Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Notices 13697

15For example, DHHS is required to —exclude—

from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid

programs for 5 years any health care provider who

is convicted of a crime related to the provision of

services under those programs, or of patient abuse.

42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a).

16This recommendation should not be read to

discourage Congress from providing guidelines for

agencies to consider in exercising their discretion.

17Waiver and exception procedures are currently

found in the FAR at 48 CFR 9.406–1(c), 9.407–1(d),

and in the Common Rule at X.215. 18See 5 U.S.C. § 554(d)(2).

D. Statutory Debarments

The procurement and nonprocurement

debarment and suspension programs are

based in regulation and/or executive order.

There are also many statutorily-based

debarment schemes, some of which also

involve procurement and nonprocurement

programs. In many of these statutory

programs, Congress has restricted agencies’

discretion whether to debar, or to determine

the length of a debarment.15 Congress has

increasingly opted to require agencies to

debar or suspend in particular situations.

Debarment and suspension are not intended

to be punitive remedies, but rather are

premised on the need to protect the integrity

of government programs. The Conference

believes that Congress should ordinarily

allow agencies to retain the discretion to

determine (1) whether debarments or

suspensions are appropriate in individual

cases, and (2) the appropriate length of such

debarments. Moreover, Congress should

review existing statutory schemes that

mandate debarment and/or particular terms

of debarment, and determine whether they

should be continued. The primary basis for

recommending that agency discretion not be

limited with respect to most debarment and

suspension determinations is the need to

retain flexibility to meet the needs of the

government and the public. The Conference

believes that agency officials generally would

be in a better position than Congress to

determine appropriate remedial sanctions in

individual cases that serve both to protect the

fisc and meet program needs.16

The co-existence of the regulatory

debarment programs that are the focus of this

recommendation with a broad variety of

statutory debarment programs creates a

number of issues that relate to the

interactions between them. The Conference

may in the future study these issues, which

include conflicts that arise from inconsistent

procedural requirements and questions about

whether all statutory programs are intended

to have government-wide effect.

Recommendation

I. Entities coordinating the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the

Common Rule for nonprocurement

debarment, and individual agencies in their

procurement and nonprocurement debarment

and suspension regulations, should promptly

ensure that the applicable regulations

provide that suspensions or debarments from

either federal procurement activities or

federal nonprocurement activities have the

effect of suspension or debarment from both,

subject to waiver and exception procedures.17

II. Entities coordinating the FAR and the

Common Rule, and individual agencies in

their regulations, should ensure that:

A. cases involving disputed issues of

material fact are referred to administrative

law judges, military judges, administrative

judges of boards of contract appeals, or other

hearing officers who are guaranteed similar

levels of independence 18 for hearing and for

preparation of (1) findings of fact certified to

the debarring official; (2) a recommended

decision to the debarring official; or (3) an

initial decision, subject to any appropriate

appeal within the agency.

B. debarring officials in each agency

should:

1. Be senior agency officials;

2. Be guaranteed sufficient independence

to provide due process; and

3. In cases where the agency action is

disputed, ensure that any information on

which a decision to debar or suspend is

based appears in the record of the decision.

III. Entities coordinating the FAR and the

Common Rule, and individual agencies in

their regulations, should provide that each

regulatory scheme for suspension and

debarment includes:

A. A list of mitigating and aggravating

factors that an agency should consider in

determining (1) whether to debar or suspend

and (2) the term for any debarment;

B. A process for determining a single

agency to act as the lead agency on behalf of

the government in pursuing and handling a

case against a person or entity that has

transactions with multiple agencies;

C. (With respect to procurement debarment

only) a minimum evidentiary threshold of at

least ‘‘adequate evidence of a cause to debar’’

to issue a notice of proposed debarment;

D. A requirement that all respondents be

given notice of the potential governmentwide impact of a suspension or debarment,

as well as the applicability of any such action

to both procurement and nonprocurement

programs; and

E. Encouragement for the use of ‘‘show

cause’’ letters in appropriate cases.

IV. All federal agencies in the executive

branch (broadly construed to include

‘‘independent’’ agencies) should implement

the ‘‘Common rule’’ and FAR rules on

suspension and debarment.

V. Congress should ordinarily refrain from

limiting agencies— discretion by mandating

suspensions, debarments, or fixed periods of

suspension or debarment. Congress should

also review existing laws that mandate

suspensions, debarments, and fixed periods,

to determine whether to amend the

provisions to permit agency discretion to

make such determinations.

[FR Doc. 95–6183 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Inland Native Fish Strategy

ACTION: Proposal to Prepare Interim

Direction for Native Inland Fish Habitat

Management.

SUMMARY: The notice is hereby given

that the Forest Service, in cooperation

with the Bureau of Land Management

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is

gathering information in order to

prepare an Environmental Assessment

(EA) for a proposal to protect habitat

and populations of native inland fish.

The Forest Service is proposing to

amend Regional Guides and Forest

Plans to include interim direction in the

form of riparian management objectives,

standards and guidelines, and

monitoring requirements. The interim

direction will apply to the geographic

area covered by the Eastside Ecosystem

Management Strategy Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) and Upper

Columbia River Basin EIS, except for

anadromous fish habitat (which is now

being managed under the interim

PACFISH strategy, approved February

24, 1995).

The purpose and need for the

proposed action is to preserve

management options for inland aquatic

resources by reducing the risk of loss of

populations and reducing potential

negative impacts to aquatic habitat of

resident fishes until the signing of

Records of Decision for both EISs. As a

companion to the protection provided

for anadromous fish by PACFISH, this

Environmental Assessment is intended

to provide the basis for establishing

appropriate interim direction to protect

habitat and populations of resident

native fishes outside of anadromous fish

habitat, including bull trout which has

recently been determined to be

warranted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Federal Register Vol. 59, No.

111, June 10, 1994, pp. 30254–30255).

Specifically this EA will address

National Forest System lands on the

Bitterroot, Boise, Caribou, Challis,

Clearwater, Colville, Deerlodge,

Deschutes, Flathead, Fremont, Helena,

Humboldt, Kootenai, Lolo, Malheur,

Ochoco, Panhandle, Payette, Salmon,

Sawtooth, Wallowa-Whitman, and

Winema National Forests in the

Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific

Northwest Regions.

The Forest Service also serves notice

that the agency is seeking information

and comments from Federal, State, and

local agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed action. This

input will be used in preparing the

Environmental Assessment.

Written comments should be sent to

the agency within 30 days from the date

of publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle
13698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Notices

National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way,

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, 83814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the proposed action

and environmental assessment should

be directed to David Wright, Team

Leader, Idaho Panhandle National

Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur

d’Alene, Idaho, 83814. Phone: (208)

765–7307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest

Service, in accordance with 16 USC

1604 and 36 CFR 219 et seq. develops

land and resource management plans to

provide for multiple use and sustained

yield of products and services including

outdoor recreation, range, timber,

watershed, wildlife and fish, and

wilderness.

PACFISH is the Anadromous Fish

Habitat and Watershed Conservation

Strategy being implemented by the

Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management. This is an interim strategy

to conserve Pacific Salmon, steelhead

and sea-run cutthroat trout throughout

their range in Oregon, Washington,

Idaho and portions of California. The

PACFISH decision notice was signed by

Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management on February 24, 1995.

There are two ecosystem-based

environmental impact statements being

prepared for National Forest System and

BLM-administered land in the Interior

Columbia River Basin. The Eastside

Ecosystem Management Strategy EIS

applies to the area of Washington and

Oregon east of the crest of the Cascade

mountain range. The Upper Columbia

River Basin EIS will apply to Idaho and

portions of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada,and

Montana. The two documents will

contain long-term strategies designed to

replace the interim protection afforded

by PACFISH and this Inland Native Fish

Strategy.

Concurrently, the Forest Service in

the Pacific Northwest is completing an

EA that proposes to amend the interim

Forest Plan Direction issued on May 20,

1994 by Regional Forester John Lowe.

This EA proposes adjustments to the

Historic Range of Variability and

portions of the wildlife screen. Any

changes to the riparian screen portion of

the current direction will be considered

in the Inland Native Fish Strategy.

At its discretion, the Forest Service

may amend forest plans based on the

results of monitoring and evaluation (36

CFR 219.10(f), 219.12(k)). Review of

research reports and published

professional papers (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; Sedell et al. 1990;

Grumbine 1990; Williams and Neves

1992; Oregon Trout 1994) indicates that

additional long-term programmatic

protection may be warranted for native

resident fish and their habitat. That

long-term direction is being developed

through the Columbia River Basin EIS

process. This interim protection is being

proposed to preserve options for longterm management that might be adopted

as a result of those processes.

A range of alternatives will be

considered. One of these will be the

‘‘no-action’’ alternative, in which

current management of the area would

continue without interim direction

protection. Other alternatives will

examine the effects of varying

approaches to interim protection.

During the scoping process, the Forest

Service is seeking information and

comments from Federal, State, and local

agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed action.

Additional information will be utilized

from the scoping activities that occurred

for the PACFISH, Upper Columbia River

Basin EIS and Eastside Ecosystem

Management Strategy EIS. During

scoping activities for these projects,

issues and concerns were identified that

relate to inland fisheries and may have

bearing on this environmental analysis.

The responsible officials for National

Forest System lands will be the Regional

Foresters for the:

—Intermountain Region, Federal

Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden,

Utah 84401;

—Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669,

Missoula, Montana 59807; and

—Pacific Northwest Region, P.O. Box

3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

The decision and reasons for the

decision will be documented in a

Decision Notice. The Environmental

Assessment and Decision Notice are

expected to be available in June, 1995.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

David J. Wright,

Inland Native Fish Team Leader, Idaho

Panhandle National Forests.

[FR Doc. 95–6255 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–816]

Certain Softwood Lumber from

Canada; Determination to Terminate

and Not To Initiate Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination to

terminate and not to initiate

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has decided to

terminate the first administrative review

of the countervailing duty order on

certain softwood lumber from Canada

initiated on August 24, 1993, and not to

initiate the second administrative

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martina Tkadlec or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

30, 1993, the Coalition for Fair Lumber

Imports (the Coalition), the Government

of Canada, and the Government of

Quebec requested an administrative

review of the countervailing duty order

on certain softwood lumber from

Canada for the period March 12, 1992

through March 31, 1993. In addition,

one hundred and ninety companies

requested individual company reviews.

On August 24, 1993, the Department

published a notice initiating the

administrative reviews for that period

(58 FR 44653).

On July 28, 1994, the Coalition

requested an administrative review of

the countervailing duty order on

softwood lumber from Canada for the

period April 1, 1993 through March 16,

1994. On August 1, 1994, the

Government of Canada requested an

administrative review for the same

period. In addition, one hundred and

five companies requested individual

company reviews.

On August 16, 1994, the Department

revoked the countervailing duty order

on softwood lumber from Canada

pursuant to a decision of the Binational

Panel convened under the United

States-Canada Free Trade Agreement (59

FR 42029), and instructed the U.S.

Customs Service to (1) stop collecting

cash deposits on imports of softwood

lumber from Canada, and (2) refund,

with interest, all cash deposits made on

or after March 17, 1994, the effective

date of the Binational Panel’s decision.

On December 15, 1994, the United

States and Canada agreed to enter into

consultations to try to resolve the trade

dispute regarding softwood lumber from

Canada. The Department also decided,

under the authority of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, to compromise its