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 · 2006-12-15 · Forest Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Final directive

27,647 words·~126 min read·/register/2006/12/15/06-9718

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AB86 National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Developing, Revising, or Amending Land Management Plans; Categorical Exclusion AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Final directive. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is revising procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)regulations. The procedures are being revised through issuance of a final directive that amends Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)1909.15, chapter 30. This chapter describes categorical exclusions; that is, categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore, normally do not require further analysis and documentation in either an environmental assessment
(EA)or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The amendment adds one such category of actions to the Agency's NEPA procedures for final decisions on proposals to develop, amend, or revise land management plans. DATES: *Effective Date:* This amendment is effective December 15, 2006 ADDRESSES: The new Forest Service categorical exclusion is set out in FSH 1909.15, chapter 30, which is available electronically via the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.* Single paper copies are available by contacting Anthony Erba, Forest Service, USDA, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (Mail Stop 1104), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. Additional information and analysis can be found at *http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Erba, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff,
(202)205-0895. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 5, 2005, the Forest Service published the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1023) establishing procedures for National Forest System compliance with the NFMA. That planning rule provided that approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded from National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)documentation in accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. On the same date, the Forest Service published a proposed amendment to its NEPA procedures to provide for such a categorical exclusion. Specifically, the categorical exclusion proposed on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1062) would require four changes in chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15. 1. A category would be added to section 31.2 that would allow development, amendment, and revision of plan components, or portions thereof, to be categorically excluded unless extraordinary circumstances exist. 2. A paragraph would be added to section 30.3 to define the extraordinary circumstances pertinent to the new category. It would specify that the inclusion of a project or activity decision in a plan component may constitute an extraordinary circumstance. 3. A paragraph would be added to section 30.3 to clarify that the extensive public participation requirements in the land management planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.9 are sufficient to satisfy the scoping requirements currently included in section 30.3. 4. A paragraph would be added to section 32.2 to clarify that the plan approval document required by the land management planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.7(c) is sufficient to satisfy the decision memo requirements of chapter 30. In response to comments on the proposed categorical exclusion and to clarify meaning, three revisions were made to the original proposal as follows. 1. The wording of the category to be added to section 31.2 was changed to remove the phrase “except where extraordinary circumstances exist” because the phrase is not necessary. The following wording was added to further clarify the actions that meet this category's definition: “that provide broad guidance and information for project and activity decision-making in a National Forest System unit.” Consistent with the Supreme Court decision in *Ohio Forestry Ass'n* v. * Sierra Club * (523 U.S. 726 (1998)), the Agency further refined the category by adding language stating that “[p]roposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments” are outside the scope of this category. The Agency also added that such proposals for action shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures.” 2. The paragraph to be added to section 30.3 defining the extraordinary circumstances pertinent to the new category for land management plans was deleted. The Agency added wording to the existing paragraph 2 further clarifying when extraordinary circumstances exist. This definition of extraordinary circumstances applies to any proposed action, including proposals to develop, amend, or revise land management plans. The added wording makes it clear that there must be a cause-effect relationship between the proposed action and any potential effects to the listed resources, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the effect resulting from the cause-effect relationship determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist: “The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is
(1)The existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and
(2)if such a relationship exists, it is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.” A final decision on a proposed action is viewed as causing effects on the resources listed in section 30.3(2) when effects may occur without additional action by the agency other than routine administrative actions implementing the decision. For projects and activities, the final decision point is typically the decision to approve the project or activity, typically accompanied by a final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or categorical exclusion determination. There would normally be a “cause-effect relationship” between the project or activity and the environmental impacts. For example, there would normally be a “cause-effect relationship” between the decision to approve a timber sale and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the environment of the timber sale project. However, for land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule, a cause-effect relationship of this nature typically does not exist. For example, to establish a “cause-effect relationship” for a land management plan, plan revision, or plan amendment, it is not sufficient to find that one or more plan components increase or decrease the likelihood of effects from future actions on one of the resources listed in section 30.3(2). Rather, it is necessary to conclude that a plan component by itself, without further analysis and decision-making by the agency, will either allow otherwise disallowed, or prohibit otherwise unprohibited, actions by the agency or other parties that may have effects on the listed resources. In all cases, it is the agency's intent that the existence or non-existence of a “cause-effect” relationship continues to be established by the professional judgment of the responsible official based on available information and that no statistical, mathematical, or other formal method of proof is required. History The Forest Service is responsible for managing 192 million acres of national forests, national grasslands, and other areas, known collectively as the National Forest System (NFS). The Chief of the Forest Service, through a line organization of regional foresters, forest or grassland supervisors, and district rangers, manages the surface resources and, in some instances, the subsurface resources of those lands. Management is guided by land management plans prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA)(16 U.S.C. 1600 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219). The first implementing regulations were adopted in 1979 and revised in 1982. The implementing regulations adopted in 2005 replace the 1982 regulations. The NFMA requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations “specifying procedures to insure that land management plans are prepared in accordance with the [NEPA] including, but not limited to, direction on when and for what plans an environmental impact statement * * * shall be prepared” (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(1)). In the implementing regulations adopted in 1979 and 1982, the Secretary required that environmental impact statements be prepared when developing plans, significant plan amendments, and plan revisions. The Forest Service believed this would provide a more efficient and effective overall planning process. As a means of achieving NFMA land management objectives, the 1979 and 1982 planning rules included a requirement that the planning process include development of multiple alternative plans to identify “the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing net public benefits * * *” (36 CFR 219.12(f), September 30, 1982, as amended). The Forest Service took the approach of requiring multiple alternatives even though nothing in the NFMA (or any other substantive statute directing management of the National Forest System) demands that the Forest Service develop or consider alternative management regimes or alternative programs when developing land management plans, plan amendment, or plan revisions. The NFMA alternatives were to include a range of resource outputs, projects and activities, and expenditure levels. The 1982 planning rule also established requirements for an “analysis of the management situation” and “benchmark analyses.” These were used to define a range of resource production possibilities for various alternatives. The formulation of alternatives was intended to help the decision-maker maximize the use of various resources, consistent with the protection of other resources and objectives. The Forest Service believed at that time that plans were essentially a collection of 15 year's worth of projects. Both the 1979 and 1982 planning rules required that alternatives be compared using the range of hypothetical resource outputs that could occur under each alternative. Each alternative contained standards and guidelines that would be analyzed when applied to hypothetical projects and activities. Interdisciplinary teams developing plans comparatively analyzed the effects of plan alternatives based on forecasts and broad predictions of future conditions and budgets. These teams completed this analysis despite other factors ( *e.g.* , budget limits, changes in land conditions) that made it unlikely that potential output levels would be realized. The Forest Service essentially speculated about hypothetical projects and activities over a 15-year period. The Forest Service believed the most efficient planning approach was to integrate the 1982 rule's regulatory requirement to formulate alternatives to maximize net public benefit with the NEPA alternative requirement ( *i.e.* , 40 CFR 1502.14). Given the massive resources devoted to approving, amending, and revising plans, the Agency believed that if EISs were prepared at the point of developing plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions, those EISs also would generally be sufficient for the approval of future proposed projects and activities. If a plan EIS was not adequate for a project or activity approval, the Agency believed that any additional NEPA analysis and documentation needed would tier to or supplement the analysis in the plan EIS. Forest Service Experience With Plan-Level NEPA Under The 1982 Planning Rule As the Forest Service gained experience with land management planning, it became clear that the Agency view that plans were essentially a collection of 15 years' worth of projects and decisions was incorrect. Many of these hypothetical projects and activities could not be accurately predicted and never occurred because of circumstances that were beyond the control of the Agency; such as, budget levels and changed land conditions. The Agency also learned that this view was not compatible with adaptive management principles ( *e.g.* , monitoring, plan amendments, or plan revisions). Throughout the 27 years of land management planning, the Agency also learned that tiering from the environmental analysis in plan EISs did not provide nearly as much useful information at the project or activity level as the Agency had expected. The effects analysis in Plan EISs was often too general to meet analytical needs for projects and activities. The effects analysis conclusions did not remain current over the life of a plan. In addition, typically because of public input and litigation, the Forest Service found that additional analysis and documentation in EAs and EISs was still necessary for projects and activities. The Forest Service found itself preparing much more site-specific NEPA documentation for projects than it had anticipated when it adopted the 1979 and 1982 planning rules. The relevant analysis typically had to be redone in a project-level NEPA analysis before proposals for projects and activities were approved. Meaningful analysis of a project's effects could not be done until the project design, the project location's environmental conditions, and the management direction applicable to the project based on the project design were known. When the Agency has attempted to rely solely on a plan EIS to disclose the effects for subsequent on-the-ground actions, courts pointed out the weaknesses associated with this strategy. For example, the Eldorado National Forest created an off-road vehicle
(ORV)management plan for the forest without conducting a forest-wide environmental analysis, instead relying on the EIS completed for the 1989 land management plan for the ORV plan. In *Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation* v. *Berry* (No. 2-02-325 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2005), a Federal district court concluded: The LRMP EIS did not analyze the programmatic environmental impacts of a designated-route-only ORV trail system in Eldorado, nor did it analyze the environmental impacts of any particular ORV routes in the Forest or of permitting travel off of designated routes * * * Therefore, the Forest Service's duty under NEPA was not satisfied by tiering the ORV plan to the LRMP's EIS. In reaching this conclusion, the district court emphasized the strategic nature of plans, referencing the *Norton* v. *Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,* 124 S.Ct. 2373
(2004)(SUWA), case (“Such land use plans are ‘not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement the Agency's projections,' rather, they guide the development of future, more detailed plans.” 124 S.Ct. 2373, 2382 (2004)). Land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule will typically be strategic and aspirational. In 1998 and 2004, the Supreme Court issued decisions that support the Forest Service's conclusion that its land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule typically will not have independent environmental effects, and thus, will not have significant environmental effects. In *Ohio Forestry Ass'n* v. *Sierra Club* , 523 U.S. 726 (1998), the Supreme Court recognized that, in contrast to proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, the land management plan provisions at issue “do not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything; they do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal license, power, or authority; they do not subject anyone to any civil or criminal liability; they create no legal rights or obligations” (523 U.S. at 733 (1998)). In SUWA, the Supreme Court's description of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) land use plan, developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), is in accord with Forest Service land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule. The Supreme Court noted that the BLM's land use plans are “tools by which ‘present and future use is projected’ * * * [and] generally a statement of priorities,” 124 S.Ct. 2373 at 2382-83
(2004)(citation omitted; emphasis added by Supreme Court). The Court also noted that BLM's plans are normally not used to make site-specific implementation decisions. In 1988, even before *Ohio Forestry,* the Chief of the Forest Service established, in response to appeals on plans for the Idaho Panhandle and Flathead National Forests that land management planning for National Forest System units involves two levels of decisions:
(1)Approval of plans or amendments and revisions to plans that provide frameworks for project decision-making; and
(2)project or activity decisions. Thus, the Forest Service recognizes the distinction between a plan's strategic framework and project decision-making in plan and project documents. Other case law also has recognized the strategic nature of land management plans. In *Swan View Coalition* v. *Turner,* 824 F. Supp. 923 (D. Mont. 1992), the court noted the nature of plans: [T]he Forest Plan is a broad framework for the management of a National Forest which does not directly commit to development. Allowing for additional review at each subsequent stage of development recognizes both the managerial purpose of a Forest Plan to provide mechanisms for monitoring and regulating future development as well as its inherent limitations in predicting what development will actually occur. Finally, other Federal agencies have recognized the strategic nature of broad planning documents and that meaningful analysis of environmental impacts of these documents is difficult, if not impossible. In 1986, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) clarified the nature of recovery plans and adopted a categorical exclusion for them. The USFWS determined the categorical exclusion was appropriate because: Recovery plans are *broad planning documents* * * * Recovery plans *typically do not propose specific actions,* but instead set forth general policies for management and treatment of the species. For these reasons, *meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of a recovery plan is usually difficult, if not impossible* * * * In addition, recovery *plans impose no obligations* on any agency, entity, or persons to implement the various tasks listed in the plan * * * any recovery actions set forth in a recovery plan that are to be carried out by Federal agencies will be subjected to NEPA analysis at the time they actually are “proposed” within the meaning of NEPA. (November 5, 1986 Memorandum to Regional Directors) (emphasis added). While the purposes of USFWS recovery plans and Forest Service land management plans are different, the strategic nature of the plans is very similar. Like USFWS recovery plans, Forest Service land management plans typically impose no obligations on any agency, person, or entity and any projects or activities in the plan area will be subject to NEPA analysis and documentation at the time they are proposed. Forest Service Response to Experience As a result of this experience under the 1979 and 1982 planning rules, the Forest Service made a number of changes in the 2005 planning rule that are pertinent to the use of a categorical exclusion for planning. The 2005 planning rule modified and clarified the nature of land management plans, emphasizing their strategic and aspirational nature. Plans under the 2005 planning rule will have five principal components: desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)). Plans under the 2005 rule will describe desired conditions and objectives for the plan area, and provide guidance for future decision-making. Plans under the 2005 rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. (The five principal components are described further in the next section of this preamble.) The planning process under the 2005 planning rule now emphasizes public participation and collaboration, and allows for consideration of plan options in an iterative fashion in which those options are developed and narrowed successively. The 2005 planning rule no longer requires the parallel development and analysis of multiple alternatives, and their comparison based on the analysis of projected and hypothetical projects and activities, to identify the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing “net public benefits.” The 2005 planning rule creates an expectation that elements sometimes found in plans under the 1982 planning rule, will now be uncommon. The 2005 rule, together with Agency NEPA procedures, establishes specific requirements for those plans where these uncommon elements do occur. For example, plans developed under the 1982 planning rule sometimes included specific final decisions (such as oil and gas leasing) or decisions establishing specific prohibitions (such as decisions prohibiting motorized vehicles in certain areas). In contrast, plans under the 2005 planning rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve or prohibit projects and activities. Proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, are outside the scope of this category for land management plans and will be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures ( *i.e.* , further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS or application of a categorical exclusion ( *e.g.* , proposals to repair an administrative site or conduct a limited timber harvest that are covered by categorical exclusions 3 in section 3.12 and 12 in section 3.2 respectively)). Given these changes in the nature of the planning process and the nature of plans themselves, the Forest Service has concluded that actions approving, amending, or revising a land management plan under the 2005 planning rule that provides broad guidance and information for project and activity decision-making do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.4). Plan components typically cannot be linked in a cause-effect relationship over time and within a geographic area to effects on the human environment without proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Therefore, the Forest Service concludes that such actions can be categorically excluded from analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS, absent extraordinary circumstances, as provided in Agency NEPA procedures. This final directive establishes a category for plans ( *i.e.* , Planning CE) in the Forest Service NEPA Handbook (FSH 1909.15). Examples of Plan Components Under the 2005 Planning Rule The following 2005 planning rule plan component examples illustrate why future actions must be proposed before any effects on the human environment can be analyzed and occur. These examples demonstrate that the plan components under the 2005 rule generally will not approve projects and activities or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. *Desired conditions* are the social, economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the land and resources of the plan area is to be directed (36 CFR 219.7(2)(i)). The desired conditions illustrate how the desired landscape would look or function. Desired conditions will not describe the precise activities to be undertaken to bring the forest to those conditions. Desired conditions in the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision do not approve projects and activities, or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. The following is an example of how a desired condition regarding certain vegetation and species habitat and recreation opportunities will be expressed under the 2005 planning rule: Watersheds in this management area are dominated by oak-grasslands. On upper slopes and ridges across this area, grasslands (less than 10 percent tree canopy closure) and open oak woodlands (10-60 percent tree canopy closure) are interspersed in variable mixtures. In general, tree density increases as one moves down slope, but densities are variable and transitions gradual. Snag and den tree densities average three stems per acre on a watershed basis. Native grasses and forbs dominate understories. Most mid and lower slopes have open oak forests (60-80 percent tree canopy closure), with understories containing oak regeneration in sufficient numbers to provide for sustaining oak on these sites over time. Multi-layered mixed hardwood mesophytic and riparian forests occur on lower slopes, where, because of topography and moisture, understory fires burn at low intensities or not at all. Within riparian corridors, vegetative filter strips have 80 percent total ground cover comprised of grasses, or forbs. In riparian areas, flooding is the primary disturbance factor. In upland portions of this management unit, diverse grass and grass-forb understories provide diverse and abundant herbage, seeds, and insects. Open canopies and the use of periodic fire create this understory condition. This understory condition also supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife. Rare species that are adapted to open forests and grasslands, but have declined due to land-use changes and the alteration of these habitats, are present and distributed in numbers that will provide for self-sustaining populations. These include Henslow's sparrow, whippoor-will, southern prairie aster, barbed rattlesnake-root, buffalo clover, and prairie parsley. Small mammals, such as deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), voles, and rabbits are abundant, supporting increased populations of predators, such as raptors, foxes, and bobcats. Generally unmodified natural environments characterize this area and users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, with some areas generally suitable for motorized opportunities and others for non-motorized opportunities. Satisfactory recreational experience is provided for at least 70 percent of forest visitors annually, as determined from comment forms that show ratings of “acceptable” or higher. This area contributes to economic sustainability by providing special interest areas for birders, who frequently use quality outfitter guides for birding tours. This type of a description states a vision for the desired condition of the forest. Desired conditions provide a context for future proposed projects or activities. Projects and activities will be developed to help achieve or maintain one or more of the desired conditions of the plan. To be consistent with the plan, a future proposed project or activity can
(1)Maintain or help achieve one or more desired future conditions, or
(2)be neutral to relevant desired conditions. The statement of desired conditions will typically influence the choice and design of future proposed projects and activities in the plan area. The influence desired conditions have on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such projects or activities are proposed by the Agency. *Objectives* are concise projections of measurable, time-specific intended outcomes (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(ii)). These outcomes typically result from approved projects or activities. Objectives state aspirations to guide the future proposed projects and activities for the plan area to help maintain or achieve the desired conditions. Even though objectives identify outcomes aimed at achieving or maintaining desired conditions in the plan area and time frames based on current and past trends of Agency capacity ( *i.e.* , budget and personnel), they still are aspirational in nature. Objectives in the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision do not approve projects and activities, or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. A binding commitment to these objectives would be impossible since Agency budgets for any given year are not known. Examples of objectives to achieve the desired conditions expressed in the example above are: Restore 150 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for neotropical migrant birds in 3-5 years. Create 100 acres of Henslow's sparrow habitat within 10 years. Decommission about two miles of routes each year. Non-system roads that may be causing environmental damage are prioritized for route decommissioning or rehabilitation. While objectives describe aspirations in the plan area to help achieve desired conditions, they will not create a binding commitment to undertake future proposed projects and activities. Objectives will not set the location, timing, or method of any future proposed project or activity. Rather, they provide strategic benchmarks that are helpful in evaluating progress toward desired conditions. Projects and activities are typically developed and designed to achieve one or more of the objectives of the plan. Objectives help guide the responsible official set priorities for future proposed projects to meet the desired conditions. For example, the plan objective for creating Henslow's sparrow habitat guides the responsible official to look for the best location to propose projects that create habitat for Henslow's sparrow. The responsible official may compare the existing conditions with the desired conditions described for several watersheds before developing a proposal to create Henslow's sparrow habitat. The responsible official can then choose the location to develop a proposed project that contributes to the desired conditions. To be consistent with the plan, a project or activity can
(1)Help make progress toward one or more objectives, or
(2)be neutral to relevant objectives. Objectives will typically influence the choice and design of projects or activities in the plan area. The influence objectives have on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such projects or activities are proposed by the Agency. *Guidelines* provide information and guidance that will be applied to future proposed projects or activities to contribute to achieving or maintaining desired conditions (see 36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(iii)). The term “guideline” represents general guidance that will be adopted or, if necessary, adapted, based on site-specific conditions and circumstances. Guidelines in the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision do not approve projects and activities, or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Examples of guidelines which would guide the design of projects or activities to help achieve the desired conditions and objectives will be expressed in terms like the following: Human activity in neotropical migrant bird nesting habitat areas should be excluded during a period of March 15 to May 15 with the exception of through travel routes. For restoration activities, mechanical equipment should not be used within 20 feet of riparian buffers. Low impact techniques should be emphasized in dispersed recreation areas. The use of “Use Tread Lightly” techniques ought to be employed in education and interpretation. In the nesting habitat guideline example above, the guideline indicates how future proposed projects or activities involving the bird habitat would typically be designed, namely, human presence should be avoided at the designated times. This guideline example does not command anyone to undertake or refrain from undertaking any project or activity. Rather, guidelines describe parameters for activities in the area, recognizing that the site-specific NEPA and other analyses conducted during future project and activity decision-making may support adjustment of the guideline in certain circumstances. Thus, guidelines will typically influence the development of an Agency proposal for future projects and activities in the plan area. The influence guidelines have on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such projects or activities are proposed by the Agency. Guidelines are intended to be adaptable to changing conditions and circumstances. Future proposed projects and activities typically will be designed in accord with applicable plan guidelines. However, if the responsible official determines that it is appropriate to adapt the guidelines based on specific conditions or circumstances, the responsible official will describe and document the reason for the proposed adjustment and explain the relationship to desired conditions and objectives in the project-level environmental analysis and decision documents. In such cases, a plan amendment typically will not be required. The use of the term “guideline” in the Forest Service's 2005 planning rule emphasizes the strategic nature of plans under the rule. In the 1982 planning rule and the first round of plans, the planning term used was “standards and guidelines.” Standards and guidelines were part of the plan's overall management direction that guided management activities on a National Forest System unit. Some plans and plan revisions under the 1982 planning rule term mandatory direction as “standards” and general direction with latitude for implementation as “guidelines.” Others do not make a distinction between standards and guidelines. For purposes of the discussion that follows, the term “standards and guidelines” refers to management direction provided under the 1982 planning rule. To clarify the strategic nature of plans, the Forest Service adopted the term “guidelines” in the 2005 planning rule. Under the 2005 rule, plans typically will not have standards and guidelines as defined under the 1982 planning rule. The term “guideline” under the 2005 planning rule represents general guidance that will be applied based on site-specific conditions and circumstances to future proposed projects and activities. Guidelines will be used to design projects or activities to contribute to achieving a plan area's desired conditions. *Retaining, Revising, or Removing Existing Standards and Guidelines.* During development, amendment, or revision of plans under the 2005 planning rule, the responsible official must consider whether to retain, revise, or remove existing standards and guidelines. The plan approval document will describe the extent to which standards and guidelines from the existing plans are retained or revised and the required evaluation report will identify the decision document, or portion of such document, in which the standards and guidelines were approved, and any prior environmental analysis which pertains to such standards and guidelines. Typically, no further NEPA analysis is required at the time of plan amendment or revision for previously analyzed standards and guidelines that are retained or revised. The influence of such standards and guidelines on the direct, indirect or cumulative effects of future projects and activities will be analyzed at the time such projects and activities are proposed. However, in limited instances the agency may propose to retain an existing or revised standards and guidelines that command the agency or others to undertake or refrain from undertaking projects and activities. Such a proposal is outside the scope of the category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures, at which point the agency shall determine whether any previous environmental analysis pertaining to the retained or revised standards and guidelines is still adequate or whether it needs to be supplemented. When standards and guidelines are removed, the required evaluation report will identify which standards and guidelines are removed and provide a rationale for the removal. Typically no further NEPA analysis is required at the time of plan amendment or revision to remove standards and guidelines. The influence of the removal of standards and guidelines on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects and activities will be analyzed at the time projects and activities are proposed. However, in limited instances a proposal by the agency to remove standards and guidelines may result in an immediate environmental impact because the removal would allow projects and activities to occur or require them to stop occurring without a subsequent proposed action by the agency. Such a proposal is outside the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures. For the *suitability of areas* plan component, areas within a National Forest System unit will be identified as generally suitable for various uses that are compatible with desired conditions and objectives for that area (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(iv)). As stated in the preamble to the 2005 Planning Rule, a land management plan will identify general suitability of areas for various uses. The identification of an area as generally suitable for various uses does not approve projects or activities, command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Identification of suitable land areas is not a final determination of the suitability of an area for a future proposed project or activity. The identification of generally suitable land areas is guidance for future project or activity decision-making. The influence general suitability identification has on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such projects and activities are proposed by the agency. In accordance with NFMA, the 2005 planning rule requires the responsible official to identify lands within the plan area as not suitable for timber production. This identification is not a proposal for action prohibiting timber harvest projects or activities. Salvage timber sales and timber harvest activities necessary for other multiple-use purposes may occur in these areas if proposed and approved in the future. There are no effects from identification of areas as not suitable for timber production. The identification influences the development of future proposals for projects and activities. The influence the identification has on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects and activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until future projects or activities are proposed. Suitable areas can be identified in several ways, including maps and/or narrative descriptions. Examples of suitability identifications are: Areas along, and within 200 feet of, designated motorized travel routes are generally suitable for dispersed camping ( *e.g.* , camping outside designated campgrounds). Areas identified for dispersed recreation are generally suitable for non-motorized recreational use including camping, photography, hiking, fishing, and hunting. Dispersed recreation areas are generally suitable for timber harvest (including salvage), for multiple-use purposes and to achieve desired vegetation conditions. These areas are generally suitable for commercial use of nontimber forest products. Identification of generally suitable land areas is guidance that helps a land manager and user understand which areas generally are suitable for uses based on compatibility with desired conditions for a given area. For example, a dispersed recreation area's desired condition would be described as typically undeveloped, or minimally developed, highlighting the area's opportunities for non-motorized recreation. As shown above, this particular area is identified as generally suitable for non-motorized activities, such as camping, photography, hiking, fishing, and hunting. This identification, however, does not approve specific activities or prohibit activities that have not been identified as a generally suitable use for the area. A future proposed project for a use not identified as a generally suitable use may be approved if appropriate based on site-specific analysis and if the proposed project is consistent with other plan components. Although not required for approval of the proposed project, the site-specific NEPA analysis and documentation may lead the responsible official to believe uses of the type approved are generally suitable for the area and propose an amendment to the plan to identify such uses as generally suitable for the area. *Special areas* are identified or designated for their unique or special characteristics (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(v)). There are four ways special areas may be addressed during plan development, amendment, or revision: 1. An area previously designated may be identified. 2. The responsible official may make a preliminary administrative recommendation for a Congressional designation ( *e.g.,* a wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers segment). 3. The responsible official may make a preliminary recommendation for an administrative designation ( *e.g.* , Research Natural Area). 4. The responsible official may designate an area ( *e.g.* , geological areas). Special Areas Previously Designated The responsible official may identify in the Plan Set of Documents an area previously administratively or Congressionally designated. This does not require analysis under NEPA. The effects of such designated areas were assessed and considered when the designation was approved. Preliminary Administrative Recommendation for Congressional Designation The responsible official may make a preliminary administrative recommendation for Congressional designation ( *e.g.* , a wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers segment) in the plan approval document. This is a preliminary recommendation based on inventory and evaluation procedures documented in Forest Service directives. The directives for wilderness evaluation are in Forest Service Manual
(FSM)1923 and Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)1909.12, chapter 70. The directives for Wild and Scenic River evaluation are in FSM 1924 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 80. This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. As a matter of Forest Service policy, if the Chief decides to forward preliminary administrative wilderness recommendations to the Secretary, an appropriate NEPA document will accompany the recommendations. If the Department decides to make a final recommendation for a congressional designation, the appropriate NEPA analysis and documentation will accompany the legislative proposal for designation. Recommendation for Administrative Designation The plan responsible official may also make a recommendation to their supervisor for administrative designation that can be acted on by that supervisor or a higher authority within the Department. For example, Research Natural Areas
(RNAs)can be recommended by a Forest or Grassland Supervisor and may be designated by the Regional Forester with concurrence by the Station Director. For further examples, see FSH 1909.12, section 11.15, exhibit 1 for a list of special area designation authorities. The appropriate NEPA analysis and documentation will be prepared when the responsible official with the designation authority is considering a proposal to designate an area. It is at this point in the administrative designation process that direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed administrative designation can be meaningfully analyzed. Designation of a Special Area The responsible official also may designate a special area during plan development, amendment, or revision. The types of special areas that the responsible official can designate are those with the following characteristics: Scenic, geological, botanical, zoological, paleonotological, historical, and recreational (see FSM 2372). Designating a special area that simply identifies one or more of these characteristics, and also includes a plan component developed for that particular area, may occur without further NEPA analysis and documentation. For example, a geological area with outstanding formations or unique geological features of the earth's development ( *e.g.* , caves, fossils, dikes, cliffs, or faults) may be identified and have a desired condition plan component developed when designated by a responsible official. See FSH 1909.12, section 11.15, exhibit 1. Some proposed special area designations may include a prohibition on projects or activities in those areas. If the proposed designation includes a prohibition that commands anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities in the area, or that grants, withholds or modifies contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, that proposed designation will be considered separately from the plan under Forest Service NEPA procedures. For example, if a proposal did designate a geological area as a special area that includes a direct prohibition on rock climbing to protect a plant species, appropriate NEPA consideration would be required for that proposed designation. Examples of plan recommendations for special area designation are: The Responsible Official recommends the Blue Gulch area for Wilderness designation. This area is north of the Bald Mountain Wilderness area and includes approximately 10,000 acres with a boundary map attached to this approval document. This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. The Responsible Official recommends Highway 13 through the Blue Gulch area as a scenic byway because it possesses outstanding views and scenic corridor. However, the actual designation authority resides with the Chief. If the Chief decides to designate the area, a separate administrative process will be used. An example of plan special area designation is: The Responsible Official designates the Blue Gulch area as a geological area because it possesses outstanding caves, fossils, and cliffs. *Requirements of other laws* are not considered plan components under the 2005 planning rule. However, plans will cross-reference these requirements to facilitate land management. Forest Service Review of EISs Completed for Plan Revisions Under the 1982 Planning Rule In response to comments on the proposed categorical exclusion, the Forest Service conducted a review of EISs and RODs for plan revisions under the 1982 planning rule (see “Results of the Review of Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statements” in the Administrative Record). The following conclusions resulted from the review. • The reviewed text in the plan EISs focused on hypothetical projects and activities or on specific prohibitions. Several reviewed EISs described effects as being related to a plan's management direction, but the effects were projected effects from hypothetical projects and activities under various plan alternatives or the effects of management area prescriptions, in the form of standards that prohibit activities. • The reviewed RODs and EISs pointed out that a project's site-specific effects depend on the future proposed project design, the environmental conditions of the specific location, and the application of the plan's standards and guidelines to the future proposed project. It is at this point that the influence of standards and guidelines on the effects of the future proposed project can be meaningfully evaluated. • Several of the reviewed RODs contained specific final decisions ( *e.g.* , prohibiting motorized cross-country travel, prohibiting boat use on a specific river segment) that will not normally be included in development, amendment, or revision of land management plans under the 2005 planning rule. Those specific final decisions were identified and their effects analyzed in the plan EIS. The final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)review conclusions further reinforce the Forest Service's determination, based on 27 years experience with land management planning under the 1982 planning rule, that plans under the 2005 planning rule that provide broad information and guidance for project and activity decision-making may appropriately be categorically excluded from analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. It also helped clarify the extraordinary circumstances that would require further NEPA analysis. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, the Forest Service has concluded that plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS as established in these final directives agency NEPA procedures, absent extraordinary circumstances. To further confirm the determination, the Forest Service prepared an EA for the proposed revision of the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands portion of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest land management plan. The Grasslands portion of that plan is being revised using the 2005 planning rule. Based on the EA, the Responsible Official concluded that the proposed plan revision would have no significant effects and recorded this finding in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (December 2005, *http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revision/draft_gr_ea.pdf* ). The Grasslands proposed plan dated December 21, 2005 does not propose approval of any project or activity or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. The plan components will provide a strategic framework with broad information and guidance—they will not compel any changes to the existing environment. Thus, without a proposal for action that approves projects and activities, or that commands anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, the plan components cannot be linked in a cause-effect relationship over time and within the geographic area to effects on air quality; threatened and endangered species; significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources; water quality; nor other resources. Therefore, the plan will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The Grasslands plan will be approved later in calendar year 2007. The proposed plan and Environmental Assessment and Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) are hereby incorporated into the administrative record for the categorical exclusion (CE). Comments on the Proposal The Forest Service provided a 60-day comment period on the proposed land management planning categorical exclusion (Planning CE) (70 FR 1062; Jan. 5, 2005). The Forest Service received 55,000 comments in 3,334 responses (letters, form letters, and petitions). All suggestions and comments have been reviewed and considered in preparation of this notice of the final amendment. The Planning CE has been modified in response to comments and the modified text of the CE can be found at the end of this notice. Public comment on the proposed Planning CE addressed a wide range of topics. Many comments discussed Forest Service management in general. Other respondents commented on the 2005 planning rule. The preamble to the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1023, January 5, 2005) provides discussion that responds to these comments on the 2005 planning rule. Some respondents supported the proposed CE for planning; most did not. Following are summaries of their comments on the proposed Planning CE and the Forest Service responses to those comments. Comments on the Process Used To Promulgate the Categorical Exclusion *Comment—Extension request for comment period:* Several respondents requested an extension to the 60-day comment period. They requested the comment period remain open until 60 days after publication of the interim directives for planning, which were published on March 23, 2005 (see 70 FR 14637). The requestors believed that the extension was needed so that they could better understand how the 2005 planning rule and the categorical exclusion proposal relate to each other. *Response:* The 2002 proposed planning rule introduced the concept of using a categorical exclusion for land management planning. The public had a 90-day opportunity to comment then on this concept. Therefore, the Planning CE was not a new idea when the public was asked to comment on it in the January 5, 2005 **Federal Register** notice (70 FR 1023, 1062). Accordingly, the Forest Service did not find it necessary to extend the proposed Planning CE comment period beyond the March 7 closing date. *Comment—National Environmental Policy Act compliance:* Some respondents claimed that failure to analyze the proposed categorical exclusion with an environmental impact statement is a violation of the NEPA. They stated that the impacts of adopting a CE in place of an EIS for every land management plan are significant. Others stated that the cumulative effect of the proposed Planning CE, along with other recently adopted CEs, such as the salvage and Healthy Forest Restoration Act categorical exclusions, would allow Forest Service actions to occur without any environmental analysis. *Response:* The CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document, including a cumulative effects analysis, before establishing Agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. The requirements for establishing Agency NEPA procedures are set forth in CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The Forest Service provided an opportunity for public review and consulted with the CEQ during the development of this categorical exclusion. The determination that establishing categorical exclusions does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in *Heartwood, Inc.* v. *U.S. Forest Service,* 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-56 (7th Cir. 2000). The Forest Service believes that the point in the planning process when direct, indirect and cumulative effects occur and can be meaningfully analyzed is when projects and activities, or actions that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments are proposed. The Agency continues to require scoping for proposed actions even if the proposed action is covered by one of the categorical exclusions listed within the Forest Service NEPA procedures. If the Agency determines that there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant further analysis, then further appropriate NEPA analysis and documentation is required. *Comment—Extraordinary circumstance definition:* A number of respondents said that the Forest Service did not clearly define what extraordinary circumstance would require the Agency to prepare an EA or EIS when developing, amending, or revising a land management plan. They also said that without a clear definition, inconsistency would be guaranteed when determining whether an EIS was required for a land management plan. *Response:* The Forest Service agrees that the proposed extraordinary circumstance definition was not clear. Accordingly, the Agency is revising the policy section (30.3) in this final directive to clarify when extraordinary circumstances apply to land management plan proposals or to proposals for projects or activities, In the proposed directive (FSH 1909.15, chapter 30), the Agency stated that projects or activities proposed as part of plan development, amendment, or revision may constitute an extraordinary circumstance. In the final directive, the Agency defined the category more narrowly to exclude proposed actions that approve projects and activities or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments from the scope of the category. The Agency then adopted the existing definition of extraordinary circumstances for actions approving plans, plan amendment, and plan revisions. The Agency also added wording to the existing paragraph 2 further clarifying when extraordinary circumstances exist for a proposed action: “The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. *It is
(1)The existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and
(2)if such a relationship exists, it is* the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.” This added wording clarifies that a proposed action (a land management plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, or a project or activity) must involve a determination whether the proposed action has an effect on any of the listed resource conditions, and, if so, whether the potential degree of the effect warrants further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS. A summary of the changes made to the final directive is found earlier in this preamble under “Background.” *Comment—Independent scientific review:* One respondent expressed the concern that the Forest Service developed the Planning CE without the benefit of recommendations from a committee of scientists. *Response:* In developing this categorical exclusion, the Forest Service considered the conclusions from the Committee of Scientists
(COS)1999 report for a more adaptable approach to planning. Secretary Glickman chartered the COS on December 11, 1997. The Committee consists of representatives from a variety of academic disciplines, including but not limited to, forest and range ecology, fish and wildlife biology, silviculture, hydrology, natural resource economics, sociology, public participation and conflict management, ecosystem management, land management planning, and natural resource law. The charter for the COS stated that the Committee's purpose was to provide scientific and technical advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the National Forest System land management planning process. The COS stated, on page 117 of their report: [P]erhaps the most difficult problem is that the current EA/EIS process assumes a onetime decision. The very essence of small landscape planning is an adaptive management approach, based upon monitoring and learning. Although small landscape planning can more readily do real time cumulative effects analysis * * * this kind of analysis is difficult to integrate with a one-time decision approach. Developing a decision disclosure and review process that is ongoing and uses monitoring information to adjust or change treatments and activities will need to be a high priority * * * At the same time, its emphasis on onetime decisions is inconsistent with an adaptive management approach. This problem may require that a new process for disclosure and review emerge, either through changes in administrative rules or changes in law * * * (Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 pp.) This COS conclusion is one of the considerations the Forest Service used to revise the 1982 planning rule. Establishing the Planning CE would further enhance the Agency's adaptive management and allow timelier plan amendments in response to monitoring information. Comments on Public and Other Forest Service Participation *Comment—Public involvement:* Many respondents expressed the importance of involving the public in all Federal land use decision processes. Many were concerned that without an environmental impact statement, opportunities for public involvement and oversight in the land management planning process will be reduced or eliminated. They were concerned because specific public involvement requirements in the CEQ regulations that apply to the EIS process do not apply to CEs. Many respondents stressed how public comment and review periods are an important piece of this country's democratic process and request that the Forest Service not change it. Many others believe that not using the EIS process would either eliminate, or shorten, the public comment period from 90 to 30 days. Some respondents stated their belief that eliminating EISs for land management plans violates the NFMA public participation requirements. Some indicated a belief that removing the plans from the NEPA EIS requirements would allow more meaningful public involvement. *Response:* While categorical exclusions themselves do not require the same system of public involvement as EISs ( *i.e.* , required Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and initiate scoping; comment period for a draft EIS; review period for a final EIS), use of the Planning CE for land management planning needs to be considered together with the requirements for public participation and collaboration contained in the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9). The 2005 planning rule requires that a collaborative and participatory approach must be used for land management planning. There are three formal public comment opportunities in the land management planning process (36 CFR 219.9): 1. After a Forest Service unit provides the public the required notice that it is initiating a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision and invites the public to comment on the need for change in a plan; 2. During the 90-day comment period for a proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; and 3. During the 30-day objection period prior to approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. The 90-day comment period (36 CFR 219.9(b)) meets the NFMA requirements for a comment period in the development, review, and revision of land management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)). In addition, the 2005 planning rule specifically requires that the responsible official involve the public in developing and updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program. Finally, the 2005 planning rule does not preclude extending the 90-day comment period if necessary. While the 1982 planning rule did not preclude this same level of collaboration, it also did not require it; it only required an opportunity for the public to comment after a notice of intent was published and during the three-month comment period on the proposed plan and accompanying draft EIS. The 2005 planning rule provides greater opportunities for public notification and comment during the land management planning process than required for an EIS. It also requires that a collaborative approach be used in land management planning. Considering all of the available opportunities to participate, people will not only continue to have access to the land management planning process, they will have the opportunity to participate more meaningfully. The 2005 planning rule overview also discusses public participation in its summary of comments and responses (70 FR 1046; Jan. 5, 2005). *Comment—Less opportunity for public participation and for cooperating agency status:* One county official indicates that use of a categorical exclusion for land management plans would eliminate the opportunity for counties to use cooperating agency status during the planning process, which the official considers “one of the most effective vehicles for county government to constructively participate in [Forest Service] planning.” Other government officials believed that this categorical exclusion might weaken the ability of the county and other State and local governments to access the planning process in a constructive manner. A State fish and game department official noted its current ability to collaborate with the Forest Service to protect populations of game and non-game vertebrates on the forests will be hindered by removing forest planning activities from scrutiny under NEPA. *Response:* The 2005 planning rule provides that “the Responsible Official must use a collaborative and participatory approach to land management planning * * * by engaging the skills and interests of * * * State and local governments * * *” (36 CFR 219.9). This requires the responsible official to take into account the jurisdiction and responsibilities of interested and affected parties. The rule also specifically requires the responsible official to meet with and provide early opportunities for government agencies at all levels to collaborate, participate, and assist with the planning process (36 CFR 219.9(a)(2)). The Forest Service is very interested in working with State and local government and elected officials during the planning process. The Forest Service believes that this special relationship can continue with State and local governments and agencies as needed. Under existing authorities, the responsible official may enter into agreements with State and local governments to cooperate in land management planning using mechanisms such as memorandums of understanding, partnership agreements, and other means. The rule does not set out specific responsibilities, leaving it to the responsible official to
(1)Meet and work with the State and local governments and
(2)determine how those governments can effectively assist in land management planning. *Comment—Eliminating the appeal process:* Many of the comments received addressed the appeal process and its relationship to the land management planning process. Some people stated that because the Forest Service is not requiring the use of an EIS, no opportunity to appeal the land management plan would exist. Some people stated that by not having an appeals process, the Forest Service could ignore substantive and procedural violations raised by the public. Other people believed that they would not be able to alert a higher level Forest Service official about public concerns. Finally, some people predicted that the objection process would be more expensive to use, as it would result in more litigation and thus, higher court costs. Some respondents stated that the Planning CE would reduce the amount of appeals and litigation compared to the 1982 planning rule process. *Response:* There is no direct relationship between the use of an objection or appeal process and what form of NEPA documentation (CE, EA, and EIS) is used for planning. The 2005 planning rule requires the responsible official to provide an opportunity to object before approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision (36 CFR 219.13). The Forest Service believes it is better to address public objections before, rather than after, a plan's approval. It is the Agency's belief that the opportunity to object in the 2005 planning rule will make objectors and the responsible official work collaboratively to resolve concerns before a plan is approved. An important characteristic of the objection process is that the reviewing official is the responsible official's supervisor (36 CFR 219.16). Therefore, the Regional Forester would review objections associated with a Forest or Grassland Supervisor's plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. This feature of the rule retains the higher-level review similar to what the appeals process offered. Comments on Analysis *Comment—Disclosure of environmental effects:* Many respondents were concerned that using a CE instead of an EIS for land management planning eliminates disclosure of environmental effects of a land management plan. Some were concerned that without disclosure of environmental effects, scientists and the public would not have a basis for providing meaningful comments. Some respondents believed that the proposed categorical exclusion would eliminate cumulative effects analysis of management activities across the National Forest System in violation of NEPA. *Response:* A categorical exclusion is one method of complying with NEPA. A categorical exclusion represents a Forest Service determination that the actions encompassed by the category “do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment” (40 CFR 1508.4). Plans being developed under the 2005 planning rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Plan components provide a strategic framework and guidance—they will not compel changes to the existing environment. Achieving desired conditions depends on future management decisions that will help effect a change toward or maintain these desired conditions over time. Thus, without a proposal for action that approves projects and activities, or that commands anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grants, withholds or modifies contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, the plan components cannot be linked in a cause-effect relationship over time and within the geographic area to any resource. Therefore, the plan will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. A summary of the FEIS review is found earlier in this preamble under “Forest Service Review of EISs Completed for Plan Revisions under the 1982 planning rule”. From this FEIS review, the Forest Service learned that the environmental analysis in the reviewed plan EISs typically focused on hypothetical projects and activities. Several reviewed EISs described effects as being related to a plan's management direction, but in fact, the effects were projected effects from hypothetical projects and activities under various plan alternatives or the effects of management area prescriptions, in the form of standards that prohibited activities. Plans under the 2005 planning rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Such proposals will be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures ( *i.e.* , application of a categorical exclusion or further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS). The Forest Service is still required to address the cumulative effects of projects and activities. Those cumulative effects will be analyzed and disclosed at the time the projects and activities are proposed, which is the time when the Forest Service has a goal, is actively preparing to make a decision about one or more alternatives to achieve that goal, and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23). *Comment—Alternatives:* Several respondents commented that by not using an environmental impact statement for land management planning, no alternatives will be considered other than the one proposed by the Forest Service. They were concerned that this would preclude the consideration of alternatives proposed by the public. Some suggested that alternatives play an important role in educating the public about the possible outcomes for national forests and grasslands. Others believed that evaluating alternatives allows Forest Service managers to make decisions that are more informed. *Response:* A discussion of how alternatives were required by the 1982 planning rule is found earlier in this preamble under “History.” In summary, with the 1982 rule, Forest Service believed the most efficient planning approach was to integrate the rule's regulatory requirement to formulate alternatives to maximize net public benefit with the NEPA alternative requirement ( *i.e.* , 40 CFR 1502.14). However, the new 2005 planning rule does not require alternatives because the 2005 planning rule envisions an iterative approach to plan development, in which plan options are developed and narrowed successively (36 CFR 219.7(a)(6)). The Agency anticipates that the responsible official and the public will iteratively develop and review various plan options of plan components, including options offered by the public. Together, they will work collaboratively to narrow the options for a proposed plan instead of focusing on distinct alternatives. The Forest Service has found that developing and considering distinct alternatives in an EIS can be divisive because people often rally behind certain alternatives and maintain adversarial positions rather than working together to solve problems and reach agreements. The Forest Service developed this iterative option approach to planning to encourage people to work together, understand each other's values and interests, and find common solutions to the important and critical planning issues the Agency faces. When proposed projects and activities are analyzed and documented in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, the Forest Service will consider alternatives to the proposed action in accordance with NEPA. Projects and activities including timber sales, fish habitat or watershed improvement projects, livestock grazing use, oil and gas surface use plan of operations approval, and travel management provide the opportunity to evaluate and analyze NEPA alternatives. Such site-specific decisions may cover different geographic scales. For instance a travel management decision may be forest-wide or be limited to one travel route. *Comment—Use of a CE for wilderness proposals:* A few respondents expressed concern that a categorical exclusion does not provide the level of analysis required for making recommendations on wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers. *Response: Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers require congressional designation.* The responsible official may make a preliminary administrative recommendation for Congressional designation ( *e.g.* a wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers segment) in the plan approval document. As a matter of Forest Service policy, if the Chief decides to forward preliminary administrative wilderness recommendations to the Secretary, an appropriate NEPA document will accompany the recommendations. Additional discussion of the wilderness recommendation process can be found earlier in this preamble under *“Preliminary Administrative Recommendation for Congressional Designation.”* *Comment—Effects on project and activity efficiency:* Some respondents believed that categorically excluding land management plans will increase the analysis necessary for project or activity decisions and therefore, reduce efficiency gained during the planning process. Some stated that without a plan EIS, cumulative effects and impacts to forest-wide resources would now have to be evaluated in each project decision. One county official suggested that the CE proposal be delayed until a process can be developed that streamlines planning at all levels, rather than shift the analysis burden from one planning level to another. Some commented that the Forest Service should be able to more actively and efficiently manage the National Forests System lands with the Planning CE. One respondent suggested that the categorical exclusion will result in more flexibility to respond to changing ecosystem conditions. *Response:* Inherent in these comments is the assumption that land management plan EISs consistently provided useful and up-to-date information for project or activity analysis including sufficient cumulative effects analysis for reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. After 27 years of NFMA planning experience, the Forest Service has determined that plan EIS cumulative and landscape-level effects analyses are mostly speculative and quickly out of date (see the “Comment—Disclosure of Environmental Effects” and the Response above). Landscape conditions, social values, and budget availability change between when a plan EIS effects analysis occurs and when most project and activity decisions are made. Large-scale disturbances, such as drought, insects and disease, fires, and hurricanes dramatically and unexpectedly change conditions on hundreds to thousands of acres. Public use of a plan area can change dramatically in a relatively short time period, as has occurred with off-highway vehicles. Hence, the Forest Service has found that a plan EIS typically does not provide useful, current information about potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of project or activity proposals. Such effects will be analyzed and disclosed when the Forest Service knows the proposal design and the environmental conditions of the specific location. The 2005 planning rule sets up a process where more up-to-date information and analyses will be available to inform project and activity decisions by requiring the Agency to establish an Environmental Management System
(EMS)and prepare comprehensive evaluation reports, prepare annual evaluation reports, and to perform on-going monitoring and evaluations. The comprehensive evaluation report must be completed for plan development and plan revisions and updated at least every five years (36 CFR 219.6(a)). This comprehensive evaluation will provide a broad overview of current conditions and trends relevant to the plan area. This evaluation, supplemented with information from annual evaluations and information from the EMS will be part of the continually updated Plan Set of Documents and will be considered in project or activity design and analysis. These will provide a more accurate and effective analysis context for project and activity environmental effects than had been provided in plan EISs, thereby making project-level analysis more efficient. Comments on Compliance With Law and Regulation *Comment—Tribal trust responsibility:* One American Indian group expressed concern about the Forest Service's tribal trust responsibilities and indicated that the Planning CE would result in less environmental evaluation of projects, leading to water quality and habitat effects on tribal treaty-reserved rights. This group stated that “[a] key component of the Forest [Service]'s trust responsibility is the duty to protect the tribal treaty-reserved resources. This includes both the resources themselves and the habitat upon which they depend.” They also commented that the Planning CE would result in less evaluation and consideration of the Federal government plan's impacts on tribal trust resources. They requested that the Forest Service explain how the Planning CE complies with the Forest Service American Indian policy. *Response:* The preamble for the proposed Planning CE states that the categorical exclusion will not significantly affect communities of Indian tribal governments, primarily because establishing the Planning CE as part of the Forest Service's NEPA procedures does not directly affect occupancy and use of land. Regarding consideration of effects on American Indians, the 2005 planning rule imposes an obligation, independent of NEPA, on Forest Service officials to consult early with tribal governments (36 CFR 219.9(a)(3)). The intent is to work cooperatively with Tribes where planning issues affect their interests. Given this early consultation, issues regarding tribal treaty-reserved rights can be identified and resolved as the plan is developed, amended, or revised. Nothing in this Planning CE changes the Forest Service responsibility to honor the government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government and conduct the appropriate consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( *Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* , dated 6 November 2000). *Comment—Violation of NEPA because a plan is a major Federal action:* Some respondents believed that land management plans significantly affect the environment and are therefore, major Federal actions triggering the NEPA requirements for an EIS (40 CFR 1508.18). Some stated that the NEPA requirements for an EIS are triggered because land management plans are included in the category of Federal actions that are described as “formal plans” in the CEQ regulations at 1508.18(b)(2). Some respondents expressed the view that by determining the types of land uses that will occur within areas of a National Forest, the Forest Service makes decisions in its land management plans that ultimately can result in significant effects even though the plans themselves may not approve specific projects or activities. *Response:* As explained in the overview to the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1023; Jan. 5, 2005), the CEQ regulations define “major Federal action” as including “actions with effects that may be major” and state, “major reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly” (40 CFR 1508.18). The CEQ regulation goes on to state that Federal actions fall within several categories, one of which is the “[a]doption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or approved by Federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal resources” (40 CFR 1508.18). However, as is further explained in the 2005 planning rule overview, not all Federal actions are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Plans developed under the 2005 planning rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. As such, plans have no independent environmental effects. Applicable plan components will guide the design of projects and activities in the plan area. The environmental effects of projects and activities will be analyzed under NEPA when they are a proposal for Agency action: “Proposal” exists at that stage in the development of an action when an agency subject to the Act has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated. Preparation of an environmental impact statement on a proposal should be timed (Sec. 1502.5) so that the final statement may be completed in time for the statement to be included in any recommendation or report on the proposal. A proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency declaration that one exists. (40 CFR 1508.23) Plans will be strategic and aspirational in nature and typically will not direct alternative uses of resources nor determine the types of land uses that will occur. Plans developed under the 2005 planning rule will identify areas as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with desired conditions and objectives for that area. This identification does not create a right to that use or mean that the use will ever occur. This identification, also, does not approve specific activities or prohibit activities that have not been identified as a generally suitable use for the area. A future proposed project for a use not identified as a generally suitable use may be approved if appropriate based on site-specific analysis and if the proposed project is consistent with other plan components. Although not required for approval of the future project, the site-specific NEPA analysis and documentation may lead the responsible official to believe uses of the type approved are generally suitable for the area and propose an amendment to the plan to identify such uses as generally suitable for the area. *Comment—Court requires EISs for plans:* Two respondents cited a 2003 ruling made on the Six Rivers Fire Plan as proof that an environmental impact statement is required for a plan. *Response:* In Environmental Protection Information Center v. Forest Service, No. C-02-2708 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 5, 2003), a Federal district court concluded that the Six Rivers National Forest Fire Management Plan contained decisions that required NEPA analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. The Department believes that the ruling only applied only to the decisions in the Six Rivers National Fire Management Plan, and not land management plans prepared pursuant to the 2005 planning rule. *Comment—Cases do not support categorical exclusion:* Some respondents took issue with reliance on *Ohio Forestry Ass'n* v. *Sierra Club,* 523 U.S. 726 (1988), and *Norton* v. *Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,* 124 S.Ct. 2382
(2004)(SUWA). Several noted that *Ohio Forestry* was simply a ripeness case—the Supreme Court did not hold that land management plans are inherently unreviewable and noted that plans that incorporate final decisions have immediate effects and are reviewable. *Response:* The preamble to the proposed Planning CE noted that plan development, amendment, and revision is generally not the stage at which actions are proposed to accomplish the goals contained in land management plans (70 FR 1064; Jan. 5, 2005). The preamble further pointed out that this view of land management plans was supported by the previously cited Supreme Court decisions, *Ohio Forestry* and *SUWA.* While the respondents believed that *Ohio Forestry* is simply a ripeness case, its implications are in fact quite broad. As the Supreme Court has noted repeatedly, ripeness is “peculiarly a matter of timing” ( *Regional Rail Reorganization Act cases,* 419 U.S. 102, 140 (1974)). In *Ohio Forestry,* the Supreme Court held the portion of the land management plan at issue, which identified logging areas and goals, did “not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything” (523 U.S. 733). The plan therefore, was not ripe for review because the Forest Service had not yet made decisions that approved actions. However, the Court did acknowledge that plans, or portions of plans, which include decisions having immediate effects were in a different category (523 U.S. at 738-39). The Supreme Court repeated this view in *SUWA,* stating that “a land use plan is generally a statement of priorities; it guides and constrains actions, but does not (at least in the usual case) prescribe them” (124 S.Ct. at 2383). *Ohio Forestry* and *SUWA* are, therefore, significant because they acknowledge the fundamentally strategic nature of planning. In the specific context of those cases, the strategic nature of planning, contrasted against the more concrete nature of project-level activity, led the Court to determine that judicial review of plans was inappropriate. The consideration of timing, as well as the contrast between planning and projects, supports a categorical exclusion for land management planning. To a greater extent than before, plans under the 2005 planning rule will be strategic and aspirational in nature, setting desired conditions and objectives and guidance for subsequent on-the-ground projects or activities. At the point of a proposed project or activity, the Forest Service can meaningfully evaluate the project or activity's environmental effects (40 CFR 1508.23). Where a project or activity is approved in connection with plan development, amendment, or revision, that approval will be analyzed in an appropriate NEPA document. Thus, *Ohio Forestry* and *SUWA* both acknowledge the fundamental nature of land management plans as tools to guide later decisionmaking that generally will not have a significant effect on the environment. *Comment—Violation of NFMA analysis requirements:* Several respondents stated that use of a categorical exclusion for planning would violate NFMA. These respondents interpret NFMA as requiring the preparation of EISs for plans and/or precluding the Forest Service from using a categorical exclusion for land management planning. One respondent stated that other provisions of NFMA regarding plans, such as the requirements to specify guidelines for species diversity and timber harvest, means that plans must have significant environmental effects which preclude the use of a categorical exclusion, or, at a minimum, that this determination should be made on a case by case basis. *Response:* The NFMA does not require EISs for plan development, amendment, or revision. Rather, NFMA requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations “specifying procedures to insure that land management plans are prepared in accordance with [NEPA] including, but not limited to, direction on when and for what plans an environmental impact statement * * * shall be prepared” (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). Thus, Congress gave the Secretary the authority to determine “when and for what plans” an EIS is needed. The Forest Service has complied with this requirement by specifying in the 2005 planning rule that land management planning will follow established Forest Service NEPA procedures and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, an appropriate categorical exclusion would be relied upon (36 CFR 219.4). Use of a categorical exclusion is itself a form of NEPA compliance and nothing in NFMA precludes the use of a categorical exclusion for land management planning. Indeed, the plain wording of NFMA at 1604(g)(1) confirms that the Forest Service has the discretion to determine the appropriate method of NEPA compliance. Regarding the concern that NFMA provisions, such as those requiring the Agency to specify guidelines for diversity, preclude the use of a CE, the Forest Service believes it meets the NFMA requirement through plan components under the 2005 planning rule, such as desired conditions and objectives. For example, a responsible official might choose to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities, as provided in 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3), by providing guidance in the plan to improve habitat for a specific species. Such guidance would have no independent environmental effect. Rather, it could influence the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a future project or activity to improve habitat that may be proposed by the responsible official. At that time, the responsible official would use applicable plan components to determine the design of the project or activity based on the environmental conditions of the specific location. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact This final directive revises direction guiding Forest Service employees in the requirements for NEPA analysis and documentation for land management planning activities. The Council on Environmental Quality does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing Agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agencies are required to adopt NEPA procedures that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: those that require preparation of an EIS; those that require preparation of an EA; and those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). Categorical exclusions are one part of those agency procedures, and therefore establishing categorical exclusions does not require preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination that establishing categorical exclusions does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in *Heartwood, Inc.* v. *U.S. Forest Service,* 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000). Regulatory Impact This final directive has been reviewed under USDA procedures and *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* It has been determined that this is not an economically significant action. This action to issue agency direction will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This action will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Because of the extensive interest in National Forest System
(NFS)planning and decision-making, this CE for developing, amending, and revising land management plans has been designated as significant and, therefore, is subject to Office of Management and Budget review under E.O. 12866. Cost/Benefit Analysis A detailed cost-benefit analysis was prepared, approved, and included in the regulatory impact for the January 5, 2005, Final Rule (36 CFR 219) for National Forest Land Management Planning. That analysis included an examination and discussion on key activities in land management planning for which costs could be estimated under the 1982 and the 2005 planning rules. The 1982 planning rule was used as the baseline for the analysis because all the land management plan revisions completed prior to the issuance of the 2005 planning rule have used the requirements of the 1982 planning rule ( *i.e.* , completing an EIS). Since the Forest Service is merely adjusting its NEPA implementing procedures to carry out the 2005 planning rule, no new assumptions for a cost-benefit analysis have been created. A review of the data and information for 2005 planning rule's detailed analysis has concluded that they are relevant, pertinent, and sufficient in analyzing the costs and benefits of establishing a new CE. No new information exists today that would significantly alter the information contained in the original detailed analysis; therefore, it is hereby incorporated by reference. The detailed analysis for the 2005 planning rule is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/* , along with other documents associated with that planning rule. The primary economic effects of the new CE for developing, amending and revising a land management plan under the 2005 planning rule are changes in costs for conducting environmental analysis and preparing NEPA documents. The new CE would reduce agency costs by reducing the NEPA documentation requirements for land management plans. Based on the quantified costs estimated for the 2005 planning rule compared with continued use of an EIS under the 1982 planning rule, the average annual undiscounted cost savings for the 2005 planning rule are estimated to be $22.6 million. This savings focuses on a comparison of each rule's planning activity centers, which specifically compare documentation of an EIS or CE for land management planning. It also demonstrates the savings associated with the streamlined application of NEPA analysis guidance by using a CE under the 2005 planning rule. Many of the benefits and costs associated with using the CE for plans developed, amended, or revised under the 2005 planning rule are not quantifiable. Other benefits, including collaborative and participatory public involvement to more fully address public concerns, timely environmental analysis, and shortening preparation time for the environmental documents with those changed conditions, such as wildfire, indicate a positive effect of using a CE instead of preparing an EIS. Federalism The Agency has considered this final directive under the requirements of *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* The Agency has concluded that the final directive conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Pursuant to *Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,”* the Agency has assessed the impact of this final directive on Indian Tribal governments and has determined that the categorical exclusion does not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian Tribal governments. The final directive deals with requirements for NEPA analysis and documentation for land management planning activities and, as such, has no direct effect regarding the occupancy and use of NFS land. The Agency has also determined that this final directive does not impose substantial direct compliance cost on Indian Tribal governments. This final directive does not mandate Tribal participation in NFS planning. Rather, the 2005 planning rule, with which this final directive is associated, imposes an obligation on Forest Service officials to consult early with Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal interests. Civil Rights Impact Analysis A civil rights impact analysis was conducted for the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR part 219 *et seq.* ), which provided for this final directive. This analysis is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/* , along with other documents associated with the 2005 planning rule. That analysis found that there are no adverse civil rights or environmental justice impacts anticipated to the delivery of benefits or other program outcomes on a national level for any underrepresented population or to other United States populations or communities. The final directive would add one category of actions to Agency NEPA procedures for development, amendment, or revision of land management plans. This final directive establishes an agency procedure—it does not in and of itself have effects on the social, economic, or ecological environment or on public participation and involvement. No Takings Implications This final directive has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in *Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,* and it has been determined that the final directive does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property. Civil Justice Reform This final directive has been reviewed under *Executive Order 12988 of February 7, 1996, “Civil Justice Reform.”* The Agency has not identified any State or local laws or regulations that are in conflict with this regulation or that would impede full implementation of this final directive. Nevertheless, in the event that such a conflict was to be identified, the final directive would preempt State or local laws or regulations found to be in conflict. However, in that case,
(1)No retroactive effect would be given to this final directive; and
(2)the final directive does not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Agency has assessed the effects of this final directive on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final directive does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required. Energy Effects This final directive has been reviewed under *Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.* It has been determined that this final directive does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This final directive does not contain any additional record keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use, and therefore, imposes no additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Text of Amendment Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by alphanumeric codes and subject headings. Only those sections of the Forest Service Handbook that are the subject of this notice are set out here. Reviewers wishing to review the entire chapter 30 may obtain a copy electronically from the Forest Service's directives Web site on the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.* Forest Service Handbook 1909.15—Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook Chapter 30—Categorical Exclusion from Documentation 30.3— *Policy* Revise existing paragraph 2, add a new paragraph 4, and redesignate existing paragraph 4 as paragraph 5 as follows: 1. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement
(EIS)or environmental assessment
(EA)only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if: a. The proposed action is within one of the categories in the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)NEPA policies and procedures in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, part 1b (7 CFR part 1b), or b. The proposed action is within a category listed in section 31.12 or 31.2 of this Handbook. 2. Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS are: a. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. b. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. c. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. d. Inventoried roadless areas. e. Research natural areas. f. American Indian and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. g. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is
(1)The existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and
(2)if such a relationship exists, it is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist. 3. Scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded. If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, prepare an EA (ch. 40). If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS (ch. 20). 4. If the proposed action is approval of a land management plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, the public participation requirements of 36 CFR 219.9 satisfy the scoping requirement of paragraph 3 of this section. 5. Section 18 of this Handbook contains related direction regarding correction, supplementation, or revision of environmental documents and reconsideration of decisions to take action. 31.2— *Categories of Actions for Which a Project or Case File and Decision Memo Are Required* Add a new paragraph 16 as follows: 16. Land management plans, plan amendments and plan revisions developed in accordance with 36 CFR 219 *et seq.* that provide broad guidance and information for project and activity decision-making in a National Forest System unit. Proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, are outside the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures. 32.2— *Decision Memo Required* Add the following as a third unnumbered paragraph: If the proposed action is approval of a land management plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, the plan approval document required by 36 CFR 219.7(c) satisfies the decision memo requirements of this section. Dated: December 8, 2006. Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-21370 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Public Meeting AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission. ACTIONS: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a public meeting on January 11, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on possible recommendations regarding the antitrust laws to Congress and the President. DATES: January 11, 2007, 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. Advanced registration is required. ADDRESSES: Morgan Lewis, Main Conference Room, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone:
(202)233-0701; e-mail: *info@amc.gov* . Mr. Heimert is also the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO)for the Antitrust Modernization Commission. *For Registration:* For building security purposes, advanced registration is required. If you wish to attend the Commission meeting, please provide your name by e-mail to *meetings@amc.gov* or by calling the Commission offices at
(202)233-0701. Please register by 12 p.m. on January 12, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on its report and/or recommendations to Congress and the President regarding the antitrust laws. The Commission may conduct additional business as necessary. Materials relating to the meeting will be made available on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.amc.gov* ) in advance of the meeting. The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, 11054(f), 116 Stat. 1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 10(a)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.150 (2005). Dated: December 11, 2006. By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Approved by Designated Federal Officer: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. [FR Doc. E6-21345 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed addition to and deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* January 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following service is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Services *Service Type/Location:* Base Supply Center, U.S. Census Bureau Federal Building, Suitland, MD. *NPA:* Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, NC. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Census Bureau, Suitland, MD. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products Bedspring *NSN:* 7210-00-110-8104—Bedspring. *NSN:* 7210-00-110-8105—Bedspring. *NSN:* 7210-00-582-0984—Bedspring. *NSN:* 7210-00-582-7540—Bedspring. *NPA:* Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA. *NPA:* L.C. Industries For The Blind, Inc., Durham, NC. *NPA:* Lions Volunteer Blind Industries, Inc., Morristown, TN. *NPA:* Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS. *NPA:* Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA. *NPA:* Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, NC. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Box, Wood *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0156—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0157—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0158—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0159—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0160—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0161—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0162—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0163—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0164—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0165—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0166—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0167—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0168—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0169—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0170—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0171—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0172—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0173—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0174—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0175—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0177—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0178—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0179—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0180—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0181—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0186—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0192—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0199—Box, Wood. *NSN:* 8115-00-NSH-0203—Box, Wood. *NPA:* Helena Industries, Inc., Helena, MT. *Contracting Activity:* Naval Supply Center, San Diego, CA, San Diego, CA. Brush, Wire, Scratch *NSN:* 7920-00-223-7649—Brush, Wire, Scratch. *NPA:* Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Cap Assembly, Plastic Water Can *NSN:* 7240-01-380-9411—Cap Assembly, Plastic Water Can. *NPA:* L.C. Industries For The Blind, Inc., Durham, NC. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Coin Bags *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0005—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0006—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0008—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0009—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0010—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0011—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0012—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0013—Coin Bags. *NSN:* 8105-00-NSH-0014—Coin Bags. *NPA:* Mount Rogers Community MH-MR Services Board, Wytheville, VA. Contracting Activity: Bureau of the Mint, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Curtain, Vehicular *NSN:* 2540-00-402-2157—Curtain, Vehicular. *NPA:* APEX, Inc., Anadarko, OK. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Columbus, Columbus, OH. Meal Kits *NSN:* 8970-01-E59-0242B—Meal Kits (Infantry Kit). *NSN:* 8970-01-E59-0243B—Meal Kits (Infantry Kits). *NPA:* UNKNOWN. *Contracting Activity:* National Guard Bureau. *NSN:* 8970-01-E59-0243A—Meal Kits (MORC Kits). *NSN:* 8970-01-E59-0242A—Meal Kits (MORC Kits). *NPA:* Topeka Association for Retarded Citizens, Topeka, KS. *Contracting Activity:* National Guard Bureau. Pallet, Wood *NSN:* 3990-00-NSH-0063—Pallet, Wood. *NSN:* 3990-00-NSH-0064—Pallet, Wood. *NPA:* Chesapeake Bay Industries, Inc., Easton, MD. *Contracting Activity:* Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation *NSN:* 7699 24X73X4-1/2—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 24X76X4-1/2—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 26X72-1/2X3—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 26X76-1/2X3—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 26X76X4-1/2—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 28 X 76 X 4—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 28 X 76 X 6—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NSN:* 7699 34-3/4X76X6—Sponge Rubber Mattresses Rehabilitation. *NPA:* UNKNOWN. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Strap Assembly *NSN:* 5855-00-125-0762—Strap Assembly. *NPA:* Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped, Johnstown, PA. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Columbus, Columbus, OH. Table, VDT *NSN:* 7110-01-226-1706—Table, VDT. *NSN:* 7110-01-226-9888—Table, VDT. *NPA:* UNKNOWN. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, National Furniture Center, Arlington, VA. Tree Shade *NSN:* 9905-00-NSH-0153—Tree Shade. *NPA:* Sunrise Enterprises of Roseburg, Inc., Roseburg, OR. *Contracting Activity:* USDA, Forest Service, Portland, Portland, OR. Services *Service Type/Location:* Commissary Shelf Stocking, Custodial & Warehousing, Fort McPherson, Fort McPherson, GA. *NPA:* WORKTEC, Jonesboro, GA. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-21358 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to and deletion from Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List a service previously furnished by such agencies. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions On October 13, 2006 & October, 20, 2006, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (71 FR 60471; 61949-61957) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List: Products Pharmacy Repackaging Bottles NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0132—Bottle, screw cap, high-density polyethylene, round, wide mouth, white opaque without closure, 45-400 neck finish, 300cc NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0131—Bottle, screw cap, high-density polyethylene, round, wide mouth, white opaque without closure, 45-400 neck finish, 300cc NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0130—Bottle, screw cap, high-density polyethylene, round, wide mouth, white opaque without closure, 38-400 neck finish, 150cc NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0129—Bottle, screw cap, high-density polyethylene, round, wide mouth, white opaque without closure, 38-400 neck finish, 100cc NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0133—Bottle, screw cap, high-density polyethylene, round, wide mouth, white opaque without closure, 53-400 neck finish, 500cc NPA: Alphapointe Association for the Blind, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: Health & Human Services, Program Support Center, Perry Point, MD Gloves, Flyers', Summer, Type GS/FRP-2; GS/FPP-2 NSN: 8415-01-029-0109-Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 7) NSN: 8415-01-029-0111—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 8) NSN: 8415-01-029-0112—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 9) NSN: 8415-01-029-0113—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 10) NSN: 8415-01-029-0116—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 11) NSN: 8415-01-040-1453—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 6) NSN: 8415-01-040-2012—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 5) NSN: 8415-01-461-4920—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 5) NSN: 8415-01-461-4922—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 6) NSN: 8415-01-461-4924—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 7) NSN: 8415-01-461-4932—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 8) NSN: 8415-01-461-4934—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 9) NSN: 8415-01-461-4940—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 10) NSN: 8415-01-461-4942—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 11) NSN: 8415-01-461-4962—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 5) NSN: 8415-01-461-4964—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 6) NSN: 8415-01-461-4966—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 7) NSN: 8415-01-461-4969—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 8) NSN: 8415-01-461-4970—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 9) NSN: 8415-01-461-4971—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 10) NSN: 8415-01-461-4981—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 11) NSN: 8415-01-482-8417—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 4) NSN: 8415-01-482-8420—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Sage Green (Size 12) NSN: 8415-01-482-8678—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 4) NSN: 8415-01-482-8684—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FRP-2, Black (Size 12) NSN: 8415-01-482-8688—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 4) NSN: 8415-01-482-8690—Gloves, Flyers' Summer Type GS-FPP-2, Desert Tan (Size 12) NPA: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA Vehicular Safety NSN: 2540-01-495-0817—Belt, Vehicular Safety NPA: BH Services, Inc., Rapid City, SD Contracting Activity: Defense Supply Center Columbus, Columbus, OH Services Service Type/Location Custodial Services, Army Reserve Contracting Center, (Coraopolis Satellite Office/PA178 West Pointe Corp Three), 1605 Coraopolis Heights Road, Coraopolis, PA. NPA: Hancock County Sheltered Workshop, Inc., Weirton, WV. Contracting Activity: 99th Regional Support Command, Coraopolis, PA. Service Type/Location Custodial Services, VA Charleston Consolidated Mail Out Pharmacy, (3725 Rivers Avenue), North Charleston, SC. NPA: OE Enterprises, Inc., Hillsborough, NC. Contracting Activity: VA-VISN 7-Atlanta Network, Duluth, GA. Deletions On September 29, 2006, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR57464) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List: Service Service Type/Location Janitorial/Custodial/Autec and Lubratorium, Maritime Building Only, (West Palm Beach), Riviera Beach, FL. NPA: Elwyn, Inc., Aston, PA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-21360 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce
(DOC)will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Commerce. *Title:* Transactions of U.S. Affiliate, Except a U.S. Banking Affiliate, with Foreign Parent (Form BE-605) and Transactions of U.S. Banking Affiliate with Foreign Parent (Form BE-605 Bank). *Form Number(s):* BE-605 and BE-605 Bank. *Agency Approval Number:* 0608-0009. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 15,800 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 3,950 per quarter; 15,800 annually. *Average Hours Per Response:* 1 hour. *Needs and Uses:* The data collected are used in the preparation of the international transactions accounts, national income and product accounts, and input-output accounts. The data are needed to measure the amount of foreign direct investment in the United States, monitor changes in such investment, assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies and, based upon this assessment, make informed policy decisions regarding foreign direct investment in the United States. Also, the data from the BE-605 survey complement data from BEA's other ongoing surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States, namely the BE-13, Initial Report on a Foreign Person's Direct or Indirect Acquisition, Establishment, or Purchase of the Operating Assets, of a U.S. Business Enterprise, Including Real Estate, and the BE-12 (benchmark) and BE-15 (annual) surveys, which provide data on the overall operations of U.S. affiliates. *Affected Public:* U.S. businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94-472, 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108). *OMB Desk Officer:* Paul Bugg,
(202)395-3093. You may obtain copies of the above information collection proposal by writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6025, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, or e-mail *dhynek@doc.gov* . Send comments on the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, e-mail *pbugg@omb.eop.gov* , or by FAX at 202-395-7245. Dated: December 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21321 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. *Bureau:* International Trade Administration. *Title:* International Trade Specialist Counseling Session Survey. *Agency Form Number:* ITA-4154P. *OMB Number:* 0625-0253. *Type of Request:* Revisions, Regular Submission. *Burden:* 284. *Number of Respondents:* 1700. *Avg. Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The International Trade Administration's U.S. Commercial Service is mandated by Congress to help U.S. businesses, particularly small and medium-sized companies, export their products and services to global markets. To accomplish its mission effectively, the U.S. Commercial Service needs ongoing feedback on its programs. In addition to collecting client feedback for pay-for-use products/events provided by the U.S. Commercial Service's international offices, the U.S. Commercial Service would like to institutionalize Counseling Session Surveys to obtain client feedback from U.S. businesses that have engaged in “counseling sessions” with CS International Trade Specialists in the domestic offices (known as U.S. Export Assistance Centers). Counseling sessions occur when an International Trade Specialist from one of the U.S. Commercial Service's domestic offices works with a client to determine their international marketing interests and provide “global trade solutions”. This information collection item allows the U.S. Commercial Service to solicit clients' opinions about the counseling services provided by International Trade Specialists located in domestic offices known as U.S. Export Assistance Centers. The information is used for program improvement, strategic planning, and allocation of resources. The surveys are part of ITA's effort to implement objectives of the National Performance Review
(NPR)and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Survey responses will acquaint ITA managers with firms' perceptions and assessments of export-assistance counseling provided by International Trade Specialists in U.S. Export Assistance Centers. This information is critical for improving the level of service provided to U.S. businesses by the U.S. Commercial Service's International Trade Specialists. Survey responses are used to assess client satisfaction, assess priorities, and identify areas where service levels and benefits differ from client expectations. Clients benefit because the information is used to improve services provided to the public. In addition, respondents will benefit from more effective follow-up to their unmet needs and expectations and more efficient resolution to their exporting issues and challenges. Without this information, the U.S. Commercial Service is unable to systematically determine client perceptions about the quality and benefit of its export counseling services. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for profit, not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondents Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain a benefit, voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection can be obtained by writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail: *dHynek@doc.gov* . Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-7285 within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Dated: December 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21327 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Boundary and Annexation Survey
(BAS)ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via e-mail to *DHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection forms and instructions should be directed to Laura Waggoner, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-7400. In addition, you can contact her by calling
(301)763-1099, or sending an e-mail to *geo.bas@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau conducts the Boundary and Annexation Survey
(BAS)to collect and maintain information about the inventory of the legal boundaries for, and the legal actions affecting the boundaries of counties and equivalent governments, incorporated places, minor civil divisions, Census Areas of Alaska, Hawaiian Homelands, and federally recognized legal American Indian and Alaska Native areas (including the Alaska Native Regional Corporations). This information provides an accurate identification of geographic areas for the Census Bureau to use in conducting the decennial and economic censuses and ongoing surveys such as the American Community Survey (ACS). The BAS supports the following additional programs: • Population Estimates Program. • Special Census. • Geographic Update Population Certification Program. • Other statistical programs of the Census Bureau and the legislative programs of the Federal Government. No other Federal agency collects this data, nor is there a standard for collection of this information at the state level. The Census Bureau's BAS is a unique boundary survey providing a standard result for use by Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and by commercial, private, and public organizations. The Census Bureau integrates the information collected in the BAS into the MAF/TIGER database. The MAF component of the database is the Census Bureau's permanent list of addresses for individual living quarters. The TIGER component is a computer file that contains geographic information representing the position of boundaries, roads, rivers, railroads, and other census-required map features and attributes. Through the BAS, the Census Bureau asks each government official to provide updates to their boundaries and to review materials for their jurisdiction to verify the correctness of the information portrayed. County officials are asked to provide changes to the inventory of governments and their boundaries. The Census Bureau may enter into agreements with individual states to modify the list of minor civil divisions and/or incorporated places included in the BAS to reflect only entities with boundary changes. In addition, the Census Bureau includes each newly incorporated place in the year following notification of its incorporation. Every year, the BAS includes a single respondent request for the State of Alaska and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (including status and updates for municipio, barrio, barrio-pueblo, and subbarrio boundaries). The State of Hawaii provides updates for the Hawaiian homeland boundary and status information. II. Method of Collection The Census Bureau has developed several methods to collect information on status and updates for legal boundaries. These methods are: • Consolidation agreements. • Advanced response. • Traditional paper submission. • Digital submission. • Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding Referencing (MAF/TIGER) partnership software. • Internet (Web BAS). The government officials from state governments have an opportunity to participate in consolidation agreements to reduce the burden of response for their local governments. If a state government has legislation requiring local governments to report all legal boundary updates to a state agency (including a map of the annexed area), the state has the option to provide all the updates for their counties (and all associated governments within each county). The state provides the Census Bureau with a list of counties where the state agrees to provide a consolidated update of boundary changes for these counties and all entities within them. The Census Bureau notifies the governments within the counties that the state will be submitting the boundary updates for them and as a reminder to submit their updates to the state. State governments that have legislation requiring governments to report all legal boundary updates to a state agency will also have the opportunity to participate in a consolidation agreement. The state updates the list of minor civil divisions and/or incorporated places that will be surveyed to include only those entities known by the state as having boundary changes. The Census Bureau sends BAS materials to those local governments. If a county government has legislation requiring local governments to report all legal boundary updates to the county, or if the local governments agree that the county will provide the updates, then the Census Bureau will provide materials only to the county and send a notification to the local governments reminding them to send their updates to the county. Another method of collection is advanced response, which involves an announcement letter and a one-page form for the state and county governments who do not have a consolidation agreement. Under advanced response, counties, tribes and local governments indicate whether or not they have boundary changes to report and provide a current contact person. The advanced response method reduces cost and respondent burden through savings on materials and effort. All governments receive this notification with the exception of newly incorporated governments, governments with state or county agreements, and governments who participated in other Census Bureau programs such as Geographically Updated Population Certification Program or Special Census. If a government requests materials through advanced response, they may choose to receive these materials as a traditional paper package or one of three digital media types (MAF/TIGER Partnership Software, Digital BAS, or Web BAS). The traditional paper package contains large-format maps, printed forms and supplies to complete the survey. The respondent completes the BAS form and draws the boundary updates on the maps using pencils provided in the package. The MAF/TIGER Partnership Software is a method in which the respondent installs software on their personal computer. The Census Bureau provides the software and spatial data to make their boundary updates. The minimum requirement for this software is Windows 98, as well as a media burner (such as CD-ROM or DVD). The key to this approach—and to all the digital methods—is the correction and update of Census Bureau spatial data. Another digital response option is Digital Submission. This option allows the respondent to complete the BAS electronically through a digital file. The Census Bureau provides spatial data to update boundaries to their correct spatial location. The entity submits the updated file on electronic media, such as CD-ROM or DVD, or through File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)on the Internet. The last digital response option is Web BAS. The Census Bureau provides the participating government with a password to access the BAS program through the Internet. The respondent updates both their forms and maps using a single Internet site. A BAS package includes the following items for each respondent: 1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau. 2. Appropriate BAS Form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information. a. BAS-1—incorporated places. b. BAS-2—counties, parishes, boroughs, city and boroughs. c. BAS-3—minor civil divisions. d. BAS-4—newly incorporated places or newly activated incorporated places. e. BAS-5—American Indian and Alaska Native Areas. 3. BAS Respondent Guide. 4. Set of maps or other media showing the current boundary of the government. 5. Return postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes. 6. Postcard to notify the Census Bureau of no changes to the boundary. 7. Supplies for updating paper maps. A local contact from each government verifies the legal boundary, and then provides boundary changes and updated contact information. The official signs the materials, verifies the forms and returns the information to the Census Bureau. The key dates for governments are as follows: 1. Advanced response is e-mailed, faxed or mailed to the local contact in September/October of each year. 2. BAS package of materials is shipped during the month of January of each year. 3. Requests to change the method of participation (i.e., paper to digital submission) are due February 15th of each year. 4. Responses for inclusion in the ACS Sampling and Population Estimation Program tabulation are due April 1st of each year. III. Data *Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Number:* 0607-0151. *Form Numbers:* BAS-1, BAS-2, BAS-3, BAS-4, and BAS-5. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, county, local and tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Advanced response 32,500 Packages with changes 13,000 Packages with no changes or no response 12,875 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Estimated Time Per Response Advanced response 30 minutes Boundary updates 6 hours No boundary updates 4 hours Total Hours Per Year Hours Advanced response 16,250 Packages with changes 78,000 Packages with no changes or no response 51,500 Total 145,750 *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $3,041,803. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, U.S.C. 6. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21320 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Market Segmentation of Moderate U.S. Exporters—Focus Groups ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information, as required Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail: *dHynek@doc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Gary Rand, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: 202-482-0691; E-mail: *Gary.Rand@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract In an effort to remain relevant to the marketplace and optimize our respective operations, the Commercial Service (CS), Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), Census Bureau (Census), and Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) have formed a project team to conduct market segmentation research and analysis. Market segmentation is a systematic approach for identifying clusters of companies with similar needs and behavior, and developing service offerings and sales/marketing approaches targeted at segments with the greatest return on investment. The purpose of this initiative is to gain market knowledge and generate statistically valid characterizations about the needs and buying behavior of exporting companies, with a particular focus on Moderate exporters, for instance:
(1)What are the challenges/barriers to exporting and international growth, for various types of companies?
(2)What are their service needs, real and perceived?
(3)In what areas do they want outside assistance?
(4)What are their attitudes and purchasing behavior about working with outside resources on exporting, including private consultants and government trade specialists?
(5)When and why do exporters purchase outside services for export assistance? What is the landscape of export service providers?
(6)What are the key drivers of export success? What are the characteristics associated with success? Our focus here is getting the companies into the market, introducing them to the local partners, giving them the tools and the opportunities to make the deals, i.e., success is defined as getting the companies “to the plate”. What do we need to learn in this area to be more effective? From this research, services, pricing, and messaging may be repositioned to address the exporting needs of small and medium-sized businesses. II. Method of Collection The CS, MEP, Census, and Ex-Im have contracted with Pacific Consulting Group
(PCG)to conduct focus group interviews to gain insight into the attitudes, needs, and behaviors of moderate exporters. PCG will recruit firms over the phone using lists obtained from third party vendors. Data collection will be conducted during eight phone interviews (8 participants per focus group) by a client focus group moderator who will record the interviews and then transcribe via computer. All comments from participants will be anonymous. Data collected from focus groups will provide qualitative information that will later serve to supplement the quantitative data collected in subsequent surveys and form a complete picture of the needs, attitudes, and behaviors of a moderate exporter. Subsequently, mass surveys yielding at least 1600 survey responses will seek to collect quantitative data. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0625-xxxx. *Form Number:* ITA-xxxx. *Type of Review:* Regular Submission. *Affected Public:* U.S. companies that are recruited by Pacific Consulting Group. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 64. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 1.5 hours for focus group participants. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 96 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $3,360. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21319 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting new shipper antidumping duty reviews of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) in response to requests by Nanjing Merry Trading Co., Ltd. (“Nanjing Merry”), Leping Lotai Foods Co., Ltd. (“Leping Lotai”), Weishan Hongrun Aquatic Co., Ltd. (“Weishan Hongrun”), and Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Strong”). These reviews cover shipments to the United States for the period September 1, 2005, to February 28, 2006, by these four respondents. For the reasons discussed below, we are further extending the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews of Nanjing Merry, Leping Lotai, Weishan Hongrun, and Shanghai Strong by an additional 30 days, to no later than February 22, 2007. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Scot Fullerton, 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)482-1442 and
(202)482-1386, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests from Nanjing Merry, Leping Lotai, Weishan Hongrun, and Shanghai Strong in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. On May 5, 2006, the Department found that the requests for review with respect to Nanjing Merry, Leping Lotai, and Weishan Hongrun met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated these new shipper antidumping duty reviews covering the period September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 26453 (May 5, 2006). On May 31, 2006, the Department found that the request for review with respect to Shanghai Strong met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated a new shipper antidumping duty review covering the period September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 30866 (May 31, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated (19 CFR 351.214 (i)(2)). The Department already determined that the reviews are extraordinarily complicated in its initial notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results of these reviews where it extended the deadline for the preliminary results until January 23, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 59738 (October 11, 2006). The Department, however, finds that it requires additional information from respondents for purposes of the preliminary results. Based on the timing of the case and the additional information that must be gathered and verified, the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. Accordingly, the Department is further extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews of Nanjing Merry, Leping Lotai, Weishan Hongrun, and Shanghai Strong by 30 days from the January 23, 2007 deadline. The preliminary results for all four new shipper reviews will now be due February 22, 2007 in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results will, in turn, be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 8, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21442 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-827 Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court Decision: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 18, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the redetermination of the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) in the antidumping duty (“AD”) administrative review of sebacic acid from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export Corporation v. the United States* , Court No. 05-00023; Slip-Op 06-142 (CIT 2006); *see also Department's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order: Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export Corporation v. United States* (dated May 3, 2006). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats at
(202)482-5047, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. *See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 75303 (“ *Final Results* ”). In that review, the Department relied on Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI) for the period of review (“POR”) to value sebacic acid, a surrogate value used to allocate the respondent's reported inputs between the production of the subject merchandise, sebacic acid, and non-subject merchandise. Additionally, in that review the Department deducted the by-product offset from normal value. The respondent in the 2002-2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC filed a complaint with the CIT contesting both the surrogate value assigned to sebacic acid and the location of the deduction of the by-product offset in the *Final Results* . The Department filed a motion with the CIT for a voluntary remand with respect to the application of the by-product offset. On January 25, 2006, the CIT remanded this case to the Department to re-evaluate the surrogate value selected to value sebacic acid and granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand with respect to the application of the by-product offset. On May 3, 2006, the Department issued its final results of remand redetermination on the surrogate value selected to value sebacic acid and its voluntary redetermination to further explain its application of the by-product offset. In its redetermination, the Department concluded that it was appropriate to value sebacic acid using MSFTI data after removing aberrational amounts (“MSFTI data”), rather than the Chemical Weekly ChemImpEx database (“ChemImpEx”) as suggested by the respondent. The Department reached this conclusion because, unlike the ChemImpEx data, the MSFTI data is official government data and had a greater variety of data points. On September 18, 2006, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination. *See Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , Ct. No. 05-00023 Slip Op. 06-142 (September 18, 2006). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Timken Company v. United States and China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation* , 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), on October 4, 2006, the Department published a notice announcing that the CIT's decision was not in harmony with the Department's determination in the 2002-2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. No party appealed the CIT's decision. Therefore, there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case. Amended Final Results of Review As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the Final Results. The dumping margins in the amended final results of review are as follows: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (percent) Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export Corporation 19.82 The PRC-wide rate continues to be 243.40 percent. Assessment The Department intends to issue assessment instruction to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: December 8, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21439 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-805] Correction to Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From Spain AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: *Effective Date:* December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 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)482-0665 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. Correction On December 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce published a notice of extension of time limit for the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of the order on stainless steel bar from Spain for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain, 71 FR 69550 (December 1, 2006) (Extension Notice). Subsequent to the publication of the Extension Notice in the **Federal Register** we identified an inadvertent error. The Extension Notice states incorrectly that we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review to February 13, 2006. The Extension Notice is hereby corrected to read that we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review to February 13, 2007. This correction is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: December 11, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21438 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-583-831 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 9, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results and partial rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. This review covers 15 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. After analyzing the comments received, we corrected one programming error in the margin calculation for one respondent, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far). Therefore, the final results of review differ from the preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3518 or
(202)482-5193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The following events occurred after the Department published the preliminary results of the instant administrative review in the **Federal Register** . *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45521 (August 9, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the *Preliminary Results* , the petitioners 1 and Chia Far filed case briefs on September 8, 2006. Chia Far and petitioners filed rebuttal briefs on September 15, 2006. 1 The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United Auto Workers Local 3303 (formerly Butler Armco Independent Union), North American Stainless (except as to Ta Chen and its affiliates), United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively, “petitioners”). Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States*
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 2 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. 2 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of the order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3 3 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4 4 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5 5 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 7 6 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 7 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* notice, we stated that we were preliminarily rescinding the instant review with respect to Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen), Yieh United Steel Corp. (YUSCO), Yieh Mau Corp. (Yieh Mau), Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd. (Chain Chon), Yieh Loong Enterprise Company, Ltd. (Yieh Loong), and China Steel Corporation (China Steel), because record evidence supported their claims that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The record evidence relied upon by the Department included U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data and customs entry documents which the Department placed on the record of this review. Parties did not comment on this record evidence. Because the record evidence does not call into question the parties' no shipments claims, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ta Chen, YUSCO, Yieh Mau, Chain Chon, Yieh Loong, and China Steel pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). In addition, for the reasons explained in the *Preliminary Results* notice, we are rescinding this review with respect to Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc., and the Emerdex Group. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 45521. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs commenting on this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 7, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review, and the corresponding recommendations, in the public *Issues and Decision Memorandum* that is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Use of Facts Available In the preliminary results of review, we assigned a dumping margin based on total adverse facts available
(AFA)to the following companies, pursuant to section 776 of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire: PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., Yieh Trading Corporation, Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd., Chien Shing Stainless Steel Company Ltd., and Tang Eng Iron Works Company, Ltd. That margin, 21.10 percent, is the highest appropriate dumping margin from this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding. No parties commented on the Department's decision to apply total AFA to these companies. For the reasons noted in the *Preliminary Results* notice, we have continued to assign the above-mentioned companies an AFA rate of 21.10 percent. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have corrected one programming error in calculating the dumping margin for one respondent, Chia Far. For additional information, *see* Analysis Memorandum for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, dated December 7, 2006. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter/Reseller Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far) 0.79 Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd. 21.10 PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. 21.10 Yieh Trading Corporation 21.10 Chien Shing Stainless Steel Company Ltd. 21.10 Tang Eng Iron Works Company, Ltd. 21.10 Assessment The Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)(1), where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on the entered customs value of all entries of subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the export prices. For the respondents receiving dumping margins based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA *ad valorem* rate. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation in *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies included in these final results where the companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed for the company in the “Final Results of Review” section above (except if the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate, which is 12.61 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations, 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 that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act. Dated: December 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I -- Issues In The Issues And Decision Memorandum List Of Issues Discussed A. Issues with Respect to Chia Far *Comment 1:* Home Market Early Payment Discounts *Comment 2:* U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses *Comment 3:* Work-In-Process Inventory *Comment 4:* Minor Input from Affiliates *Comment 5:* Improperly Excluded U.S. Sales [FR Doc. E6-21440 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the People's Republic of China: Request for Comment AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: *Effective Date:* December 15, 2006. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce invites comments on the applicability of the countervailing duty law to imports from the People's Republic of China. DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than thirty days after publication of this Notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and eight copies) should be sent to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Conroy or David Layton, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-0754 or 202-482-0371, respectively. Background In 1986, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the Department of Commerce (the Department) has the discretion not to apply the countervailing duty
(CVD)law to non-market economy
(NME)countries in *Georgetown Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ( *Georgetown Steel* ). On November 20, the Department initiated a countervailing duty investigation on imports of coated free sheet paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC). This is the first CVD investigation involving the PRC since 1991, when the Department initiated investigations on lugnuts and ceiling fans, which were terminated before going to order. *See Rescission of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation and Dismissal of Petition: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts and Wheel Locks From the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* , 57 FR 10459 (March 26, 1992); and *Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Oscillating and Ceiling Fans From the People's Republic of China* , 57 FR 24018 (June 5, 1992). In both cases, the Department did not find at that time a basis for applying the CVD law to the industry in question, consistent with *Georgetown Steel.* The initiation of the present investigation requires that the Department review its long-standing policy of not applying the CVD law to NMEs, such as the PRC. The Department intends during the course of the present investigation to determine whether the countervailing duty law should now be applied to imports from the PRC. Given the complex legal and policy issues involved, the Department, therefore, invites public comment on this matter. Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and eight copies of each set of comments before the close of the comment period. Comments should be limited to thirty pages, double spaced. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form, but also recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.* Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202)482-0866, e-mail address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.* All comments and submissions should be mailed to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director for Import Administration; Subject: Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports from the People's Republic of China: Request for Comment; Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, by no later than 5 p.m., on the above-referenced deadline date. Dated: December 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21437 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [No. DoD-2006-HA-0195] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 16, 2007. *Title, Form and OMB Number:* Women, Infants, and Children Overseas—Eligibility Determination; OMB Number 0720-0030. *Type of Request:* Extension. *Number of Respondents:* 375. *Responses Per Respondent:* 2. *Annual Responses:* 750. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Annual Burden Hours:* 188. *Needs and Uses:* The information collection requirement is necessary for individuals to apply for certification and periodic recertification to receive WIC Overseas benefits. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion and semi-annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* Mr. John Kraemer. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management and Budget, DoD Health Desk Officer, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: * http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: December 8, 2006. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-9718 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
27 references not yet in our index
  • 523 U.S. 726
  • 36 CFR 219
  • 40 CFR 1502.14
  • 824 F. Supp. 923
  • 40 CFR 1508.4
  • 40 CFR 1505.1
  • 73 F. Supp. 2d 962
  • 230 F.3d 947
  • 40 CFR 1508.23
  • 40 CFR 1508.18
  • 419 U.S. 102
  • 523 U.S. 733
  • 40 CFR 1507.3(b)
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 7 CFR 1
  • Pub. L. 107-273
  • 116 Stat. 1758
  • 41 CFR 102
  • 41 USC 47(a)(2)
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • Pub. L. 94-472
  • 22 USC 3101-3108
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 893 F.2d 337
  • 801 F.2d 1308
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Final directive
C.F.R.§ 219.9
C.F.R.§ 219.7
U.S.C.§ 1600
U.S.C.§ 1604
C.F.R.§ 219.12
C.F.R.§ 219.13
C.F.R.§ 219.16
C.F.R.§ 219.6
Fed. Reg.Notices
SCOTUS523 U.S. 726
F. Supp.824 F. Supp. 923
F. Supp.73 F. Supp. 2d 962
Cites 47 · 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.