January 18, 2008. Termination of Five-Year Sunset Review On November 1, 2007, the Department initiated a five-year sunset review of the suspended antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See *Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 72 FR 61861 (November 1, 2007). Because the Department is terminating the 2002 Suspension Agreement, there is no longer a suspended investigation for which to perform a sunset review. Therefore, the Department is terminating the sunset review of the suspended LTFV investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective January 18, 2008. Resumption of Antidumping Investigation With the termination of the 2002 Suspension Agreement, effective January 18, 2008, the Department is resuming the underlying antidumping investigation, in accordance with section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department resumes the investigation as if it had published the affirmative preliminary determination under section 733(b) of the Act on January 18, 2008. As explained in the *Preliminary Determination,* 61 FR at 56609, the Department postponed the final determination in this investigation until the 135th day after the date of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, the Department intends to issue its final determination in the resumed investigation by June 2, 2008. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department will verify all information determined to be acceptable for use in making the final determination. Suspension of Liquidation The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of entries of fresh tomatoes from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 18, 2008, the effective date of the termination of the 2002 Suspension Agreement. CBP shall require antidumping duty cash deposits or bonds for entries of the subject merchandise based on the preliminary dumping margins, which are as follows: Grower/Exporter Weighted-average margin percentage San Vincente Camalu 4.16 Ernesto Fernando Echavarria Salazar Grupo Solidario 11.89 Arturo Lomeli Villalobas S.A. de C.V. 26.97 Eco-Cultivos S.A. de C.V. 188.45 Ranchos Los Pinos S. de R.L. de C.V. 10.26 Administradora Horticola del Tamazula 28.30 Agricola Yory, S. de P.R. de R.I. 11.95 All Others 17.56 International Trade Commission The Department will notify the ITC of its termination of the 2002 Suspension Agreement, termination of the sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resumption of the LTFV investigation. If the Department makes a final affirmative determination, the ITC is scheduled to make its final determination concerning injury within 45 days after publication of the Department's final determination. If both the Department's and the ITC's final determinations are affirmative, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order. Administrative Protective Order Access Administrative protective orders previously granted in the original investigation will remain in effect. Any necessary amendments for changes in staff must be submitted promptly. Parties must use the APO application form in effect at the time of the original investigation, Form ITA-367(3.89). We are issuing and publishing this determination under section 733(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.15. Dated: January 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-670 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-822] Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-2336 or
(202)482-0650, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 12, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published *Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 52073 ( *“Preliminary Results”* ). This review covers the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. The final results are currently due by January 10, 2008. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 120-day period to 180 days after the preliminary results if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results of the administrative review of helical spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China within the 120-day period due to complex issues the parties have raised regarding which countries to exclude from certain surrogate values. In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the final results of this review by 5 days to 125 days after the date on which the preliminary results were published. Therefore, the final results are now due no later than January 15, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: January 10, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-687 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is currently conducting the aligned semi-annual 2005-2006 new shipper review and 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) for both the new shipper review and administrative review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. Five respondents reported that they had no exports or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR; therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding our review of these companies. We preliminarily determine that Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd. (“Wuhu Qinshi”); Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp. (“Jiangsu Light”); Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (“QMD”); and Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping (“IMA”) have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our requests for information and, as a result, should be assigned a rate based on adverse facts available. Additionally, we have preliminarily determined that, because the Department has not calculated antidumping duty margins in this segment of the proceeding, the two separate rate companies in the administrative review will be assigned the separate rate margin from the most recent segment of this proceeding in which such a rate was calculated, which in this case is the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation. Finally, we have preliminarily determined that QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd. (“QHD Sanhai”), the new shipper respondent, did not make sales of subject merchandise to the United States below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Wong or Michael Quigley, 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 or
