51840 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

of 12 separate BLM administrative units. 

These units include the Glenwood 

Springs, Grand Junction, and White 

River Field Offices in Colorado; the 

Moab, Monticello, Price, Richfield, and 

Vernal Field Offices, and the Grand 

Staircase Escalante National Monument 

in Utah; and the Kemmerer, Rawlins, 

and Rock Springs Field Offices in 

Wyoming. With the exception of the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument, the ROD for this PEIS 

would direct which land use plans in 

affected BLM administrative units will 

be amended to make designated lands 

available for application for commercial 

leasing, exploration, and development 

of oil shale and tar sands resources. 

Within the above-listed 

administrative units, and within the 

defined boundaries of the most 

geologically prospective resources of the 

Green River formation and the 

designated STSAs, public lands 

managed by the BLM where the Federal 

government owns full fee title are 

included in the scope of the PEIS 

analysis. Lands where the surface estate 

is owned by Tribes, States, or private 

parties but where the Federal 

government owns the subsurface 

mineral estate (i.e., split estate lands) 

are also included in the scope of this 

analysis. Tribal lands on which both the 

surface estate and subsurface mineral 

estate are owned by the Tribe are not 

included in the scope of analysis. 

In the PEIS, three alternatives were 

analyzed for amending land use plans to 

make BLM-administered lands available 

for application for future commercial 

leasing of both oil shale and tar sands 

resources, including a No Action 

alternative. These alternatives were 

developed through issue identification 

during the scoping process. Such issues 

included air quality, water quality and 

quantity, socio-economic concerns, 

ecological concerns, cultural, 

paleontology, and non-Wilderness 

Study Area lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The BLM has identified 

Alternative B as the proposed plan 

amendment. Of the 3,540,000 acres in 

the study areas, the preferred alternative 

would amend plans to make 

approximately 2 million acres of lands 

containing oil shale resources available 

for application for commercial leasing 

and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands. Alternative A, 

the no action alternative, would not 

amend land use plans to identify lands 

as available for application for lease, but 

would leave 352,780 acres of lands 

available for lease application under 

existing plans. Alternative C, which is 

similar to the Alternative B, would 

amend land use plans to identify areas 

available for application for lease 

comprising approximately 830,000 acres 

containing oil shale resources and 

approximately 230,000 acres available 

for tar sands. 

This PEIS has been developed to 

analyze the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental, cultural, and 

socioeconomic impacts of the three 

alternatives. The BLM’s action of 

amending land use plans to open lands 

for application to lease oil shale and tar 

sands resources will not authorize 

issuance of any leases or ground 

disturbing activities. Future lease 

issuance and approval of development 

plans will be subject to additional NEPA 

analysis. As such, the BLM has 

determined that there are no 

environmental impacts associated with 

the amendment of land use plans. 

However, because BLM intends to 

establish a commercial leasing program 

to facilitate future development, BLM 

has included a broad, programmaticlevel analysis of the potential impacts of 

oil shale and tar sands development 

technologies as they are currently 

known, in order to inform the land use 

planning decision as well as the 

development of this program. 

Because developing this and other 

alternative energy resources is of 

strategic importance in enhancing our 

Nation’s domestic energy supplies, the 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, in the Department of the 

Interior is the responsible official for 

these proposed plan amendments. The 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act and its implementing regulations 

provide land use planning authority to 

the Secretary, as delegated to this 

Assistant Secretary. Because this 

decision is being made by the Assistant 

Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, it is the final decision for 

the Department of the Interior. This 

decision is not subject to administrative 

review (protest) under the BLM or 

Departmental regulations (43 CFR 

1610.5–2). 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 43 CFR 1610.2, 

43 CFR 1610.5–1. 

Michael D. Nedd, 

Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E8–20693 Filed 9–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[UT–090–1610–017J] 

Notice of Availability of Monticello 

Field Office Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(PRMP/FEIS) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Proposed Resource Management Plan/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(PRMP/FEIS) for the Monticello Field 

Office. 

DATES: The BLM planning regulations 

(43 CFR 1610.5–2) state that any person 

who meets the conditions as described 

in the regulations may protest the BLM’s 

PRMP/FEIS. A person who meets the 

conditions and files a protest must file 

the protest within 30 days of the date 

that the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Monticello 

Field Office PRMP/FEIS were sent to 

affected Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and to interested 

parties. Copies of the PRMP/FEIS are 

available for public inspection at: 

Monticello Field Office, 365 N. Main, 

Monticello, UT 84535. 

Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84145. 

Interested persons may also review 

the PRMP/FEIS on the Internet at http:// 

www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/monticello/ 

planning.html. All protests must be in 

writing and mailed to the following 

addresses: 

Regular Mail: Director (210), Attention: 

Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 66538, 

Washington, DC 20035. 

Overnight Mail: Director (210), 

Attention: Brenda Williams, 1620 L 

Street, NW., Suite 1075, Washington, 

DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick 

Sandberg, Monticello Field Office, 365 

N. Main, Monticello, UT 84535; phone: 

(435) 587–1500; or e-mail at: 

Nick_Sandberg@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Monticello RMP planning area is 

located in southeast Utah. The BLM 

administers approximately 1.8 million 

acres of surface estate and 2.5 million 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51841 

acres of Federal mineral estate within 

the planning area. 

The Monticello RMP will provide 

future broad-scale management 

direction for land use allocations and 

allowable uses on public lands within 

the planning area. Implementation of 

the decisions of the PRMP would apply 

only to BLM-administered public lands 

and Federal mineral estate. In the 

Monticello Field Office Draft RMP/EIS 

(DRMP/DEIS), which was released for a 

90-day public review and comment 

period in November 2007, five 

alternatives were analyzed, including a 

No Action alternative. These 

alternatives were developed through 

issue identification during the scoping 

process. Such issues included: 

Recreation use and off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs), mineral development, special 

designations (ACECs and WSRs), 

cultural resource management, and nonWSA lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics. 

The PRMP/FEIS would designate two 

new Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs), and the continuation 

of five existing ACECs, totaling 74,430 

acres. Resource use limitations that 

apply to the proposed ACECs include a 

range of different prescriptions as 

described in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—EVALUATION OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

ACEC Values of concern Resource use limitations Acres 

Alkali Ridge .................... Cultural .......................... All cultural properties eligible for the NRHP would be surrounded by an 

avoidance area sufficient to allow permanent protection; where avoidance is not possible and adverse impacts may occur, BLM would develop appropriate mitigation measures; available for mineral leasing 

under controlled surface use except the National Historic Landmark 

which would be available under No Surface Occupancy; confine woodland harvest to specific areas if cultural resources are being impacted; 

OHV use limited to designated routes.

39,196 

Hovenweep .................... Cultural .......................... Visual Protection Zone: Available for mineral leasing with No Surface Occupancy; managed as VRM II.2,439 

....................................... Cajon Pond: Available for mineral leasing and other surface uses with 

stipulations to prevent surface occupancy or surface disturbance during 

March 1–June 30 and excluded from livestock use yearlong within the 

fenced portion.

....................................... General Area: All cultural properties eligible for the NRHP would be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to allow permanent protection; 

where avoidance is not possible and adverse impacts may occur, BLM 

would develop appropriate mitigation measures; available for mineral 

leasing under controlled surface use; OHV use limited to designated 

roads and trails; unavailable for disposal of mineral materials, and excluded from private or commercial use of woodland products, except 

for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires.

Indian Creek .................. Scenic ........................... Available for mineral leasing subject to No Surface Occupancy; unavailable for mineral material disposal; and unavailable for private or commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead 

wood for campfires; managed as VRM I and closed to OHV use.

3,908 

Lavender Mesa .............. Relict Vegetation ........... Excluded from land treatments or other improvements, except for test 

plots and facilities necessary for study of the plant communities, and 

restoration/reclamation activities; available for mineral leasing subject 

to No Surface Occupancy; campfires are not allowed; limit recreation 

use if vegetation communities are being adversely impacted; unavailable for mineral material disposal; unavailable for private or commercial 

use of woodland products including limited on-site collection of dead 

wood for campfires; unavailable for livestock grazing, including saddle 

stock and pack animals allowed for access; excluded from wildlife habitat improvements and watershed control structures; managed as VRM 

II; closed to OHV use; and excluded from surface disturbance by 

mechanized or motorized equipment, except helicopter access for scientific study and heliportable equipment insofar as possible.

649 

Shay Canyon ................. Cultural .......................... OHV and mechanized travel limited to designated routes; no surface disturbance for vegetation, watershed, or wildlife treatments/improvements; manage as NSO for oil and gas; open to geophysical exploration as long as it is consistent with the objectives of the ACEC; grazing restricted to trailing only; with the exception of side canyons, hiking 

limited to designated trails; open to mineral entry with an approved 

plan of operations to avoid impacts to cultural and paleontological resources; unavailable for disposal of mineral materials; closed to campfires; unavailable for private or commercial use of woodland products 

including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires; recreation use 

may be limited if cultural and paleontological resources are impacted; 

and closed to camping.

119 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51842 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

1The record is defined in section 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. 

3The Commission also finds that imports subject 

to Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances 

determination are not likely to undermine seriously 

the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order 

on China. 

TABLE 1—EVALUATION OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN—Continued 

ACEC Values of concern Resource use limitations Acres 

San Juan River .............. Scenic, Cultural, Wildlife, Natural Systems.Vehicle access, including OHVs/mechanized, limited to designated 

routes; unavailable for private/commercial use of woodland products 

except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires, driftwood collection only would be allowed within floodplains; available for 

livestock use October 1–May 31 and must incorporate rest-rotation 

and/or deferred management systems; available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to No Surface Occupancy; unavailable for mineral material disposal; recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; limit 

recreation use if wildlife values are being adversely impacted; closed to 

camping in areas as necessary to protect cultural, wildlife and natural 

processes; managed as VRM I (parts) and VRM II (parts) and VRM III 

(parts); designated access trails to cultural sites as necessary to protect cultural resources; no camping in cultural sites; and ropes and 

other climbing aids not allowed for access to ruins, cultural sites, and 

nesting raptors.

5,258 

Valley of the Gods ......... Scenic ........................... Unavailable for mineral leasing; unavailable for mineral material disposal; 

OHV use limited to designated roads and trails; managed as VRM I 

and unavailable for private/commercial use of woodland products.

22,863 

Comments on the Monticello Field 

Office DRMP/DEIS received from the 

public and internal BLM review were 

considered and incorporated as 

appropriate into the PRMP/FEIS. Public 

comments resulted in the addition of 

clarifying text, but did not significantly 

change proposed land use plan 

decisions. 

Instructions for filing a protest with 

the Director of the BLM regarding the 

PRMP/FEIS may be found in the Dear 

Reader Letter of the PRMP/FEIS and at 

43 CFR 1610.5–2. E-mailed and faxed 

protests will not be accepted as valid 

protests unless the protesting party also 

provides the original letter by either 

regular or overnight mail postmarked by 

the close of the protest period. Under 

these conditions, the BLM will consider 

the e-mailed or faxed protest as an 

advance copy and it will receive full 

consideration. If you wish to provide 

the BLM with such advance 

notification, please direct faxed protests 

to the attention of the BLM protest 

coordinator at 202–452–5112, and 

e-mails to Brenda_HudgensWilliams@blm.gov. All protests, 

including the follow-up letter (if emailing or faxing) must be in writing 

and mailed to the appropriate address, 

as set forth in the ADDRESSES section 

above. 

Before including your phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your protest, 

you should be aware that your entire 

protest—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your protest to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 43 CFR 1610.2, 

43 CFR 1610.5–1 

Selma Sierra, 

Utah State Director. 

[FR Doc. E8–20670 Filed 9–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 731–

TA–1117 (Final)] 

Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China; 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

by reason of imports from China of 

certain off-the-road tires, provided for in 

subheadings 4011.20.10, 4011.20.50, 

4011.61.00, 4011.62.00, 4011.63.00, 

4011.69.00, 4011.92.00, 4011.93.40, 

4011.93.80, 4011.94.40, and 4011.94.80 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that have been found 

by the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) to be subsidized by the 

Government of China and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV).2 3

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

investigations effective June 18, 2007, 

following receipt of a petition filed with 

the Commission and Commerce by 

Titan Tire Corporation, Des Moines, 

Iowa, and The United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–

CLC, Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of 

the investigations was scheduled by the 

Commission following notification of a 

preliminary determination by 

Commerce that imports of certain offthe-road tires from China were being 

sold at LTFV within the meaning of 

section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of 

the final phase of the Commission’s 

investigations and of a public hearing to 

be held in connection therewith was 

given by posting copies of the notice in 

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register of March 

3, 2008 (73 FR 11437). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC, on July 8 and 

9, 2008, and all persons who requested 

the opportunity were permitted to 

appear in person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on August 

28, 2008. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4031 (August 2008), entitled Certain 

Off-The-Road Tires from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 

731–TA–1117 (Final). 

Issued: August 29, 2008. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES