Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55571

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Categorical Exclusion for Certain Ski

Area Permit Actions

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed interim

directive; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes

to issue an interim directive to guide its

employees in complying with the

National Environmental Policy Act

when issuance of a ski area permit is a

purely ministerial action and no

changes are proposed in permitted

activities or facilities. The intended

effect is to implement a provision of the

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of

1996, which states that reissuance of a

ski area permit for activities similar in

nature and amount to the activities

authorized under the previous permit

shall not constitute a major Federal

action. Public comment is invited and

will be considered in adopting an

interim directive.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Director, Recreation, Heritage, and

Wilderness Resources Staff (Mail Stop

1125), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box

96090, Washington, D.C. 20090–6090.

Those who submit comments should be

aware that all comments, including

names and addresses when provided,

are placed in the record and are

available for public inspection. To

facilitate entrance into the building,

visitors are encouraged to call ahead

(202–205–1706).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alice Carlton, Recreation, Heritage, and

Wilderness Resources Staff, 202–205–

1399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To reduce

administrative costs, section 701(i) of

the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.

497c) states that the reissuance of a ski

area permit for activities similar in

nature and amount to the activities

provided under the previous permit

shall not constitute a major Federal

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).

Agency direction regarding this

provision is needed to guide Forest

Service employees in complying with

NEPA and the Omnibus Parks and

Public Lands Management Act of 1996

when ski area permits are issued.

Section 701(i) of the 1996 act applies

to issuance of permits for up to the

maximum tenure allowable under the

National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of

1986 (the Ski Area Permit Act) (16

U.S.C. 497b) for existing ski areas when

permit issuance involves only

administrative changes, such as

issuance of a permit when no changes

to the Master Development Plan and no

new facilities or activities are

authorized, to the following: (1) To a

new owner of the ski area

improvements; (2) to the existing owner

upon expiration of the current permit;

or (3) to a holder of a permit issued

under the Term Permit and Organic

Acts converting to a permit under the

Ski Area Permit Act. The effect of

section 701(i) is that an environmental

impact statement is not required for

issuance of permits under these

circumstances.

The Forest Service currently

authorizes ski areas on National Forest

System lands through permit issuance

under the Ski Area Permit Act. The

permit provides the legal framework for

the use and occupancy of National

Forest System lands, including terms for

renewal; conditions for issuance of a

new permit in the event of sale of the

ski area improvements to another

owner; permit tenure; fee schedules and

payment methods; accountability and

reporting requirements; liability and

bonding requirements; and any other

customized terms and conditions

needed to ensure consistency with

applicable forest land and resource

management plans or to meet the

requirements of other applicable laws.

The Ski Area Permit Act, its

implementing regulations at 36 CFR

251.56, and existing policy in Forest

Service Manual (FSM) section 2721.56,

and existing policy in Forest Service

Manual (FSM) section 2721.61e provide

that under ordinary circumstances ski

area permits will be issued for a

duration of 40 years unless specific

situations, such as financial aspects of

the transaction or the adequacy of the

Master Development Plan, suggest a

shorter duration.

The National Forest Management Act

(NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604) requires

that ‘‘resource plans and permits,

contracts, and other instruments for the

use and occupancy of National Forest

System lands shall be consistent with

the land management plans.’’ Ski area

permits are subject to this requirement.

The forest planning process provides

for public involvement in land

allocation decisions, including those

affecting ski areas. Where appropriate,

forest land and resource management

plans and associated environmental

impact statements (EIS’s) consider longterm consequences of allocating public

lands for a ski resort and may establish

standards and guidelines for lands

allocated for ski area development.

NFMA also requires revision of forest

plans at least every 15 years.

To ensure that forest plans remain

current, implementing regulations at 36

CFR 219.10(g) require (1) review of the

conditions on the land covered by a

forest plan every 5 years to determine

whether conditions or public demands

have changed significantly and (2)

revision of the forest plans ordinarily

every 10 years, and at least every 15

years.

A ski area Master Development Plan

is required for all ski areas authorized

under the Ski Area Permit Act. The

Master Development Plan determines

the boundaries of the ski area and

appropriate development of the area,

including facilities and activities, over

time. All Master Development Plans

require NEPA analysis, usually

documented in an EIS, which includes

consideration of the relatively

permanent nature of ski areas and

estimates of the reasonably foreseeable

cumulative effects. Due to the long-term

nature of Master Development Plans,

much of the initial NEPA analysis is

programmatic. Subsequent site-specific

NEPA analysis is required for Master

Development Plans for most ski areas

prior to authorizing activities or changes

to facilities or ski area operations.

Master Development Plans must be

reviewed periodically, approximately

every 5 years, as required by the permit

issued under the authority of the Ski

Area Permit Act, to determine whether

NEPA analysis is current or whether

changing resource conditions or changes

in management standards and

guidelines may necessitate subsequent

NEPA analysis and appropriate changes

to ski area operations.

Operating Plans also are required by

the Ski Area Permit Act for ski area

permits. These plans, which govern ski

area operations and maintenance, are

updated annually. Operating Plans may

identify proposed activities, such as

significant hazard removal and erosion

control, which may require additional

NEPA analysis.

Requirements related to forest land

and resource management plans, Master

Development Plans, and activities

proposed under Operating Plans that

may have resource effects already

provide for full NEPA analysis and

periodic reviews for ski areas.

Therefore, in reviewing the language

and intent of the Omnibus Parks and

Public Lands Act, which provides in

section 701(i) that issuance of permits

authorizing activities similar in nature

and amount to activities authorized

under the previous permit shall not
55572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices

constitute a major Federal action for

NEPA purposes, the agency has

concluded that such strictly ministerial

actions should be categorically excluded

from documentation in either an EIS or

an environmental assessment (EA) and

should be added to the existing

categorical exclusions already set out in

Forest Service policy. Pursuant to

Council on Environmental Quality

regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508,

the Forest Service must give notice and

opportunity to comment before adopting

NEPA implementation procedures.

Accordingly, the agency is proposing

to issue an interim directive to chapter

30 of the Environmental Policy and

Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15)

which addresses categorical exclusions.

The handbook contains direction for

Forest Service employees in meeting

agency NEPA compliance obligations.

Section 31.1b contains categorical

exclusions established by the Chief.

This section currently contains eight

categories for routine administrative,

maintenance, and other actions that

normally do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on

the quality of the human environment

and, therefore, may be categorically

excluded from documentation in an EIS

or an EA unless scoping indicates

extraordinary circumstances exist.

The agency is proposing to add the

following category to section 31.1b for

categorical exclusion:

9. Issuance of a new permit for up to the

maximum tenure allowable under the

National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986

for an existing ski area in response to purely

ministerial actions, such as a change in

ownership of ski area improvements,

expiration of the current permit, or a change

in the statutory authority applicable to the

current permit. Examples of actions in this

category include, but are not limited to:

a. Issuing a permit to a new owner of ski

area improvements within an existing ski

area with no changes to the Master

Development Plan, including no changes to

the facilities or activities for that ski area.

b. Upon expiration of a ski area permit,

issuing a new permit to the holder of the

previous permit where the holder is not

requesting any changes to the Master

Development Plan, including changes to the

facilities or activities.

c. Issuing a new permit under the National

Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to the

holder of a permit issued under the Term

Permit and Organic Acts, where there are no

changes in the type or scope of activities

authorized and no other changes in the

Master Development Plan.

Because the agency plans to propose

additional revisions to this handbook

within the next year, the agency has

concluded that this new ski area permit

categorical exclusion should be issued

as an interim directive. Upon

completion of other revisions to this

handbook, this interim directive will be

incorporated into an amendment at that

time.

The proposed categorical exclusion

would help expedite issuance of permits

associated with sales of ski areas to new

owners, which account for some 50 to

75 percent of all ski area permit

issuances annually. Nationally, 15 to 30

permit issuances under the authority of

the Ski Area Permit Act are completed

each year. That number is expected to

continue rising based on corporate

restructuring and the continuing trend

toward consolidation in the ski

industry.

The proposed categorical exclusion

also would facilitate conversion from

permits that were issued under prior

authorities to permits under the Ski

Area Permit Act. It was the intent of the

Ski Area Permit Act to convert permits

issued under prior authority to the Ski

Area Permit Act as rapidly as possible.

The Ski Area Permit Act permit

provides better environmental

protection than previous authorities by

requiring NEPA to be conducted,

reviewed, and revised frequently as

resource conditions and proposed

changes to ski area operations warrant.

The Ski Area Permit Act allows the

Forest Service greater discretion to

ensure that updates to operations occur

under terms that require periodic review

and NEPA analysis. By the end of 1997,

the Forest Service anticipates that 75 to

80 percent of the 137 ski areas located

on National Forest System lands will

have permits issued under the Ski Area

Permit Act. It is in the public interest to

encourage the remaining 20 to 25

percent to convert as soon as possible to

permits issued under the authority of

the Ski Area Permit Act.

Environmental Impact

This proposed interim directive

would establish a categorical exclusion

for permit issuance under the authority

of the Ski Area Permit Act that is a

purely ministerial action. Programmatic

and site-specific decisions and

disclosure of environmental effects

concerning ski area allocations,

facilities, and activities are made in

forest land and resource management

plans, in ski area Master Development

Plans, and in connection with activities

proposed under Operating Plans that

may have resource effects, with full

public involvement and in compliance

with NEPA procedures.

Section 31.1b of Forest Service

Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180;

September 18, 1992) excludes from

documentation in an environmental

assessment or impact statement ‘‘rules,

regulations, or policies to establish

Service-wide administrative procedures,

program processes, or instructions.’’ The

agency’s assessment is that this

proposed interim directive would fall

within this category of actions and that

no extraordinary circumstances exist

which would require preparation of an

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

Reviewers may submit comments on

this determination along with comments

on the proposed interim directive for

consideration in the adoption of the

proposed interim directive.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the

Public

This proposed interim directive does

not contain any recordkeeping or

reporting requirements or other

information collection requirements as

defined in 5 CFR 1320 and, therefore,

would impose no paperwork burden on

the public. Accordingly, the review

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320 would not apply.

Regulatory Impact

This proposed interim directive has

been reviewed under USDA procedures

and Executive Order 12866 on

Regulatory Planning and Review. It has

been determined that this is not a

significant action subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review.

This action would 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 would not interfere with an

action taken or planned by another

agency nor raise new legal or policy

issues. Finally, this action would not

alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients of such programs.

Accordingly, this proposed interim

directive is not subject to OMB review

under Executive Order 12866.

Moreover, this proposed interim

directive has been considered in light of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.), and it has been determined

that this action would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

defined by that act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which

the President signed into law on March

22, 1995, the Department has assessed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55573

the effects of this proposed interim

directive on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector.

This proposed interim directive would

not compel the expenditure of $100

million or more by any State, local, or

tribal governments or anyone in the

private sector. Therefore, a statement

under section 202 of the act is not

required.

No Takings Implications

This proposed interim directive has

been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12630, and it has been

determined that the proposed interim

directive would not pose the risk of a

taking of Constitutionally protected

private property. Executive Order 12630

would not apply to this proposed

interim directive because it consists

primarily of technical and

administrative changes governing

authorization of occupancy and use of

National Forest System lands. Forest

Service special use authorizations for

ski areas do not grant any right, title, or

interest in or to lands or resources held

by the United States.

Civil Justice Reform Act

This proposed interim directive has

been reviewed under Executive Order

12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this

proposed interim directive were

adopted, (1) all State and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with this

proposed interim directive or which

would impede its full implementation

would be preempted; (2) no retroactive

effect would be given to this proposed

interim directive; and (3) it would not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging its provisions.

Dated: October 1, 1997.

Robert Lewis, Jr.,

Acting Associate Chief.

[FR Doc. 97–28386 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

Meeting

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) will hold a town

meeting on Thursday, November 13,

1997 in Louisville, Kentucky. The

purpose of the meeting is to gather

information from the public on general

access and recreation access issues.

SCHEDULE: The schedule of events is as

follows:

Thursday, November 13, 1997

9:30 AM—10:30 AM Opening Session

10:30 AM—10:45 AM Break

10:45 AM—12:30 PM Concurrent

Sessions

• General Accessibility Issues

• Recreation Facilities

12:30 PM—1:45 PM Lunch (On your

own)

1:45 PM—3:15 PM Concurrent

Sessions

• General Accessibility Issues

• Recreation Facilities

3:15 PM—3:30 PM Break

3:30 PM—4:30 PM Wrap-up Session

and Public Comment

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held

at: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 320 West

Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information regarding the

meetings, please contact Lawrence W.

Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272–

5434 ext. 14 (voice) and (202) 272–5449

(TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The town

meeting is open to the public.

All Access Board meetings are

accessible to persons with disabilities.

Sign language interpreters and an

assistive listening system are available.

Lawrence W. Roffee,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–28367 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 927]

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status;

Hewlett-Packard Company (Computer

and Related Electronic Products)

Sacramento, California, Area

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, by an Act of Congress

approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To

provide for the establishment * * * of

foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of

the United States, to expedite and

encourage foreign commerce, and for

other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade

Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to

grant to qualified corporations the

privilege of establishing foreign-trade

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs

ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15

CFR Part 400) provide for the

establishment of special-purpose

subzones when existing zone facilities

cannot serve the specific use involved;

Whereas, an application from the

Sacramento-Yolo Port District, grantee

of Foreign-Trade Zone 143, for authority

to establish special-purpose subzone

status at the computer and electronic

products manufacturing facilities of the

Hewlett-Packard Company, located at

sites in the Sacramento, California, area,

was filed by the Board on March 10,

1997, and notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (FTZ Docket 14–97, 62 FR

12792, 3–18–97; amended, 8–25–97);

and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application, as

amended, is in the public interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

grants authority for subzone status at the

computer and related electronic

products manufacturing facilities of the

Hewlett-Packard Company, located in

the Sacramento, California, area

(Subzone 143B), at the locations

described in the application, and subject

to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations, including § 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of

October 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. DaPonte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28312 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 928]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 182

Fort Wayne, Indiana, Area

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, an application from the City

of Fort Wayne, Indiana, grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 182, for authority to