This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

70946 

Vol. 71, No. 235 

Thursday, December 7, 2006 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lassen National Forest, Almanor 

Ranger District, California, Creeks 

Forest Health Recovery Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplement to the environmental 

impact statement. 

SUMMARY: In response to Federal District 

Judge Damrell’s August 16, 2006 order 

regarding the Creeks Forest Health 

Recovery Project Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision 

(ROD), I am preparing a Supplement to 

the September 2005 Final EIS. 

Consistent with the Court’s findings, 

this supplement will address the 

following points from the court order: 

‘‘(1) The Forest Service violated NEPA 

by failing to analyze an adequate range 

of alternatives, particularly alternatives 

involving less intensive logging. (2) The 

Forest Service violated NEPA by failing 

to take a hard look at the Creeks Forest 

Health Recovery Project’s impact on the 

American marten and the California 

spotted owl. (3) The Forest Service 

violated NFMA by failing to insure 

viable, well-distributed populations of 

the American marten and the California 

spotted owl. (4) The Forest Service 

violated NFMA by approving the Project 

without appropriate or sufficient 

population and habitat data for the 

American marten, the pileated 

woodpecker, and the black bear.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 9, 2005, Forest Supervisor, 

Laurie Tippin signed a ROD and 

released the final EIS for the Creeks 

Project. This EIS and ROD were 

challenged in federal district court by 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection 

Campaign, Sierra Club, and the Lassen 

Forest Preservation Group. The 

plaintiffs raised several issues including 

whether the ROD violated NEPA and 

NFMA. On August 16, 2006, United 

States Eastern District Court of 

California Judge Damrell issued his 

order granting plaintiff’s motion with 

respect to sufficiency of the range of 

alternatives analyzed, impacts to and 

viability of the American marten and 

the California spotted owl and 

population and habitat data for the 

American marten, the pileated 

woodpecker and the black bear. The 

judge’s order affirmed the Forest 

Service’s motion regarding all other 

issues raised by plaintiffs. After review 

of the court’s findings, Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, Forest Service policy and a 

review of the FEIS/ROD and 

administrative record, I have decided 

that the court order and the public can 

best be served by preparing a 

Supplement to the FEIS. 

Alternatives: Alternatives considered 

in the Creeks Forest Health Recovery 

Project FEIS (September 2005) include 

Alternative 1—Proposed Action, 

Alternative 2—No Action, Alternative 

14—the Selected Alternative from the 

Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project 

Record of Decision (September 2005), 

and eleven other Alternatives. 

Alternative 14—the Selected Alternative 

was developed in response to the 

significant issue, which is the 

maintenance of habitat connectivity 

between areas of suitable habitat for the 

California spotted owl and American 

marten. Alternative 14 would 

implement 9,190 acres of fuel 

treatments including 5,905 acres of 

defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) 

and 3,285 acres of individual tree 

selection (ITS) or area thinning, which 

would be accomplished by treating 

surface, ladder and canopy fuels 

utilizing a combination of commercial 

timber sales, service contracts, and force 

account crews. Alternative 14 would 

also implement 1,186 acres of group 

selection (GS) and improvements to the 

existing transportation system including 

construction of 1.9 miles of new system 

road, 3.7 miles of new temporary roads, 

and the upgrade of 5.0 miles of existing 

non-system road to temporary roads will 

occur. Other improvements include the 

reduction of sedimentation from over 

80% of the 179 locations where existing 

roads cross streams (crossings) by 

improving the road surface at the 

crossing locations. 

Decision to be Made: The purpose and 

need from the Creeks Forest Health 

Recovery Project remain unchanged 

from the September 2005 FEIS. I will 

use the public response plus 

interdisciplinary team analysis to 

decide whether to revise, amend or 

reaffirm the original Creeks Forest 

Health Recovery Project Record of 

Decision. 

Scoping Process: The project was 

initially listed in the Forest’s February 

2004 quarterly edition of the Schedule 

of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Scoping 

letters were sent in June 2004 to those 

who responded to the SOPA and other 

identified interested and affected 

individuals and government agencies. A 

second scoping process was initiated in 

February of 2005 when it was 

determined that the environmental 

analysis would be documented in an 

environmental impact statement. 

Scoping is not required for supplements 

to environmental impact statements (40 

CFR 1502.9(c)4(4)). A public scoping 

meeting for this Supplement is not 

anticipated at this time. Scoping letters 

received by the Forest Service from 

prior scoping periods will be used for 

this process. 

Identification of Permits or Licenses 

Required: No permits or licenses have 

been identified to implement the 

proposed action. 

Lead, Joint Lead, and Cooperating 

Agencies: The USDA Forest Service is 

the lead agency for this proposal; there 

are no cooperating agencies. 

Estimated Dates for Filing: The 

expected filing date with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for 

the draft SEIS is April 2007. The 

expected filing date for the final SEIS is 

September 2007. 

Person to Which Comments May be 

Mailed: Comments may be submitted to 

Alfred Vazquez, District Ranger, 

Almanor Ranger District, at P.O. Box 

767, Chester, CA 96020 or (530) 258– 

5194 (fax) during normal business 

hours. The Almanor Ranger District 

business hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday. Electronic 

comments in acceptable plain text (.txt), 

rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats, 

may be submitted to: commentspacificsouthwest-lassenalmanor@fs.fed.us using Subject: Creeks 

Forest Health Recovery Project. 

Reviewer’s Obligation to Comment: 

The comment period on the draft SEIS 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices 70947 

will be 45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability of 

the draft EIS in the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft statements must 

structure their participation in the 

environmental review of the proposal so 

that it is meaningful and alerts an 

agency to the reviewer’s position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 

(1978). Also, environmental objections 

that could be raised at the draft 

environmental impact statement stage 

but that are not raised until after 

completion of the final environmental 

impact statement may be waived or 

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon 

v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 

1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. 

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Because of these court 

rulings, it is very important that those 

interested in this proposed action 

participate by the close of the 45-day 

comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al 

Vazquez, District Ranger, or Robin 

Bryant, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 

may be contacted by phone at (530) 

258–2141 for more information about 

the supplemental environmental impact 

statement or at the Almanor Ranger 

District, P.O. Box 767, Chester, CA 

96020. 

Responsible Official and Mailing 

Address: Laurie Tippin, Forest 

Supervisor, 2550 Riverside Drive, 

Susanville, CA 96130, is the responsible 

official for the Record of Decision. 

Dated: December 1, 2006. 

Jeff Withroe, 

Acting Forest Supervisor, Lassen National 

Forest. 

[FR Doc. 06–9567 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5410–99–M 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sunshine Act Notice 

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 14, 

2006, 9 a.m. 

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, 

Washington, DC 20425. 

The meeting is also accessible to the 

public through the following: Call-In 

Number: 1–800–597–0731. Access Code 

Number: 43783773. Federal Relay 

Service: 1–800–877–8339. 

Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda 

II. Approval of Minutes of November 17, 

Meeting 

III. Announcements 

IV. Staff Director’s Report 

V. Management and Operations 

• Quality Information Guidelines 

• Proposed Rule on Conduct 

Regulations 

• Proposed Rule on Outside 

Employment 

• Strategic Planning 

• Procedures for Briefing Reports 

• Procedures for National Office 

Work Products 

VI. Program Planning 

• January Business Meeting and 

Briefing 

• Revised 2007 Business Meeting and 

Briefing Calendar 

• Affirmative Action in Law Schools 

Briefing Report 

• Campus anti-Semitism Public 

Education Campaign 

• Kentucky SAC Report 

• Florida SAC Report 

VII. State Advisory Committee Issues 

• California SAC Members 

• Arizona SAC 

VIII. Future Agenda Items 

X. Adjourn 

Briefing Agenda 

Commission Briefing: Elementary and 

Secondary School Desegregation 

• Introductory Remarks by Chairman 

• Speakers’ Presentation 

• Questions by Commissioners and 

Staff Director 

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press and 

Communications (202) 376–7700. 

David P. Blackwood, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 06–9584 Filed 12–4–06; 4:21 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

Docket T–5–2006 

Foreign–Trade Zone 196 - Fort Worth, 

Texas, Application for Temporary/ 

Interim Manufacturing Authority, 

Motorola, Inc. (Mobile Phone Kitting) 

An application has been submitted to 

the Acting Executive Secretary of the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the Board) 

by the Alliance Corridor, Inc., grantee of 

FTZ 196, requesting temporary/interim 

manufacturing (T/IM) authority within 

FTZ 196, at the facilities of Motorola, 

Inc. (Motorola) located in Fort Worth, 

Texas. The application was filed on 

November 28, 2006. 

The Motorola facilities (3,800 

employees, annual capacity for up to 50 

- 60 million mobile phone sets) are 

located at multiple locations (including 

those of affiliates and third–party 

contractors) within Sites 1 and 2 of FTZ 

196, and include 4801 Westport 

Parkway and 15005 Peterson Court, in 

Fort Worth, Texas. Under T/IM 

procedures, Motorola has requested 

authority to process (kit) certain 

imported components into mobile 

phone sets (HTSUS 8525.20 - the 

phones enter the United States duty–

free). The company may source the 

following potentially dutiable 

components from abroad for processing 

under T/IM authority, as described in its 

application: batteries (HTSUS 8507.80), 

power supplies (HTSUS 8504.40), 

lithium batteries (HTSUS 8507.30), 

cables (HTSUS 8544.41), housing 

assemblies (HTSUS 8529.90), and 

printed circuit connectors (HTSUS 

8536.69). Duty rates on these inputs 

range from duty–free to 3.4 percent, ad 

valorem. T/IM authority could be 

granted for a period of up to two years. 

Motorola has also submitted a request 

for permanent FTZ manufacturing 

authority (for which Board filing is 

pending), which includes a range of 

additional inputs. 

FTZ T/IM procedures would allow 

Motorola to elect the finished–product 

duty rate for the imported components 

listed above. The application indicates 

that most of the FTZ savings would 

result from choosing the duty–free rate 

on mobile phones for imported batteries 

(HTSUS 8507.80, duty rate - 3.4%). The 

company indicates that it would also 

realize logistical/paperwork savings and 

duty–deferral savings under FTZ 

procedures. Motorola’s application 

states that the above–cited savings from 

zone procedures could help improve the 

company’s international 

competitiveness. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES