[Federal Register: September 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 175)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53294-53297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se03-9]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 219
RIN 0596-AC02
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning;
Extension of Compliance Deadline for Site-Specific Projects
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is issuing an interim final rule to extend the
transition period for site-specific project decisions in the Forest
Service land and resource management planning regulations adopted
November 9, 2000. Early in 2001, the Department determined that the
November 2000 planning regulations needed to be revised, and a proposed
planning rule was published on December 6, 2002, (67 FR 72770). An
interim final rule at 36 CFR 219.35(b), published May 20, 2002, (67 FR
35431), already has extended the transition period for land and
resource management plan amendments and revisions until the date of
adoption of new planning regulations. This interim final rule at 36 CFR
219.35(d) provides the same extension of the transition period for
site-specific projects. Comments are requested.
DATES: Effective Date: This interim final rule is effective September
10, 2003.
Comment Date: Comments must be received in writing by November 10,
2003.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA FS Content Analysis Team,
Attn: USDA FS Compliance Deadline, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807;
by electronic mail to compliancedeadline@fs.fed.us; or by facsimile to
Extension of Compliance Deadline at (406) 329-3021. The agency cannot
confirm receipt of comments. If you intend to submit comments in
batched e-mails from the same server, please be aware that electronic
security safeguards on Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture
computer systems intended to prevent commercial spamming may limit
batched e-mail access. The Forest Service is interested in receiving
all comments on this interim final rule, however, so please call (801)
517-1020 to facilitate transfer of comments in batched e-mail messages.
Please note that all comments, including names and addresses when
provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the office of the Content Analysis Team, 200
East Broadway, Room 301, Missoula, MT. Individuals wishing to inspect
the comments should call Shari Kappel at (406) 329-3022 to facilitate
an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Barone, Planning Specialist,
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service at (202) 205-
1019.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 53295]]
Background
On November 9, 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture adopted a final
rule substantially revising the National Forest System land and
resource management planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219 (65 FR
67514), which had been previously adopted in 1982 (47 FR 43026,
September 30, 1982). These regulations, which implement the National
Forest Management Act, apply to the development, revision, and
amendment of land and resource management plans. The November 2000
planning rule also applies to site-specific project decisions. Section
219.35(d) of the 2000 planning rule requires all site-specific project
decisions made by the responsible official as of November 9, 2003, to
conform with the provisions of the 2000 planning rule at 36 CFR part
219.
Section 219.35 of the 2000 planning rule also provided for a
transition from the 1982 planning rule to the 2000 planning rule.
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2000 planning rule, the
Department determined in early 2001 that there were serious concerns
regarding the agency's ability to implement the 2000 planning rule,
such as the number of very detailed analytical requirements; the lack
of clarity regarding many of the requirements; the lack of flexibility;
and the lack of recognition of the limits of agency budgets and
personnel. Therefore, on May 20, 2002, the Department issued an interim
final rule at Sec. 219.35(b) to delay mandatory compliance with the
2000 planning rule for land and resource management plan amendments and
revisions until a new final planning rule is adopted (67 FR 35431);
this delay would allow the agency time to propose and adopt revisions
to the 2000 planning rule.
In the May 20, 2002, Federal Register notice, the Department also
noted that concerns had been raised by field personnel that the reasons
necessitating an extended transition to the November 2000 rule for
forest plan amendments and revisions may apply equally, if not more, to
the November 9, 2003, deadline for site-specific decisions to conform
with part 219. At that time, the Department identified that it expected
to address these concerns by removing the requirement or extending the
original transition date for site-specific projects.
A proposed revision of the 2000 planning rule was published on
December 6, 2002, (67 FR 72770). One change is that this rule, unlike
the 2000 rule, would not apply to site-specific project decisions.
This interim final rule at Sec. 219.35(d) provides the same
extension of compliance deadline for site-specific projects as did the
2002 interim final rule at Sec. 219.35(b) for plan amendments and
revisions; until the Department promulgates the final planning
regulations.
Need for Immediate Action
The provisions of the 2000 planning rule are unclear regarding the
relationship of site-specific project decisions to the development of
landscape goals and information development requirements for addressing
ecological, social, and ecomonic sustainability. Reviews of the 2000
planning rule have pointed out the issues and problems related to
mixing programmatic and project-level planning direction. There is a
lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with the rule.
This uncertainty and lack of clarity may pose an unreasonable analysis
burden on field units when planning for site-specific project
decisions.
The Department has proposed improvements and revisions to the 2000
planning rule that would remove the applicability of part 219 to site-
specific project level decisions (67 FR 72770, December 6, 2002).
Instead, the requirements of the 2002 proposed planning rule would
apply at the programmatic level only to the development, amendment, and
revision of land and resource management plans and (unlike the
requirements of the 2000 planning rule) would not apply to site-
specific projects. Under the 2002 proposed rule, a plan would guide
site-specific project implementation and project decisions would be
required to be consistent with the plan, but a plan would not determine
the selection or implementation of site-specific actions.
Therefore, the Department has determined that it is necessary to
extend the transition period at 36 CFR 219.35(d) by which the 2000
planning rule requires compliance for site-specific project decisions,
currently set at November 9, 2003, until the promulgation of a final
planning rule. While it has been anticipated that a final revised
planning rule would be promulgated by the end of 2003, such a final
rule may not be adopted by November 9, 2003.
Accordingly, extension of the transition period at 36 CFR 219.35(d)
until a final planning rule is adopted is necessary for the following
reasons: (1) To clarify planning requirements for site-specific project
decisions; (2) to grant relief to the units of the National Forest
System from a regulatory provision of the 2000 planning rule soon to be
made obsolete; and (3) in case the 2002 proposed planning rule is not
finalized by November 9, 2003.
Exemption From Advance Notice and Comment
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies
to provide advance notice and an opportunity to comment on agency
rulemakings. However, the APA also allows agencies to promulgate rules
without notice and comment when an agency, for good cause, finds that
notice and public comment are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest'' (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). Furthermore, the APA
exempts certain rulemakings from its notice and comment requirements,
including rulemakings involving ``public property'' and ``rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(2) and
(b)(3)(A)).
In 1971, Secretary of Agriculture Hardin announced a voluntary
partial waiver from the APA notice and comment rulemaking exemptions
(July 24, 1971; 36 FR 13804). Thus, USDA agencies proposing rules
generally provide notice and an opportunity to comment on proposed
rules. However, the Hardin policy permits agencies to publish final
rules without prior notice and comment when an agency finds for good
cause that notice and comment procedures would be impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The courts have
recognized this good cause exemption of the Hardin policy and have
indicated that, since the publication requirement was adopted
voluntarily, the Secretary should be afforded ``more latitude'' in
making a good cause determination (see Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593,
612 (9th Cir. 1984)).
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this interim
final rule, good cause exists to exempt this rulemaking from advance
notice and comment (5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B) and 553 (d)(3)). The Department
has determined that delaying an extension of the compliance date in
Sec. 219.35(d) to obtain public comment is impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to the public interest. Earlier in this preamble, the
Department has made clear that an extension of the compliance date is
necessary. Given the length of time (usually up to 6 months) it takes
field units to plan for site-specific project decisions, it is
impracticable to provide for prior public comment on this extension.
The agency's publication of a proposed rule in 2002 to revise the
November 2000 planning rule, and the fact that this
[[Page 53296]]
proposed rule would not apply to site-specific project decisions, is an
important consideration in adopting this interim final rule. The prior
identification of this subject in the May 2002 Federal Register notice,
and the Department's expressed intent to address it, is also an
important factor.
The public interest is best served by extending the compliance date
and avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of agency time and effort to
comply with a regulatory provision soon to be made obsolete. The
interim final rule is effective immediately upon publication, although
the Department will accept comment on the modification of Sec.
219.35(d).
Conclusion
For the reasons identified in this preamble, the Department finds
good cause to adopt, without prior notice and comment, this interim
final rule that amends Sec. 219.35(d) to extend the transition date by
which site-specific project decisions must comply with the November
2000 Forest Service land and resource management planning regulations,
from the current deadline of November 9, 2003, until the Department
promulgates a revised final planning rule. This interim final rule does
not change any other provisions of the 2000 planning rule.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Impact
This interim 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 interim final rule
will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy,
nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments.
This interim final rule will not interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency, nor will it raise new legal or policy
issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of beneficiaries of such programs. Accordingly, this
interim final rule is not subject to Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, this interim final rule has been considered in light of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It has been
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the act because
the interim final rule will not impose record-keeping requirements on
them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to
large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or
ability to remain in the market. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required for this interim final rule.
Environmental Impact
This interim final rule at Sec. 219.35(d) has no direct or
indirect effect on the environment, but merely extends the date by
which site-specific project decisions must conform to the 2000 planning
rule. The planning regulation (36 CFR part 219) deals with the
development and adoption of Forest Service land and resource management
plan decisions. An environmental assessment was completed on the 2000
planning rule, with a finding that the rule would have no significant
impact on the environment. Moreover, section 31.1b of Forest Service
Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (57 FR
43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental 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 Department has determined that this interim final rule falls within
this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist
as currently defined that would require preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
Energy Effects
This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this interim
final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined
in the Executive order. Procedural in nature, this interim final rule
merely extends a compliance date.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This interim final 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.
Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The Department has considered this interim final rule under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism, and has made an
assessment that the rule conforms with the federalism principles set
out in this Executive order; will not impose any compliance costs on
the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further
assessment of federalism implications is necessary at this time.
Moreover, this interim final rule does not have tribal implications
as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with
tribes was not required.
No Takings Implications
This interim final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has
been determined that the rule will not pose the risk of a taking of
private property.
Civil Justice Reform
This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order
12988 on civil justice reform. This interim final 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.
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 Department has assessed the effects of this interim final
rule on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector.
This interim final 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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
[[Page 53297]]
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Forest and forest
products, National forests, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
0
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 219 of Title
36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 219-PLANNING
Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management
Planning
0
1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949,
2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).
0
2. Revise paragraph (d) of Sec. 219.35 to read as follows:
Sec. 219.35 Transition.
* * * * *
(d) The date by which site-specific decisions made by the
responsible official must be in conformance with the provisions of this
subpart is extended from November 9, 2003, until the Department
promulgates the final planning regulations published as proposed on
December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72770).
* * * * *
Dated: September 3, 2003.
David P. Tenny,
Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 03-22977 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P