(202)482-4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 27, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received timely requests from QMD, IMA, and Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co, Ltd. (“Dongtai Peak”), for administrative reviews. On December 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products I/E Group Corporation (“Zhejiang Native”), for an administrative review. On December 28, 2006, the Department received a timely request from QHD Sanhai, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC. Also on December 29, 2006, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, “petitioners”), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made during the POR by 30 Chinese producers/exporters. 1 1 Petitioners' request included: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy Product Co., Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd.; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd.; Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd.; Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.; Rich Shipping Company; Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co., Ltd.; Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; United Logistics Group Inc.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; and Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd. On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007) (“AR Initiation Notice”). On February 5, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews,* 72 FR 5265 (February 5, 2007) (“NSR Initiation Notice”). On February 22, 2007, QHD Sanhai agreed to waive the new shipper review time limits, and on February 23, 2007, the Department aligned the new shipper review with the corresponding administrative review. On February 12, 2007, the Department sent a request for quantity and value (“Q&V”) information to the 31 companies named in the *AR Initiation Notice.* On February 23, 2007, the Department received quantity and value questionnaire responses (“Q&V response”) from Dongtai Peak; QMD; IMA; and Chiangmai Healthy Product Co., Ltd. On February 26, 2007, the Department received a Q&V response and a separate rates certification from Zhejiang Native. On April 12, 2007, the Department received a separate rate application from Dongtai Peak, QMD, and IMA. On April 13, 2007, the Department received a separate rate application from Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. On March 21, 2007, the Department received and granted a deadline extension request to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire from Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Ltd., Co. (“Wuhu Qinshi”). *See* March 21, 2007, letter from Christopher Riker, Program Manager, to Wuhu Qinshi Tangye, regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, Wuhu Qinxhi did not submit its certified Q&V response. On April 10, 2007, petitioners withdrew their request for review on 22 of the 30 Chinese companies in the administrative review: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy Product Co., Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd.; Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Health Foods Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation; Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; Rich Shipping Company; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co., Ltd.; Sichuan Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; United Logistics Group Inc.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. Of the nine remaining companies named in the *AR Initiation Notice,* IMA, QMD, Dongtai Peak, and Zhejiang Native provided Q&V data and claimed shipments. Given the Department's limited resources and pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, in order to cover the greatest possible export volume, the Department selected IMA and QMD as mandatory respondents in the administrative review, which are the two largest producer/exporters by export volume during the POR. 2 On April 17, 2007, the Department selected IMA and QMD as mandatory respondents and issued antidumping duty questionnaires to IMA and QMD (“AR original questionnaire”). *See* April 17, 2007, Memorandum to James Doyle, Office Director, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Compliance Analyst, Through Christopher Riker, Program Manager, regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents. On April 23, 2007, Zhejiang Native requested that the Department reconsider Zhejiang Native as either a mandatory or voluntary respondent for the administrative review. 3 2 Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak remained separate rate respondents in the administrative review. 3 *See* June 7, 2007, Memorandum to the File, From James Doyle, Director, Office 9, Regarding: Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Phone call with Counsel Regarding April 23, 2007, Submission. On March 7, 2007, the Department sent “second chance” Q&V questionnaires to Wuhu Qinshi Tanye; Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co.; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation; Jiangsu Kanghong; Hangzhou Golden; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; United Logistics Group; Rich Shipping Company; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; and Tianjin Eulia Honey. On May 3, 2007, the Department published a notice of partial rescission in the administrative review regarding the 22 companies for which petitioners withdrew their request for review in the administrative review. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 24561 (May 3, 2007) *(“AR Partial Rescission Notice”).* On May 21, 2007, the Department invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production in the new shipper and administrative reviews. *See* May 21, 2007, Letter to “All Interested Parties” from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding *Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Letter enclosing the Office of Policy list of economically comparable countries and schedule for comments on surrogate country,* and *see also* May 21, 2007, Letter to “All Interested Parties” from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding *Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Letter enclosing the Office of Policy list of economically comparable countries and schedule for comments on surrogate country* (collectively, *“Surrogate Country Letters”).* On July 31, 2007, the Department also published an extension of the time limits to complete the preliminary results. *See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 72 FR 41710 (July 31, 2007). On August 15, 2007, the Department received notification from IMA that it intended to withdraw its request for a review in the administrative review. *See* August 15, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from IMA, regarding Honey from the People's Republic of China. On October 18, 2007, the Department received notification from QMD, stating that it would not participate in the Department's scheduled verification of its questionnaire responses in Qinhuangdao, Hebei China. *See* October 18, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Qinghuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., regarding: Honey from the People's Republic of China. *See infra* for further discussion. Questionnaires On February 5, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to QHD Sanhai in the new shipper review (“NSR original questionnaire”). On March 19, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's section A response to the Department's NSR original questionnaire. On March 30, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire. On April 11, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's section C and D response to the Department's NSR original questionnaire. On April 13, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's section A response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On May 18, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to QHD Sanhai. On June 15, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's response to section A, C, and D of the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On July 26, 2007, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to QHD Sanhai. On August 20, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's supplemental questionnaire responses. On April 17, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to IMA and QMD in the administrative review. On May 7, 2007, the Department received IMA and QMD's responses to section A of the Department's original questionnaire. On June 7, 2007, the Department received IMA and QMD's timely responses to section C and D of the Department's original questionnaire. On July 19, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to QMD. On July 31, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to IMA. However, IMA did not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On August 21, 2007, the Department issued a letter to IMA, requesting that it respond to the Department's outstanding supplemental questionnaire; furthermore, the Department extended the deadline for IMA to reply to the supplemental questionnaire. *See* August 21, 2007, letter to IMA, from Catherine Bertrand, Acting Program Manager, regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, the Department received no further correspondence from IMA. On August 14, 2007, the Department received a timely submission of QMD's response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006), and the *Fourth Honey AR Final Results,* 72 FR 37715 (July 11, 2007). Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006); and *Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part,* 71 FR 65073, 65074 (November 7, 2006) unchanged in *Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country and Factors Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that
(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and
(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development. *See* Memorandum to Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AC/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (April 2, 2007); and Memorandum to Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, regarding the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (April 2, 2007) (“Surrogate Country Letters”). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( *e.g.* , production data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. *See* Memorandum to The File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, and Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (December 17, 2007). Accordingly, we have selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. *See id.* On May 21, 2007, the Department provided parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results in the administrative and new shipper reviews. *See* Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Letter enclosing the Office of Policy list of economically comparable countries and schedule for comments on surrogate country, dated May 21, 2007. On October 17, 2007, QHD Sanhai submitted comments on surrogate information for the record of the new shipper review ( *see* letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Regarding: QHD Sanhai Regarding the First Surrogate Value Submission in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (October 17, 2007)). On October 19, 2007, petitioners submitted their comments on surrogate information for the record of the new shipper and administrative review ( *see* letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Regarding: 5th Administrative Review and 10th New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated October 17, 2007). On October 29, 2007, the Department received rebuttal comments on surrogate information from QHD Sanhai and Zhejiang Native ( *see* October 29, 2007, letters to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from: Zhejiang Native, Regarding: Rebuttal to Petitioners' Surrogate Value Submission for the Fifth Antidumping Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (A-570-863); and QHD Sanhai, Regarding: Rebuttal to Petitioners' Surrogate Value Submission for the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China). On November 6, 2007, QHD Sanhai and Zhejiang Native submitted additional comments on surrogate information to value factors of production in both the administrative and new shipper reviews. Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005/2006 Administrative Review Mgl Yun Sheng Honey Co., Ltd. 4 ; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., certified that they did not export honey from China to the United States during the POR. To corroborate these certifications, the Department reviewed PRC honey shipment data maintained by CBP, and found no discrepancies with the statements made by these companies. Moreover, the Department also requested that CBP forward any information regarding entries of honey from these companies during the POR and received no reply. 4 *See* August 13, 2007, Memorandum to the File, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding: Administrative Review on Honey from the People's Republic of China for the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006; and August 15, 2007, Memorandum to the File, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding: Administrative Review on Honey from the People's Republic of China for the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006. Therefore, for the reasons noted above, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., because the Department was unable to reach the companies, or the company reported that it did not make shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and the Department found no information to indicate otherwise. 5 5 The Department requested shipment information for Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. solely for the period July 1, 2006, through November 30, 2006. The Department had previously reviewed Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. as a new shipper for the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 72 FR 67702, November 30, 2007. Separate Rates Administrative Review Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners, the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 31 companies in the administrative review. Subsequently, petitioners withdrew their review request for certain of these companies and thus the Department rescinded the review with respect to 22 companies. Of the nine companies remaining in the review, only four companies provided Q&V data and claimed shipments. Those four companies (Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping, Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products I/E Group Corporation) comprised the pool of companies considered in the selection of respondents for this review. However, due to its limited resources, the Department was unable to examine all companies for which a review request was made. Therefore, as previously stated, the Department selected two producers/exporters as mandatory respondents: QMD and IMA. Two additional companies, Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review as cooperative separate rate respondents. Ultimately, both QMD and IMA ceased participating in the administrative review, and both Wuhu Qinshi and Jiangsu Light did not respond to the Department's multiple requests for information. Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department finds that these four entities are not entitled to a separate rate and thus are considered part of the PRC-wide entity, which is preliminarily assigned an adverse facts available (“AFA”) rate of 221.02 percent, as further discussed below. The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining two cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the selected companies excluding zero and *de minimis* rates and rates based entirely on adverse facts available. In the instant administrative review, however, the rate for the mandatory respondents is the rate for the PRC-wide entity based on total AFA. While the statute does not specifically address this particular set of circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act does specify the methodology to be followed when a similar fact pattern arises in the context of the all-others rate established in an investigation. While not entirely analogous to the determination of a rate to be applied to responsive separate rate respondents in the context of a NME review, we find it to be instructive in these circumstances. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that in situations where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* , or are determined entirely under section 776 (facts available section), “the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” The SAA states that in using any reasonable method to calculate the all-others rate, “the expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and *de minimis* margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available.” *See* SAA at 203. However, the SAA also provides that: [If] this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.” *Id* . In the instant administrative review, the Department preliminarily concludes that it cannot accurately determine a margin based on information provided by the separate rate entities. Furthermore, we preliminarily find that we cannot employ alternative methods such as applying AFA, *de minimis* and zero rates, or partial use of the information on the record. Specifically, while the separate rates entities have given us total volume and value information with respect to subject merchandise, we note that processed honey prices vary dramatically depending on the quality and packaging of the honey. Margins calculated on the basis of average prices without regard to quality and other factors do not reflect a meaningful, accurate comparison, and therefore we find we must look to other reasonable means to determine an appropriate margin for the separate rate entities subject to this review. In the case of Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, we received voluntary questionnaire responses, but we have not examined these submissions because of the Department's resource constraints and its decision to review only two exporters. The Department has therefore preliminarily determined to assign Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak the separate rate margin calculated in the most recent segment of Honey from the People's Republic of China in which a separate margin was calculated. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001) (“Honey Investigation”). The rate of 45.46 percent calculated in the LTFV investigation was based on the Department's thorough examination of cooperative companies during the period of investigation. Therefore, we find it a reasonable means by which to determine a rate for non-examined cooperative separate entities and have employed this methodology for purposes of these preliminary results. Given that the most recent rate calculated in the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC for unexamined separate rate companies is from the LTFV investigation, we invite comments on the selection of this rate for purposes of the final results. Separate Rates New Shipper Review With respect to the new shipper review for QHD Sanhai, QHD Sanhai has asserted the following:
(1)It is a privately owned company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)its executive director has the authority to sign binding sales contracts;
(4)the company's executive director appoints the company's management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)its executive director decides how profits will be used. In support of its claim that QHD Sanhai independently set its sales prices, QHD Sanhai stated that sales negotiations were conducted primarily through e-mails; QHD Sanhai placed copies on the record of its e-mail correspondence and price negotiation between itself and its U.S. customer during the POR. 6 Furthermore, QHD Sanhai company officials stated that the sales price and quantity are finalized when the sales invoice is issued. 6 *See, e.g.* , QHD Sanhai's Section A response at Exhibit A-5; and the QHD Verification Report at Exhibit 8 & 12. At the verification of QHD Sanhai, prior to presenting the documentation to Chinese Customs, the Department found that the company's sales invoices required a “pre-review stamp” from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Commerce for Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-Products (“the Chamber”). *See* QHD Sanhai Verification Report at Exhibit 8. Additionally, company officials provided documentation of all products that require the “pre-review stamp” from various sub-chambers of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. QHD Sanhai explained that obtaining a “pre-review stamp” from the Chamber is an administrative formality, and it has no authority over QHD Sanhai's ability to negotiate or set prices. *See* QHD Sanhai Verification Report at Section III(A)(5) and Exhibit 8. The Department successfully verified that QHD Sanhai is a privately owned company; independently negotiated and set prices; independently selected management; and that QHD Sanhai had authority to determine the use of sales revenue (see QHD Sanhai Verification Report at Section III(A) and
(B)and at exhibit 8 & 12). Moreover, the Department found no indications of restrictions on the use of export revenue *(id.)* . QHD Sanhai supplied sales negotiation documentation including a purchase order, sales contract, and sales invoices between it and unaffiliated third party customers, demonstrating its independent setting of export prices. See QHD Sanhai Verification Report at exhibit 12. As the evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over QHD Sanhai's export activities, we preliminarily determine that it has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. However, we will continue to carefully examine these issues for the purposes of the final results. PRC-Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise Available The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. *See* “Separate Rates” section above. Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and QMD are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate. Because the PRC-wide entity did not provide requested information necessary to the instant proceeding, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or any other person:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act additionally states that if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if:
(1)The information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. As addressed below separately for each non-responsive company, we find that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and QMD, did not respond to our request for information and that necessary information either was not provided, or the information provided could not be verified and is not sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for these preliminary results. Therefore, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of this review for the PRC-wide entity. 1. Wuhu Qinshi On March 7, 2007, the Department sent a Q&V questionnaire to Wuhu Qinshi. On March 21, 2007, the Department received an e-mail correspondence from Mr. William E. Kentor, president of Great Foods, Inc., requesting an extension of the deadline to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. Mr. Kentor stated in the extension request that Mr. Qin Yi Cai, president of Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd., would confirm that Wuhu Qinshi never exported honey to the United States. On March 21, 2007, the Department granted a partial extension of the deadline until March 26, 2007, to respond. However, Wuhu Qinshi did not file a certified Q&V response with the Department nor provide any further correspondence. We note that, although Great Foods, Inc.'s extension request indicated that Wuhu Qinshi would confirm that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, the Department did not receive any correspondence from Wuhu Qinshi during this POR, and therefore find that Wuhu Qinshi is non-responsive in the administrative review. Consequently, because Wuhu Qinshi withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and thus significantly impeded the Department's proceeding, the Department preliminarily finds that it did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and because Wuhu Qinshi did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not applicable. 2. Jiangsu Light On February 12, 2007, the Department sent a Q&V questionnaire to Jiangsu Light; however, the Department did not receive a response from Jiangsu Light by the noted deadline. According to the delivery tracking information, the delivery of the package was “refused” by Jiangsu Light. *See* April 17, 2007, Memorandum to the file, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding: 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Results of Tracking Information for Quantity and Value Questionnaire. On March 6, 2007, petitioners provided an alternative address for Jiangsu Light, thus on March 7, 2007, the Department resent the Q&V questionnaire to the alternative address; however, the Department again did not receive a response. According to the delivery tracking information, the alternate address was undeliverable. On March 21, 2007, the Department again sent the Q&V questionnaire to the original address. 7 Again, the Department did not receive a response from Jiangsu Light by the noted deadline. According to the delivery tracking information, Jiangsu Light again refused the attempted delivery of the Q&V questionnaire. *See id.* 7 *See* March 21, 2007, letter to Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding 2005/2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China. Therefore, because the Department twice attempted to deliver, and Jiangsu Light twice refused to receive and respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that Jiangsu Light withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and thus significantly impeded the Department's proceeding, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, and because Jiangsu Light did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not applicable. 3. IMA: On July 31, 2007, the Department identified deficiencies in IMA's questionnaire response and issued a supplemental questionnaire, due by August 14, 2007. On August 15, 2007, the Department received notification from IMA that it intended to withdraw its request for a review in the administrative review. However, as petitioners did file a timely request for a review of IMA, 8 the Department issued a letter to IMA on August 21, 2007, notifying it that, irrespective of its withdrawal request, the Department would continue to consider IMA a mandatory respondent and that it was required to respond to the Department's questionnaires; and that if IMA did not participate, the Department may be required to base its findings on total AFA for the preliminary results. 9 Furthermore, the Department, of its own volition, extended the deadline for IMA to respond to the Department's July 31, 2007, supplemental questionnaire until August 28, 2007. Subsequently, the Department received no response or further correspondence from IMA. 8 *See AR Initiation Notice.* 9 *See* Letter from August 21, 2007, from Catherine E. Bertrand, Acting Program Manager, to Inner Mongolia Altin Bee Keeping Co., Ltd.; Regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey From the People's Republic of China. Consequently, because IMA did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, request an extension of the deadline to respond, or otherwise correspond with the Department, the Department preliminarily finds that IMA withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and thus significantly impeded the Department's proceeding, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the Department finds that IMA did not cooperate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, and because IMA did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not applicable. 4. QMD On October 18, 2007, having finalized verification dates, the Department received a notification from QMD stating that QMD would not participate in the scheduled verification, and QMD provided no alternative verification dates. *See* October 18, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Qinghuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., regarding: Honey from the People's Republic of China. Because QMD did not allow verification of its questionnaire response, the company denied the Department an opportunity to verify the completeness and accuracy of any of its sales and production records. Because QMD denied the Department the opportunity to verify its questionnaire responses, the Department has preliminarily determined that QMD significantly impeded the Department's proceeding by providing information that could not be verified, and thus QMD has not cooperated to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the application of facts available is appropriate for these preliminary results. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and QMD, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity informed the Department that it would not participate in this review, or otherwise did not provide the requested information, despite repeated requests that it do so. This information was in the sole possession of the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding. * See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, * 68 FR 19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in this regard. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States,* 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (“ *Rhone Poulenc* ”); *NSK Ltd.* v. *United States,* 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l* v. *United States,* 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.* v. *United States,* 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,* 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,* 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); *D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States,* 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc,* 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 221.02 percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA as AFA. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 37715, 37717 (July 11, 2007) (“Fourth Honey AR Final Results”). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated. Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative value information must be reliable and relevant. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part* , 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and, *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005). To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was calculated during the immediately preceding, fourth administrative review of honey from the PRC. *See Fourth Honey AR Final Results.* Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co.* v. *United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in the proceeding that immediately precedes the current POR, the fourth administrative review of honey from the PRC. *See Fourth Honey AR Final Results* . Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we determine that this rate has relevance. As the *Fourth Honey AR Final Results* margin is both reliable and relevant, we find that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the *Fourth Honey AR Final Results* margin is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA. Because these are the preliminary results of the review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000) unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). Bona Fide Sale Analysis—QHD Sanhai For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that QHD Sanhai's reported U.S. sale during the POR to be *bona fide* based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that:
(1)The price and quantity of QHD Sanhai's sale are indicative of its normal business practices, as the U.S. sales price and quantity was within the range of its sales price and quantity to POR and post-POR customers;
(2)QHD Sanhai's sale was made to an unaffiliated party at arm's length; and
(3)there is no record evidence that indicates that QHD Sanhai's sale was not based on commercial principles. While the quantity of QHD Sanhai's sale was small compared to other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR, absent other factors, single sales of small quantities are not inherently commercially unreasonable. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale Reported by QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd. (December 17, 2007). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), from November 5, through November 7, 2007, the Department verified the questionnaire responses of QHD Sanhai for the new shipper review. For QHD Sanhai, the Department used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's and exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong, International Trade Compliance Analyst, and Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“QHD Verification Report”). Scope of Order The products covered by this order 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 subject to 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 order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons In the new shipper review, to determine whether QHD Sanhai's sale to the United States was made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. U.S. Price-Export Price For QHD Sanhai, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Where foreign movement was provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (“RMB”), we valued these services using surrogate values (see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For a complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for QHD Sanhai, see Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding “Honey From the People's Republic of China—Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of QHD Sanhai Food Co., Ltd.,” dated December 17, 2007 (“QHD Sanhai Analysis Memorandum”). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. Factor Valuation Methodology In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by QHD Sanhai for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to each Indian import surrogate value, a surrogate freight cost calculated from the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Memorandum to the File, Through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, From Michael Quigley, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding, “Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Factor Values,” dated December 17, 2007 (“Factor Value Memorandum”), and the QHD Sanhai Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for QHD Sanhai's material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that the Indian import statistics represent import data that is contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values, where appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See, e.g., Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (“CTVs from the PRC”). We are also guided by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576
(1988)at 590. Rather, Congress indicated that the Department base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For QHD Sanhai, the company reported that it purchased all of its inputs consumed in the production of the subject merchandise under review from non-market economy suppliers and paid for such inputs in RMB. Therefore, the Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value all raw material and packing material inputs consumed by QHD Sanhai in the production of the subject merchandise during the POR. To value unfiltered/unprocessed honey (“raw honey”), the Department used the raw honey price 10 published by the Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (“RCDC”) (on its Web site: *www.banajata.org* ) for these preliminary results. The Department finds that the RCDC raw honey price is reliable, as the organization collects its own raw and processed honey price information directly from various Indian honey markets. On December 6, 2007, the Department contacted RCDC representatives via e-mail and requested information regarding how the unprocessed honey price information was collected. Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, an RCDC official in Orissa, India, explained that RCDC's field officers collect honey prices from the local markets. See December 17, 2007, Memorandum to the file, from Michael Quigley, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding RCDC telephone conversation. Furthermore, the Department recognizes that RCDC is a non-governmental organization, which works to strengthen the community-based management of natural resources in Orissa and surrounding states, and maintains updated market prices of various non-timber forest products for various major markets in India. Additionally, the Department finds that RCDC-published unprocessed honey prices are more contemporaneous to the instant POR than the EDA Rural System Pvt. Ltd., data that the Department used in previous segments of the review. However, because the unprocessed honey price data published by RCDC are not contemporaneous to the POR, we deflated the price to be contemporaneous with the instant POR using WPI. 10 The honey price published by RCDC can be found at *http://www.banajata.org/m/a1.htm.* To value electricity, the Department used rates from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POR, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be found on the Department's Web site on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.* The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by QHD Sanhai. To value water, the Department used data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *http://www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org* ) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 of the water rates were for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 of the water rates were for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation. To value coal, the Department calculated a POR contemporaneous value of steam coal by deriving a weighted-average per unit price based on the Indian import volume and value as published by Indian Import Statistics. We used Indian transport information to value the foreign freight-in costs of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from *www.infreight.com.* This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . Consistent with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by *www.infreight.com* to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. To value the cost of brokerage and handling expenses, the Department calculated a simple average based on the public version responses of two companies,
(1)Kejriwal Paper Ltd.'s January 9, 2006, submission in the antidumping duty investigation of Lined Paper from India ( *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006) (“Kejriwal”)); and
(2)Agro Dutch Industries Limited (“Agro Dutch”), submitted in the course of 2004/2005 *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Lined Paper from India* and the *2004/2005 {Sixth} Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India* , respectively. The Department derived the average per-unit amount from each source and adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the average per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. To value factory overhead; sales, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”); and profit; we relied upon publicly available information in the 2004-2005 annual report of MHPC, a producer of the subject merchandise in India. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006: Honey From the PRC Percent New Shipper Review Respondent: • QHD Sanhai 0.0 Administrative Review Separate Rate Respondents: • Zhejiang Native 45.46 • Dongtai Peak 45.46 We will disclose our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b) (2007). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements Administrative Review The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis, i.e.,* less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 221.02 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. New Shipper Review The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from QHD Sanhai entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For subject merchandise produced and exported by QHD Sanhai, the cash-deposit rate will be *de minimis* ;
(2)for subject merchandise exported by QHD Sanhai but not manufactured by QHD Sanhai, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 221.02 percent); and
(3)for subject merchandise exported by QHD Sanhai, but manufactured by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 221.02 percent). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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. This administrative and new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: December 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-671 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-847] Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2336 and
(202)482-4207, respectively. Background On July 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). On July 31, 2007, FMC Corporation (“FMC”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation (“Shanghai AJ”). No other parties requested a review. The Department published a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of persulfates from the PRC for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). On November 21, 2007 the Department issued a memorandum to the file extending the deadline for FMC to withdraw its request for a review of Shanghai AJ until December 17, 2007. On December 17, 2007, FMC submitted a letter withdrawing its request for review of Shanghai AJ. Rescission of Review Because FMC, the sole party which had requested a review, submitted a timely letter withdrawing its request for review of Shanghai AJ., pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) we are rescinding this administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S.Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: January 10, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-661 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The Manufacturing Council: Fact-Finding Meeting AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a Fact-Finding Meeting. SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a fact-finding meeting to collect information on the problems manufacturers face in using or adopting renewable energies. The Council is gathering this information for later use for deliberation by the Council in preparing a report for the Secretary of Commerce. DATES: February 5, 2008. *Time:* 1:45 p.m. (EDT). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the Council's Web site at *http://www.manufacturing.gov/council.* Dated: January 10, 2008 Kate Worthington, Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council. [FR Doc. 08-139 Filed 1-11-08; 4:27 pm]
Connectionstraces to 75
Traces to 75 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
66 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 21 CFR 520
  • 21 CFR 20
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 21 CFR 522
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.578
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 180.637
  • 44 CFR 64
  • 44 CFR 59
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 44 CFR 65
  • 44 CFR 60.3
  • 44 CFR 65.4
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 44 CFR 67
  • 44 CFR 60
  • 19 CFR 19
  • 19 CFR 144
  • 21 USC 505(a)
  • Pub. L. 110-85
  • 121 Stat. 823
  • 21 CFR 201
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 21 CFR 314
  • 21 CFR 601
  • 21 CFR 814
  • 496 U.S. 72
  • 373 U.S. 132
  • 312 U.S. 52
  • 15 USC 1451-1561
  • Pub. L. 105-115
  • 111 Stat. 2322
  • 40 CFR 710.3(d)
  • 40 CFR 720.45(a)(3)(i)
+ 26 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 520.928
C.F.R.§ 514.11
U.S.C.§ 360b
SCOTUS496 U.S. 72
SCOTUS373 U.S. 132
SCOTUS312 U.S. 52
Cites 141 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.