71874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices 

The revised document incorporates 

updates to three of the four parts of the 

original Draft User Guide. These 

changes are discussed more fully below. 

Part I: Overview of the NAIS 

Benefit-cost analysis. 

In July 2007, APHIS announced that 

Kansas State University would be 

conducting a benefit-cost analysis, with 

a final report to be completed by July/ 

August 2008. This information has been 

added to the section of the User Guide 

that discusses the economic benefits of 

the NAIS in order to inform our 

stakeholders that more complete 

analysis and information will be 

available in the future. 

Animal Identification Number Device 

Distribution Databases (AIN DDDs). 

References to AIN DDDs have been 

removed from Part I of the User Guide, 

since the development of these 

databases is no longer being considered, 

for reasons discussed in greater detail 

below. 

Part III: Animal Identification 

Publication of numbering systems 

final rule. 

On July 18, 2007, APHIS published in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 39301–

39307, Docket No. 04–052–2) a final 

rule that, among other things, 

recognized the AIN as an official means 

for the identification of individual 

animals in commerce generally and in 

disease programs. This information has 

now been added to the User Guide’s 

discussion of the use of the AIN in the 

NAIS to ensure that participants are 

aware that the rule was finalized. 

Brand State Working Group. 

When the Draft User Guide was first 

developed, the Brand State Working 

Group had only recently been formed. 

Additional information about the 

objectives of the Brand State Working 

Group has been added to the revised 

User Guide. 

Integration of AIN tags with existing 

animal health identification systems— 

brucellosis. 

Although several disease programs 

had begun integrating NAIS-compliant 

AIN tags when the Draft User Guide was 

first published, the brucellosis program 

was listed as one that would be 

integrating in the near future. AIN tags 

are now recognized as official for use in 

the brucellosis program, if preferred by 

the producer and if such action does not 

conflict with State regulations. We have 

added this information to the revised 

User Guide in order to clarify an issue 

that has confused some NAIS 

participants. 

AIN DDDs. 

Part III of the revised User Guide 

explains how the distribution records of 

AIN devices will be administered using 

the AIN Management System. At the 

time of publication of the original Draft 

User Guide, we were considering the 

use of databases (AIN DDDs) that would 

be maintained by AIN device 

manufacturers, industry organizations, 

service providers, States, etc., to receive 

and maintain the records of distribution 

of AIN devices to a premises (the record 

that indicates what AIN was on each 

AIN device that went to each premises), 

as opposed to having the information 

received by and maintained in our AIN 

Management System. APHIS had 

developed potential information 

technology (IT) solutions and program 

administrative processes to support the 

transition to the AIN DDD 

infrastructure. We held two public 

meetings (on March 5–6 and on March 

12–13, 2007) to discuss these options 

and to explore further the 

administrative and IT requirements for 

such databases to be practical and 

effective. At those meetings, various 

sectors of industry, representatives of 

livestock markets, service providers, 

and individuals who either are, or are 

planning to be, AIN tag managers and 

AIN tag manufacturers all provided 

feedback expressing significant 

concerns about the added costs and 

increased complexity of maintaining 

records in such databases. Based on this 

feedback, we determined that this 

option did not contribute to a practical 

and efficient system and was not 

feasible. Therefore, all references to AIN 

DDDs have been removed from the 

revised User Guide, and APHIS will 

continue to maintain distribution 

records in the AIN Management System, 

as before. 

Part IV: Animal Tracing 

Animal Trace Processing System 

(ATPS). 

In March 2007, APHIS completed the 

interim development of the ATPS—the 

Federal portal system that will allow 

Federal and State animal health officials 

to request information from the 

administrators of private/State animal 

tracking databases (ATDs). In addition, 

working with State and industry 

partners, we completed the 

development of the technical 

requirements necessary for integration 

of those ATDs with the ATPS. The 

technical requirements are available 

online, for use by organizations with 

ATDs that are interested in participating 

in this component of the NAIS. 

Information on this component of the 

NAIS has been updated in the revised 

User Guide to ensure that stakeholders 

are aware of the potential for 

participation. 

Comments about the revised User 

Guide or other aspects of the NAIS may 

be submitted to USDA through the NAIS 

Web site e-mail address: 

animalidcomments@aphis.usda.gov or 

by mail to NAIS Program Staff, VS, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200, 

Riverdale, MD 20737. 

The revised User Guide is considered 

a ‘‘significant guidance document’’

under the terms of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) ‘‘Final 

Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance 

Practices,’’ which was published in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2007 

(72 FR 3432–3440). To learn more about 

the OMB bulletin and APHIS’

implementation of its provisions, visit 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/guidance/. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

December 2007. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–24653 Filed 12–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; 

Travel Management Plan 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Revised notice; intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement. The original notice was 

published in the Federal Register/Vol. 

72, No. 228, November 28, 2007/ 

Notices, pages 67268–67270. 

SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007, the 

USDA Forest Service announced its 

intent to prepare a travel planning 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

The proposed action would designate a 

site-specific transportation system and 

prohibit indiscriminate cross-country 

traffic. The EIS will analyze the effects 

of the proposed action and alternatives. 

This Revised Notice is being published 

because the due date for scoping 

comments has been extended to January 

11, 2008. The Clearwater National 

Forest invites comments and 

suggestions on the issues to be 

addressed. The agency gives notice of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis and decision-making 

process on the proposal so interested 

and affected members of the public may 

participate and contribute to the final 

decision. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices 71875 

January 11, 2008. A 45-day public 

comment period will follow the release 

of the draft environmental impact 

statement that is expected in June 2008. 

The final environmental impact 

statement is expected in January 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written or electronic 

comments to: Lochsa Ranger District, 

Kamiah Ranger Station; Attn: Lois 

Foster, Interdisciplinary Team Leader; 

Rt. 2 Box 191; Kamiah, ID 83536; FAX 

208–935–4275; E-mail commentsnorthern-clearwater@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Foster, Interdisciplinary Team leader, 

(208) 935–4258. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action is to (1) 

Implement national OHV Rule 

direction, (2) Limit indiscriminate crosscountry motorized travel, (3) Designate 

selected roads and trails for motorized 

travel, (4) Designate appropriate areas or 

routes for travel with oversnow 

vehicles, (5) Balance travel 

opportunities with maintenance and 

management capability including costs, 

(6) Provide for a better spectrum of 

motorized, non-motorized, and nonmechanized travel opportunities across 

the CNF in recognition of the need to 

retain the character of lands 

recommended for Wilderness 

designation and the CNF’s ability to 

provide for non-motorized recreation 

opportunities that are not available on 

other land ownerships, (7) Manage 

impacts to Forest resources, (8) Improve 

clarity and consistency of existing travel 

restrictions, and (9) amend the 1987 

Forest Plan as necessary to accomplish 

the actions described above. 

The need for revision of the Forest 

Plan is supported by nationwide 

awareness within the Forest Service of 

the negative effects of indiscriminate 

off-road travel by motorized users. 

These concerns led to publication of the 

Travel Management final rule on 

November 9, 2005 in the Federal 

Register, 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, 

295 ‘‘Travel Management: Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use’’ (Federal Register 2005: 

79FR68264). The rule requires each 

National Forest to designate those roads, 

trails, and areas that are open to motor 

vehicle use. The rule prohibits use of 

motor vehicles off the designated 

system, as well as use of motor vehicles 

on routes and in areas that are not 

consistent with the designation. The 

rule does not require that over-snow 

vehicles, such as snowmobiles, are 

limited to a designated system by 

exempting them under 121.51, but also 

states in 212.81 that ‘‘use by over-snow 

vehicles...on National Forest System 

lands may be allowed, restricted, or 

prohibited.’’ The CNF chose to include 

over-snow vehicles in the analysis. 

The Proposed Action would designate 

motorized road and trail routes for 

summer travel on the Clearwater 

National Forest. Existing Conditions 

include roads and trails identified as 

open to motorized travel in the 2005 

Travel Guide, plus any error corrections 

or project-level NEPA decisions made 

since then. The Proposed Action would 

include any changes from existing 

conditions, such as road to trail 

conversions, designating some roads 

previously not thought to be travelable, 

and not designating some roads that 

were previously thought to be 

travelable. 

The transportation system for snowfree travel would include: 

• 1,623 miles of open yearlong to all 

highway-legal vehicles (an increase of 8 

miles compared to existing conditions); 

• 509 miles of roads open yearlong to 

small vehicles such as ATV’s and 

motorcycles, but not including UTV’s 

(an increase of 9 miles); 

• 633 miles of roads open seasonally 

to all highway-legal vehicles (a decrease 

of 13 miles); 

• 151 miles of roads open seasonally 

to small vehicles (a decrease of 1 mile); 

• 93 miles of trails open yearlong to 

small vehicles (a change of 0 miles); 

• 226 miles of trails open yearlong to 

motorcycles (a decrease of 178 miles); 

• 75 miles of trails open seasonally to 

small vehicles (an increase of 2 miles); 

and 

• 93 miles of trails open seasonally to 

motorcycles (a change of 0 miles). 

The proposed action would also 

modify the dates of seasonal restrictions 

for roads and trails to reduce the variety 

of restricted periods, and ultimately 

improve the clarity of the Motor Vehicle 

Use Map (MVUM). Motorized travel up 

to 300 feet off of designated routes to 

access established campsites would be 

permitted in most areas. In certain areas, 

off-route travel would be permitted only 

to access specifically designated 

campsites. 

Existing restrictions for bicycles on all 

but one road would be eliminated. 

Bicycle restrictions on roads would 

drop from a total of 10 miles currently 

to only 1 mile, which would be entirely 

within the CNF seed orchard. Areas 

recommended for wilderness by the 

Forest Plan would become off limits to 

bicycles. System trails available to 

bicycles would drop from 811 miles to 

730 miles (a reduction of 81 miles). 

Over-snow vehicle use would be 

restricted in areas recommended for 

wilderness by the Forest Plan. Within 

the areas where over-snow vehicle use 

would generally be permitted, there 

would continue to be some specific 

routes where over-snow vehicles would 

be restricted. Over-snow vehicle use 

would be prohibited forest-wide from 

October 1 to November 4. The 

transportation system for over-snow 

vehicles would include: 

• 364 miles of groomed snowmobile 

routes (no change from existing 

conditions); 

• 1,322,943 acres generally open to 

over-snow vehicles except for certain 

restricted routes; 

• 3,484 miles of roads where oversnow vehicles would be permitted from 

November 5 until snowmelt in the 

spring, compared to 3,174 acres 

available currently (an increase of 310 

acres); and 

• 503,057 acres closed to over-snow 

vehicles, compared to 302,856 acres 

available currently (a decrease of 

200,201 acres). 

The numbers above are only 

approximate at this time. 

The existing Forest Plan will be 

amended. When the Forest Plan was 

completed in 1987, trail vehicles were 

few and travel planning was focused 

almost completely on roads and 

highway vehicles. Motorized use has 

increase dramatically since then, and 

modern vehicles such as snowmobiles, 

ATV’s, and motorcycles have 

capabilities that could not have been 

envisioned in 1987. The Forest Plan also 

contains some conflicting information 

regarding the intent for management of 

certain areas. Changes may include: 

• Better coordination between the 

level of motorized travel and the focus 

of certain management areas, primarily 

those in roadless areas; 

• Additions or changes to Forest Plan 

standards to permit implementation of 

the national Travel Management rule; 

and 

• Other goals, objectives, and 

standards affecting travel management. 

Possible Alternatives the Forest 

Service will consider include a noaction alternative, which will serve as a 

baseline for comparison of alternatives. 

The proposed action will be considered 

along with additional alternatives that 

will be developed to meet the purpose 

and need for action, and to address 

significant issues identified during 

scoping. 

The Responsible Official is Thomas K. 

Reilly, Clearwater Forest Supervisor, 

Clearwater National Forest, 12730 

Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544. 

The Decision To Be Made is whether 

to adopt the proposed action, in whole 

or in part, or another alternative; and 

what mitigation measures and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

71876 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices 

management requirements will be 

implemented. 

The Scoping Process for the EIS is 

being initiated with this notice. The 

scoping process will identify issues to 

be analyzed in detail and will lead to 

the development of alternatives to the 

proposal. The Forest Services is seeking 

information and comments from other 

Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal 

governments; and organizations and 

individuals who may be interested in or 

affected by the proposed action. 

Comments received in response to this 

notice, including the names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the project record and 

available for public review. Public 

meetings will be scheduled during the 

scoping period. Times, dates and 

locations for the public meetings will be 

published in the Lewiston, Idaho 

Lewiston Morning Tribune. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for comment. The second 

major opportunity for public input will 

be when the Draft EIS is published. The 

comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. The Draft EIS is 

anticipated to be available for public 

review in June 2008. The comment 

period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days 

from the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the notice 

of availability 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 comment 

period for the Draft 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 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. 

After the comment period for the 

Draft EIS ends, the Forest Service will 

analyze comments received and address 

them in the Final EIS. The Final EIS is 

scheduled to be released by January 

2009. The Responsible Official (Forest 

Supervisor Thomas K. Reilly) will 

document the decision and rationale in 

a Record of Decision (ROD). The 

decision will be subject to review under 

Forest Service appeal regulations at 36 

CFR Part 215. 

Preliminary Issues identified by the 

Forest Service interdisciplinary team 

include: changing motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities, 

costs of road and trail management and 

maintenance, soil issues, effects on 

aquatic environments and species, 

effects on wildlife, the spread of 

noxious weeds, changes in motorized 

access to roads, trails and areas that are 

not designated as part of the travel 

planning analysis, and motorized access 

for people with disabilities. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: December 6, 2007. 

Thomas K. Reilly, 

Clearwater Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–6074 Filed 12–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–816] 

Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe 

Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is extending the time 

limit for the final results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings 

from Taiwan. The period of review is 

June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. 

This extension is made pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Lao or John Drury, Office 7, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–7924 and (202) 482–0195, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 2, 2007, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings 

from Taiwan covering the period June 1, 

2005, through May 31, 2006. See Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 72 

FR 35970 (July 2, 2007). The final 

results for the antidumping duty 

administrative review of certain 

stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings 

from Taiwan are currently due no later 

than December 14, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

requires the Department to issue the 

results in an administrative review 

within 120 days of the publication of 

the preliminary results. However, if it is 

not practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the final results to 180 days (or 300 days 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES