Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14419

thousands of acres of intensely-burned

vegetation, altered soils, and increased

fuel loads. The slopes in the area are

steep and subject to severe erosion. This

analysis was initiated to identify

treatments that will lessen long-term

losses in productivity and increase the

rate of recovery of the ecosystems in the

area. The analysis area is approximately

14,210 acres in size. About 280 acres of

the area are unoccupied spotted owl

habitat, with approximately 100 acres of

this habitat being within a Late

Successional Reserve. In addition, about

6,400 acres of the analysis area is

unroaded.

The proposed action is to treat: (1)

Approximately 4,700 acres in the

ponderosa pine zone; (2) approximately

1,600 acres in the mesic Douglas-fir

zone; and (3) approximately 340 acres in

the high elevation zone. Treatments will

be made through a combination of

activities including: fuel disposal

through the use of prescribed fire;

harvest of dead and damaged trees;

thinning; and slope stabilization. This

proposal will include helicopter yarding

as the preferred method of tree removal,

but may require the construction of

approximately 3 miles of temporary

access roads. A transportation plan for

the unroaded portion of the project area

would also be developed.

To date, the following key issues have

been identified:

Roadless Area management

Late Successional Reserves

Public safety and property

Economics

Cultural resources

Control of noxious weeds

Channel protection/restoration

Access management

Forest fuel management

Scenic quality

Recreation opportunities

Wildlife habitat

Revegetation

Water quality

Biodiversity/forest health

Fish/water/soil stability

The decision to be made through this

analysis is where, how, and to what

extent should the various vegetation

management, fuels reduction and slope

stabilization treatments be implemented

within the First Creek analysis area, and

what roading, if any, should occur

within the currently unroaded area.

A range of alternatives will be

considered, including a no action

alternative, and an alternative that

maintains the unroaded character of the

area. Other alternatives will be

developed in response to issues

received during scoping. All alternatives

will need to respond to specific

conditions in the First Creek Basin.

Public participation will be especially

important at several points during the

analysis. The Forest Service will be

seeking information, comments, and

assistance from Federal, State, tribes,

and local agencies, as well as

individuals or organizations who may

be interested in or affected by the

proposed actions. This information will

be used in preparation of the draft EIS.

The scoping process includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in

depth.

3. Eliminating non significant issues

or those which have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental

process.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects and connected

actions).

6. Determining potential cooperating

agencies and task assignments.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review in June, 1995. At that

time, copies of the draft EIS will be

distributed to interested and affected

agencies, organizations, tribes, and

members of the public for their review

and comment. 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

notice appears in the Federal Register.

It is very important that those interested

in the management of the Wenatchee

National Forest participate at that time.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft EIS. Comments

may also address the adequacy of the

draft EIS 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 those points).

At this early stage, the Forest Service

believes it is important to give reviewers

notice of several court rulings related to

public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of a draft EIS 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 EIS stage but

that are not raised until after completion

of the final EIS 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 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 EIS.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed in August 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 the

decision regarding this proposal. Sonny

O’Neal, Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee

National Forest, is the responsible

official. As the responsible official 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 (36

CFR 215).

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Mark Morris,

Administrative Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–6628 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting

of the Michigan Advisory Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the

Michigan Advisory Committee to the

Commission will convene from 1:00

p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April

6, 1995, at the Westin Hotel,

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243. The purpose of the meeting is to

discuss current issues and plan future

activities.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact

Committee Chairperson Janice G.

Frazier at 313–259–8180, or Constance

M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern

Regional Office, 312–353–8311 (TDD
14420 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

312–353–8326). Hearing-impaired

persons who will attend the meeting

and require the services of a sign

language interpreter should contact the

Regional Office at least five (5) working

days before the scheduled date of the

meeting.

The meeting will be conducted

pursuant to the provisions of the rules

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, March 7, 1995.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 95–6552 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 8–95]

Foreign-Trade Zone 24—Pittston, PA;

Application for Subzone Status J.

Schoeneman, Inc., Plant (Wearing

Apparel), State Line, PA

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Eastern Distribution

Center, Inc., grantee of FTZ 24,

requesting special-purpose subzone

status for the apparel manufacturing

plant of the J. Schoeneman, Inc. (JSI)

(subsidiary of the Plaid Clothing Group,

Inc.), located in State Line,

Pennsylvania. The application was

submitted pursuant to the provisions of

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part

400). It was formally filed on March 10,

1995.

This application involves the

proposed transfer of subzone activity

from JSI’s plant (FTZ Subzone 99A) in

Wilmington, Delaware, to JSI’s new

Pennsylvania plant. Subzone status for

the company’s Wilmington plant was

authorized by the Board in 1984

(Subzone 99A; Board Order 257, 49 FR

24757, 6–15–84). The scope of FTZ

authority for Subzone 99A is limited to

non-manufacturing activity. JSI plans to

close the Wilmington facility in 1995

and transfer the activity to its new plant

in State Line, Pennsylvania. The activity

at the proposed subzone would be the

same as that now conducted at the

Delaware plant, and no expansion of

manufacturing authority is being

requested.

The new JSI plant (10 acres, 126,000

sq. ft) is located at 15276 Molly Pitcher

Highway (U.S. 11), State Line (Franklin

County), Pennsylvania, some 6 miles

north of Hagerstown, Maryland. The

facility (120 employees) will be used to

store, measure, and cut foreign and

domestic fabric into tailored garment

pieces that are shipped to other JSI

plants for assembly into finished

apparel (mens’ and boys’ suits, sport

coats, raincoats, and trousers). Fabrics

purchased from abroad (about 35% of

total) include wool, silk, polyester, and

polyester/wool (duty rates range up to

36.1%).

As is the case at the Delaware plant,

FTZ procedures would exempt JSI from

Customs duty payments on the foreign

status fabric that is reexported from the

proposed subzone. On domestic

production, JSI would be able to defer

duty payments on the foreign fabric

until it is formally entered for

consumption prior to cutting. No

manufacturing would be conducted

under FTZ procedures, and the same

restrictions that are contained in Board

Order 257 would apply at this plant.

The application indicates that the

savings from zone procedures will

continue to help maintain the

international competitiveness of JSI’s

domestic operations.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been appointed examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and three copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is May 16, 1995. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to May 31, 1995).

A copy of the application and the

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Office of the Port Director, U.S. Customs

Service, Harrisburg International

Airport, Building 135, Second Floor,

room 7, Middletown, PA 17057–5035

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, room 3716,

14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue

NW., Washington, DC 20230

Dated: March 13, 1995.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6680 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–570–807]

Ceiling Fans From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order.

SUMMARY: On December 9, 1991, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register an antidumping duty order on

ceiling fans from the People’s Republic

of China (PRC). We are now revoking

the order, based on the fact that this

order is no longer of interest to domestic

parties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Chu or Michael Rill, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 9, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register (56

FR 64249) an antidumping duty order

on ceiling fans from the PRC (the order).

On September 27, 1994, Lasko Metal

Products, Inc. (Lasko), the petitioner in

this proceeding, submitted a request for

a changed circumstances administrative

review and revocation of the order on

the basis that the order no longer is of

interest to the petitioner. On October 14,

1994, Lasko reaffirmed its September

27, 1994, request for the revocation of

the order.

On January 17, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation and preliminary

results of changed circumstances review

to determine whether to revoke the

order. (See Ceiling Fans from the

People’s Republic of China: Termination

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Intent to Revoke Order, 60

FR 3390.) We found that Lasko’s

affirmative statement of no interest

constitutes good cause for conducting a

changed circumstances review. We gave