Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/05/17/01-12385/national-forest-system-land-and-resource-management-planning-extension-of-compliance-deadline
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 16:09:15
Document Index: 46796444

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009219', '§\u2009219', '§\u2009219', '§\u2009219', 'art 219', 'art 1320', 'art 1320', 'art 219']

A Proposed Rule by the Forest Service on 05/17/2001
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-12385 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-12385
The Department is proposing to extend for one year the date specified in 36 CFR 219.35(b) by which all land and resource management plan amendments and revisions would be subject to the new planning regulations adopted November 9, 2000. The Department has determined that the Forest Service is not sufficiently prepared to fully implement the rule agencywide. Without relief from the dates established in 36 CFR 219.35(b), the agency will experience serious disruption in its planning processes with attendant confusion of employees and the public. Such disruption and confusion would be contrary to the public interest. In addition, serious concerns have arisen regarding some of the provisions of the new planning rule, and an extension of the compliance date will allow the Department to review these provisions carefully and to identify any adjustments that may be necessary.
In addition to this proposed rule, the Department is also adopting an interim final rule to immediately extend the compliance date in 36 CFR 219.35(b) to May 9, 2002. This interim final rule, published elsewhere in this part of today's Federal Register, will remain in effect until the Department adopts a final rule following receipt and consideration of comments on this proposed rule.
Send written comments to Content Analysis Team, USDA Forest Service Attention: NFMA Planning Regulations Proposed Extension, 200 East Broadway, Room 301, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807. Send e-mail comments to mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us and indicate “Planning Rule Extension” in the subject line.
In addition to the foregoing pressing concerns, the Department has determined that, despite diligent efforts, the Forest Service is not sufficiently prepared to fully implement the new planning rule agencywide. Many employees, retirees, elected officials, and representatives of external organizations interested in National Forest System management have expressed serious concerns to the new Administration regarding the agency's ability to implement some of the provisions of the new planning rule, such as ecological sustainability and species viability. The agency's ability to promptly implement the planning regulations has also been called into question through pending litigation. A coalition of environmental organizations (Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. USFS (N.D. Calif.)) and a coalition of timber and grazing interests (American Forest Paper Association et al. v. Veneman (D. D.C.)) have filed separate lawsuits challenging the legality of the new planning regulations on a variety of grounds.
In light of these findings, the Department has directed the agency to review the new planning rule and Start Printed Page 27556recommend ways to address these and any other concerns. If the agency determines that additional revisions are needed, a second proposed rule incorporating the recommended changes will be published in the Federal Register for public comment at a later date. Given the liklihood of additional change to the November 2000 rule, it would be unreasonable to halt amendments and revisions already begun under the 1982 rule, resume those efforts under the new procedures of the November 2000 regulations, and then change the process again if revisions to the new rule are subsequently proposed and adopted.
While most units are not prepared to fully implement the November 2000 rule, this proposed rule would not prohibit forests from preparing amendments or revisions of land and resource management plans under the November 2000 rule. In fact, there are several forests that have begun revisions to their land and resource management plans under the November 2000 rule, and these planning efforts may provide valuable information about implementing the new rule.
For the reasons identified in this preamble, the Department is proposing to extend the date by which land and resource management plan amendments or revisions must comply with the November 2000 planning rule. In § 219.35(b), the date is proposed to be extended from May 9, 2001, to May 9, 2002. In addition to this extension, this proposed rule would include at § 219.35(b) the interpretation of the term “initiated” as published in an interpretive rule on January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1864) to clarify this term as it applies to amendments or revisions initiated prior to May 9, 2002. The proposed changes to § 219.35(b) are also fully consistent with the other provisions of the interpretive rule.
This proposed rule is necessary to grant relief to the approximately 20 units that have begun plan revisions under the 1982 regulations but could not meet the May 9, 2001, deadline. The proposed rule is also needed to facilitate timely implementation of site-specific projects that support the National Fire Plan. The Department is simultaneously publishing this extension in an interim final rule effective immediately. Nevertheless, the Department also believes the public should have an opportunity to comment on the modification of § 219.35(b) which would extend the period during which the 1982 planning rule could be used.
This is not a significant rule. This proposed rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This proposed rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, or raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed rule will not alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this proposed rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act. This proposed rule will not impose recordkeeping requirements; will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.
This proposed rule has no direct or indirect effect on the environment, but merely proposes to extend the date by which amendments and revisions of land and resource management plans may be continued under the 1982 planning rule, as well as the date by which plans must conform to the November 2000 rule. The planning regulation itself deals with the development and adoption of Forest Service land and resource management plan decisions as well as procedures for developing site-specific decisions that may include decisions regarding the occupancy and use of National Forest System land. An environmental assessment was completed on the November 2000 planning rule, with a finding that the rule would have no significant impact on the environment. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement rules, regulations or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. Based on the nature and scope of this rulemaking and the procedural nature of 36 CFR part 219, the agency has determined that this proposed rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12360, and it has been determined that the proposed rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property, as the proposed rule is limited to adjustment of the compliance date in the new planning rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule (1) does not preempt State and local laws and regulations that conflict with or impede its full implementation; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.
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 proposed rule on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.
The Department has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive Orders 12612 and 13132 and concluded that the rule does 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. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary at this time.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175 and, therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required.Start Printed Page 27557
This proposed rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 219 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
[FR Doc. 01-12385 Filed 5-14-01; 2:27 pm]