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

69282

Vol. 65, No. 222

Thursday, November 16, 2000

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

Senior Executive Service: Membership

of Performance Review Board

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Performance Review

Board will initiate their labors on or

about November 15, 2000. The

following persons are members of the

Performance Review Board for 2000.

Members:

Corbett Flannery, Chair

Robert Lester, SES Member

Elmer S. Owens, SES Member

Roxann A. Van Dusen, SES Member

Lois E. Hartman, Public Member

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Anne Conboy, 202–712–5438.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

Henry W. Reynolds,

Executive Secretary, Executive Resources

Board.

[FR Doc. 00–29390 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Supplemental to Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Uncompahgre

National Forest Travel Plan; Grand

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison

National Forests; Montrose, Gunnison,

Mesa, San Miguel, Ouray, Hinsdale,

and San Juan Counties, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a

Supplement to the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) in conjunction

with an amendment of the land and

resource management plan for the

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and

Gunnison National Forests.

SUMMARY: Over a six-year period the

Forest Service, working with the public,

developed the Uncompahgre National

Forest Travel Plan and decision. The

process included 38 open public

meetings, a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, a Final Environmental

Impact Statement and a Record of

Decision finally published in April of

2000 (published notices 62 FR 25162–

25163, 63 FR 49911, 65 FR 26198). The

Uncompahgre Travel Plan Decision of

April 2000 was reversed on appeal. The

issue of Forest Plan compliance with the

standard for Habitat Capability was

raised in the appeal. In his reversal

decision, Deputy Regional Forester Tom

Thompson instructed the Forest

Supervisor to ‘‘promptly begin a new

decisionmaking process’’ incorporating

a ‘‘procedural remedy of the NEPA/

NFMA flaw’’ discovered through the

appeal. NEPA is the National

Environmental Policy Act, which

requires Environmental Analyses of

proposed Federal actions; NFMA is the

National Forest Management Act, which

establishes Forest Plans.

The Forest Service will prepare a

supplement to the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the

Uncompahgre National Forest Travel

Plan. The supplement will examine a

proposed amendment to the Land and

Resource Management Plan for the

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison

National Forests (GMUG) to

accommodate departure from the Forest

Plan standards for Habitat Capability for

an Uncompahgre Travel Plan Decision.

Alternatives will be considered,

including the No Action Alternative.

Public Participation: Scoping is not a

required part of the preparation of a

Supplement to an EIS. However limited

scoping was conducted, with a

comment period from mid September

through October 20, 2000. There was an

open public meeting at the Montrose

Pavilion on September 27, to discuss

this proposal.

ADDRESSES: To be included on the

mailing list to receive copies of the Draft

Supplement to the FEIS please send

your address to: Uncompahgre Travel

Plan, GMUG National Forests, 2250

Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.

Responsible Official: Robert L. Storch,

Forest Supervisor of the Grand Mesa,

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National

Forests, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Burch, Project Leader, at (970) 874–

6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We expect

to file a draft supplement to the final

environmental impact statement with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and make it available for public

comment on December 2000. At that

time, the EPA will publish a notice of

availability for the DSEIS in the Federal

Register. The comment period on the

DSEIS will be 60 days from the date the

EPA publishes the notice of availability

in the Federal Register. The agency

expects to file a final SEIS in April

2001.

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 the DSEIS must participate

in the environmental review of the

proposal in such a way that their

participation is meaning full and alerts

an agency to the reviewer’s position and

contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear

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

(1978). Is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 60 day

comment period that will be provided

for public review of the Draft

Supplement to the EIS, 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 FSEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns relating to the proposed

actions, comments on the DSEIS 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 DSEIS or the merits of

the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statements. In

addressing these points, 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.

After the comment period on the

DSEIS ends, comments will be

analyzed, considered, and responded to

by the Forest Service in preparing the

Final Supplemental EIS. The FSEIS is

scheduled to be completed in April

2001. The responsible official will

consider the comments, responses,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Notices 69283

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews;

64 FR 41915 (August 2, 1999), and Chrome-Plated

Lug Nuts from China and Taiwan, 64 FR 41949

(August 2, 1999).

2See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People’s

Republic of Chin and Taiwan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Sunset Reviews: 65 FR 11762

(March 6, 2000).

environmental consequences discussed

in the FSEIS, and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies in making

decisions regarding these revisions. The

responsible official will document the

decisions and reasons for the decisions

in a Record of Decision. The decision

will be subject to appeal in accordance

with 36 CFR 215.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Robert L. Storch,

Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre

and Gunnison National Forests, Rocky

Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29283 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Gold/Boulder/Sullivan, Kootenai

National Forest, Lincoln County,

Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of revision of intent to

prepare an environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA—Forest Service is

revising its notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Gold/Boulder/Sullivan Project, as

described in the Federal Register dated

March 24, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 58, Pages

15892–15895), due to the following

major changes:

1. The filing of the DEIS will be

delayed more than six months, and

2. There will be changes to the

Proposed Action

The delay and changes are

attributable to wildfires that occurred in

the Gold/Boulder/Sullivan Project Area

during August 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Ron

Komac, Acting NEPA Coordinator,

Rexford Ranger District, Phone (406)

296–7130.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

Bob Castaneda,

Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.

[FR Doc. 00–29387 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice

is hereby given of the following

committee meeting:

Name: Grain Inspection Advisory

Committee.

Dates: November 28–29, 2000.

Place: Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia.

Time: 8 am–5 pm on November 28 and 8

am–11:30 am on November 29, 2000.

Purpose: To provide advice to the

Administrator of the Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration

(GIPSA) with respect to the implementation

of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71

et seq.).

The agenda includes a review and

discussion of GIPSA’s financial status,

wheat dockage proposal,

reauthorization, biotechnology, research

initiatives, standardization and training

services for the grain industry,

certification of producers and grain

elevators, and other related issues

concerning the delivery of grain

inspection and weighing services to

American agriculture.

Public participation will be limited to

written statements, unless permission is

received from the Committee Chairman

to orally address the Committee.

Persons, other than members, who wish

to address the Committee or submit

written statements before or after the

meeting, should contact the

Administrator, GIPSA, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., STOP 3601, Washington,

DC 20250–3601, telephone (202) 720–

0219 or FAX (202) 205–9237.

The meeting will be open to the

public. Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means of

communication of program information

or related accommodations should

contact Marianne Plaus, telephone (202)

690–3460 or FAX (202) 205–9237.

Dated: November 9, 2000.

David R. Shipman,

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–29474 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–808; A–583–810]

Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From

the People’s Republic of China and

Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of revocation of

antidumping duty orders: chromeplated lug nuts from the People’s

Republic of China and Taiwan.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), the United States International

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’)

determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on chromeplated lug nuts from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘China’’) and

Taiwan is not likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time. See 65 FR 66558 (November 6,

2000). Therefore, pursuant to section

751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.222(i)(1), the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

revoking the antidumping duty orders

on chrome-plated lug nuts from China

and Taiwan. Pursuant to section

751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.222(i)(2), the effective date of

revocation is January 1, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5050 or (202) 482–

3330, respectively.

Background

On August 2, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission

instituted, sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on chromeplated lug nuts from China and Taiwan,

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.1

As a result of the reviews, the

Department found that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping and notified the

Commission of the magnitude of the

margins likely to prevail were the

antidumping orders revoked.2

On November 6, 2000, the

Commission determined, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation

of the antidumping duty orders on

chrome-plated lug nuts from China and

Taiwan would not likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from

China and Taiwan, 65 FR 66558

(November 6, 2000) and USITC