Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Notices 1201 

on meeting topics may be filed with the 

Committee before or after the meeting 

by sending them to the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Written statements may also 

be filed at the meeting. Please refer to 

Docket No. APHIS–2007–0155 when 

submitting your statements. 

This notice of meeting is given 

pursuant to section 10 of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

December 2007. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–13 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; California; 

Moonlight Fire Recovery and 

Restoration Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, 

Plumas National Forest will prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

on a proposal to harvest fire-killed trees 

on approximately 14,000 acres in the 

Moonlight Fire area. The Moonlight Fire 

burned about 65,000 acres in September 

2007 on the Plumas National Forest. 

DATES: The draft environmental impact 

statement is expected in June 2008 and 

the final environmental impact 

statement is expected in September 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 

39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971. 

Comments may be: (1) Mailed; (2) hand 

delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) 

faxed to (530) 283–1821; or (4) 

electronically mailed to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumasmthough@fs.fed.us. Please indicate the 

name ‘‘Moonlight Fire Recovery and 

Restoration Project’’ on the subject line 

of your email. Comments submitted 

electronically must be in Rich Text 

Format (.rtf) or Word (.doc). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 

39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971. 

Telephone: (530) 283–7641 or electronic 

address: rbednarski@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed action is designed to meet the 

standards and guidelines for land 

management activities in the Plumas 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (1988), as amended 

by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 

Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) 

(1999, 2003), and as amended by the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

FSEIS and ROD (2004). 

The proposed project is located in 

Plumas County, California, within the 

Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas 

National Forest. It is located in all or 

portions of Sections 13, 23–27, 34–35, 

T28N, R10E; all or portions of Sections 

13–14, 17–19, 23–24, 29–34, T28N, 

R11E; all or portions of Sections 19–20, 

29–32, T28N, R12E; all or portions of 

Sections 1–2, 13–14, 23–25, T27N, 

R10E; all or portions of Section 2–11, 

13–15, 17, 19–22, 25, 35–36, T27N, 

R11E; and all or portions of Sections 5, 

8, 17–20, 29–32, T27N, R12E. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of the project would be 

to contribute to the stability and 

economic health of rural communities. 

The project would provide for local 

economic benefit by creating jobs from 

the sale of dead merchantable trees, as 

well as contribute to local and regional 

areas with net revenues and receipts. 

The wood quality, volume, and value of 

dead trees deteriorate rapidly. The value 

of trees would cover the cost of their 

removal and possibly other activities 

associated with the project. 

As a result of the Moonlight Fire, 

thousands of acres burned with high 

vegetation burn severity resulting in 

deforested condition. As a result, shrub 

species will dominate these areas for 

decades and experience a delay in 

returning to a forested condition. The 

early establishment of conifers through 

reforestation will expedite forest 

regeneration. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action would harvest 

fire-killed conifer trees on 

approximately 14,000 acres using the 

following methods: Ground based, 

skyline, and helicopter. Trees greater 

than 14 inches diameter at breast height 

(dbh) would be whole tree harvested on 

the ground-based areas. Trees less than 

14 inches dbh would be removed as 

biomass material on the ground-based 

areas. About 600 acres would have trees 

less than 14 inches dbh removed as 

biomass material. Ground-based 

equipment would be restricted to slopes 

less than 35 percent, except on 

decomposed granitic soils where 

equipment would be restricted to slopes 

less than 25 percent. On the skyline and 

helicopter areas, trees greater than 16 

inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs 

and tops in the skyline and helicopter 

areas would be lopped and scattered to 

a depth less than 18 inches in height. 

Skyline yarding would require one end 

suspension, with full suspension over 

intermittent or perennial streams. Firekilled conifers would be harvested from 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. 

Equipment restriction zone widths 

within Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas would be established based on the 

stream type and steepness of the slope 

adjacent to the streams. Snags would be 

retained in snag retention areas, that are 

approximately ten acres in size, on 

approximately ten percent of the project 

area. Salvage harvest would not occur 

within the snag retention areas except 

for operability (safety) reasons. 

Approximately 25 miles of temporary 

roads would be constructed. 

Approximately 20 acres (nine landings) 

of helicopter landings would be 

constructed. Excess fuels on landings 

would be piled, a fireline constructed 

around the piles, and the piles burned. 

Following completion of the project, the 

temporary roads and landings would be 

subsoiled, reforested, and closed. 

Approximately 14,000 acres would be 

reforested with conifer seedlings in 

widely spaced clusters to emulate a 

naturally established forest. The areas 

would be reforested with a mixture of 

native species. 

The Moonlight Fire impacted twenty 

California spotted owl Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs). According to 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004), 

page 37, after a stand-replacing event, 

the habitat conditions are evaluated 

within a 1.5 mile radius around the 

activity center to identify opportunities 

for re-mapping the PAC. If there is 

insufficient suitable habitat for 

designating a PAC within the 1.5 mile 

radius, the PAC may be removed from 

the network. 

Possible Alternatives 

In addition to the proposed action, a 

no action alternative would be analyzed. 

Additional alternatives may be 

developed and analyzed throughout the 

environmental analysis. 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The USDA, Forest Service is the lead 

agency for this proposal. 

Responsible Official 

Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National 

Forest Supervisor, P.O. Box 11500, 

Quincy, CA 95971. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1202 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Notices 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision to be made is whether 

to: (1) Implement the proposed action; 

(2) meet the purpose and need for action 

through some other combination of 

activities; or, (3) take no action at this 

time. 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Scoping comments 

will be most helpful if received by 

January 4, 2008. Scoping is conducted 

to determine the significant issues that 

will be addressed during the 

environmental analysis. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke 

Management Plan are required by local 

agencies. Early Notice of Importance of 

Public Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for comment. 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 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. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: December 21, 2007. 

Maria T. Garcia, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–6301 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–816] 

Notice of Final Results and Final 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Taiwan 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 2, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the order on 

certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe 

fittings from Taiwan. See Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind 

in Part, 72 FR 35970 (July 2, 2007) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The 

merchandise covered by this order is 

certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe 

fittings from Taiwan as described in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this 

notice. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. We 

gave interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

Based upon our analysis of the 

comments received, we did not make 

any changes to the margin calculation. 

The final weight–averaged dumping 

margin is listed below in the section 

titled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2008. 

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) 

(202) 482–7924 or (202) 482–0195, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s preliminary results 

of review were published on July 2, 

2007. See Preliminary Results. We 

invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Subsequent to our 

Preliminary Results, on July 11, 2007, 

we issued Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 

Ltd. (‘‘Ta Chen’’), a supplemental 

questionnaire requesting additional 

information regarding its reporting of 

affiliates. See Preliminary Results at 72 

FR 35971. Ta Chen submitted its 

response to our July 11, 2007, 

affiliations questionnaire on July 27, 

2007. On August 10, 2007, Flowline 

Division of Markovitz Enterprise, Inc., 

Shaw Allow Piping Products, Inc., 

Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, 

Inc., (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’) 

commented on Ta Chen’s July 11, 2007, 

affiliations questionnaire response. On 

August 22, 2007, Ta Chen responded to 

petitioners’ August 10, 2007 comments 

regarding its affiliations questionnaire 

response. We received case briefs from 

petitioners on September 10, 2007, and 

case briefs from Ta Chen on September 

11, 2007. On September 17, 2007, we 

received rebuttal comments from 

petitioners and Ta Chen. Petitioners 

requested a hearing, which was 

conducted on September 20, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products subject to this order are 

certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe 

fittings, whether finished or unfinished, 

under 14 inches inside diameter. 

Certain welded stainless steel butt–weld 

pipe fittings (‘‘pipe fittings’’) are used to 

connect pipe sections in piping systems 

where conditions require welded 

connections. The subject merchandise is 

used where one or more of the following 

conditions is a factor in designing the 

piping system: (1) Corrosion of the 

piping system will occur if material 

other than stainless steel is used; (2) 

contamination of the material in the 

system by the system itself must be 

prevented; (3) high temperatures are 

present; (4) extreme low temperatures 

are present; and (5) high pressures are 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES