61460 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Source of flooding and location of referenced elevation 

♦Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

Communities affected 

Existing Modified 

Approximately 28,150 feet downstream of U.S. 

Highway 50.

♦544 ♦543 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). 

Approximately 131,850 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 50.None ♦557 

Maps are available for inspection at Osage County Courthouse, 106 East Main Street, Linn, Missouri.

Send comments to Mr. Bradley J. Strope, Floodplain Administrator, P.O. Box 1011, Linn, Missouri 65051. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

No. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: October 6, 2004. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Acting Director, Mitigation Division, 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 04–23307 Filed 10–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7449] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or 

comments are requested on the 

proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifcations for the communities 

listed below. The BFEs and modified 

BFEs are the basis for the floodplain 

management measures that the 

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 comment period is ninety 

(90) days following the second 

publication of this proposed rule in a 

newspaper of local circulation in each 

community.

ADDRESSES: The proposed 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:

Doug Bellomo, P.E. Hazard 

Identification Section, Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646–2903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 

premium rates for the new buildings 

built after these elevations are made 

final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

National Environmental Policy Act.

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR Part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. No environmental 

impact assessment has been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Mitigation Division Director of the 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate certifies that this proposed 

rule is exempt from the requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

proposed or modified BFEs are required 

by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 

1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required 

to establish and maintain community 

eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory 

flexibility analysis has been prepared. 

Regulatory Classification. This 

proposed 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 12612, Federalism.

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, 

dated October 26, 1987. 

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Administrative practice and 

procedures, 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.; 

Reorganziation 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.

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 (NAVD) 

Existing Modified 

North Dakota ... Lincoln (City), 

Burleigh 

County.

Apple Creek ... Just upstream of Railroad ........................................................ None +1,644 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61461

State City/town/

county 

Source of 

flooding Location 

+Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

Existing Modified 

Approximately 5,000 feet downstream of confluence of Hay 

Creek.

None +1,646

+North American Vertical Datum

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 74 Santee Road, Lincoln, North Dakota 58504.

Send comments to The Honorable Glen Christmann, Mayor, City of Lincoln, 74 Santee Road, Lincoln, North Dakota 58504. 

Utah ................. Paragonah 

(Town),.

Iron County ....

Red Creek ...... Approximately 1,900 feet downstream of Center Street ......... None +5,900 

Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Center Street .............. None +5,989 

Water Canyon Approxiamately 850 feet upstream of 100 West Street .......... None +5,878 

Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of 100 West Street ......... None +5,891

+North American Vertical Datum

Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 44 North 100 West, Paragonah, Utah 84760.

Send comments to The Honorable Constance Robinson, Mayor, Town of Paragonah, P.O. Box 600247, Paragonah, Utah 84760. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: October 6, 2004. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Acting Director, Mitigation Division, 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 04–23306 Filed 10–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT45 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of the Availability of 

Draft Economic Analysis for the 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Riverside Fairy Shrimp 

(Streptocephalus woottoni)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and reopening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp 

(Streptocephalus woottoni), and the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 

shrimp. Comments previously 

submitted for this proposed rule need 

not be resubmitted as they have already 

been incorporated into the public record 

and will be fully considered in any final 

decision.

DATES: We will accept comments and 

information until 5 p.m. on November 

18, 2004. Any comments received after 

the closing date may not be considered 

in the final decision on this action.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Jim Bartel, Field 

Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, CA 92009; 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

above address, or fax your comments to 

760/431–9618; or 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw1rvfs@r1.fws.gov. For directions on 

how to submit electronic filing of 

comments, by e-mail see the ‘‘Public 

Comments Solicited’’ section. In the 

event that our internet connection is not 

functional, please submit your 

comments by the alternate methods 

mentioned above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, at the above address 

(telephone 760/431–9440; facsimile 

760/431–9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period. We solicit comments 

on the original proposed critical habitat 

designation and on our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation. 

We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat as provided by section 

4 of the Act, including whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Riverside 

fairy shrimp and its habitat, and which 

habitat is essential to the conservation 

of this species and why;

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; 

(5) How our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified to provide for greater public 

participation and understanding, or to 

assist us in accommodating public 

concern and comments; 

(6) We request information on how 

many of the State and local 

environmental protection measures 

referenced in the draft Economic 

Analysis were adopted largely as a 

result of the listing of the Riverside fairy 

shrimp, and how many were either 

already in place or enacted for other 

reasons; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs 

attributable to the proposed critical 

habitat designation. If not, what other 

costs are overlooked; 

(8) Are the adjustments to local 

governments’ economic data made by 

the draft Economic Analysis, as set out 

in its appendices, reasonable? If not, 

please provide alternative 

interpretations and the justification for 

the alternative and/or the reasons the 

interpretation in the draft Economic 

Analysis is incorrect; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions