Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53705 

Subpart B—OPA 90 Limits of Liability 

(Vessels and Deepwater Ports) 

§ 138.200 Scope. 

This subpart sets forth the limits of 

liability for vessels and deepwater ports 

under section 1004 of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

2704) (OPA 90), including adjustments 

pursuant to section 1004(d) of OPA 90 

(33 U.S.C. 2704(d)). 

§ 138.210 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to you if you are 

a responsible party for a vessel as 

defined under Section 1001(37) of OPA 

90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(37)) or a deepwater 

port as defined under Section 1001(6) of 

OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(6)), unless your 

OPA 90 liability is unlimited under 

Section 1004(c) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 

2704(c)). 

§ 138.220 Limits of liability. 

(a) Vessels. (1) The OPA 90 limits of 

liability for vessels are— 

(i) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 

gross tons with a single hull, including 

a single-hull vessel fitted with double 

sides only or a double bottom only, the 

greater of $3,000 per gross ton or 

$22,000,000; 

(ii) For a tank vessel greater than 

3,000 gross tons with a double hull, the 

greater of $1,900 per gross ton or 

$16,000,000. 

(iii) For a tank vessel less than or 

equal to 3,000 gross tons with a single 

hull, including a single-hull vessel fitted 

with double sides only or a double 

bottom only, the greater of $3,000 per 

gross ton or $6,000,000. 

(iv) For a tank vessel less than or 

equal to 3,000 gross tons with a double 

hull, the greater of $1,900 per gross ton 

or $4,000,000. 

(v) For any other vessel, the greater of 

$950 per gross ton or $800,000. 

(2) As used in this paragraph (a), the 

term double hull has the meaning set 

forth in 33 CFR part 157 and the term 

single hull means any hull other than a 

double hull. 

(b) Deepwater ports. The OPA 90 

limits of liability for deepwater ports 

are— 

(1) Generally. For any deepwater port 

other than a deepwater port with a limit 

of liability established by regulation 

under Section 1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 

U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)) and set forth in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 

$350,000,000; and 

(2) For deepwater ports with limits of 

liability established by regulation under 

Section 1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 

2704(d)(2)): 

(i) For the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

(LOOP), $62,000,000; 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(c) [Reserved]. 

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

Craig A. Bennett, 

Director, National Pollution Funds Center, 

United States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E8–21554 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Parts 215 and 218 

RIN 0596–AC15 

Predecisional Administrative Review 

Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Projects Authorized Under the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document makes final 

the interim rule that was published on 

January 9, 2004, with minor changes to 

both parts 215 and 218. This rule 

establishes a process by which the 

public may file objections to seek 

administrative review of proposed 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

authorized by the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA), Public 

Law 108–148. Section 105 of the act 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 

publish final regulations following 

public comment on the interim final 

regulations. This final rule refines the 

HFRA objection procedures based on 

public comment and agency experience 

applying the interim final rule. These 

changes add clarity to the procedural 

direction, describe authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects not 

subject to objection, clarify notification 

requirements, clarify the eligibility 

criteria for who may file an objection, 

provide for the incorporation of certain 

documents into objections by reference, 

and clarify how timeliness of objection 

filing will be determined. 

DATE: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The Forest Service objection 

procedures for proposed hazardous fuel 

reduction projects authorized by the 

HFRA are set out in 36 CFR part 218, 

which is available electronically on the 

World Wide Web at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/objections/ 

objections_related.php#app_work . 

Single paper copies are available by 

contacting Kevin Lawrence, Forest 

Service-USDA, Ecosystem Management 

Coordination Staff (Mail Stop 1104), 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–1104. 

Additional information can be found at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director for Appeals and 

Litigation Deborah Beighley at (202) 

205–1277 or Appeal Specialist Kevin 

Lawrence at (202) 205–2613. 

Individuals who use telecommunication 

devices for the deaf may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 3, 2003, President George W. 

Bush signed into law the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) 

to reduce the threat of destructive 

wildfires while upholding 

environmental standards and 

encouraging early public input during 

planning processes. 

One of the provisions of the Act 

(section 105) required the Secretary of 

Agriculture to issue an interim final rule 

to establish a predecisional 

administrative review process for 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

authorized by the HFRA and to 

promulgate final regulations after 

providing for public comments. 

On January 9, 2004, the Forest Service 

published an interim final rule and 

request for comments (69 FR 1529). The 

interim final rule established a 

predecisional administrative review 

process at 36 CFR part 218, subpart A, 

and 36 CFR part 215 was amended to 

exempt hazardous fuel reduction 

projects authorized by the HFRA from 

the notice, comment, and appeal 

procedures set out at part 215. 

In giving direct notice of the interim 

final rule, the Department also set a 90- 

day comment period and invited 

comments from individuals, industry, 

national organizations, and Federal 

agencies. A total of 67 comment letters 

were received from individuals, 

representatives of State government 

agencies, environmental groups, 

professional organizations, and 

industry. Each comment received 

consideration in the development of the 

final rule. 

The Department has also used the 

intervening time since the comment 

period on the interim final rule to gain 

additional experience with its 

implementation. Forest Service records 

indicate approximately 80 decisions 

have been issued for fuels reduction 

projects under HFRA Title I authority 

since the beginning of 2005. The 

Agency’s application of the predecisional objection process to these 

projects has provided valuable insight to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

how the interim final rule functions in 

practice, including where it might be 

improved. The lessons learned from this 

experience are reflected in several of the 

changes made in the final rule. 

The following is a summary of public 

comments and the Department’s 

responses, including changes from the 

interim final rule. 

General Comments 

The Forest Service received some 

comments related to support for, or 

opposition to, the HFRA. These 

comments are not directly relevant to 

this rulemaking. They were read and 

considered, but are not being discussed 

in this notice. 

Comments in Response to Specific 

Sections 

Set out below are discussions and 

responses to public comments received 

on specific sections in 36 CFR part 218 

during the comment period on the 

interim final rule. The discussion 

identifies differences between the 

interim final rule and the final rule and 

why these changes were made. The final 

rule has been reorganized and, for the 

reader’s convenience, new titles and 

new designations are set out in the table 

below. In addition, references to ‘‘land 

and resource management plans’’ in part 

218 and the amended section 215.3(a) of 

the interim final rule have been 

shortened to ‘‘land management plans’’ 

to reflect the wording in the recently 

published 36 CFR part 219 final rule for 

National Forest System Land 

Management Planning (73 FR 21468). 

Interim rule section number and title Final section number and title 

§ 218.1 Purpose and scope ................................................................... § 218.1 Purpose and scope. 

§ 218.2 Definitions .................................................................................. § 218.2 Definitions. 

§ 218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to the 

objection process.

§ 218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to objection. 

§ 218.4 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects not subject to 

objection. 

§ 218.4 Legal notice of objection process for proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects.

§ 218.5 Giving notice of objection process for proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to objection. 

§ 218.5 Reviewing officer ....................................................................... § 218.6 Reviewing officer. 

§ 218.6 Who may file an objection ......................................................... § 218.7 Who may file an objection. 

§ 218.7 Filing an objection ..................................................................... § 218.8 Filing an objection. 

§ 218.8 Objections set aside from review .............................................. § 218.9 Objections set aside from review. 

§ 218.9 Objection time periods and process ......................................... § 218.10 Objection time periods and process. 

§ 218.10 Resolution of objections .......................................................... § 218.11 Resolution of objections. 

§ 218.11 Timing of authorized hazardous fuel reduction project decision.§ 218.12 Timing of authorized hazardous fuel reduction project decision. 

§ 218.12 Secretary’s authority ................................................................ § 218.13 Secretary’s authority. 

§ 218.13 Judicial proceedings ................................................................ § 218.14 Judicial proceedings. 

§ 218.14 Information collection requirements ........................................ § 218.15 Information collection requirements. 

§ 218.15 Applicability and effective date ................................................ § 218.16 Applicability and effective date.

Section 218.1 Purpose and scope. 

This section describes the purpose and 

scope of the rule. There were no 

comments on section 218.1, and no 

changes were made to this section in the 

final rule. 

Section 218.2 Definitions. This 

section defines some of the commonly 

used terms and phrases in the final rule. 

In addition to the changes made in 

response to public comment as 

described below, a sentence has been 

added to the end of the definition for 

‘‘objection period’’ to specify that when 

the Chief is the responsible official the 

objection period begins following 

publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register. This addition reflects a change 

made at section 218.5(c) of the final 

rule. 

Comment: Definition of Lead 

Objector. One respondent stated the 

section 218.2 definition for lead 

objector, under which the objection 

reviewing officer could choose one 

person to represent all parties 

participating in a multi-party objection, 

is ill advised. The respondent believed 

all objectors should have the right to 

communicate with the Forest Service 

during the informal disposition process 

and at any other time when 

communication between objectors and 

the Forest Service is appropriate or 

necessary. 

Response: The interim final rule does 

not state that the lead objector is 

appointed by the objection reviewing 

officer. Section 218.7(d) of the interim 

final rule (section 218.8(c) in the final 

rule) describes the minimum content 

requirements of an objection and one of 

those requirements is ‘‘(3) When 

multiple names are listed on an 

objection, identification of the lead 

objector (§ 218.2).’’ This is required by 

the Department so that a lead objector 

speaks for one objection filed by 

multiple parties. A lead objector has 

been so defined at section 218.2. 

Identification of a lead objector is 

important for timely and effective 

communication. The regulations also 

state that the objector may request to 

meet to discuss issues raised in the 

objection, and the regulations state that 

all meetings are open to the public. If 

the lead objector of a multi-party 

objection requests a meeting, the 

meeting would be open to all the 

parties. 

Comment: Definition of Objector. 

Some respondents commented that the 

rules for who could object were not 

consistent throughout part 218. They 

felt terminology should be used that 

would clarify whether objectors had to 

comment during scoping or during a 

comment period. 

Response: The criteria for qualifying 

as an objector have been clarified in 

section 218.7(a) of the final rule, and 

that section is now specifically 

referenced in the definition of an 

objector in section 218.2. For proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects described in a draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS), 

such opportunity for public comment 

will be fulfilled during scoping, the 

comment period on the draft EIS in 

accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 

1506.10, or any other periods where 

public comment is specifically 

requested. For proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

described in an environmental 

assessment (EA), such opportunity for 

public comment will be fulfilled during 

scoping or any other periods where 

public comment is specifically 

requested. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53707 

Comment: Definition of Reviewing 

Officer. Some respondents commented 

that the reviewing officer should be 

someone other than an agency employee 

who they allege may have a conflict of 

interest or financial bias in the decision. 

Some respondents felt that the 

reviewing officer should have some 

‘‘distance’’ from the decision. They felt 

a reviewing officer for a district ranger 

decision should be at the regional level 

and not a forest supervisor who has a 

supervisory interest in the district 

ranger decision. Other respondents felt 

the reviewing officer should be an 

independent administrative law judge 

appointed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

Response: Those alleging a potential 

for financial bias on the part of a higherlevel agency official contend that 

hazardous fuel reduction projects may 

result in revenue retained by the Forest 

Service (e.g., deposits made to the 

Salvage Sale Fund, KnutsonVandenberg Fund, Brush-Disposal 

Fund, or other Forest Service account), 

and that the Constitution requires that 

adjudicators employed independently of 

the Forest Service decide objections to 

this class of projects. It is correct that 

receipts generated from the sale of 

timber products generated by hazardous 

fuel reduction projects may be directed 

into any of a number of special fund 

accounts. The Forest Service annually 

reports to Congress, as part of the 

President’s Budget, all its receipts, 

including those from timber sales, and 

how those receipts are disbursed— 

disbursed to the states and counties 

where National Forest System lands are 

located, returned to the U.S. Treasury, 

or deposited to the Knutson-Vandenberg 

Fund, the Brush-Disposal Fund, etc. The 

Forest Service must use the receipts that 

it keeps from timber sales for tightly 

defined purposes, as required by the 

statutes authorizing the special fund 

accounts. This information is available 

to Congress as it develops the annual 

budget appropriation for the Forest 

Service. The statutes authorizing 

collection of these funds and the budget 

process clearly demonstrate that 

Congress understands that money is 

generated from the sale of timber from 

the national forests, and that a portion 

of that money may be used for specific 

forest management purposes. 

This issue is closely related to one 

discussed in the final rule at 36 CFR 

215, Notice, Comment, and Appeal 

Procedures for National Forest System 

Projects and Activities (60 FR 33582, 

June 4, 2003). The Department decided 

for project-level appeals that it was 

appropriate that the position deciding 

an appeal should be at the field level. 

With the Agency’s decentralized 

organization, review by the 

decisionmaker’s direct supervisor 

creates a healthy relationship in the 

chain of command and creates 

incentives for collaboration at the 

decisionmaking level. The Department 

feels that this level of review has been 

successful in the part 215 rule for 

administrative appeals and; therefore, 

the part 218 rule for a predecisional 

administrative review process follows 

the same procedure. 

Section 218.3 Authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction projects subject to 

objection. This section describes 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

subject to the objection process. In 

addition to the change made in response 

to public comment as described below, 

the title of the section has been changed 

slightly to be more concise and 

consistent with the corresponding 

section in the part 215 rule for 

administrative appeals of project 

decisions. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that non-significant 

amendments to a land management plan 

for HFRA projects should also use the 

objection process. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

non-significant amendments to a land 

management plan, when approved for a 

specific HFRA project at the same time 

the project decision is made, should be 

subject to the predecisional review 

process. This is consistent with the 

administrative review of non-significant 

amendments associated with non-HFRA 

projects (36 CFR part 215) and the 

objection process under the planning 

regulations at 36 CFR part 219. Section 

218.3(b) has been added to the final rule 

to clarify that such amendments are 

subject to the objection process. 

New Section 218.4 Authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects not 

subject to objection. This section has 

been added in response to public 

comment. It explains when authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects are 

not subject to objection. 

Comment: A comment was received 

that a project does not need to be subject 

to objection if there were no written 

comments or if written comments were 

supportive, similar to administrative 

appeal regulations at part 215. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

the objection process is not needed 

when written comments were not 

received. Clearly, if no one has 

established their eligibility to object 

pursuant to section 218.7, there is no 

need to provide an opportunity to file 

objections. 

The Department does not agree that 

the objection process is not needed if 

only supportive comments were 

received. The HFRA (section 105(a)(3)) 

directs that those who submit specific 

written comments that relate to the 

proposed action are eligible to 

participate in the objection process. No 

distinction is made between supportive 

and critical comments; eligibility is 

extended in either case. Because 

eligibility to participate can be gained 

through the proper submittal of 

supportive comments, it is appropriate 

to preserve the procedural opportunity 

for those who participated in project 

planning, even where the filing of 

objections may be unlikely. 

A provision has been added at section 

218.4 for making authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction projects not subject to 

objection when no written comments 

were received. 

Section 218.5 (was section 218.4 in 

interim final rule) Giving notice of 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects subject to objection. 

This section establishes the 

requirements for giving public notice of 

the opportunity to file an objection to a 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project. In addition to the 

changes made in response to public 

comment as described below, several 

changes were made based on additional 

agency review of the interim final rule 

and the Agency’s experience with 

implementing that rule. 

The title of the section was modified 

to more clearly reflect its purpose and 

content. 

Section 218.5(b) was reworded to 

specify that the responsible official must 

promptly ‘‘distribute’’ the final EIS or 

EA, rather than ‘‘mail’’ the documents 

as stated in the interim final rule. The 

change was made to more clearly allow 

for dissemination of the documents by 

means other than just the mail, for 

example by e-mail. The description of 

who should be provided the documents 

was also changed to remove the 

reference to those on a project mailing 

list and to provide specific reference to 

the section of the rule describing who 

may file an objection. The reference to 

a project mailing list was removed so as 

not to imply that such a list must be 

maintained. 

An addition was made at section 

218.5(c)(1) to require, as part of the 

objection content, a concise description 

of any proposed land management plan 

amendments that were proposed along 

with the project. This wording was 

added to provide more consistency with 

the change at section 218.3(b) that 

makes authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects approved 

contemporaneously with a plan 

amendment subject to objection. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

An addition was made in section 

218.5(c)(2)(iv) requiring notices of 

objection opportunities to specify that 

incorporation of documents by reference 

is permitted only as provided for at 

section 218.8(b). 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that it would be hard for 

interested parties to know the objection 

deadline because it is published in local 

newspapers. Some respondents 

commented that notices of HFRA 

projects should be published and 

publicly available on stable Web sites 

on the internet, as well as in 

newspapers of record. 

Response: The requirement for 

publishing the legal notice in the 

newspaper of record is consistent with 

how notification under the project-level 

appeal regulations at 36 CFR part 215 

has been conducted since 1993. The 

Department believes the rule as stated is 

the most accurate method for potential 

appellants to know the filing end date. 

One portion of this section was found 

upon further review to be potentially 

confusing. Section 218.5(b) of the 

interim final rule included a 

requirement, upon completion and 

mailing of a final EIS or EA for an 

authorized hazardous fuel project, to 

publish legal notice of the opportunity 

to object in the applicable newspaper of 

record. The section went on to state, 

‘‘When the Chief is the Responsible 

Official, notice shall also be published 

in the Federal Register.’’ The use of the 

word ‘‘also’’ suggests in these instances 

a notice is to be published in a 

newspaper of record and the Federal 

Register even though there is no 

provision in the rule for the Chief 

establishing a newspaper of record. 

Furthermore, given the broad 

geographic scope of interest in many 

decisions made by the Chief, it makes 

little sense to rely on any one 

newspaper for providing public notice. 

This requirement has, therefore, been 

modified to remove the word ‘‘also’’ so 

that the Federal Register will be the 

only required location for published 

notice of an opportunity to object when 

the Chief is the responsible official. The 

option to publish additional notices in 

one or more newspapers, as appropriate, 

will always exist. 

At one time, the part 215 rule for 

project-level appeals directed that the 

deadline for filing appeals be published 

with the notice. As a result, the Agency 

had to estimate the date of publication 

when preparing notices. Although the 

Agency can request that newspapers 

publish notices on a certain date, a 

publication date is not guaranteed. 

When publication occurs on a different 

date than estimated, the result has been 

conflicting dates and confusion. The 

Department believes that removing this 

requirement resolved the potential for 

conflicts and leaves all parties with the 

same information. The Department 

believes that the matter is best 

addressed by having the appellant 

calculate the appeal filing deadline from 

the published notice. 

The Department also recognizes that 

those participants eligible to object to a 

given decision will be made aware of 

that opportunity when they receive a 

copy of the final EIS or EA that must be 

distributed (section 218.5(b) of the final 

rule; section 218.4(a) of the interim final 

rule). 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that for an EA the public would not 

have the opportunity to review and 

comment on a draft EA, and that 

commenting during scoping is difficult 

because the project plans are vague. The 

first time the public would see the EA 

is when it is distributed for the 30-day 

objection process. 

Response: Section 104 of the HFRA 

requires public notice of each project, a 

public meeting during the preparation 

stage of each project, and collaboration 

in order to ‘‘encourage meaningful 

public participation during preparation 

of projects.’’ The Department believes 

these requirements serve to assure 

ample opportunities for involvement are 

provided for those interested in HFRA 

projects. 

There is no precedent for a 

requirement to take comment on a draft 

EA because circulation of a draft EA is 

not required for projects falling outside 

HFRA authority. It is not required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the 

Appeal Reform Act (Pub. L. 102–381, 

106 Stat. 419), or their implementing 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 

1508 and 36 CFR part 215, respectively). 

Section 218.5 of the final rule does 

require the responsible official to 

distribute a final EIS or EA prior to 

making a decision so that those eligible 

to file an objection (section 218.7) have 

an opportunity to do so. 

Given these factors, the Department 

does not feel that requiring circulation 

of a draft EA for HFRA-authorized 

projects is warranted. Responsible 

officials have the option of circulating a 

draft EA if they deem it appropriate, but 

it is not required. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the public must be 

informed at the beginning of a project 

whether it is an HFRA project and falls 

under the objection procedure set out in 

part 218. The public needs and deserves 

to know in advance what opportunities 

will be available for further comment 

after scoping. 

Response: The final rule requires 

notification that an authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project is 

subject to the objection process in the 

required newspaper legal notice or 

Federal Register notice. However, the 

public notices, public meetings, and 

collaboration required under HFRA will 

also provide multiple opportunities for 

public involvement that will inform the 

participants early in the process that the 

project is an HFRA project. The 

Department believes an additional 

requirement to provide early disclosure 

that a proposed project is authorized 

under HFRA is not warranted; however, 

paragraph (a) has been added in the 

final rule at section 218.5 to clarify that 

it is advisable that such disclosure be 

made during scoping and in the EIS or 

EA. 

Section 218.6 (was section 218.5 in 

interim final rule) Reviewing officer. 

This section describes the role and 

authority of the reviewing officer. No 

comments were received on section 

218.5 of the interim final rule and no 

changes were made other than the 

section designation. 

Section 218.7 (was section 218.6 in 

interim final rule) Who may file an 

objection. This section describes who 

may file an objection, including the type 

and timing of participation in the 

project planning process that is required 

to be recognized as an objector. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that not allowing the public 

to comment on draft EAs violates NEPA. 

Response: This assertion is incorrect. 

NEPA does not require a draft EA or a 

comment opportunity on a draft EA. 

Implementing regulations for NEPA 

merely require agencies to ‘‘involve 

environmental agencies, applicants, and 

the public, to the extent practicable, in 

preparing assessments’’ (40 CFR 

1501.4(b)). 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that prohibiting individuals 

of an organization from filing an 

objection as a member of that 

organization undermines case law 

regarding organizational standing. 

Response: Caselaw on organizational 

standing defines when an organization 

may sue in court and assert the rights of 

the organization’s members in 

accordance with Article III of the 

Constitution. This rule defines the 

prerequisites for an administrative 

review under the HFRA. The two 

concepts are related, but have separate 

legal foundations and need not be 

identical. 

Any number of members of an 

organization can submit written 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53709 

comments. Under this rule, if one 

comment was submitted by one 

authorized representative of the 

organization, the organization may 

object, but the Agency will not accept 

objections from multiple members of the 

organization who did not participate 

during the process. An organization 

represents all its members but does not 

give standing to each member to file 

individual objections. This is the same 

approach used with project-level appeal 

regulations at 36 CFR part 215 that state, 

‘‘Comments received from an authorized 

representative(s) of an organization are 

considered those of the organization 

only; individual members of that 

organization do not meet appeal 

eligibility solely on the basis of 

membership in an organization; the 

member(s) must submit substantive 

comments as an individual in order to 

meet appeal eligibility’’ (36 CFR 

215.13(a)). 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that anyone should be able 

to file an objection. Restricting who can 

object seems to be an attempt on the 

part of the Agency to shortchange the 

public. 

Response: The HFRA specifically 

states that to be eligible to participate in 

the administrative review process for an 

authorized hazardous fuels reduction 

project a person must submit specific 

written comments that relate to the 

proposed action (section 105(a)(3)). 

Congress intended for interested 

persons to participate early in the 

project planning process and not wait 

until the documentation has been 

finalized or after the decision has been 

issued to become involved. Although 

the administrative review process is an 

opportunity to voice concerns, it is more 

advantageous to both the responsible 

official and the public when those who 

have helpful and important information 

that could affect a decision bring it 

forward during project planning. 

Section 218.8 (was section 218.7 in 

interim final rule) Filing an objection. 

This section describes how to file an 

objection, including content 

requirements and limitations. In 

addition to the change made in response 

to public comment as described below, 

another change was made based on 

additional Agency review of the interim 

final rule. The direction in the interim 

final rule at section 218.7(b) describing 

the objector’s responsibility for 

including sufficient narrative in an 

objection has been moved to section 

218.8(c)(5) in the final rule because it is 

more appropriately included with the 

other content requirements for an 

objection. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that objections should be 

limited to issues raised in specifically 

written comments. They believe the 

Agency should have a fair chance to 

address and document significant issues 

prior to the initiation of administrative 

review. 

Response: The Department interprets 

HFRA’s requirements to provide an 

opportunity for public comment, 

conduct a public meeting, and facilitate 

collaboration during preparation of the 

project as sufficient to insure issues 

surface early in the planning process. 

While it is most effective to the 

planning effort if issues are surfaced 

early in the process, it is most important 

that they be identified and addressed 

before the decision is made. Therefore, 

the Department believes it is 

unnecessary to limit objections to issues 

previously raised in written comments. 

Comment: Several respondents 

commented that the provision that 

‘‘incorporation of documents by 

reference shall not be allowed’’ exceeds 

what is reasonable. Most respondents to 

this section recommended that the 

regulation be revised to prohibit 

incorporation by reference of documents 

outside the existing record. They assert 

the requirement in the interim final rule 

would necessitate the submittal of large 

volumes of material and could make 

faxing or e-mailing comments difficult 

or impossible if they could not 

incorporate relevant documents by 

reference. The respondents contend 

objectors who have submitted certain 

documents with previous comments on 

the project would have to re-submit 

them with the objection, even though 

incorporation by reference is a standard 

writing technique in both the scientific 

and legal professions and is standard 

practice by the agencies of the Federal 

Government, including the Forest 

Service. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

there is no need to receive volumes of 

information already in the project 

record, but experience shows there have 

also been examples of reference made to 

studies or documents that the Agency 

could not locate or are not readily 

available to the reviewing officials. The 

Department has made changes at section 

218.8(b) to list exceptions to the 

limitation on incorporating documents 

by reference, including Federal laws 

and regulations, Forest Service 

directives and land management plans, 

documents referenced by the Forest 

Service in the project documentation, 

and written comments previously 

provided to the Forest Service by the 

objector during the project comment 

period. 

Comment: Some respondents 

requested a provision that allows for 

third-party intervention during the 

objection process so that those persons 

who were satisfied with the HFRA 

project as proposed remain involved 

and aware of possible changes that 

might occur through the objection 

process. 

Response: Section 218.11 states that 

all meetings with objectors are open to 

the public. Anyone may attend these 

meetings and remain informed. 

Section 218.9 (was section 218.8 in 

interim final rule) Objections set aside 

from review. This section defines what 

criteria allow the objection to be set 

aside and not reviewed. 

Comment: Section 218.8(a)(6) errantly 

refers to section 218.7(c)(1) instead of 

section 218.7(d)(2). 

Response: This error has been 

corrected. 

Section 218.10 (was section 218.9 in 

interim final rule) Objection time 

periods and process. This section 

describes the time period when 

objections must be filed, how those time 

periods are computed, what evidence 

will be used to determine timely filing, 

extensions of time periods, and the 

timeframe for issuing written responses 

to objectors. In addition to the changes 

made in response to public comment as 

described below, several changes were 

made for consistency with changes 

made elsewhere in the final rule. 

Specifically, changes were made at 

sections 218.10(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) to 

reflect the fact that when the Chief is the 

responsible official notice of the EA or 

final EIS is to be published in the 

Federal Register (sec. 218.5(c)). 

The description of methods for 

determining timeliness, listed at section 

218.10(c) has been changed to avoid 

confusion. The rule now lists four 

methods of submittal: By mail (that is, 

sending via the U.S. Postal Service), 

electronic transmission (e-mail or 

facsimile), private carrier, and hand 

delivery. For the methods listed at 

(c)(1)–(3), the date the objection is sent 

will be determinative; for hand delivery 

((c)(4)), the Agency’s date stamp of 

receipt will be determinative. 

It should be noted that, in reference 

to the method listed at (c)(1), the term 

‘‘postmark’’ is a term that only applies 

to the date stamp applied by the U.S. 

Postal Service, but to be abundantly 

clear and avoid confusion for those who 

may not be aware of the narrow 

definition of the term, the rule refers to 

‘‘U.S. Postal Service postmark.’’ 

Comment: Several respondents 

commented on the difficulty in 

obtaining the newspaper of record to 

calculate the end of the objection 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53710 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

period, asserting that the newspaper of 

record is sometimes a very small local 

or rural paper that is unfamiliar or has 

limited distribution. Some suggested 

that the appropriate forest office provide 

a copy of the formal legal notice to 

anyone requesting it in an immediate 

and timely fashion. Some suggested that 

the rule require the Forest Service to 

notify the public of due dates. Some 

respondents supported the requirement. 

Response: The approach for 

publishing the legal notice in the 

newspaper of record is consistent with 

the Agency practice for administrative 

appeals. The Department believes a 

consistent approach will lead to less 

potential for confusion and provide the 

most accurate method for potential 

objectors to know the filing deadline. 

The final rule at section 218.5(b) 

requires the responsible official to 

‘‘promptly distribute the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or the environmental assessment (EA) to 

those who have requested the document 

or are eligible to file an objection in 

accordance with § 218.7(a).’’ 

Participants eligible to object will 

receive the documents and be made 

aware of the process and timeframe for 

objecting. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the rule states there are 

no time extensions for objections, yet 

the precedent has always been that in 

extenuating circumstances the public 

has been allowed to request an 

extension of the comment deadline. 

Some respondents felt the objection 

period should be 120 days long. 

Response: One of the purposes of the 

HFRA is to reduce the threat of 

destructive wildfires while upholding 

environmental standards and 

encouraging early public input during 

review and planning processes. The 

time periods were set to keep the 

analysis process timely. The intent is for 

interested persons to participate early in 

the project planning process and not 

wait until after the decision has been 

issued to become involved. 

Comment: Some respondents felt that 

the objector should not be required to 

ensure receipt of their electronically 

submitted objections. They expressed 

frustration with failures in the 

electronic filing system in various 

locations. One suggestion was that the 

Forest Service should acknowledge 

receipt of electronically submitted 

comments or objections. 

Response: As a general practice, email inboxes set up to receive appeals 

and objections are configured to provide 

an automated return receipt; however, 

as the respondents noted in their 

comments, these systems are not 

infallible and confusion has sometimes 

resulted. Because the Agency cannot 

know when an objection has been emailed but not received, the reference to 

automated electronic acknowledgement 

of e-mailed objections has been removed 

in the final rule. A statement is added 

at section 218.10(c) emphasizing that 

the responsibility for assuring timely 

submittal of an objection is with the 

objector. 

Section 218.11 (was section 218.10 in 

interim final rule) Resolution of 

objections. This section describes the 

objection resolution process, including 

resolution meetings and written 

responses to objections. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the reviewing officer’s 

response should reply to every point 

made by the citizens; that a point-bypoint review of an objection should be 

required. Some felt that allowing the 

officer to only ‘‘set forth the reasons for 

the response’’ and consolidate multiple 

objections to answer with a single 

response will not meet the intent of 

having meaningful public participation. 

Response: It is the intent of the 

Department that all issues raised 

through objection will be reviewed, 

although the responses may not 

necessarily address them individually. 

To clarify this intent the wording at 

section 218.11(b)(1) has been changed to 

specify a ‘‘point-by-point response’’ is 

not necessary, rather than a ‘‘point-bypoint review’’ as stated in section 

218.10(b)(1) of the interim final rule. 

The provision stating that the 

reviewing officer shall ‘‘set forth the 

reasons for the response’’ means that the 

response cannot just say whether or not 

the objection will lead to a change, but 

must also explain why. Consolidating 

multiple objections and answering with 

a single response is appropriate for 

objections of a similar nature. One 

response to all objectors can be entirely 

appropriate. Consolidated responses 

allow same or similar issues to be 

examined and reported on efficiently. 

Duplicating the same response to 

several objectors is inefficient and not 

necessary. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

section 218.10 of the interim final rule 

allows the reviewing officer to give 

instructions to the responsible official 

that could, in effect, change the original 

decision. This change could have 

serious consequences that are not 

analyzed in the NEPA document, so this 

changed decision must be sent back for 

NEPA review and a new decision. 

Response: The objection process 

provides a pre-decisional opportunity 

for administrative review. There is no 

‘‘original’’ decision and, therefore, no 

‘‘new’’ decision that could be issued as 

a result of instructions given to the 

responsible official. The respondents 

overlook that Congress selected a predecisional review model to encourage 

early participation and assure that the 

Agency has the flexibility to make 

changes and accommodations before a 

decision is made. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that there is nothing in the 

interim final regulations to prevent the 

reviewing officer consolidating two 

divergent appeals, appointing a 

representative with interests quite 

antithetical to one or the other party, 

and then deciding the consolidated 

objections based on the participation of 

the appointed representative. 

Response: Part 218 does not state that 

the lead objector is appointed by the 

reviewing officer. The Department 

requires, in instances where multiple 

names are listed on a single objection, 

that the objectors identify their lead 

objector. This requirement is found at 

section 218.8(c)(3) of the final rule. For 

communication efficiency, a lead 

objector is the point of contact for one 

objection that has been signed by 

multiple parties. Separate objections 

from different parties may be 

consolidated for purposes of the Agency 

response, but are not represented by one 

lead objector. 

Comment: A respondent commented 

that section 218.10(b)(2) of the interim 

final rule appears to disallow any 

review of the Forest Service’s response 

to objections. This appears to conflict 

with the Inspector General laws, 

whistleblower protection laws, and the 

Data Quality Act. 

Response: This rule only defines the 

administrative review permitted under 

the HFRA. It does not affect rights under 

any other statutory or regulatory 

structure. 

Section 218.12 (was section 218.11 in 

interim final rule) Timing of authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project 

decision. This section describes when a 

responsible official may make a final 

decision regarding a proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project pursuant to the HFRA. 

Comment: A respondent commented 

that section 218.11 should be specific 

about when implementation may begin. 

Response: The part 218 regulations 

establish a pre-decisional administrative 

review process as required by the 

HFRA. Direction pertaining to 

implementation of a decision once it is 

made will be found in the NEPA 

regulations and Agency directives. To 

clarify the relationship with the NEPA 

regulation requirements for decisions 

made after preparation of a final EIS, a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53711 

reference to the relevant section of those 

regulations has been added at section 

218.12(b) of the final rule. 

Comment: A respondent commented 

that section 218.11(a) provides that the 

Forest Service ‘‘may not issue a Record 

of Decision (ROD) or Decision Notice 

(DN) concerning an authorized 

hazardous fuels reduction project until 

the Reviewing Officer has responded to 

all pending objections.’’ However, 

section 218.9(e) states that the 

‘‘Reviewing Officer shall issue a written 

response to the objector(s) within 30 

days following the end of the objectionfiling period.’’ The respondent was 

concerned that the combined effect of 

these two provisions could be to delay 

issuance of a final decision of the 

project if the ‘‘written response’’ is not 

a decision on the objection and urged 

clarification that a ‘‘written response’’ is 

the final resolution of the objection. 

Response: The ROD and DN are 

decision documents prepared in 

accordance with the NEPA, are signed 

by the responsible official, and are 

directly related to the project itself and 

how it will be implemented. The 

written objection response is the final 

resolution of the objection and is 

written by the reviewing officer. The 

objection process is predecisional, 

meaning it occurs before the project 

decision is written by the responsible 

official. This differs from the project 

appeal process at part 215 where 

appeals are made after the project 

decision is made. Under this rule, the 

EIS or EA is noticed and distributed, 

followed by a 30-day period for eligible 

parties to file objections. Objections are 

then resolved within 30 days through a 

written response, and then the project 

decision can be signed by the 

responsible official. 

Section 218.13 (was section 218.12 in 

interim final rule) Secretary’s authority. 

This section describes the Secretary’s 

authority and establishes that 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects proposed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Under Secretary for 

Natural Resources and Environment are 

not subject to the objection procedures 

of this part. 

Comment: Several respondents were 

opposed to the exemption of hazardous 

fuel reduction projects proposed by the 

Secretary or Under Secretary of 

Agriculture from the provisions of this 

rule saying this provision is not 

authorized by the HFRA and ignores 

judicial rulings including 

interpretations of the Appeal Reform 

Act. Some respondents felt that fuel 

reduction projects are in relatively small 

local areas and approval by the 

Secretary or Under Secretary, in other 

words, an officer several levels above 

the local district ranger or forest 

supervisor, would be inappropriate. 

Response: Nothing in the HFRA alters 

the Secretary’s long-established 

authority to make decisions affecting the 

Forest Service. The Department’s 

position has always been that secretarial 

decisions are not subject to an 

administrative review or appeal process 

under any of the Forest Service’s 

administrative review systems, and 

there is no indication that Congress 

intended to make such a change through 

the HFRA. 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

section 218.12 of the interim final rule 

is not clear because it states that 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects ‘‘proposed’’ by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Under Secretary for 

Natural Resources and Environment are 

not subject to the objection procedures 

of part 218. The respondent questioned 

whether it means that a project is 

exempt from the objection procedure if 

the Under Secretary merely proposes a 

project but does not make the final 

decision. 

Response: The Secretary or Under 

Secretary would be the responsible 

official for any authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction projects they propose and 

would, therefore, be the decisionmaker 

for those proposals. 

Section 218.14 (was section 218.13 in 

interim final rule) Judicial proceedings. 

This section describes when judicial 

proceedings are appropriate. 

Comment: A respondent commented 

that judicial review must not be 

artificially limited, that the scope of 

judicial review should be for Congress 

and the courts to decide, and that 

Congress did not create any new 

limitations with the HFRA. 

Response: For purposes of these 

regulations, section 105(c)(1) of the 

HFRA provides that civil action 

challenging an authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction project in Federal district 

court may only be brought if the person 

has exhausted their administrative 

remedies by using the administrative 

review process established in the Act 

and part 218. The Act also specifies 

(105(c)(2)) that an issue may be 

considered during the judicial review of 

an authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project only if the issue was raised in 

the administrative review processes 

previously described. Exceptions to the 

requirement of exhausting the 

administrative review process before 

seeking judicial review are provided in 

the act at section 105(c)(3). Section 

218.13 of the interim final rule is fully 

consistent with the exhaustion 

requirements established by Congress 

when it enacted the HFRA. 

Section 218.15 (was section 218.14 in 

interim final rule) Information 

collection requirements. This section 

explains that the rule contains 

information collection requirements as 

defined in 5 CFR part 1320 by 

specifying the information that objectors 

must supply in an objection. 

Comment: A respondent suggested 

that this section should also contain a 

stipulation that all Agency records on 

any of these projects must be 

immediately available for public 

inspection and investigation. 

Response: Federal regulations at 5 

CFR part 1320, Controlling Paperwork 

Burdens on the Public, implement the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq.) concerning collections of 

information from the public. The 

regulation is designed to reduce, 

minimize, and control the burden on the 

public associated with public 

information collections. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approves qualifying collections of 

information from the public, and the 

purpose of section 218.15 is simply to 

disclose that the information collection 

requirements associated with filing 

objections are subject to the 

requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and 

have been assigned a control number by 

OMB. 

The availability to the public of 

records associated with the planning 

and analysis of HFRA-authorized 

projects are governed by the 

requirements of the NEPA regulations 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), these 

regulations (36 CFR part 218), and the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

Section 218.16 (was section 218.15 in 

interim final rule) Applicability and 

effective date. This section sets out the 

effective date of this final rule. There 

were no comments on this section. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Impact 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under USDA procedures and Executive 

Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning 

and Review. It has been determined that 

this is not a significant rule. This final 

rule will not have an annual effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy 

nor adversely affect productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, nor State or local 

governments. This final rule will not 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency nor raise 

new legal or policy issues. Finally, this 

action will not alter the budgetary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53712 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients of such 

programs. 

Moreover, this final rule has been 

considered in light of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

and it has been determined that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as defined by 

that act. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required for 

this final rule. 

Environmental Impacts 

This final rule establishes a 

predecisional administrative review 

process for authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects on National Forest 

System lands pursuant to section 105 of 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

2003. Section 31.1b of Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; 

September 18, 1992) excludes from 

documentation in an EA or EIS ‘‘rules, 

regulations, or policies to establish 

Service-wide administrative procedures, 

program processes, or instruction.’’ This 

final rule clearly falls within this 

category of actions, and no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

would require preparation of an EA or 

an EIS. 

Energy Effects 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 

2001, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ It has been 

determined that this rule does not 

constitute a significant energy action as 

defined in the Executive order. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This final rule represents an 

information collection requirement as 

defined in 5 CFR part 1320, Controlling 

Paperwork Burdens on the Public. In 

accordance with those rules and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as 

amended (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the 

Forest Service was granted approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) on December 18, 2003, 

for the new information collection 

required by the interim final rule. That 

approval has been extended twice, most 

recently on December 28, 2007. The 

current approval expires on December 

31, 2010. The information to be 

collected from those who choose to 

participate in the predecisional 

administrative review process for 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

authorized under the HFRA is the 

minimum needed for the reviewing 

officer to make an informed decision on 

an objection filed under the HFRA. 

Federalism 

The Agency has considered this final 

rule under the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and 

Executive Order 12875, Government 

Partnerships. The Agency has made a 

preliminary assessment that the final 

rule conforms with the federalism 

principles set out in these Executive 

orders; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Comments 

received on the interim final rule were 

considered, and the Agency determined 

that no additional consultation was 

needed with State and local 

governments prior to adopting the final 

rule. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This final rule does not have Tribal 

implications as defined in Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, and, therefore, advance 

consultation with tribes is not required. 

No Takings Implications 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12630. It has been determined that the 

final rule does not pose the risk of a 

taking of private property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988 on civil 

justice reform. After adoption of this 

final rule, (1) all State and local laws 

and regulations that conflict with this 

final rule or that impede its full 

implementation will be preempted; (2) 

no retroactive effect will be given to this 

final rule; and (3) it will not require 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the Agency 

has assessed the effects of this final rule 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector. This final rule 

does not compel the expenditure of 

$100 million or more by any State, local, 

or Tribal governments or anyone in the 

private sector. Therefore, a statement 

under section 202 of the act is not 

required. 

List of Subjects 

36 CFR Part 215 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, National forests. 

36 CFR Part 218 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, National forests. 

■ Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, the Forest Service adopts 

as final the interim final rule published 

at 69 FR 1529, January 9, 2004, with the 

following changes: 

PART 215—NOTICE, COMMENT, AND 

APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 215 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322, 

Public Law 102–381 (Appeals Reform Act), 

106 Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note). 

■ 2. Amended § 215.3 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 215.3 Proposed actions subject to legal 

notice and opportunity to comment. 

* * * * * 

(a) Proposed projects and activities 

implementing land management plans 

(§ 215.2) for which an environmental 

assessment (EA) is prepared, except 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

conducted under provisions of the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 

as set out at part 218, subpart A, of this 

title. 

* * * * * 

PART 218—PREDECISIONAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 

PROCESSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 218 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Public Law 108–148, 117 Stat. 

1887 (Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

2003). 

■ 4. Revise subpart A to part 218 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart A—Predecisional 

Administrative Review Process for 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects 

Authorized by the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 

Sec. 

218.1 Purpose and scope. 

218.2 Definitions. 

218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects subject to objection. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53713 

218.4 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects not subject to objection. 

218.5 Giving notice of proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects subject 

to objection. 

218.6 Reviewing officer. 

218.7 Who may file an objection. 

218.8 Filing an objection. 

218.9 Objections set aside from review. 

218.10 Objection time periods and process. 

218.11 Resolution of objections. 

218.12 Timing of authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project decision. 

218.13 Secretary’s authority. 

218.14 Judicial proceedings. 

218.15 Information collection requirements. 

218.16 Applicability and effective date. 

§ 218.1 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart establishes a 

predecisional administrative review 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘objection’’) 

process for proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects as 

defined in the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The 

objection process is the sole means by 

which administrative review of a 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project on National Forest 

System land may be sought. This 

subpart identifies who may file 

objections to those proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects, the 

responsibilities of the participants in an 

objection, and the procedures that apply 

for review of the objection. 

§ 218.2 Definitions. 

Address: An individual’s or 

organization’s current physical mailing 

address. An e-mail address is not 

sufficient. 

Authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project: A hazardous fuel reduction 

project authorized by the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). 

Comments: Specific written 

comments related to a proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project pursuant to the HFRA. 

Decision notice (DN): A concise 

written record of a responsible official’s 

decision based on an environmental 

assessment and a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 

1508.13; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

1909.15, chapter 40). 

Environmental assessment (EA): A 

public document that provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

a finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI), aids an agency’s compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) when no EIS is necessary, 

and facilitates preparation of a 

statement when one is necessary (40 

CFR 1508.9; FSH 1909.15, Chapter 40). 

Environmental impact statement 

(EIS): A detailed written statement as 

required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1508.11; FSH 

1909.15, Chapter 20). 

Forest Service line officer: A Forest 

Service official who serves in a direct 

line of command from the Chief and 

who has the delegated authority to make 

and execute decisions approving 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

subject to this subpart. 

Lead objector: For an objection 

submitted with multiple individuals 

and/or organizations listed, the 

individual or organization identified to 

represent all other objectors for the 

purposes of communication, written or 

otherwise, regarding the objection. 

Name: The first and last name of an 

individual or the name of an 

organization. An electronic username is 

insufficient for identification of an 

individual or organization. 

National Forest System land: All 

lands, water, or interests therein 

administered by the Forest Service 

(§ 251.51). 

Newspaper(s) of record: Those 

principal newspapers of general 

circulation annually identified in a list 

and published in the Federal Register 

by each regional forester to be used for 

publishing notices of projects and 

activities implementing land 

management plans. 

Objection: The written document filed 

with a reviewing officer by an 

individual or organization seeking 

predecisional administrative review of a 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project as defined in the 

HFRA. 

Objection period: The 30-calendarday period following publication of the 

legal notice in the newspaper of record 

of an environmental assessment (EA) or 

final environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for a proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project during 

which an objection may be filed with 

the reviewing officer. When the Chief is 

the responsible official the objection 

period begins following publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Objection process: Those procedures 

established for predecisional 

administrative review of proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects subject to the HFRA. 

Objector: An individual or 

organization filing an objection who 

submitted comments specific to the 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project during scoping or 

other opportunity for public comment 

as described in the HFRA. The use of 

the term ‘‘objector’’ applies to all 

persons who meet eligibility 

requirements associated with the filed 

objection (§ 218.7(a)). 

Record of decision (ROD): A 

document signed by a responsible 

official recording a decision that was 

preceded by preparation of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(40 CFR 1505.2; FSH 1909.15, Chapter 

20). 

Responsible official: The Forest 

Service employee who has the delegated 

authority to make and implement a 

decision approving proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

subject to this subpart. 

Reviewing officer: The United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) or 

Forest Service official having the 

delegated authority and responsibility to 

review an objection filed under this 

subpart. The reviewing officer is the 

next higher level supervisor of the 

responsible official. 

§ 218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects subject to objection. 

(a) Only authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects as defined by the 

HFRA, section 101(2), occurring on 

National Forest System lands that have 

been analyzed in an EA or EIS are 

subject to this subpart. Authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

processed under the provisions of the 

HFRA are not subject to the notice, 

comment, and appeal provisions set 

forth in part 215 of this chapter. 

(b) When authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects are approved 

contemporaneously with a plan 

amendment that applies only to that 

project, the objection process of this part 

applies to both the plan amendment and 

the project. 

§ 218.4 Authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects not subject to objection. 

Projects are not subject to objection 

when no comments (§ 218.2) are 

received during the opportunity for 

public comment (§ 218.7(a)). The 

responsible official must issue an 

explanation with the record of decision 

(ROD) or decision notice (DN) that the 

project was not subject to objection. 

§ 218.5 Giving notice of proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects subject to objection. 

(a) In addition to the notification 

required in paragraph (c) of this section, 

the responsible official should disclose 

during scoping and in the EA or EIS that 

the project is authorized under the 

HFRA and will therefore be subject to 

the objection procedure at 36 CFR 218, 

in lieu of the appeal procedure at 36 

CFR 215. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53714 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) The responsible official must 

promptly distribute the final EIS or the 

EA to those who have requested the 

document or are eligible to file an 

objection in accordance with § 218.7(a). 

(c) Upon completion and distribution 

mailing of the final EIS or EA, legal 

notice of the opportunity to object to a 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project must be published in 

the applicable newspaper of record 

identified (218.2) for each National 

Forest System unit. When the Chief is 

the responsible official, notice must be 

published in the Federal Register. The 

legal notice or Federal Register notice 

must 

(1) Include the name of the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project, a concise description of the 

preferred alternative and any proposed 

land management plan amendments, 

name and title of the responsible 

official, name of the forest and/or 

district on which the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project will occur, instructions for 

obtaining a copy of the final EIS or EA, 

and instructions on how to obtain 

additional information on the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project. 

(2) State that the proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project is 

subject to the objection process 

pursuant to 36 CFR part 218, subpart A, 

and include the following: 

(i) Name and address of the reviewing 

officer with whom an objection is to be 

filed. The notice must specify a street, 

postal, fax, and e-mail address, the 

acceptable format(s) for objections filed 

electronically, and the reviewing 

officer’s office business hours for those 

filing hand-delivered objections. 

(ii) A statement that objections will be 

accepted only from those who have 

previously submitted written comments 

specific to the proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project during 

scoping or other opportunity for public 

comment in accordance with § 218.7(a). 

(iii) A statement that the publication 

date of the legal notice in the newspaper 

of record or Federal Register notice is 

the exclusive means for calculating the 

time to file an objection (§ 218.10(a)), 

and that those wishing to object should 

not rely upon dates or timeframe 

information provided by any other 

source. A specific date must not be 

included in the notice. 

(iv) A statement that an objection, 

including attachments, must be filed 

(regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, 

express delivery, or messenger service) 

with the appropriate reviewing officer 

(§ 218.8) within 30 days of the date of 

publication of the legal notice for the 

objection process. It should also be 

stated that incorporation of documents 

by reference is permitted only as 

provided for at § 218.8(b). 

(v) A statement describing the 

minimum content requirements of an 

objection (§ 218.8(c)). 

(vi) A statement that the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project is not subject to the notice, 

comment, and appeal procedures found 

at part 215 of this chapter (§ 218.3). 

(d) Publication. Through notice 

published annually in the Federal 

Register, each regional forester must 

advise the public of the newspaper(s) of 

record utilized for publishing legal 

notice required by this subpart. 

§ 218.6 Reviewing officer. 

The reviewing officer determines 

procedures to be used for processing 

objections when the procedures are not 

specifically described in this subpart, 

including such procedures as needed to 

be compatible to the extent practicable, 

with the administrative review 

processes of other Federal agencies, for 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

projects proposed jointly with other 

agencies. Such determinations are not 

subject to further administrative review. 

§ 218.7 Who may file an objection. 

(a) Individuals and organizations who 

have submitted specific written 

comments related to the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project during the opportunity for 

public comment provided during 

preparation of an EA or EIS for the 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project as characterized in 

section 104(g) of the HFRA may file an 

objection. For proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

described in a draft EIS, such 

opportunity for public comment will be 

fulfilled during scoping, by the 

comment period on the draft EIS in 

accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 

1506.10, and any other periods public 

comment is specifically requested. For 

proposed authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects described in an EA, 

such opportunity for public comment 

will be fulfilled during scoping or any 

other periods public comment is 

specifically requested. 

(b) Comments received from an 

authorized representative(s) of an 

organization are considered those of the 

organization only. Individual members 

of that organization do not meet 

objection eligibility requirements solely 

on the basis of membership in an 

organization. A member or an 

individual must submit comments 

independently in order to be eligible to 

file an objection in an individual 

capacity. 

(c) When an objection lists multiple 

individuals or organizations, each 

individual or organization must meet 

the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section. Individuals or organizations 

listed on an objection that do not meet 

eligibility requirements must not be 

considered objectors. Objections from 

individuals or organizations that do not 

meet the requirements of paragraph (a) 

must not be accepted. This must be 

documented in the objection record. 

(d) Federal agencies may not file 

objections. 

(e) Federal employees who otherwise 

meet the requirements of this subpart 

for filing objections in a non-official 

capacity must comply with Federal 

conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 

202–209 and with employee ethics 

requirements at 5 CFR part 2635. 

Specifically, employees must not be on 

official duty nor use Government 

property or equipment in the 

preparation or filing of an objection. 

Further, employees must not 

incorporate information unavailable to 

the public, such as Federal agency 

documents that are exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)). 

§ 218.8 Filing an objection. 

(a) Objections must be filed with the 

reviewing officer in writing. All 

objections must be open to public 

inspection during the objection process. 

(b) Incorporation of documents by 

reference is not allowed, except for the 

following list of items which may be 

provided by including date, page, and 

section of the cited document. All other 

documents must be included with the 

objection. 

(1) All or any part of a Federal law or 

regulation, 

(2) Forest Service directives and land 

management plans, 

(3) Documents referenced by the 

Forest Service in the proposed HFRA 

project subject to objection, 

(4) Comments previously provided to 

the Forest Service by the objector during 

the proposed HFRA project comment 

period. 

(c) At a minimum, an objection must 

include the following: 

(1) Objector’s name and address 

(§ 218.2), with a telephone number, if 

available; 

(2) Signature or other verification of 

authorship upon request (a scanned 

signature for electronic mail may be 

filed with the objection); 

(3) When multiple names are listed on 

an objection, identification of the lead 

objector (§ 218.2). Verification of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53715 

identity of the lead objector must be 

provided upon request; 

(4) The name of the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project, the name and title of the 

responsible official, and the name(s) of 

the national forest(s) and/or ranger 

district(s) on which the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project will be implemented; and, 

(5) Sufficient narrative description of 

those aspects of the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project addressed by the objection, 

specific issues related to the proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project, and suggested remedies that 

would resolve the objection. 

§ 218.9 Objections set aside from review. 

(a) The reviewing officer must set 

aside and not review an objection when 

one or more of the following applies: 

(1) Objections are not filed in a timely 

manner (§§ 218.5(c)(2)(iv), 218.10(c)). 

(2) The proposed project is not subject 

to the objection procedures of this 

subpart (§§ 218.3, 218.4). 

(3) The individual or organization did 

not submit written comments during 

scoping or other opportunity for public 

comment (§ 218.7(a)). 

(4) The objection does not provide 

sufficient information as required by 

§ 218.7(b) through (d) for the reviewing 

officer to review. 

(5) The objector withdraws the 

objection. 

(6) An objector’s identity is not 

provided or cannot be determined from 

the signature (written or electronically 

scanned) and a reasonable means of 

contact is not provided (§ 218.8(c)(2)). 

(7) The objection is illegible for any 

reason, including submissions in an 

electronic format different from that 

specified in the legal notice. 

(b) The reviewing officer must give 

written notice to the objector and the 

responsible official when an objection is 

set aside from review and must state the 

reasons for not reviewing the objection. 

If the objection is set aside from review 

for reasons of illegibility or lack of a 

means of contact, the reasons must be 

documented in the project record. 

§ 218.10 Objection time periods and 

process. 

(a) Time to file an objection. Written 

objections, including any attachments, 

must be filed with the reviewing officer 

within 30 days following the 

publication date of the legal notice of 

the EA or final EIS in the newspaper of 

record or the publication date of the 

notice in the Federal Register when the 

Chief is the responsible official 

(§ 218.5(c)). It is the responsibility of 

objectors to ensure that their objection 

is received in a timely manner. 

(b) Computation of time periods. (1) 

All time periods are computed using 

calendar days, including Saturdays, 

Sundays, and Federal holidays. 

However, when the time period expires 

on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal 

holiday, the time is extended to the end 

of the next Federal working day as 

stated in the legal notice or to the end 

of the calendar day (11:59 p.m. in the 

time zone of the receiving office) for 

objections filed by electronic means 

such as e-mail or facsimile machine. 

(2) The day after publication of the 

legal notice for this subpart of the EA or 

final EIS in the newspaper of record or 

Federal Register (§ 218.5(c)) is the first 

day of the objection-filing period. 

(3) The publication date of the legal 

notice of the EA or final EIS in the 

newspaper of record or, when the Chief 

is the responsible official, the Federal 

Register, is the exclusive means for 

calculating the time to file an objection. 

Objectors may not rely on dates or 

timeframe information provided by any 

other source. 

(c) Evidence of timely filing. It is the 

objector’s responsibility to ensure 

timely filing of an objection. Timeliness 

must be determined by the following 

indicators: 

(1) The date of the U.S. Postal Service 

postmark; 

(2) The electronically generated date 

and time for e-mail and facsimiles; 

(3) The shipping date for delivery by 

private carrier; or 

(4) The official agency date stamp 

showing receipt of hand delivery. 

(d) Extensions. Time extensions are 

not permitted. 

(e) Other timeframes. The reviewing 

officer must issue a written response to 

the objector(s) concerning their 

objection(s) within 30 days following 

the end of the objection-filing period. 

§ 218.11 Resolution of objections. 

(a) Meetings. Prior to the issuance of 

the reviewing officer’s written response, 

either the reviewing officer or the 

objector may request to meet to discuss 

issues raised in the objection and 

potential resolution. The reviewing 

officer has the discretion to determine 

whether or not adequate time remains in 

the review period to make a meeting 

with the objector practical.’’ All 

meetings are open to the public. 

(b) Response to objections. (1) A 

written response must set forth the 

reasons for the response, but need not 

be a point-by-point response and may 

contain instructions to the responsible 

official, if necessary. In cases involving 

more than one objection to a proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project, the reviewing officer may 

consolidate objections and issue one or 

more responses. 

(2) There must be no further review 

from any other Forest Service or USDA 

official of the reviewing officer’s written 

response to an objection. 

§ 218.12 Timing of authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction project decision. 

(a) The responsible official may not 

issue a ROD or DN concerning an 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project subject to the provisions of this 

subpart until the reviewing officer has 

responded to all pending objections. 

(b) When no objection is filed within 

the 30-day time period, the reviewing 

officer must notify the responsible 

official and approval of the authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project in a 

ROD in accordance with 40 CFR 

1506.10, or DN may occur on, but not 

before, the fifth business day following 

the end of the objection-filing period. 

§ 218.13 Secretary’s authority. 

(a) Nothing in this section shall 

restrict the Secretary of Agriculture from 

exercising any statutory authority 

regarding the protection, management, 

or administration of National Forest 

System lands. 

(b) Authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction projects proposed by the 

Secretary of Agriculture or the Under 

Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment, are not subject to the 

procedures set forth in this subpart. A 

decision by the Secretary or Under 

Secretary constitutes the final 

administrative determination of the 

Department of Agriculture. 

§ 218.14 Judicial proceedings. 

The objection process set forth in this 

subpart fully implements Congress’ 

design for a predecisional 

administrative review process for 

proposed hazardous fuel reduction 

projects authorized by the HFRA. These 

procedures present a full and fair 

opportunity for concerns to be raised 

and considered on a project-by-project 

basis. Individuals and groups must 

structure their participation so as to 

alert the local agency officials making 

particular land management decisions 

of their positions and contentions. 

Further, any filing for Federal judicial 

review of an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project is premature and 

inappropriate unless the plaintiff has 

submitted specific written comments 

relating to the proposed action during 

scoping or other opportunity for public 

comment as prescribed by the HFRA, 

and the plaintiff has challenged the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53716 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction 

project by exhausting the administrative 

review process set out in this subpart. 

Further, judicial review of hazardous 

fuel reduction projects that are subject 

to these procedures is strictly limited to 

those issues raised by the plaintiff’s 

submission during the objection 

process, except in exceptional 

circumstances such as where significant 

new information bearing on a specific 

claim only becomes available after 

conclusion of the administrative review. 

§ 218.15 Information collection 

requirements. 

The rules of this subpart specify the 

information that objectors must provide 

in an objection to a proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project as 

defined in the HFRA (§ 218.8). As such, 

these rules contain information 

collection requirements as defined in 5 

CFR part 1320. These information 

requirements are assigned OMB Control 

Number 0596–0172. 

§ 218.16 Applicability and effective date. 

The provisions of this subpart are 

effective as of October 17, 2008 and 

apply to all proposed authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects 

conducted under the provisions of the 

HFRA for which scoping begins on or 

after October 17, 2008. 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Mark Rey, 

Under Secretary, NRE. 

[FR Doc. E8–21751 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0867; FRL–8715–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits for 

New Construction or Modification 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) on October 9, 2006. The SIP 

revision EPA is approving would 

require decreased newspaper notice for 

proposed air quality Standard Permits 

with statewide applicability to the 

following metropolitan areas: Austin, 

Dallas, Houston, and any other regional 

newspapers the TCEQ Executive 

Director designates on a case-by-case 

basis. TCEQ will publish notice of a 

proposed air quality Standard Permit in 

the Texas Register and will issue a press 

release. In addition, TCEQ may also use 

electronic means to inform state and 

local officials of a proposed air quality 

Standard Permit. EPA is approving this 

revision pursuant to section 110 of the 

Federal Clean Air Act (Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0867. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection at the State Air 

Agency listed below during official 

business hours by appointment: 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7212; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Outline 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is approving a revision to 30 

Texas Administrative Code (TAC), 

Chapter 116 (Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or 

Modification), Subchapter F (Standard 

Permits), section 116.603 (Public 

Participation in Issuance of Standard 

Permits). TCEQ adopted a revision to 

this section on September 20, 2006, and 

submitted the proposed SIP revision to 

EPA on October 9, 2006 for approval. 

The SIP revision requires that any 

proposed air quality Standard Permit 

with statewide applicability be 

published in the daily newspaper of 

largest general circulation within each 

of the following metropolitan areas: 

Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other 

regional newspaper designated by the 

Executive Director on a case-by-case 

basis. The proposed revision also 

requires TCEQ to publish notice of a 

proposed Standard Permit in the Texas 

Register and issue a press release. 

However, the proposed revision changes 

the current EPA SIP-approved rule as it 

no longer requires TCEQ to issue 

newspaper notices for proposed 

Standard Permits with statewide 

applicability in the following 

metropolitan areas: Amarillo, Corpus 

Christi, El Paso, the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, or 

Tyler. EPA approves the revision as 

meeting the federal requirements of the 

Act, Public Availability of Information, 

which requires ‘‘. . . [n]otice by 

prominent advertisement in the area 

affected * * *.’’ 

On May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28071), we 

published our proposed approval of this 

SIP revision. The proposal provided 

detailed information about the Texas 

SIP revision that we are approving 

today. The proposal also provided a 

detailed analysis of our rationale for 

approving the Texas SIP revision. In the 

proposal, we provided opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed action. 

The comment period for this proposed 

rulemaking ended June 16, 2008. We 

received no comments, adverse or 

otherwise, on the proposed rulemaking. 

We are therefore finalizing our proposed 

approval without changes. For more 

details on this submittal, please refer to 

the proposed rulemaking and to the 

Technical Support Document, which is 

in the docket for this action. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking and in the 

Technical Support Document, EPA 

believes that the revision to Section 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES