Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11149

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are

not raised until after completion of the

final EIS 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 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 EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft EIS. Comments

may also address the adequacy of the

draft EIS 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.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by March 1998. In the final

EIS, the Forest Service is required to

respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations and

policies considered in making the

decision regarding this proposal. Sonny

J. O’Neal, Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee

National Forest is the responsible

official. As the responsible official he

will document the decision and reasons

for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service appeal regulation (36

CFR part 215).

Dated: May 4, 1997.

G. Elton Thomas,

Natural Resources Group Leader.

[FR Doc. 97–5958 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Canyons Forest Health Project, Tahoe

National Forest, Sierra and Nevada

Counties, CA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement for harvesting in densely

stocked timber stands exhibiting insectrelated mortality and reduced health.

The harvesting is proposed on

approximately 2,500 acres within an

8,000-acre analysis area. The salvage,

sanitation, and thinning of the stands is

proposed to improve the forest health

and remove some of the dead material

contributing to the fuel loading in the

area. Also being proposed are fuels

treatments, site preparation,

reforestation, timber stand

improvement, and road construction,

reconstruction, and decommissioning.

These actions were recently analyzed

and decided within a larger project

analysis area called the Worn Mill

Environmental Assessment/Biological

Evaluation (EA/BE) (September, 1996).

Only about half of the area analyzed

under the Worn Mill EA/BE document

was put under contract (Toucan Timber

Sale) in December 1996 prior to

expiration of the Rescissions Act, Pub.

L. 104–19. Since the decision on the

Worn Mill EA/BE has also subsequently

expired, the second half of the Worn

Mill analysis area that was identified as

needing forest health treatment will

now be re-analyzed under the Canyons

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The agency invites comments and

suggestions on the scope of the analysis.

In addition, the agency gives notice of

the full environmental analysis and

decision-making process that will occur

on the proposal so that interested and

affected people are aware of how they

may participate and contribute to the

final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the

analysis should be received in writing

by April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Caryn Huntt, Project Leader, Truckee

Ranger District, 10342 Highway 89 N,

Truckee, CA 96161.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caryn Huntt, Project Leader, Natural

Resources Department, Truckee Ranger

District, (916) 587–3558.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A draft

environmental impact statement is

expected to be available for agency and

public review by April, 1997. A 45-day

comment period will follow the

publication of the notice of availability

of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

Al comments will be analyzed and a

final EIS and accompanying record of

decision (ROD) will be issued. The final

EIS should be available by June, 1997.

Written comments from the public

should be submitted as indicated at the

beginning of this notice. Comments

would be most useful if sent by the date

specified and if they clearly address the

issues and alternatives related to the

proposed action.

The proposed action being considered

includes salvage, sanitation, and

thinning of the timber stands to address

forest health concerns east of Boca and

Stampede reservoirs and on the adjacent

flats and slopes near Truckee,

California.

Preliminary issues connected with the

proposal include forest health, water

quality, wildlife habitat, and wildfire/

fuels concerns.

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 environmental impact

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.

The responsible official for this

environmental impact statement and

decision is John H. Skinner, Forest

Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest, 631
11150 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

Coyote Street, P.O. Box 6003, Nevada

City, CA 95959.

Dated: March 3, 1997.

John H. Skinner,

Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest.

[FR Doc. 97–5920 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting

of the Indiana Advisory Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the

Indiana Advisory Committee to the

Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m.

and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,

March 27, 1997, at the South Bend

Public Library, 304 South Main Street,

South Bend, Indiana 44601. The

purpose of the meeting is to discuss

civil rights issues of interest and plan

future activities.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact

Committee Chairperson Paul Chase,

317–920–3190, or Constance Davis,

Director of the Midwestern Regional

Office, 312–353–8311 (TDD 312–353–

8362). Hearing-impaired persons who

will attend the meeting and require the

services of a sign language interpreter

should contact the Regional Office at

least five (5) working days before the

scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted

pursuant to the provisions of the rules

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, March 3, 1997.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 97–5970 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–812]

Calcium Aluminate Flux From France;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

one respondent, Lafarge Aluminates

(LA), and its U.S. subsidiary, Lafarge

Calcium Aluminates, Inc. (LCA)

(collectively, Lafarge), the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on calcium

aluminate (CA) flux from France. This

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States, Lafarge, for the period

June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that U.S. sales have been made below

normal value (NV). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service

(Customs) to assess antidumping duties

equal to the differences between the

United States Price (USP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–3019.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 13, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 30337) the antidumping duty order

on CA flux from France. On June 6,

1996 (61 FR 28840), the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of opportunity to request an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on CA flux

from France. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1)(1995), we received a timely

request for review from a respondent,

Lafarge. We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 8, 1996

(61 FR 41373), for the period June 1,

1995 through May 31, 1996.

The Department is now conducting

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of CA flux, other than white,

high purity CA flux. This product

contains by weight more than 32

percent but less than 65 percent

alumina and more than one percent

each of iron and silica.

CA flux is currently classifiable under

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheading

2523.10.0000. The HTSUS subheading

is provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs’ purposes only. The written

description of the scope of this order

remains dispositive.

Constructed Export Price

In calculating Lafarge’s USP, the

Department treated respondent’s sales

as constructed export price (CEP) sales,

as defined in section 772(b) of the Act,

because the subject merchandise was

sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser

after importation into the United States.

We calculated CEP based on packed

or bulk, ex-U.S. warehouse or delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. We made deductions

from the gross unit price, where

appropriate, for the following movement

charges: loading material at the Fos

plant in France, foreign inland freight

from plant to port, foreign brokerage and

handling costs, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and

handling, inland freight from port to

U.S. warehouse, unloading charges,

inland freight to processors, demurrage

and stop-off charges, and U.S. freight

from the warehouse to the customer, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act. Pursuant to section

772(d)(1)(B), we also deducted credit

expenses, product liability insurance,

and travel expenses for technical

services. Pursuant to section

772(d)(1)(D), we deducted U.S. indirect

selling expenses, and inventory carrying

costs incurred in the United States. We

did not deduct indirect selling expenses

(i.e., administrative expenses, inventory

carrying costs, personnel costs for

technicians) incurred by LA in France

because these expenses were for

commercial activity taking place outside

the United States. We also deducted

commissions in accordance with section

772(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

We also deducted an amount for

profit in accordance with section 772

(d)(3) of the Act.