1302 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Notices

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Forest

Supervisor of the Coconino National

Forest, Supervisor’s Office 2323 E.

Greenlaw Lane, Flagstaff AZ 86004, will

decide what actions are most

appropriate for managing the Buck

Springs Range Allotment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Taylor, Interdisciplinary Team

Leader, Blue Ridge Ranger District, (520)

477–2255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposal will issue a grazing permit for

634 cow/calf pairs and 8 horses. Annual

Operating Plan would adjust the

number of livestock allowed per year to

resource conditions. The grazing

strategy would be a deferred rotation

system, with season of use running from

about May 15 to October 15. Fencing,

livestock trailing, water improvements,

cattleguards, and riders would be used

to manage the distribution of livestock

and forage utilization, to avoid livestock

grazing in some meadows and riparian

areas, and to increase livestock control

in sensitive areas. Approximately 22

miles of fence would be constructed, to

split three pastures, exclude six

meadows, and protect two springs.

Dense thickets of small trees that

currently impede the gathering of

livestock would be precommercially

thinned on 1500 acres to improve

livestock movement, increase the

understory diversity, reduce the risk of

wildfire, and improve tree growth and

vigor.

Preliminary issues include the effects

of grazing on the environment,

especially headwater meadows, and

effects on species protected under the

Endangered Species Act, specifically the

Little Colorado spinedace and the

Mexican spotted owl.

The environmental analysis process

for the Buck Springs Range Allotment

was initiated on June 25, 1998. An

Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service

resource specialists, and representatives

from the Arizona Game and Fish

Department, US Fish and Wildlife

Service, Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality, and the

allotment permittee, developed a

guiding document for watershed

recovery before undertaking an analysis

of the allotment. They described the

many factors affecting watershed

conditions within the allotment,

including elk and livestock grazing,

recreation, transportation system, and

introduced aquatic species. In a

cooperative effort, the agencies making

up the team developed the East Clear

Creek Watershed Recovery Strategy for

the Little Colorado Spinedace and Other

Riparian Species to address many of

those factors. Using the document to

guide actions proposed for the Buck

Springs Range Allotment, the Team

developed objectives and proposed

management practices for the allotment.

The resulting Proposed Action was

mailed to 209 individuals, organizations

and cooperating resource agencies for

review and comment in April 1999.

From comments received, the Team

developed statements to capture the

substantive issues and developed 6

additional alternatives other than the

proposed action. If you commented

during this scoping period, these

comments are already incorporated into

the analysis. Some of these alternatives

differ in grazing strategies, utilization

levels, permitted numbers of livestock,

pastures utilized, and improvements

required, and are briefly described as

follows:

• Proposed action as discussed above.

• No graze for a 10-year period.

• Continue current grazing

management (no action).

• Continue deferred rotation and rely

heavily on herding to affect distribution

of livestock and to protect sensitive

riparian and headwater meadow

habitats.

• Continue deferred rotation and

emphasize the use of northern tier of

pastures, with most southern pastures

that include headwater meadows

removed from the grazing land base.

• Implement a rest-rotation strategy,

where one-half of the allotment is

grazed each year. Distribution of

livestock and use of sensitive drainages

are addressed primarily through range

improvements.

• Implement a rest-rotation strategy

on the northern tier of pastures.

Southern pastures with headwater

meadows are removed from the grazing

land base.

It is anticipated that environmental

analysis and preparation of the draft and

final environmental impact statements

will take about six months. The Draft

Environmental Impact Statement can be

expected March of 2001 and the Final

EIS in summer. The comment period on

the draft environmental impact

statement extends 45 days from the date

the Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. To be the

most helpful, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should

be as specific as possible and may

address the adequacy of the statement or

the merits of the alternatives discussed

(see Council of Environmental Quality

Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR

1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions

have established that reviewers of draft

environmental impact statements must

structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so

that it is meaningful and alerts an

agency to the reviewers’ position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corp v. NRDC, 435 US 519, 553

(1978). Environmental objections that

could have been raised at the draft stage

may be waived if not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement. City of Angoon v.

Hodel, 9th Circuit, (1986) and

Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490

F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

The reason for this is to ensure that

substantive comments and objections

are made available to the Forest Service

at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: December 18, 2000.

Jim Golden,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–399 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Notice of Proposed Changes to

Section 4 of the Iowa State Technical

Guide

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

proposed changes in the Iowa NRCS

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Notices 1303

State Technical Guide for review and

comment.

SUMMARY: It has been determined by the

NRCS State Conservationist for Iowa

that changes must be made in the NRCS

State Technical Guide specifically in

Section 4, Practice Standards and

Specifications #590, Nutrient

Management, to account for improved

technology. This practice can be used in

systems that treat highly erodible land.

DATES: Comments will be received on or

before February 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leroy Brown, State Conservationist,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street,

693 Federal Building, Des Moines, Iowa

50309; at 515/284–4260; fax 515/284–

4394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

343 of the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

states that revisions made after

enactment of the law to NRCS State

technical guides used to carry out

highly erodible land and wetland

provisions of the law shall be made

available for public review and

comment. For the next 30 days the

NRCS will receive comments relative to

the proposed changes. Following that

period a determination will be made by

the NRCS regarding disposition of those

comments and a final determination of

change will be made.

Dated: December 26, 2000.

Dennis Pate,

Assistant State Conservationist-Technology.

[FR Doc. 01–400 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

BROADCASTING BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

Proposed Collection Reinstatement;

Comment Request

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of

Governors (BBG), as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

and respondent burden, invites the

general public and other Federal

agencies to comment on an information

collection titled, ‘‘Interviews and Other

Audience Research for Radio and TV

Marti’’. This request for comment is

being made pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 [Public Law 104–

13; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)].

The information collection activity

involved with this program is

conducted pursuant to the mandate

given to the BBG (formerly the United

States Information Agency) in

accordance with Public Law 98–11, the

Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, dated,

October 4, 1983, to provide for the

broadcasting of accurate information to

the people of Cuba and for other

purposes. This act was then amended by

Pub. Law 101–246, dated, February 16,

1990, which established the authority

for TV Marti.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

March 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Agency Clearance Officer, Ms. Jeannette

Giovetti, BBG, M/AO, Room 1657A–1,

330 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20237, telephone (202)

205–9692, e-mail address

JGiovett@IBB.GOV; or OMB Desk

Officer for BBG, Mr. David Rostker,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Docket Library, Room 10202, NEOB,

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone (202)

395–3897.

Copies: Copies of the Request for

Clearance (OMB 83–I), supporting

statement, and other documents that

will be submitted to OMB for approval

may be obtained from the BBG

Clearance Officer.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

reporting burden for this proposed

collection of information is estimated to

average .11 hours per response (6.6

minutes), including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. Responses are voluntary

and respondents will be required to

respond only one time. Comments are

requested on the proposed information

collection concerning:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the agency, including

whether the information has practical

utility;

(b) The accuracy of the Agency’s

burden estimates;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information to the Agency

Clearance Officer, Ms. Jeannette

Giovetti, BBG, M/AO, Room 1657A–1,

330 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20237, telephone (202)

205–9692, e-mail address

JGiovett@IBB.GOV; or to the OMB Desk

Officer for BBG, Mr. David Rostker,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Docket Library, Room 10202, NEOB,

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone (202)

395–3897.

Current Actions: The BBG is

requesting reinstatement of this

collection for a three-year period and

approval for a revision to the burden

hours.

Title: Interviews and Other Audience

Research for Radio and TV Marti.

Abstract: Data from this information

collection are used by BBG’s Office of

Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) in fulfillment

of its mandate to evaluate effectiveness

of Radio and TV Marti operations by

estimating the audience size and

composition for broadcasts; and assess

signal reception, credibility and

relevance of programming through this

research.

Proposed Frequency of Responses:

Number of Respondents—4880.

Recordkeeping Hours—.11.

Total Annual Burden—560.

Dated: January 2, 2001.

Dennis D. Sokol,

Director of Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–450 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8610–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of the Fourth

New Shipper Review and Rescission of

the Third Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of fourth new

shipper review and rescission of third

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is currently conducting the fourth new

shipper review and third administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on brake rotors from the People’s

Republic of China covering the period

April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

The fourth new shipper review covers

two exporters. The Department of

Commerce is preliminarily rescinding in

part the fourth new shipper review with

respect to one exporter. We have