        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Chapter I
        [WC Docket No. 07-38; GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-41; DA 09-1550]
        Comment Sought on Providing Eligible Entities Access to Aggregate Form 477 Data as Required by the Broadband Data Improvement Act

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) released a public notice establishing a pleading cycle for comments on how the Federal Communications Commission should interpret and implement sections 106(h)(1) and 106(h)(2) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 (BDIA). (Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-385, 122 Stat. 4097 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1301-04)).

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before July 30, 2009, and reply comments are due on or before August 4, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 07-38; and GN Docket Nos. 09-47 and 09-51, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:
            http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail:
            ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number(s) in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          All submissions received must include the agency name and docket numbers for this rulemaking, WC Docket No. 07-38; and GN Docket Nos. 09-47 and 09-51. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeremy Miller, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-0940.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's e-Rulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        By this document, the Bureau seeks comment on how the Federal Communications Commission should interpret and implement sections 106(h)(1) and 106(h)(2) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008.

        Since 2000, the Commission has collected basic service information from broadband service providers using Form 477. In 2008, the Commission adopted revisions to the Form 477, which would result in the collection of more detailed and granular data. At the same time, the Commission issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking, which, among other things, sought comment on the issue of how to provide Form 477 information to other broadband initiatives, including those undertaken by state agencies and public-private partnerships, and on how to preserve confidentiality when sharing the information collected on Form 477. (See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 23 FCC Rcd at 9711-12, para 39; 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008 (“In this Further Notice, we seek comment on ways in which we can preserve confidentiality when sharing the information collected on Form 477, the voluntary registry, and other sources with agencies such as the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and with public-private partnerships such as ConnectKentucky and similar ventures, for example by sharing the data in a less granular or aggregated form than the level at which it is collected.”) (footnotes omitted).) On October 10, 2008, the BDIA became law. Section 106(h)(1) of the BDIA requires the Commission to “provide eligible entities access * * *  to aggregate data collected by the Commission based on the Form 477 submissions of broadband service providers.” (47 U.S.C. 1304(h)(1). Section 106(i)(2) of the BDIA defines “eligible entity” as: (A) An entity that is either (i) an agency or instrumentality of a State, or a municipality or other subdivision (or agency or instrumentality of a municipality or other subdivision) of a State; (ii) a nonprofit organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; or (iii) an independent agency or commission in which an office of a State is a member on behalf of the State; and (B) is the single eligible entity in the State that has been designated by the State to receive a grant under this section. BDIA Sec. 106(i)(2); 47 U.S.C. 1304(i)(2).) Section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA imposes certain confidentiality requirements on eligible entities that receive the FCC Form 477 “aggregate data.” (Specifically, section 106(h)(2) provides that an eligible entity “shall treat any matter that is a trade secret, commercial or financial information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public disclosure except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the broadband service provider and the eligible entity. BDIA section 106(h)(2); 47 U.S.C. 1304(h)(2).) In this document, we seek comment on how the Commission should implement these statutory provisions.

        First, we seek comment on how we should interpret the term “aggregate” in section 106(h)(1). Particularly, to what extent does the adjective “aggregate” require the Commission to provide to eligible entities data that is more aggregated than the raw data submitted by Form 477 filers. We also seek comment on whether the confidentiality provisions of section 106(h)(2) indicate that the Commission should provide access to data that is more disaggregated than the Form 477 filing-based data that it makes available to the public in various periodic statistical reports released by the Bureau. (See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2007 (rel. Jan. 16, 2008), available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.) More generally, we seek comment on how much the Commission should aggregate the data that it provides to eligible entities, and what factors it should consider in determining the appropriate level of aggregation.
        We also seek comment on section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA, which requires eligible entities to treat “any matter that is a trade secret, commercial or financial information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public disclosure except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the broadband service provider and the eligible entity.” In particular, we seek comment on whether that section is self-effectuating or whether the Commission should take any measures to ensure eligible entities' compliance with section 106(h)(2). If parties believe that the Commission should adopt safeguards to ensure compliance with section 106(h)(2), then we ask that they describe with specificity the nature of their proposed safeguards.

        We recognize that the periods we are establishing for commenting on these issues are short but note also that the timeframes connected with the grant programs under BDIA require us to make the Form 477 information available in an expedited fashion. Furthermore, while the BDIA was enacted after the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further NPRM was adopted, we note that the data-sharing issues raised by section 106(h) of the BDIA clearly fall within the scope of the more general data-sharing issues raised in the further NPRM, on which we previously received comment.

        This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Julie A. Veach,
          Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-17579 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 150105013-5013-01]
        RIN 0648-BE62
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Grouper Recreational Management Measures

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the daily bag limit for red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and remove the recreational post-season bag-limit reduction accountability measure (AM) for Gulf red grouper. Additionally, this rule would correct an error in the Gulf individual fishing quota (IFQ) multi-use provisions for the Grouper/Tilefish IFQ program. The purpose of this rule is to modify the Gulf red grouper recreational management measures to improve recreational fishing opportunities by achieving optimal yield for the red grouper resource.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 26, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0153” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0153, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Richard Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Richard Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: rich.malinowski@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Gulf reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        In April 2014, NMFS announced that the Gulf red grouper recreational annual catch limit (ACL) was exceeded in 2013. In accordance with recreational AMs adopted in Amendment 32 to the FMP (77 FR 6988, February 10, 2012), this triggered a reduction in the bag limit in 2014 from four fish to three fish, and a recreational closure was implemented on October 4, 2014, to ensure that landings did not exceed the recreational annual catch target (ACT). In response to the in-season recreational closure, the Council, at its June 2014 meeting, directed staff to begin development of a framework action to potentially reduce the recreational bag limit, and adjust the recreational AMs in an effort to extend the red grouper recreational fishing season.
        Prior to implementation of Amendment 32 to the FMP, the red grouper recreational allocation had not been met in recent years. The red grouper recreational allocation of the total allowable catch (TAC) was initially set at 1.25 million lb (0.567 million kg), gutted weight, in 2004, was increased to 1.82 million lb (0.826 million kg), gutted weight, in 2009, and was then reduced to 1.36 million lb (0.617 million kg), gutted weight, in 2011. In 2012, Amendment 32 to the FMP replaced the red grouper TAC with an ACL and ACT, and management measures intended to allow harvest to achieve the ACT. The red grouper recreational ACL and ACT were set for 2012 and beyond at 1.9 million lb (0.862 million kg), gutted weight, and 1.73 million lb (0.785 million kg), gutted weight, respectively. Also in 2012, the red grouper bag limit was increased from two fish to four fish per person, under the four-fish aggregate grouper bag limit, to allow the recreational sector to fully harvest its allocation and achieve optimum yield. The post-season AM that was implemented in 2012, was a reduction in the bag limit by one fish, if at the end of any season, NMFS determined that the recreational sector has exceeded its red grouper ACL. Therefore, the bag limit would be reduced to three fish in the following season, and could be reduced to two fish the season after that, if the ACL was again exceeded. The bag limit would not be reduced below two fish.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

        This rule would reduce the Gulf red grouper recreational bag limit from four fish to two fish within the four-fish aggregate grouper bag limit, and remove the post-season AM that reduces the daily bag limit the next fishing season when the previous fishing year's ACL is exceeded. The other post-season AMs currently codified in the regulations would remain in effect without change. The first post-season AM currently codified in the regulations applies regardless of whether red grouper are overfished and requires that NMFS will publish a notification to reduce the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT. The second post-season AM currently codified in the regulations applies if red grouper are overfished, and requires NMFS to reduce the recreational ACL and recreational ACT the following fishing year by the prior fishing year's recreational ACL overage.

        Additional Proposed Changes to Codified Text
        Amendment 32 to the FMP established a formula-based method for setting gag and red grouper multi-use allocations for the Gulf Grouper/Tilefish IFQ program to allow for flexibility in harvesting practices and address potential bycatch associated with co-occurring species (77 FR 6988, February 2, 2012). At the beginning of each fishing year, a percentage of the gag and red grouper allocation is designated as multi-use allocation valid for harvesting either gag or red grouper. However, gag multi-use allocation is not available if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan and red grouper multi-use allocation is not available if gag is under a rebuilding plan. For example, gag multi-use allocation would be set to zero percent if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan.
        The final rule for Amendment 32 erroneously stated that if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan, then red grouper multi-use allocation should be set to zero. NMFS corrects this mistake and changes “red grouper multi-use allocation” to “gag multi-use allocation” in this instance.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
        The objective of this proposed rule is to change the red grouper recreational management measures in the Gulf to improve recreational fishing opportunities by extending the number of days in the fishing season. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to directly affect any small entities. This proposed rule would change the red grouper recreational bag limit in the Gulf. Only recreational anglers, who may fish from private, rental, charter vessels, or headboats, are allowed a bag or possession limit of red grouper in the Gulf. Captains or crew members on charter vessels or headboats, cannot harvest or possess red grouper under the recreational bag limit. Because only recreational anglers are allowed a bag or possession limit, only recreational anglers would be directly affected by the proposed changes to the red grouper recreational bag limit. Recreational anglers, however, are not small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the economic effects of this proposed rule on these anglers are outside the scope of the RFA.
        Charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels) sell fishing services to recreational anglers. These vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision to purchase these services. Bag limit restrictions only define what can be kept and do not explicitly prevent the continued offer of for-hire fishing services. In response to a reduced bag limit, including a zero-fish limit, catch and release fishing for a target species could continue, as could fishing for other species. Because the proposed change in the red grouper bag limit would not directly alter the service sold by these vessels, this proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate their operations. For-hire vessels would continue to be able to offer their core service, which is an attempt to “put anglers on fish,” provide the opportunity for anglers to catch whatever their skills enable them to catch, and keep those fish that they desire to keep and are legal to keep. Any change in demand for these fishing services, and associated economic affects, as a result of changing the bag limit would be a consequence of behavioral change by anglers, secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, an indirect effect of the proposed rule. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they fall outside the scope of the RFA.
        In addition, no small entities would be expected to be directly affected by the proposed corrections of the multi-use allocation regulatory text because the conditions that may have allowed inappropriate use of the allocation due to the error in the implementation of Amendment 32 to the FMP have not occurred since the implementation.
        This proposed rule would not require any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements associated with reporting or record-keeping that may require professional skills.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red grouper.

          Dated: January 20, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 622.22, the last sentence in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.22
          Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes.
          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (B) * * * However, if red grouper is under a rebuilding plan, the percentage of gag multi-use allocation is equal to zero.

        3. In § 622.38, the first sentence in paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.38
          Bag and possession limits.

          (b) * * *
          (2) Groupers, combined, excluding goliath grouper—4 per person per day, but not to exceed 1 speckled hind or 1 warsaw grouper per vessel per day, or 2 gag or 2 red grouper per person per day. * * *

        4. In § 622.41, the second sentence in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is revised and the third sentence in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is removed to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (e) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) * * * In addition, the notification will reduce the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT in the following fishing year. * * *

      [FR Doc. 2015-01339 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 041 307D]

        RIN 0648-AU68
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act Sideboards

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 80 would allocate several Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock trawl groundfish species among trawl fishing sectors, and facilitate the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector. Amendment 80 is necessary to increase resource conservation and improve economic efficiency for harvesters who participate in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. This proposed amendment also is necessary to implement recent changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) that modify the allocation of groundfish resources in the BSAI to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, and statutory mandates that define who is eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/processor sector for a defined list of non-pollock groundfish species in the BSAI. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable laws. The amendment is available for public review and comment.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 80 must be received on or before June 29, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send written comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • E-mail: 0648-AU68NOA80@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Amendment 80 RIN 0648-AU68. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
          • Fax: 907-586-7557;
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; or
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Amendment 80 Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov or from the mailing and street addresses listed above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The MSA requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This requirement is satisfied by this notice of availability for Amendment 80.
        Amendment 80 and Bycatch Reduction Efforts in the BSAI
        Amendment 80 and its implementing regulations would continue initiatives by the Council and NMFS to reduce bycatch of fish species in the BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries. Amendment 80 would reduce the amount of halibut and crab bycatch, known as prohibited species catch (PSC), that may be taken while non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. These measures would consider efficiency in utilization of fishery resources, minimize costs, and further minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, thereby meeting the objectives of National Standards 5, 7, and 9 of the MSA.
        Amendment 80 would facilitate this and other bycatch reductions through specific economic incentives provided by a limited access privilege program (LAPP). This LAPP would encourage improved retention and utilization of fishery resources by allocating specific amounts of certain species of non-pollock groundfish, and halibut and crab PSC, to non-AFA trawl catcher processors; and authorize the formation of cooperatives that would receive exclusive harvest privileges for a portion of these fishery resources.

        One of the primary reasons for the relatively high discard rates of groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors is the nature of the fisheries in which those vessels participate. The non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector primarily participates in non-pollock groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock groundfish fisheries are primarily comprised of groups of species that share similar habitat (e.g., flatfish fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, and yellowfin sole). Because these species occur together, they are typically harvested together. When a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor retrieves its net, very often multiple species of fish are present. If a vessel operator is targeting only one species of fish, and other species are retrieved along with the desired catch, the vessel operator may have an incentive to discard the less valuable species and retain only the higher value species. The multi-species nature of these fisheries makes it difficult for vessel operators to target only one species, and an economic incentive exits to discard less valuable fish.
        NMFS establishes a total allowable catch (TAC) for each groundfish species based on the species's annual biomass with the goal of providing a conservatively managed sustainable yield. In the non-pollock groundfish fisheries, harvesters compete for the TAC, resulting in a “race for fish,” wherein vessels attempt to maximize their harvest in as little time as possible, in order to claim a larger share of the available TAC. This race for fish only increases the economic incentive to discard less valuable species in a multi-species harvest, and accelerate the harvest rate for the more valuable species.
        Because vessel operators are competing with each other for shares of a common quota, a vessel operator has little economic incentive to undertake actions to reduce unwanted incidental catch, such as searching for fishing grounds with lower incidental catch rates, or use gear modifications that may reduce bycatch but have a lower harvest rate, if those actions would limit the ability of that vessel to effectively compete with other vessels. Additionally, a vessel operator has little incentive to process and store less valuable species if by doing so, he loses an opportunity to use that processing or storage capacity for more valuable catch. Therefore, an individual vessel operator has strong incentives to harvest fish as quickly as possible, and discard less valuable species, before the TAC limit is reached because all vessel operators are competing for a limited TAC.

        Additionally, non-pollock groundfish fisheries are constrained by catch limits for non-target species, such as halibut, red king crab, Chinocetes bairdi crab, and C. opilio crab. Halibut and crab are harvested in other fisheries and cannot be retained by vessels using trawl gear. NMFS establishes prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for halibut in the entire BSAI, and red king crab, C. opilio crab, and C. bairdi crab in specific areas of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact of harvesting operations on the long-term productivity of those species. NMFS monitors these PSC limits, and may close or otherwise restrict trawl harvests if PSC limits are projected to be reached. Fishery closures due to reaching PSC limits can limit harvest of the groundfish TAC and reduce overall revenue to vessel operators and crew. As vessel operators seek to maximize harvest of TAC, they may accelerate fishing operations to maximize harvest before a crab or halibut PSC limit is reached. A “race for PSC” further exacerbates competition and the incentives to harvest rapidly, resulting in greater potential waste and higher discard rates of less valuable groundfish species.
        The multi-species nature of non-pollock groundfish fisheries further limits the ability of a fisherman to specifically target valuable groundfish species as they race with their competitors. Vessel operators may discard considerable portions of their catch to maximize harvests of more valuable species even though the discarded species may have considerable market value if competition did not create such a strong incentive to maximize harvests of the more valuable species in as short a time as possible.
        LAPP Management

        The primary method to offset the economic incentives that lead to a race for fish and relatively high discard rates is to reduce the impact of those incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have been used extensively in the North Pacific as a means to encourage economic efficiency and less wasteful harvest methods, and to resolve allocation disputes among harvesters by providing a group of harvesters with exclusive harvest privileges that can be traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) Program (November 9, 1993, 58 FR 59375); (2) the AFA (December 30, 2002, 67 FR 69692); (3) the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174); and (4) the Central GOA Rockfish Program (November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). An extensive discussion of LAPPs can be found in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
        Based on experience with past LAPPs, and after weighing potential advantages and disadvantages, the Council adopted Amendment 80 to create economic incentives that provide additional opportunities to reduce bycatch while increasing the potential for greater economic returns to persons holding the harvest privileges. Amendment 80 would provide an incentive for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to harvest non-pollock groundfish in a less wasteful manner by granting an exclusive harvest privilege to a limited number of harvesters. Amendment 80 would encourage participants to harvest more efficiently and less wastefully by allowing them to choose to (1) form one or more harvesting cooperatives with other harvesters that would receive an exclusive annual harvest privilege of specific groundfish species and PSC; or (2) fish in a limited access fishery comprised of fishery participants that choose not to join a cooperative. The principal benefits from Amendment 80 would be realized by harvesters that choose to join a cooperative.
        Overview of Amendment 80
        The Council adopted Amendment 80 to meet the broad goals of: (1) improving retention and utilization of fishery resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor fleet; (2) allocating fishery resources among BSAI trawl harvesters in consideration of historic and present harvest patterns and future harvest needs; (3) authorizing the allocation of groundfish species to harvesting cooperatives and establishing a LAPP for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to reduce potential bycatch reduction costs, encourage fishing practices with lower discard rates, and improve the opportunity for increasing the value of harvested species; and (4) limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to expand their harvesting capacity into other fisheries not managed under a LAPP.
        As with all other LAPPs in the North Pacific, the extensive changes to existing management of BSAI non-pollock trawl fisheries proposed by Amendment 80 would affect a wide range of fishing practices and regulations. Amendment 80 would affect management of the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, and all other BSAI trawl fishery participants. As such, Amendment 80 proposes a complex suite of measures to ensure the goals of Amendment 80 are met and to minimize potential adverse impacts on other affected fishery participants.
        The following section provides an overview of the suite of measures Amendment 80 proposes to implement.
        1. Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program

        Amendment 80 would incorporate statutory mandates in the MSA as amended by Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; July 11, 2006), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007). The proposed rule would modify the percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) for directed fisheries that are allocated to the CDQ Program, and the percentage of halibut, crab, and salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) allocated to the CDQ Program as prohibited species quota. Also proposed are other provisions necessary to bring Amendment 80 and the CDQ Program into compliance with applicable law.
        2. Amendment 80 Sector and Amendment 80 Vessels
        Eligible Amendment 80 sector participants would be defined by applicable legislation and the implementing regulations. Amendment 80 would incorporate statutory mandates in section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447; December 8, 2004) which defines who is eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/processor sector for a defined list of non-pollock groundfish species. Amendment 80 would define the “Amendment 80 sector” as non-AFA trawl catcher/processor harvesters eligible to fish under this statutory mandate. The list of non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels that may be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector are called “Amendment 80 vessels.”
        3. Amendment 80 Species
        Amendment 80 would allocate a specific portion of six non-pollock groundfish species among trawl fishery sectors. These six species would be the “Amendment 80 species,” and include Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment 80 species would be allocated between the Amendment 80 sector and all other BSAI trawl fishery participants. These other trawl fishery participants include AFA catcher/processors, AFA catcher vessels, and non-AFA catcher vessels. Collectively, this group of trawl fishery participants comprises the “BSAI trawl limited access sector.” These six species are economically valuable and have historically been targeted by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, but fisheries associated with these species have high rates of discard of other groundfish species.
        4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the BSAI Trawl Fisheries
        Each year, NMFS would allocate an amount of Amendment 80 species available for harvest, and crab and halibut PSC to two defined groups of trawl fishery participants: (1) the Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The amount of Amendment 80 species TAC assigned to each sector would be based on the amount of TAC remaining after allocation to the CDQ Program and for incidental catch allowance requirements in other fisheries as necessary. This allocation amount is termed the initial TAC (ITAC). Allocations made to one sector would not be subject to harvest by participants in the other fishery sector except under a specific condition. Fish that are allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access sector and projected to be unharvested could be reallocated to Amendment 80 cooperatives.
        Amendment 80 would further address the Council's goals of reducing bycatch and discard of groundfish species by reducing the total amount of crab and halibut PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector.
        5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
        Amendment 80 would provide a specific allocation of Amendment 80 species and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. Amendment 80 would modify the calculation of AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species and crab and halibut PSC limits as necessary to allow the efficient operation of AFA vessels.
        6. Amendment 80 Quota Share
        Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for Amendment 80 species to the owners of Amendment 80 vessels. Amendment 80 QS could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC. Amendment 80 would establish criteria for harvesters in the Amendment 80 sector to apply for and receive QS, criteria for initially allocating QS, and criteria for the transfer of QS.
        Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 QS based on historic catch patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel during 1998 through 2004. Amendment 80 would assign QS based on the relative proportion of an Amendment 80 species harvested by an Amendment 80 vessel compared to all other Amendment 80 vessels.
        Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 QS only to members of the Amendment 80 sector who submit a complete application for Amendment 80 QS. In most cases, Amendment 80 would assign the Amendment 80 QS to an Amendment 80 vessel owner. In specific cases where an Amendment 80 vessel has been lost or is otherwise permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the Amendment 80 QS would be assigned to the holder of the license limitation Amendment 80 (LLP) license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel. Once Amendment 80 QS is assigned based on the historic catch patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be divided or transferred separately from that Amendment 80 vessel. If Amendment 80 QS is assigned to the LLP license originally issued for that Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be transferred separately from that LLP license.
        7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives
        Persons who receive Amendment 80 QS would be able to join a cooperative to receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the ITAC. Amendment 80 QS holders would be able to form a cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis, provided they meet specific criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an annual cooperative quota (CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 species ITAC that would be for the exclusive use by that cooperative for harvest in a given year. Amendment 80 would establish requirements for forming an Amendment 80 cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders, the allocation of annual CQ to a cooperative, and transfers of CQ among cooperatives. A cooperative would receive an amount of CQ equivalent to the proportion of QS held by all of the members of the cooperative relative to the total QS held by all Amendment 80 QS holders.
        Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an annual CQ with an exclusive limit on the amount of crab and halibut PSC the cooperative can use while harvesting in the BSAI. This halibut and crab PSC CQ would be assigned to a cooperative proportional to the amount of Amendment 80 QS held by the members, and would not be based on the amount of crab or halibut PSC historically used by the cooperative members.
        Amendment 80 would provide opportunities for Amendment 80 sector participants to trade harvest privileges among cooperatives to further encourage efficient fishing operations. An Amendment 80 cooperative would not be able to transfer CQ to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.

        A cooperative structure may allow Amendment 80 vessel operators to manage PSC rates more efficiently than vessels who must race to harvest fish as quickly as possible before a PSC limit is reached and a fishery is subject to closure. By reducing PSC through more efficient cooperative operations, such as through gear modifications that reduce PSC use, Amendment 80 vessel operators may also increase the harvest of valuable targeted groundfish species and improve revenues that would otherwise be foregone if a fishery were closed due to reaching PSC limits.
        Amendment 80 would allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to receive a rollover of an additional amount of CQ, if a portion of the Amendment 80 species or crab or halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is projected to go unharvested. This rollover to the Amendment 80 cooperatives would be at the discretion of NMFS based on projected harvest rates in the BSAI trawl limited access sector and other criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an additional amount of CQ that is based on the proportion of the Amendment 80 QS held by that Amendment 80 cooperative compared to all other Amendment 80 cooperatives.
        Fishery participants in a cooperative could consolidate fishing operations on a specific Amendment 80 vessel or subset of Amendment 80 vessels, thereby reducing monitoring and enforcement (M&E) and other operational costs, and harvest fish in a manner more likely to be economically efficient and less wasteful.
        8. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
        Amendment 80 QS holders that choose not to join an Amendment 80 cooperative would be able to participate in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment 80 would assign the Amendment 80 limited access fishery the amount of the Amendment 80 sector's allocation of Amendment 80 species ITAC and halibut and crab PSC that remains after allocation to all of the Amendment 80 cooperatives. Participants fishing in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue to compete with each other; would not realize the same potential benefits from consolidation and coordination; and would not receive an exclusive harvest privilege that accrues to members of an Amendment 80 cooperative.
        9. Use Caps
        The Council considered the effect of consolidation with the allocation of an excessive share of harvest privileges to Amendment 80 cooperatives. In response, Amendment 80 would implement use caps to limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person could hold, the amount of CQ they could use, and the amount of ITAC an Amendment 80 vessel could harvest. These use caps would moderate some of the potentially adverse effects of excessive consolidation of fishing operations on fishery participants, such as lost employment opportunities for fishing crew while providing economic efficiencies to Amendment 80 QS holders.
        10. Gulf of Alaska Sideboard Limits
        Catch limits, commonly known as sideboards, would limit the ability of Amendment 80 vessel operators to expand their harvest efforts in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 80 is designed to provide certain economic advantages to participants. Amendment 80 participants could use this economic advantage to increase their participation in other fisheries, primarily in the GOA fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in those fisheries. GOA groundfish and halibut PSC sideboards would limit the catch by Amendment 80 vessels to historic levels in the GOA.
        11. Economic Data Report (EDR)
        Amendment 80 would implement an economic data collection program to assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on various components of the fishery, including skippers and crew. Amendment 80 would establish a process for collecting and reviewing economic data generated under Amendment 80 by requiring the annual submission of an EDR from each Amendment 80 QS holder.
        Other management measures necessary to implement Amendment 80 would be provided in the proposed rule that accompanies Amendment 80. These measures include an expansion of the groundfish retention standard to all vessels in the Amendment 80 sector and monitoring and enforcement provisions necessary to support Amendment 80 and its implementing regulations.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 80 through the end of the comment period stated (see DATES). A proposed rule to implement Amendment 80 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation under MSA procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 80 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 80, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the proposed amendment. Comments received after the comment period for the amendment will not be considered in that decision. To be considered, written comments must be received by NMFS, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq.

          Dated: April 24, 2007.
          James P. Burgess
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-8190 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-AY93
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Mechanism for Specifying Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery ecosystem plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) proposes to amend its five fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) to establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), adopt the ecosystem component species classification described in the NMFS advisory guidelines for National Standard 1, and identify management unit species that have statutory exceptions to the ACL and AM requirements. The intent of the amendment is end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve optimum yield.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received by May 16, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the amendment, identified by 0648-AX93, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov; or

          • Mail: Mail written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of these two addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the amendment (Amendment 2 to the American Samoa FEP, Amendment 3 to the Hawaii FEP, Amendment 2 to the Mariana Archipelago FEP, Amendment 1 to the Pacific Remote Islands Areas FEP, and Amendment 4 to the western Pacific Pelagic fisheries FEP are identical), including an environmental assessment and background information on the action, are available from http://www.regulations.gov and from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or http://www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-944-2108.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was amended to include new provisions that facilitate preventing and ending overfishing, and rebuilding overfished stocks. Specifically, each council's fishery management plan must include a mechanism for specifying ACLs so that overfishing does not occur. AMs are also required to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate any overages of the ACL. The ACL and AM mechanism would be applied to all fisheries, except species that are subject to an international fishery agreement in which the U.S. participates, or have a life cycle of approximately one year or less. The National Standard 1 guidelines, published by NMFS on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 3178), provides guidance for establishing ACLs and AMs, and exceptions to the requirements.
        This amendment would establish a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs in each of the five western Pacific FEPs. They would include a tier of control rules which the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee would apply to determine an acceptable biological catch limit. These control rules would account for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of a fishery's overfishing limit, and the probability of overfishing. The mechanism would also include qualitative methods for determining the probability of overfishing and for setting ACLs, and describe a suite of AMs to prevent ACLs from being exceeded or to mitigate overages of an ACL, including use of annual catch targets.
        This amendment would also identify species that have statutory exceptions to the ACL and AM requirements; at present, these are all western Pacific pelagic management unit species. Finally, the amendment incorporates existing status determination criteria, as described in the five western Pacific FEPs. The Council would continue to use the SDC in determining the overfishing and overfished status of western Pacific fisheries, whereby exceeding the maximum fishing mortality threshold for a period of one year or more constitutes overfishing, and a stock is considered overfished if its biomass falls below the minimum stock size threshold. The amendment also describes the Council's intent to use the “ecosystem component” classification defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines. Specifying ecosystem component species is not part of this amendment; it would be done in future amendments to the appropriate FEP(s).
        Public comments on the proposed amendment must be received by May 16, 2011 to be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment. NMFS soon expects to publish and request public comment on a proposed rule that would implement the ACL mechanism.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 11, 2011.
          Margo Schulze-Haugen,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-6151 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-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