2260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Notices 

pine), in a multistoried arrangement. 

Existing canopy closures and stem 

densities are very high and these 

conditions do not favor the regeneration 

of shade intolerant species such as larch 

and ponderosa pine. Historically, 

wildfires at roughly 15–40 year intervals 

created conditions in which these lowto-moderate severity burned forests 

were generally more open but also more 

spatially diverse at the stand, watershed 

and landscape scales. In addition, these 

fires resulted in site preparation for 

larch and ponderosa pine regeneration, 

created fire killed patches of wildlife 

habitat, and also scarred large diameter 

trees, resulting in long standing snags. 

Species dependant on large diameter 

snags, old forests with open understory 

and a heterogeneous distribution of 

habitat conditions across the landscape 

benefit under these conditions. Such 

species include Flammulated owls, 

northern goshawks and pileated 

woodpeckers. 

The decision to be made is to what 

extent, if at all, the Forest Service 

should conduct timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, road construction or 

reconstruction, road reclamation, and 

road closures in the Lolo Creek 

drainage, given the above purpose and 

need. This is a site-specific project 

decision, not a general management 

plan nor a programmatic analysis. 

Public scoping has been conducted on 

most elements of this proposal both 

with this proposal and an earlier version 

of this proposal. 

While quite a number of issues have 

been identified for environmental 

effects analysis, the following issues 

have been found significant enough to 

guide alternative development and 

provide focus for the EIS: 

(1) Water quality and fisheries habitat 

effects resulting from timber harvest and 

road construction and rehabilitation 

activities; 

(2) Wildlife habitat effects resulting 

from timber harvest and road 

construction and rehabilitation 

activities; 

(3) Effects of treatments on site 

productivity, forest health, vegetative 

condition, and species composition, 

individually and cumulatively, 

(4) Effects of treatment on area scenic 

values, and 

(5) Economic effects on local 

communities resulting from different 

intensities of restoration treatments and 

resulting timber values. 

The Lolo Forest Plan provides the 

overall guidance for management 

activities in the project area through its 

Goals, Objectives, Standards and 

Guidelines, and Management Area 

direction. 

The proposed action could have both 

beneficial and adverse effects on forest 

resources. In addition to the proposed 

action, a range of alternatives will be 

developed in response to issues 

identified during scoping. One of these 

will be the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative, 

which would not allow vegetation 

manipulation through harvest or any 

road decommissioning under this 

analysis. Other alternatives may 

examine various combinations of 

treatment areas. The Forest Service will 

analyze and document the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental 

effects of the alternatives. In addition, 

the EIS will include site specific 

mitigation measures and discussions 

about their effectiveness. 

Public participation is important to 

the analysis. People may visit with 

Forest Service officials at any time 

during the analysis and prior to the 

decision. No formal scoping meetings 

are planned. However, two periods are 

specifically designated for comments on 

the analysis: 

(1) During this scoping process and 

(2) During the draft EIS comment 

period. 

During the scoping process, the Forest 

Service is seeking information and 

comments from Federal, State, and local 

agencies and other individuals or 

organizations that may be interested in 

or affected by the proposed action. A 

scoping document will be mailed to 

parties known to be interested in the 

proposed action. The agency invites 

written comments and suggestions on 

this action, particularly in terms of 

issues and alternatives. Persons who 

provided comments in the past on this 

project do not have to resubmit them. 

Those previously stated concerns will 

be incorporated into this analysis. 

The Forest Service will continue to 

involve the public and will inform 

interested and affected parties as to how 

they may participate and contribute to 

the final decision. Another formal 

opportunity for public response will be 

provided following completion of a 

draft EIS. 

The draft EIS should be available for 

review in June 2007. The final EIS is 

scheduled for completion in September 

of 2007. 

The comment period on the draft EIS 

will be 45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes it is 

important, at this early, to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so it is 

meaningful and alerts the agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions 

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978)). 

Also, environmental objections that 

could be raised at the draft 

environmental impact statement stage 

but 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 v. Harris, 490 F. 

Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). 

Because of these court rulings, it is very 

important those interested in this 

proposed action participate by the close 

of the 45-day comment period so 

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. Reviews 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. 

I am the responsible official for this 

environmental impact statement. My 

address is Lolo National Forest, 

Building 24, Fort Missoula, MT 59804. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Deborah L. R. Austin, 

Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 07–158 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest Advisory 

Board Public Meeting Dates 

Announced 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Black Hills National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Notices 2261 

announced its meeting dates for 2007. 

These meetings are open to the public, 

and public comment is accepted at any 

time in writing and during the last 15 

minutes of each meeting for spoken 

comments. Persons wishing to speak are 

given three minutes to address the 

Board. 

Meeting dates are the third 

Wednesday of each month unless 

otherwise indicated: January 3 

(Previously announced), February 21, 

March 21, April 18, May 16, June 20, 

July 18, August 15 (Summer Field 

Trip—TBA), September 19, October 17, 

November 21. No meeting in December, 

January 2, 2007 (Tentative). 

ADDRESSES: Meetings will begin at 1 

p.m. and end no later than 5 p.m. at the 

Forest Service Center, 8221 S. Highway 

16, Rapid City, SD 57702. 

Agendas: The Board will consider a 

variety of issues related to national 

forest management. Agendas will be 

announced in advance in the news 

media but principally concern 

implementing phase two of the forest 

land and resource management plan, 

travel planning, and key issues related 

to the Chief of the Forest Service’s Four 

Threats; fire and fuels, off highway 

vehicle management, open space, and 

invasive species control. The Board will 

consider such topics as biomass and 

Bioenergy, recreation use fees, facility 

master planning, and an integrated 

lands programs, among others. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Carroll, Committee Management 

Officer, or Twila Morris, Executive 

Assistant, Black Hills National Forest, 

1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730, 

(605) 673–9200. 

Dated: January 10, 2007. 

Craig Bobzien, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–157 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sunshine Act Notice 

DATE AND TIME: Friday, January 26, 2007, 

9 a.m. 

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, 

Washington, DC 20425. 

Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda. 

II. Approval of Minutes of December 14, 

Meeting. 

III. Announcements. 

IV. Adjourn. 

Briefing Agenda 

No Child Left Behind and Supplemental 

Educational Services. 

• Introductory Remarks by Chairman. 

• Speakers’ Presentation. 

• Questions by Commissioners and 

Staff Director. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press and 

Communications, (202) 376–8582. 

Kenneth L. Marcus, 

Staff Director. 

[FR Doc. 07–215 Filed 1–16–07; 3:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588–

804, A–559–801, A–412–801 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202) 

482–4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the request of interested parties, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated administrative 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on ball bearings and parts thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore, and the United Kingdom for 

the period May 1, 2005, through April 

30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 37892 (July 3, 2006). On 

October 16, 2006, we rescinded in part 

the administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, et al.: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 60688 

(October 16, 2006). The preliminary 

results of the reviews still underway are 

currently due no later than January 31, 

2007. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order for which a review is requested 

and a final determination within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary determination is published. 

If it is not practicable to complete the 

review within these time periods, 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows 

the Department to extend the time limit 

for the preliminary determination to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

these reviews within the original time 

limit because of the number of 

respondents in these reviews, plans to 

verify certain respondents’ information, 

and the complexity of the issues under 

analysis, such as further–manufacturing 

operations in the United States and the 

‘‘collapsing’’ of companies. Therefore, 

we are extending the time period for 

issuing the preliminary results of these 

reviews by 45 days until March 19, 

2007. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–657 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–401–806) 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Wire Rod from Sweden 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES