67268 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices 

would separate claims about livestock 

production practices on product 

labeling. 

The majority of claims currently 

citing naturally raised animal 

production methods are defined by the 

individual company selling the product. 

Depending upon the branded program 

making the claims, the production 

activities and associated requirements 

can vary since there is currently no 

standard to specify which attributes 

must be addressed and to what level, 

other than to be truthful and not 

misleading. This has led to confusion in 

the industry and the marketplace as to 

what requirements must be met in order 

to have a uniform, explicit claim that 

can be easily understood. This 

confusion has caused AMS to develop 

and propose a standard with explicit 

attributes that could easily be 

understood by the public as the basis for 

a naturally raised marketing claim as it 

relates to live animal production 

practices. AMS seeks comment from the 

public concerning its development and 

requirements. 

Proposed Standard 

To develop and propose a marketing 

claim standard for naturally raised, 

AMS conducted three listening sessions 

in December 2006 and January 2007 in 

Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and 

Seattle, WA, to seek oral and written 

comments regarding the use of a 

naturally raised marketing claim 

standard. Public input and comments 

related to a naturally raised marketing 

claim are posted on the Web site at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ 

naturalclaim.htm. AMS evaluated the 

public input and comments and is 

seeking further comments on a proposed 

naturally raised marketing claim 

standard. 

AMS also reviewed consumer 

research along with the comments and 

identified, based upon this information, 

that production practices such as the 

prohibited use of antibiotics, growth 

promotants, and certain animal byproducts are the main attributes 

consumers want for meat and meat 

products derived from livestock that are 

naturally raised. These are the attributes 

that AMS’ proposed naturally raised 

standard contains. Again, the naturally 

raised labeling claim proposed in this 

notice remains independent of the FSIS 

policy on the use of the term ‘‘natural’’

on product labeling and will only 

pertain to live animal production 

practices. 

Accordingly, AMS seeks comments 

on the following proposed voluntary 

U.S. Standard for Livestock and Meat 

Marketing Claims, in this notice. 

Proposed U.S. Standards for Livestock 

and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally 

Raised Claim for Livestock and the 

Meat and Meat Products Derived From 

Such Livestock 

Background: This proposed claim 

applies to livestock used for meat and 

meat products that were raised entirely 

without growth promotants, antibiotics, 

and mammalian or avian by-products. 

The administration of growth 

hormones, including natural hormones, 

synthetic hormones, estrus 

suppressants, beta agonists, or other 

synthetic growth promotants is 

prohibited from birth to slaughter. 

Collectively, they are referred to in the 

naturally raised marketing claim 

standard as growth promotants. 

No antibiotics can be administered, 

whether through feed or water, or by 

injection, from birth to slaughter. This 

includes low-level (sub-therapeutic) or 

therapeutic level doses, sulfonamides, 

ionophores, coccidiostats, or any other 

synthetic antimicrobial. If an animal is 

in need of medical attention, proper 

treatment should, of course, be 

administered in an attempt to improve 

the health of the animal. In the case 

where antibiotics or the stated 

prohibited substances are administered, 

the treated animal must be identified 

and excluded from the program. Health 

products that can be used for disease 

prevention in a naturally raised program 

are vaccines, parasite control products, 

antibody preparations, and bloat 

prevention and treatment products (e.g., 

feed grade microbials and buffers that 

help facilitate the animals digestive 

process). 

The feeding of mammalian or avian 

by-products is prohibited. Livestock 

cannot be fed rations that include 

components that are mammalian or 

avian derived. 

Vitamin and mineral supplementation 

is permissible. 

Verification of the proposed claim 

will be accomplished through an audit 

of the production process. The producer 

must be able to verify for AMS that the 

naturally raised marketing claim 

standard requirements are being met 

through a detailed documented quality 

management system. 

Claim and Standard 

Naturally Raised—Livestock used for 

the production of meat and meat 

products have been raised entirely 

without growth promotants, antibiotics, 

and have never been fed mammalian or 

avian by-products. This information 

shall be contained on any label claim 

that an animal has been naturally raised. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

Dated: November 21, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–23103 Filed 11–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; 

Travel Management Plan 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives 

notice of its intent to prepare a Travel 

Planning Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Clearwater 

National Forest (CNF). 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. 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 decisionmaking 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 

December 14, 2007. 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 cross-country motorized 

travel, (3) Designate selected roads and 

trails for motorized travel, (4) Designate 

appropriate acreas or routes for travel 

with over-snow 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices 67269 

the CNF in recognition of the need to 

retain the charter of lands recommended 

for Wilderness designation and the 

CNF’s ability to provide for nonmotorized 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 Vehicles 

Use (Federal Register 2005: 79 FR 

68264). 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 

allowed, restricted, or prohibit.’’ 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 roads open yearlong 

to all highway-legal vehicles (an 

increase of 8 miles compared to existing 

conditions); 

• 509 miles of road 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 fee 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 acres 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 

increased 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 

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 Service 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
67270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices 

1On January 17, 2007, the Department 

determined the brake rotors produced by FederalMogul and certified by the Ford Motor Company to 

be excluded from the scope of the order. See 

Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Wendy J. 

Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

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 is it 

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. Ho del, 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 

a 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: November 7, 2007. 

Thomas K. Reilly, 

Clearwater Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–5861 Filed 11–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 25, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the semiannual 

new shipper review of the antidumping 

duty order on brake rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of the 2006 

Semiannual New Shipper Review, 72 FR 

54430 (September 25, 2007) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The 

merchandise covered by this review is 

brake rotors, exported and 

manufactured by Longkou Qizheng 

Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qizheng’’), as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’

section of this notice. The period of 

review is April 1, 2006, through October 

31, 2006. We invited parties to comment 

on our Preliminary Results. We received 

no comments, and no new evidence was 

placed on the record to cause us to 

question that determination. Therefore, 

the final results are unchanged from 

those presented in the Preliminary 

Results. The final weighted–average 

dumping margin for Qizheng is listed 

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482–

4207, respectively. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, 

whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 

to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) 

and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 

to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 

(weight and dimension) of the brake 

rotors limit their use to the following 

types of motor vehicles: automobiles, 

all–terrain vehicles, vans and 

recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton 

and a half,’’ and light trucks designated 

as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’

Finished brake rotors are those that 

are ready for sale and installation 

without any further operations. Semi–

finished rotors are those on which the 

surface is not entirely smooth, and have 

undergone some drilling. Unfinished 

rotors are those which have undergone 

some grinding or turning. 

These brake rotors are for motor 

vehicles, and do not contain in the 

casting a logo of an original equipment 

manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces 

vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., 

General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, 

Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in 

this order are not certified by OEM 

producers of vehicles sold in the United 

States. The scope also includes 

composite brake rotors that are made of 

gray cast iron, which contain a steel 

plate, but otherwise meet the above 

criteria. Excluded from the scope of this 

order are brake rotors made of gray cast 

iron, whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 

inches or greater than 16 inches (less 

than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 

40.64 centimeters) and a weight less 

than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds 

(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 

20.41 kilograms).1


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES