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

21064

Vol. 60, No. 83

Monday, May 1, 1995

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF

THE UNITED STATES

Committee on Judicial Review

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No.

92–463), notice is hereby given of a

meeting of the Committee on Judicial

Review of the Administrative

Conference of the United States.

DATES: Tuesday, May 9, 1995, at 10:30

a.m.

LOCATION: Office of the Chairman,

Administrative Conference, 2120 L

Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC

(Library, 5th Floor).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Candace Fowler, Office of the

Chairman, Administrative Conference of

the United States, 2120 L Street NW.,

Suite 500, Washington, DC 20037.

Telephone: (202) 254–7020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting of the Committee on Judicial

Review is to continue discussion of

draft recommendations based on a

report by Professor William Kovacic,

visiting at American University, on

choice of forum in government contract

bid protest disputes.

Attendance at the meetings is open to

the interested public, but limited to the

space available. Persons wishing to

attend should notify the Office of the

Chairman at least one day in advance.

The chairman of the committee, if he

deems it appropriate, may permit

members of the public to present oral

statements at the meeting. Any member

of the public may file a written

statement with the committee before,

during, or after the meeting. Minutes of

the meeting will be available on request.

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Jeffrey S. Lubbers,

Research Director.

[FR Doc. 95–10656 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6110–01–W

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Control of Diseases, Insects, Other

Animals, and Unwanted Vegetation at

the Humboldt Nursery

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

an environmental impact statement

(EIS) for pest management at the

Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville,

California. Initial public scoping is

underway; a public meeting will occur

during the DEIS comment period. The

draft EIS is expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and be available for public review by

June, 1995. The final EIS is expected to

be filed with EPA by August, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Frankel, Pathologist, Pacific

Southwest Region, 630 Sansome St. San

Francisco, CA 94111. Telephone (415)

705–2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

preparing the EIS, the Forest Service has

identified and is considering a range of

alternatives for this project. One of those

is no action. Other alternatives consider

a range of methods for the prevention

and control of diseases, insects, other

animals, and unwanted vegetation at the

Homboldt Nursery. The methods under

consideration include biological,

chemical, manual, and mechanical

techniques. The activities that require

prevention and controls include cover

cropping, seed pre-treatment, nursery

seedbed and greenhouse preparation,

sowing, seedling growth from

germination to lifting, and seedling

storage.

Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor, Six

Rivers National Forest is the responsible

official.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for

public review by June, 1995. The final

EIS is expected to be filed with the EPA

by August, 1995.

The comment period on the draft EIS

will be 45 days from the date in the

EPA’s notice of availability appears 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 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.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Gilbert J. Espinosa,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 95–10655 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Control of Unwanted Vegetation,

Diseases, Insects, and Animals in the

Pacific Southwest Region Nurseries

and Tree Improvement Center

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21065

ACTION: Cancellation to notice of intent

to prepare environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service is cancelling

preparation of an environmental impact

statement (EIS) for pest management at

the Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville,

California; Placerville Nursery, Camino,

California; and Chico Tree Improvement

Center, Chico, California (Federal

Register of September 7, 1990, 55 FR

36844, and (Federal Register of August

25, 1988, 53 FR 32417).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Fiske, Program Manager, Reforestation,

Pacific Southwest Region, 630 Sansome

Street, San Francisco, California 94111.

Telephone (415) 705–2697.

Date: April 24, 1995.

Gilbert J. Espinosa,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 95–10649 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Control of Diseases, Insects, Other

Animals, and Unwanted Vegetation at

the Placerville Nursery

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

an environmental impact statement

(EIS) for pest management at the

Placerville Nursery, Camino, California.

Initial public scoping is underway; a

public meeting will occur during the

DEIS comment period. The draft EIS is

expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and be available for public review by

June, 1995. The final EIS is expected to

be filed with EPA by August, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Frankel, Pathologist, Pacific

Southwest Region, 630 Sansome St., San

Francisco, CA 94111. Telephone (415)

705–2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

preparing the EIS, the Forest Service has

identified and is considering a range of

alternatives for this project. One of those

is no action. Other alternatives consider

a range of methods for the prevention

and control of diseases, insects, other

animals, and unwanted vegetation at the

Placerville Nursery. The methods under

consideration include biological,

chemical, manual, and mechanical

techniques. The activities that require

prevention and controls include cover

cropping, seed pre-treatment, nursery

seedbed and greenhouse preparation,

sowing, seedling growth from

germination to lifting, and seedling

storage.

Patricia Trimble, Nursery Manager,

Placerville Nursery is the responsible

official.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for

public review by June, 1995. The final

EIS is expected to be filed with EPA by

August, 1995.

The comment period on the draft EIS

will be 45 days from the date in the

EPA’s notice of availability appears in

the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it it 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

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.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Gilbert J. Espinosa,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 95–10650 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–843]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Bicycles From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Cameron Werker

at (202) 482–1776 or (202) 482–3874,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

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).

The Petition

On April 5, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by Huffy

Bicycle Company, Murray Ohio

Manufacturing Co., and Roadmaster

Corporation (the petitioners), three U.S.

producers of bicycles. Supplements to

the petition were filed on April 20 and

24, 1995.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value within the

meaning of section 731 of the Act, and

that such imports are materially

injuring, or threatening material injury

to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.