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

27075

Vol. 60, No. 98

Monday, May 22, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Charlie Tyson Project; Idaho

Panhandle National Forests, St. Maries

Ranger District, Benewah County,

Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Correction of the May 10,

1995—Notice of Intent, 60 FR 24829.

A Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the Charlie Tyson Projects was

inadvertently published on May 10,

1995 (60 FR 24829). This is an error;

this notice was published on March 31,

1994 (Vol. 59, No. 62, 15153) and since

that time the Draft has been published

and the Ranger district is now (May 15,

1995) in the process of mailing out the

Final EIS and Record of Decision.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

Bradley J. Burmark,

Acting District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 95–12504 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Blue Mountains Natural Resources

Institute (BMNRI), Board of Directors

AGENCY: Pacific Northwest Research

Station, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Blue Mountains Natural

Resources Institute Board of Directors

will meet on June 8, 1995 at Eastern

Oregon State College, Hoke Hall, Room

309, 1410 L Avenue in La Grande,

Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9:00

a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1)

Review status as a Federal Advisory

Committee; (2) presentation of Federal

Advisory Committee Act guidelines and

responsibilities; (3) report of research

and outreach activities; (4) review

mission and goals of the BMNRI and

discuss how to most effectively reach

these goals; and (5) open public forum.

All Blue Mountains Natural Resources

Institute Board Meetings are open to the

public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend. Members of the

public who wish to make a brief oral

presentation at the meeting should

contact John Tanaka, BMNRI, 1401

Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850,

503–963–7122, no later than 5:00 p.m.

June 7, 1995 to have time reserved on

the agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to John Tanaka, Deputy Director, Blue

Mountains Natural Resources Institute,

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon

97850, 503–963–7122.

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Gary Daterman,

Program Manager.

[FR Doc. 95–12408 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Export Administration

[Docket Number AB1–89]

Final Decision and Order Affirming in

Part Order of the Administrative Law

Judge

In the Matter of: Town & Country Plastic,

Inc., Respondent.

Before me for decision is the appeal

of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance

(OAC) from the decision and order of

the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The ALJ dismissed as unproven OAC’s

charge that Town & Country Plastics,

Inc. (T&C), violated § 769.2(d)(1)(iv) of

the Export Administration Regulations

(15 CFR 769.2(d)(1)(iv)) (the

‘‘Regulations’’).

I. Jurisdictional Issues

T&C questions my jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal, alleging that the

appeal was not timely filed and

properly served. After having reviewed

the administrative record, I have

concluded that I have jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal and that the

decision of the ALJ should be affirmed

in part, as set forth below.

a. Timeliness

The threshold question is whether

OAC’s appeal was timely filed and

properly served. Section 788.22(b) of the

Regulations (15 CFR 788.22(b)) requires

the filing of appeals within 30 days of

the date on which the order appealed

from was served. Applying this rule

literally in this case, the appeal should

have been filed on or before October 21,

1990, which happened to be a Sunday.

T&C correctly points out that there is

nothing in the rules explicitly extending

the time for filing documents when the

last day falls on a Sunday. On the other

hand, OAC refers to the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure where Rule 6

provides that, when the last day allowed

for filing a document falls on a Sunday,

the document may be filed up until the

close of business on the next business

day. OAC did file its appeal on Monday,

October 22, 1990.

I have concluded that the procedural

rules relating to antiboycott appeals

should be construed in conjunction

with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Accordingly, I find that the

appeal was timely filed.

b. Service

T&C also argues that OAC failed to

serve the appeal in accordance with the

rules. In support of its argument, T&C

points out that Section 788.6(a) of the

Regulations (15 CFR 788.6(a)) requires

that all papers served in the

administrative proceedings shall be

simultaneously served on other parties.

While OAC appended a certificate of

service to its appeal stating that it had

caused a copy of the appeal to be mailed

to T&C on October 22, 1990, the

envelope in which the appeal was

received by T&C was postmarked

October 23, 1990, one day later than the

last day the appeal could be filed. OAC

responds that on October 22, 1990, it

did cause the appeal to be mailed in

accordance with customary

departmental mailing procedures in

which all mailings first go to the

Department’s centralized mailing room,

and it cannot control when a mailing

will be actually postmarked by the Post

Office.

I have concluded that OAC did serve

the appeal in a timely fashion. In my

opinion, it is sufficient that the appeal

was mailed in accordance with standard

departmental mailing procedures on the

day when the service was required to be

accomplished.