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

9818

Vol. 60, No. 35

Wednesday, February 22, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Scenery Fire Recovery; Kootenai

National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Scenery Face Fire burned

approximately 4700 acres of Kootenai

National Forest system lands in the late

summer of 1994. The Libby Ranger

District on the Kootenai National Forest

intends to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) to assess and

disclose the environmental effects of

opportunities designed to recover

economic value of burned timber,

reduce fuel accumulations, rehabilitate

existing sediment sources and protect

long-term soil productivity. These

objectives would be accomplished

through salvage harvest of fire-killed

trees; reforestation of some harvested

and severely burned areas; fuels

reduction in harvested areas and

restoration of non-essential roads. The

Scenery decision area is located

approximately 1 air mile west of Libby,

Montana.

The proposal’s actions to salvage firekilled trees and reforest burned areas,

reduce fuels, and restore roads are being

considered together because they

represent either connected or

cumulative actions as defined by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40

CFR 1508.25). The EIS will tier to the

Kootenai National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan and Final

EIS of September 1987, which provides

overall guidance for achieving the

desired forest condition of the area.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received by no

later than March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is

Lawrence A. Froberg, District Ranger,

Libby Ranger District, Kootenai National

Forest. Written comments and

suggestions concerning the scope of the

analysis should be sent to Lawrence A.

Froberg, District Ranger, Libby Ranger

District, 12557 US Hwy 37 N, Libby,

Montana, 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leanne Marten, NEPA Coordinator,

Libby Ranger District. Phone: (406) 293–

7773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the

night of August 14–15, 1994, a lightning

storm started 207 fires on the Kootenai

National Forest in northwest Montana.

Several of these fires occurred on the

Libby Ranger District. The Scenery Fire

Recovery EIS is being prepared in

response to conditions resulting from

one of the largest of these fires, the 4700

acre Scenery Face Fire. An

interdisciplinary landscape analysis

team is using an ecosystem based

approach to assess the fires affects and

identify management opportunities that

could be implemented to move the

postfire landscapes toward a desired

ecological condition.

Burn intensities in the Scenery

wildfire varied considerably. Within the

fire perimeters approximately 2200

acres burned at moderate intensity

(average 55% tree mortality) and

approximately 2500 acres burned at low

intensity (average 25% mortality). The

fire burned within the Cabinet Face East

Roadless Area #671.

The Scenery decision area contains

approximately 3,300 acres within the

Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln

County, Montana. The legal location of

the decision area is as follows: Sections

or portions of Sections 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, and

30 and Township 31 North, Range 32

West; Sections or portions of Sections

24 and 25 of Township 31 North, Range

33 West; Principle Meridian. The land

in and adjacent to the decision area is

primarily federal ownership under the

jurisdiction of the Forest Service with

some intermixed private ownership.

Proposed Action

The primary purpose of the project is

to recover valuable timber products

from trees burned by the Scenery Face

wildfire that occurred in 1994 (while

maintaining ecological processes), with

the secondary benefit of reducing fuel

loads. Actions are also proposed to

enhance watershed recovery and

improve grizzly bear habitat security.

The Forest Service proposes to harvest

approximately 2.1 million board feet of

timber by salvaging fire-killed trees and

dying trees on approximately 350 acres

of forest land outside riparian protection

areas. Only trees that were killed, or are

expected to die as a result of the fires,

would be harvested. The proposal

includes prescribed burning of about 67

acres to reduce fuel loads in harvested

areas. An estimated 263 acres of

proposed salvage units would be

planted with conifer seedlings to help

meet desired conditions for species

diversity. The Forest Service also

proposes to scarify and revegetate an

estimated 4 miles of existing nonessential roads to reduce sediment and

water yields, and improve grizzly bear

habitat security. Non-essential roads are

those that are no longer considered a

necessary part of the permanent

transportation system. Additional road

access restrictions may be needed to

provide adequate security areas for

grizzly bears, however identification of

specific road closure proposals is

pending further analysis.

The decision area includes a portion

of the Cabinet Face East Roadless Area

#671. Approximately 330 acres of timber

salvage and approximately 250 acres of

reforestation would occur within the

roadless area. No road construction is

proposed within the roadless area. No

proposed activities are located in areas

considered for inclusion to the National

Wilderness System as recommended by

the Kootenai National Forest Plan.

Due to the high level of tree mortality

in proposed harvest units, most

harvested areas would resemble clearcut

or seed-tree silvicultural methods. Only

those live trees which must be cut to

facilitate logging fire-killed trees would

be harvested. Timber harvest would be

done by skyline and helicopter yarding,

designed to result in minimal ground

disturbance, risk of erosion, and

compaction.

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives

in individual delineated management

areas (MA’s). The decision area contains

four MA’s: 11, 12, 14 and 19. Briefly

described, MA 11 is managed to

maintain or enhance the winter-range

habitat effectiveness for big-game

species and produce a programmed

yield of timber. MA 12 is managed to

maintain or enhance the summer-range
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices 9819

habitat effectiveness for big-game

species and produce a programmed

yield of timber. MA 14 focuses on

maintaining or enhancing grizzly bear

habitat, reducing grizzly/human

conflicts, assisting in the recovery of the

grizzly bear, realizing a programmed

yield of timber production, and

providing for the maintenance or

enhancement of other wildlife species,

especially big game. MA 19 is managed

to protect soil stability and water quality

by maintaining the vegetation in a

healthy condition and minimizing

surface disturbance. Timber salvage and

fuels reduction is proposed in MA 12.

Preliminary Issues

Several preliminary issues of concern

have been identified by the Forest

Service. These issues are briefly

described below:

• Water Quality—Streams in the

decision area have been impacted by the

Scenery Face wildfire. How would the

proposed action affect water yield,

sediment production, stream stability,

and recovery from the wildfire?

• Timber Supply—Much of the firekilled timber will quickly lose its

commercial value due to rapid

deterioration. To what extent does the

proposed action recover the commercial

value of fire-killed timber to help meet

local and national needs?

• Activity in Roadless Areas—What

effect would the proposal have on the

roadless character of the Cabinet Face

East Roadless Area #671?

• Grizzly Bear—The decision area lies

within the recovery area for the Cabinet/

Taak grizzly bear ecosystem. How

would the proposal maintain and

enhance grizzly bear habitat, and

contribute to recovery efforts?

• Visual Quality—The units proposed

can be viewed from Highway 2, the

Kootenai River Road or the Bighorn

Trail. To what extent will the viewshed

be altered?

Forest Plan Amendment

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan has

specific management direction for the

Scenery decision area. The Scenery

proposed action is designed to maintain

or improve resource conditions and

move towards achieving desired

ecological conditions, and is consistent

with the goals and objectives of the

Forest Plan. Prior to making a NEPA

decision, a thorough examination of all

standards and guidelines of the Forest

Plan would be completed and, if

necessary, plan exceptions or

amendments would be addressed in the

EIS.

Decisions To Be Made

The Libby District Ranger will decide

the following:

Should dead and imminent dead trees

within fire areas be harvested and if so

how and where,

What amount, type, and distribution

of watershed restoration projects,

including road restoration, would be

implemented,

What burned areas need to be

replanted, and

If Forest Plan exception or

amendments are necessary to proceed

with the Proposed Action within the

decision area.

Public Involvement and Scoping

An open house will be scheduled in

March, to provide an opportunity for the

public to review the proposed action.

Consultation with appropriate State and

Federal agencies will be initiated.

Preliminary effects analysis indicated

that the wildfires may significantly

affect the quality of the human

environment, and fire recovery activities

have the potential to both intensify and

reduce effects. These potential effects

prompted the decision to prepare an EIS

for the Scenery Fire Salvage.

This environmental analysis and

decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected

people to participate and contribute to

the final decision. Public participation

will be requested at several points

during the analysis. The Forest Service

will be seeking information, comments,

and assistance from Federal, State, local

agencies, and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed projects.

This input will be used in preparation

of the draft and final EIS. The scoping

process will include:

• Identifying potential issues.

• Identifying major issues to be

analyzed in depth.

• Exploring additional alternatives

which will be derived from issues

recognized during scoping activities.

• Identifying potential environmental

effects of this project and alternatives

(i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects and connected actions).

The analysis will consider a range of

alternatives, including the proposed

action, no action, and other reasonable

action alternatives.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The draft Scenery Fire Recovery EIS

is expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and to be available for public review by

June, 1995. At that time EPA will

publish a Notice of Availability of the

draft EIS in the Federal Register. The

comment period on the draft EIS will be

45 days from the date the EPA publishes

the Notice of Availability in the Federal

Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by September, 1995. In the

final EIS, the Forest Service is required

to respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies considered in making a

decision regarding the proposal.

Reviewer’s Obligations

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 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 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 and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the

draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and may address the adequacy

of the statement or the merit of the

alternatives discussed. 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.

Responsible Official

Lawrence A. Froberg, District Ranger,

Libby Ranger District, Kootenai National

Forest, 12557 US Highway 37 North,

Libby, MT 59923 is the Responsible

Official. As the Responsible Official he

will decide which, if any, of the

proposed projects will be implemented.

He will document the decision and

reasons for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.
9820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices

Dated: February 10, 1995.

Lawrence A. Forberg,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 95–4222 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

Meeting

Notice is hereby given that the Arctic

Research Commission will hold its 38th

Meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on

March 8–9, 1995. On Wednesday,

March 8, a Business Session open to the

public will convene at 9:00 a.m. in the

Fairfax Room of the Holiday Inn, 4610

North Fairfax Drive. Agenda items

include: (1) Chairman’s Report; (2)

Comments from Agencies and

Organizations; (3) Recent Research

Activities; and (4) Engineering

Initiatives/Workshop Plans. On

Thursday, March 8, the Business

Session will reconvene at 9:00 a.m.

Agenda items for this session include:

(1) Icebreaker Notes; (3) Trip Reports;

and (3) Correspondence. An Executive

Session for Members of the Commission

will be held following the Business

Session on March 8.

Any person planning to attend this

meeting who requires special

accessibility features and/or auxiliary

aids, such as sign language interpreters,

must inform the Commission in advance

of those needs.

Contact Person for More Information: Dr.

Garrett W. Brass, Executive Director, Arctic

Research Commission, 703–525–0111 or TDD

703–306–0090.

Garrett W. Brass,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–4231 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 755–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–813]

Notice of Amended Preliminary

Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit

From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Katt or Michelle Frederick,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0498 or

(202) 482–0186, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994. References to the

Antidumping and Countervailing

Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 57

FR 1131 (January 10, 1992) (concerning

correction of ministerial errors in a

preliminary determination) (‘‘Proposed

Regulations’’) are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

practice and procedures with respect to

correction of ministerial errors.

Although the Department has

withdrawn the particular rulemaking

proceeding pursuant to which the

Proposed Regulations were issued, the

subject matter of these regulations is

being considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

See 60 FR 80 (January 3, 1995).

AMENDED PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: In

accordance with section 733(b) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),

on January 4, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) made its

preliminary determination that canned

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand was

being sold at less than fair value (60 FR

2734, January 11, 1995). On January 10

and 13, 1995, we disclosed our

calculations for the preliminary

determination to counsel for

respondents, the Thai Public Pineapple

Company (TIPCO), Siam Agro Industry

Pineapple and Others Public Co., Ltd.

(SAICO), and Malee Sampran Factory

Public Co., Ltd. (Malee), to counsel to

respondent Dole Food Company, Inc.

and its affiliates, Dole Packaged Foods

Company and Dole Thailand, Inc.

(collectively Dole) and to counsel for the

petitioners, respectively, pursuant to

their requests. On January 20, 1995, we

received a submission from the

petitioners alleging a ministerial error in

the Department’s preliminary

determination calculations. (For specific

details of this allegation and our

analysis of it, see Memorandum from

Gary Taverman to Barbara R. Stafford

dated February 8, 1995.)

The petitioners alleged that the

Department incorrectly included

movement expenses in its deductions

for both direct and indirect selling

expenses for Dole’s third country

observations made on an ex-warehouse

or delivered basis.

We agree that the error alleged by the

petitioners is a ministerial error. This

error constitutes a significant ministerial

error within the meaning of the

Department’s Proposed Regulations in

that the correction results in a difference

between a dumping margin of de

minimis and a margin greater than de

minimis. See section 353.15(g)(4)(ii) of

the Department’s Proposed Regulations

(57 FR 1131, January 10, 1992).

Therefore, consistent with the

Department’s practice with respect to

the correction of ministerial errors, we

are amending Dole’s preliminary

dumping margin. The corrected

dumping margin for Dole is 0.78

percent; as a result the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

is now 3.92 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

We are directing the Customs Service

to correct our request to suspend

liquidation in accordance with section

733(d)(1) of the Act, for all entries of

CPF from Thailand.

We are directing the Customs Service

to suspend liquidation of all entries of

CPF from Thailand from Dole that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this amended preliminary

determination notice in the Federal

Register. Because Dole’s dumping

margin is now greater than de minimis,

and margins greater than de minimis are

included within the all others rate, we

are directing the Customs Service to

correct the ‘‘All Others’’ rate so that it

will reflect the rates for TIPCO, SAICO,

Malee, and Dole.

In accordance with section 733(d)(1)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of CPF from

Thailand for TIPCO, SAICO, Malee and

All Others that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this amended preliminary

determination notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the revised estimated

preliminary dumping margins, as shown

below. The suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins

are as follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/

Exporter

Original

margin

percent

Revised

margin

percent

Dole ................................... 1 0.30 0.78

TIPCO ............................... 7.81 7.81

SAICO ............................... 9.55 9.55

Malee ................................ 1.12 1.12