FSMIP is authorized under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). FSMIP provides matching grants on a competitive basis to enable States to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products and to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of the U.S. marketing system. Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, State agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate State Agencies. Other organizations interested in participating in this program should contact their State Department of Agriculture's Marketing Division. State agencies specifically named under the authorizing legislation should assume the lead role in FSMIP projects, and use cooperative or contractual linkages with other agencies, universities, institutions, and producer, industry or community-based organizations as appropriate. Multi-State projects are encouraged as long as one State assumes the coordinating role, using appropriate cooperative arrangements with the other States involved. Applicants other than State Departments of Agriculture and State agricultural experiment stations may wish to include with their applications an explanation of how they meet the definition of “other appropriate State agency.”

Proposals must be accompanied by completed Standard Forms (SF) 424 and 424A. AMS will not approve the use of FSMIP funds for advertising or, with limited exceptions, for the purchase of equipment. Detailed program guidelines may be obtained from the contact listed above, and are available at the FSMIP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/FSMIP .

FSMIP funds a wide range of applied research projects that address barriers, challenges, and opportunities in marketing, transportation, and distribution of U.S. food and agricultural products domestically and internationally.

Eligible agricultural categories include livestock, livestock products, food and feed crops, fish and shellfish, horticulture, viticulture, apiary, and forest products and processed or manufactured products derived from such commodities. Reflecting the growing diversity of U.S. agriculture, in recent years, FSMIP has funded projects dealing with nutraceuticals, bioenergy, compost, and products made from agricultural residues.

Proposals may deal with barriers, challenges, or opportunities manifesting at any stage of the marketing chain including direct, wholesale, and retail. Proposals may involve small, medium, or large scale agricultural entities but should potentially benefit multiple producers or agribusinesses. Proprietary proposals that benefit one business or individual will not be considered.

Proposals that address issues of importance at the State, regional or national level are appropriate for FSMIP. FSMIP also seeks unique proposals on a smaller scale that may serve as pilot projects or case studies useful as a model for other States. Of particular interest are proposals that reflect a collaborative approach among the States, academia, the farm sector and other appropriate entities and stakeholders. FSMIP's enabling legislation authorizes projects to:

• Determine the best methods for processing, preparing for market, packing, handling, transporting, storing, distributing, and marketing agricultural products.

• Determine the costs of marketing agricultural products in their various forms and through various channels.

• Assist in the development of more efficient marketing methods, practices, and facilities to bring about more efficient and orderly marketing, and reduce the price spread between the producer and the consumer.

• Develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.

• Eliminate artificial barriers to the free movement of agricultural products in commercial channels.

• Foster new/expanded domestic/foreign markets and new/expanded uses of agricultural products.

• Collect and disseminate marketing information to anticipate and meet consumer requirements, maintain farm income, and balance production and utilization.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FSMIP information collection requirements were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0240.

AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public with the option of submitted information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

Applicants have the option of submitting FSMIP applications electronically through the Federal grants Web site, http://www.grants.gov instead of mailing hard copy documents. Applicants considering the electronic application option are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the Federal grants Web site well before the application deadline and to begin the application process before the deadline. Additional details about the FSMIP application process for all applicants are available at the FSMIP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/FSMIP .

FSMIP is listed in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” under number 10.156 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all Federally assisted programs.

Title: PPQ Form 816; Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance.

OMB Number: 0579-0298.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests and noxious weeds that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

As part of this mission, the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program, APHIS, responds to introductions of plant pests to eradicate, suppress, or contain them though various programs in cooperation with State departments of agriculture and other government agencies. These programs may include release through aerial application of treatments to control plant pests.

APHIS contracts for these services, and prior to any aerial applications, requests certain information from the contractor and/or contract pilots to ensure that the work will be done according to contract specifications. Among other things, APHIS asks to see aircraft registration, the aircraft's airworthiness certificate, the pilot's license, the pilot's medical certification, the pilot's proof of flight review, the pilot's pesticide applicator's license, and the aircraft logbook. APHIS transfers information from these documents to PPQ Form 816, which is then signed by the APHIS official collecting the information and the contractor or contract pilot, indicating acceptance of the pilot and aircraft for the job.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection activity for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

Respondents: Contractors and/or pilots of aircraft.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 15.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 15.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (EFAA), 7 U.S.C. 7501, et seq. , and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. , the Department makes foods available to States for use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need through TEFAP. In accordance with section 214 of the EFAA, 2 U.S.C. 7515, 60 percent of each State's share of TEFAP foods is based on the number of people with incomes below the poverty level within the State and 40 percent on the number of unemployed persons within the State. State officials are responsible for establishing the network through which the foods will be used by eligible recipient agencies (ERAs) in providing nutrition assistance to those in need, and for allocating foods among those agencies. States have full discretion in determining the amount of foods that will be made available to ERAs for use in preparing meals and/or for distribution to households for home consumption.

The types of foods the Department expects to make available to States for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2009 are described below.

Surplus foods donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) foods purchased under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and foods purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of foods typically purchased under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of foods purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices, and fruits.

In FY 2009, the Department anticipates that there will be sufficient quantities of fruit juices, peaches, chicken products, and cooked pork patties to support the distribution of these foods through TEFAP. Other surplus foods may be made available to TEFAP throughout the year. The Department would like to point out that food acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of foods is subject to change.

Approximately $92.6 million in surplus foods acquired in FY 2008 are being delivered to States in FY 2009. These foods include dried cherries, fruit nut mix, dates, raisins, frozen peaches, apple slices, turkey hams, peanut butter, dried beans (great northern, blackeye, and pinto), ham, lamb chops and roasts, dehydrated potatoes, pork patties, and the following canned items: Applesauce, apricots, blackeye beans, carrots, chicken, green beans, juice (apple, cherry apple, grape, orange, tomato, and grapefruit), light kidney beans, pears, peas, plums, pork, potatoes, refried beans, salmon, spaghetti sauce, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, tomato sauce, and vegetarian beans.

In accordance with section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. 2036, the Secretary is directed to purchase $250 million worth of foods in FY 2009 for distribution through TEFAP. These foods are made available to States in addition to those surplus foods which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP.

For FY 2009, the Department anticipates purchasing the following foods for distribution through TEFAP: Dehydrated potatoes, frozen ground beef, frozen whole chicken, frozen ham, frozen turkey roast, blackeye beans, great northern beans, light kidney beans, lima beans, pinto beans, egg mix, large eggs, lowfat bakery mix, egg noodles, white and yellow corn grits, spaghetti, macaroni, oats, peanut butter, roasted peanuts, rice, whole grain rotini, vegetable oil, UHT fluid 1% milk, bran flakes, corn flakes, oat cereal, rice cereal, corn cereal, and corn and rice cereal; and the following canned items: Green beans, blackeye beans, low sodium kidney beans, refried beans, low sodium vegetarian beans, carrots, cream corn, whole kernel corn, peas, sliced potatoes, pumpkin, low sodium spaghetti sauce, spinach, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, diced tomatoes, low sodium tomato sauce, mixed vegetables, reduced sodium tomato soup, reduced sodium vegetable soup, apple juice, cherry apple juice, grape juice, grapefruit juice, orange juice, tomato juice, apricots, applesauce, mixed fruit, freestone and cling peaches, pears, plums, beef, beef stew, chicken, pork, and tuna.

The amounts of each item purchased will depend on the prices the Department must pay, as well as the quantity of each item requested by the States. Changes in agricultural market conditions may result in the availability of additional types of foods or the non-availability of one or more types listed above.

The meeting is open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee.

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the travel management rule, governing use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. The travel management rule (36 CFR part 212, subpart B) requires each administrative unit or ranger district to designate those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. The travel management rule also requires designated roads, trails, and areas to be identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). After designated roads, trails, and areas have been identified on an MVUM, motor vehicle use inconsistent with those designations is prohibited under 36 CFR 261.13.

The travel management rule combines regulations governing administration of the forest transportation system and regulations governing use of motor vehicles off NFS roads into part 212, Travel Management, covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. The travel management rule implements Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (February 8, 1972), “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as amended by E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977).

Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 280,000 miles of NFS roads and 47,000 miles of NFS trails that are open to motor vehicle use. Other NFS roads and NFS trails are managed for non-motorized uses or are closed to all public use. Motor vehicle routes in the forest transportation system range from paved roads designed for all vehicle types, including standard passenger cars, to single-track trails used by motorcycles. Many roads designed for high-clearance vehicles (such as logging trucks and sport utility vehicles) are also used by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and other off-highway vehicles (OHVs) not normally found on city streets. Almost all NFS trails serve non-motorized users such as hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians, alone or in combination with motorized users. NFS roads accept non-motorized use as well.

In addition to this managed system of NFS roads and NFS trails, many national forests contain user-created roads and trails. These routes are usually in areas where cross-country travel by motor vehicles has been allowed and sometimes include dense, braided networks of criss-crossing trail. There has been no comprehensive national inventory of user-created routes (and continuing proliferation of these routes has made a definitive inventory difficult), but they are estimated to number in the tens of thousands of miles.

Wilderness areas are closed to motor vehicles by statute, unless the applicable enabling legislation authorizes motor vehicle use. On some national forests and portions of others, motor vehicle use is restricted by order to designated routes and areas. On other national forests, motor vehicle use is not restricted to designated routes and areas.

The Forest Service provides internal direction to field units through its directive system, consisting of the Forest Service manuals and Forest Service handbooks. Directives provide guidance to field units in implementing programs established by statute and regulation. Forest Service directives establish agency policy for delegations of authority, consistent definitions of terms, clear and consistent interpretation of regulatory language, and standard processes.

The travel management rule is being implemented on administrative units and ranger districts, each of which will complete the designation process and publish an MVUM identifying those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service plans to complete that task on all units of the NFS within 4 years of publication of the final rule.

Current policy in the Forest Service directive system was written prior to the travel management rule and reflects previous travel management direction and terminology. For example, current directives use the terms “classified road” and “unclassified road,” which were removed by the travel management rule. Until this policy is updated, inconsistent terminology may result in confusion and inconsistent application of the travel management rule. The final directives are also needed to provide a procedural approach to implementing the travel management rule in conformance with agency policy on land management planning, environmental analysis, roads analysis, and other requirements of law and policy.

Some comments on the proposed travel management rule requested an opportunity for public input in development of Agency directives implementing the travel management rule.

The Forest Service published the proposed travel management directives in the Federal Register for public notice and comment on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10632). The agency received 33 comments from organizations and individuals. Most comments were submitted by organizations or their representatives.

Many comments were editorial, suggesting minor word changes, referencing errors, or identifying inconsistencies between policy statements. The Forest Service accepted many of these suggestions in developing the final directives.

The following iterates the substantive comments and the agency's Response.

Comment. Some respondents suggested adding additional citations and direction related to laws, regulations, E.O.s, and directives to the authority and policy sections in the final directives. Suggested additions included references to the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the Data Quality Act, and statements addressing the protection of cultural resources and threatened and endangered species and prevention of the introduction of invasive species.

Response. The Forest Service does not believe that additional references in the final directives to governing laws, regulations, E.O.s, or directives are necessary. There are numerous laws, regulations, E.O.s, and directives that govern the Forest Service's programs. The purpose of FSM 2353.01, 7701, and 7710.01 and FSH 7709.55, sections 10.03, 20.03, and 30.03, is to reference those authorities that directly pertain to travel management and planning. The Forest Service believes that the final directives accomplish this purpose.

Comment. Some respondents commented that some of the sections in the proposed directives were redundant, making them difficult to read and understand.

Response. The agency agrees that there was redundancy in the proposed directives and has striven to reduce it by consolidating definitions and text in the final directives. For example, the agency has removed most redundant information on MVUMs in FSM 7711.3 and FSH 7709.55, section 15 and has consolidated direction on MVUMs in FSM 7711.3 and FSH 7709.55, section 15.1.

Comment. Some respondents asked the agency to provide definitions for the following terms in the directives: Sustainable, sustainable access (FSM 7702), fiscally responsible (FSM 7702), considerable adverse effects (36 CFR 212.52(b)(2)), appropriate consideration (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12.1), collaborative learning (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12.2), and use conflict (7710.2, para. 6).

Some respondents requested modification of the definitions for “travel management atlas,” “forest transportation atlas,” “route,” “road decommissioning,” “road,” “trail,” and “unauthorized road.”

Response. The travel management rule provides a consistent national framework for making travel management decisions at the local level. The final directives provide national direction for implementing the travel management rule. Both the travel management rule and the travel management directives give the responsible official discretion to make appropriate decisions at the local level. Consistent with this approach, the terms “sustainable” and “sustainable access” (FSM 7702), “fiscally responsible” (FSM 7702), “appropriate consideration” (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12.1), “collaborative learning” (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12, para. 2), and “use conflict” are terms of art designed to provide a general context for implementing the final directives, while leaving discretion to the responsible official to work with the public, other Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments to discern what each term means for that official's administrative unit or ranger district in light of local social and environmental issues. Accordingly, the Forest Service does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to define these terms in the final directives.

The phrase “considerable adverse effects” (E.O. 11644, 36 CFR 212.52(b)(2), and 36 CFR 261.51) is a requirement for establishing a temporary emergency closure of a route to motor vehicle use under 36 CFR 212.52(b)(2). The responsible official has the discretion to make this determination based on local, social, and environmental conditions. Therefore, the Forest Service does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to define “considerable adverse effects” in the final directives.

“Forest transportation atlas,” “travel management atlas,” “road,” “road decommissioning,” “trail,” and “unauthorized road” are defined in regulations at 36 CFR 212.1, and redefining them is beyond the scope of these directives. “Route” is defined in FSM 7705 as “a road or trail,” which is a sufficient definition for purposes of these directives.

Comment. Some respondents believed that travel planning should be accomplished as part of land management plan revisions. Other respondents believed that the Forest Service should have separate planning processes for recreation and general access routes and suggested how the planning process for recreation routes should be structured.

Response. The agency has developed the travel planning process in FSM 7710 and FSH 7709.55, chapter 10, based on past experience with transportation and recreation travel planning. The Forest Service believes that it would not be appropriate to have separate planning processes for recreation and general access routes for implementing the travel management rule, which regulates motor vehicle use by vehicle class and time of year, rather than by type of use. In addition, the agency has clarified or added direction on travel planning in the final directives based on the agency's experience in implementing the travel management rule during the past 3 years.

Comment. Some respondents believed that the agency should not restrict motor vehicle use to a designated system of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands, but if the agency created a designated system for motor vehicle use, the agency should provide broad exemptions for specific activities like big game retrieval and grazing.

One respondent expressed concern about not being able to use a motor vehicle to engage in dispersed camping or big game retrieval off a public road that is not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Other respondents believed that limiting designations for dispersed camping and big game retrieval to “within a specified distance of certain forest roads and trails” was too restrictive, would preclude day use, and would give preference to one group over others. Some respondents commented that the directives should not limit responsible officials' ability to make designations for dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Some respondents believed that additional limitations, such as a maximum length, should be placed on designations for dispersed camping and big game retrieval.

Response. Unregulated cross-country motor vehicle use may have been appropriate on some national forests when these vehicles were less numerous, less powerful, and less capable of cross-country travel. Today, however, the proliferation of user-created routes is a major challenge on many national forests, and examples of significant environmental damage, safety issues, and use conflicts are well-established. The Forest Service believes that a well-planned, well-designed system of designated roads, trails, and areas, developed in coordination with Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and with public involvement, offers better opportunities for sustainable long-term recreational motor vehicle use and better economic opportunities for local residents and communities. Consistent with these determinations, the agency promulgated the travel management rule, which requires each administrative unit or ranger district to establish a designated system of routes and areas for motor vehicle use. These final directives implement that regulation. The final rule and the final directives do not prohibit day use of NFS lands for such purposes as picnicking or fishing. Rather, the final rule and final directives regulate motor vehicle use.

The travel management rule and the final directives enumerate eight exemptions from designations for motor vehicle use, including motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization, such as a grazing permit (36 CFR 212.51(a)). In addition, the travel management rule provides for including in a designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or big game retrieval (36 CFR 212.51(b)).

In many places in the NFS, visitors use motor vehicles for dispersed camping or big game retrieval within a limited distance of State or county roads or trails, which are not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and cannot be designated for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.1, 212.50(a), and 212.51(a)). Consequently, the proposed directives at FSM 7710 contained language that would allow the responsible official to include in a designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest routes, rather than designated routes, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Forest roads and trails include State and county roads and trails in the NFS, as well as NFS roads and NFS trails (36 CFR 212.1).

The agency has retained the proposed language in FSM 7715.74 of the final directives. In addition, the agency has included the phrase, “where motor vehicle use is allowed” after “certain forest roads and forest trails,” since not all forest roads and trails are open to motor vehicle use. In a separate notice in the same issue of the Federal Register , the agency is revising the travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.51(b) to make it consistent with FSM 7715.74 in the final directives. Since the proposed language regarding dispersed camping and big game retrieval was subjected to full public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, further public notice and comment are unnecessary (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).

The Forest Service expects responsible officials to apply 36 CFR 212.51(b) and FSM 7715.74 sparingly to avoid undermining the purposes of the travel management rule and to promote consistency in its implementation. Determination of the specified distance for limited motor vehicle use off a forest road or trail is a local decision dependent on site- and route-specific circumstances. Therefore, the travel management rule and final directives give the responsible official some discretion in making this determination.

Nothing in the travel management rule or final directives requires addressing either dispersed camping or big game retrieval in a designation or reconsideration of any decision prohibiting motor vehicle use while engaging in these activities.

Comment. Some respondents suggested adding provisions to the directives requiring responsible officials to coordinate with local governmental entities, including local law enforcement agencies and emergency service providers, during the travel planning process and prior to making travel management decisions.

Response. The travel management rule (36 CFR 212.53) and its implementing directives (FSM 7702, para. 5, and 7715.3) require the responsible official to coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities, which may include local law enforcement agencies and emergency service providers, as well as tribal governments in designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use.

Comment. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives should require a complete inventory of user-created routes and consideration of that inventory in travel planning, since many of these routes were created when cross-country travel was allowed, are well-located, and provide the type of experiences motorized recreationists are seeking. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives should provide for accepting inventories of user-created routes collected by volunteers. Other respondents believed that the proposed directives would discourage responsible officials from considering user-created routes in travel planning. Other respondents believed that a complete inventory was needed for resource protection and restoration and that the requirement to conduct a complete inventory currently in FSM 7710 should be retained.

Other respondents believed that the proposed directives should prohibit inventory of user-created routes and should direct responsible officials not to consider them in travel planning. Some of these respondents believed that the proposed directives were biased toward adding user-created routes to the forest transportation system and designating them for motor vehicle use.

Response. A complete inventory of user-created routes is not required to complete the designation process pursuant to the travel management rule. Therefore, the current directives do not require a complete inventory of user-created routes in conducting travel planning. In some cases, however, an administrative unit or ranger district may determine that a complete inventory of user-created routes is necessary to conduct effective travel planning. To clarify this intent, the final directives state that a complete inventory of user-created routes is not required, rather than a complete inventory is not necessary.

As a practical matter, in areas where there are no restrictions on motor vehicle use, there is no way to conduct a complete inventory of user-created routes, since users of motor vehicles can create new routes while the inventory is underway. Furthermore, to the extent a comprehensive inventory of user-created routes is feasible, conducting such an inventory would be very time-consuming and expensive, delaying completion of route and area designation. Advance planning based on public involvement, effective design, and appropriate environmental analysis provides the best hope for a system of motor vehicle routes and areas that addresses users' needs and safety with minimal environmental impacts.

User-created routes in most cases were developed without agency authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the same status as NFS roads and NFS trails in the forest transportation system. Nevertheless, some user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized users alike, engender less environmental impact than unrestricted cross-country motor vehicle use, and would enhance the system of designated routes and areas. Other user-created routes are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts.

The evaluation of user-created routes is best handled at the local level by officials who have first-hand knowledge of the particular circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts involved and who can work closely with local governments, users, and other members of the public.

Comment. Some respondents asked the agency to define “user-created route” in the proposed directives and to explain the difference between that term and the term “unauthorized road.”

Response. FSM 7703.21, paragraph 1, addresses user-created routes. FSM 7715.78, paragraph 2, in the final directives addresses unauthorized roads and trails. “ Unauthorized road or trail,” which is defined in the travel management rule as “a road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas” (36 CFR 212.1), is the preferred term. Therefore, a definition for and additional direction on user-created routes is not needed in the final directives.

Comment. Some respondents believed that responsible officials should be required to identify the minimum trail system, as well as the minimum road system, needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Other respondents believed that the requirement to identify the minimum road system would result in reducing opportunities for motorized recreation.

Response. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) establish the requirement to identify the minimum road system on each administrative unit of the NFS, and Forest Service directives at FSM 7703.12 implement that requirement. Agency regulations and directives do not establish a requirement to identify the minimum trail system on NFS lands.

Moreover, identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands under 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) is separate from designation of routes and areas under 36 CFR 212.51. The requirement to identify the minimum road system was established in regulations (the roads rule) and directives (the roads policy) published on January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3216), before promulgation of the travel management rule in November 2005. Identification of the minimum road system focuses on the need for roads in the forest transportation system, rather than on appropriate motor vehicle use on routes in the forest transportation system and in areas on NFS lands. Therefore, the designation process, rather than identification of the minimum road system, determines the scope of opportunities for motorized recreation.

Although identification of the minimum road system pursuant to 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) and designation of routes and areas pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 are independent regulatory requirements, the Forest Service believes that travel analysis can and should be used for both. The agency has revised FSM 7712 to provide that travel analysis for purposes of 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) and 36 CFR 212.51 may be conducted separately or simultaneously, and that any proposals resulting from travel analysis for either purpose may be addressed in the same or different environmental analyses.

Comment. Some respondents wanted the agency to retain all or part of the current direction in FSM 7700 and 7710 regarding roads analysis. Some respondents believed that the proposed changes to roads analysis would weaken its environmental protection.

Response. The agency has retained the essentials of roads analysis in the final directives and has not weakened its environmental protection. A key objective of the final directives is to describe a travel analysis process that can be used for the two separate purposes of identification of the minimum road system that incorporates a science-based roads analysis under 36 CFR 212.5(b) and designation of roads, trails, and areas under 36 CFR 212.51. The roads policy (current FSM 7700 and 7710) established Publication FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (August 1999), as the science-based roads analysis to be followed when identifying the minimum road system. The Forest Service has moved the six-step roads analysis described in Publication FS-643 to FSH 7709.55, chapter 20, and renamed it “travel analysis” to reflect its purpose of informing travel management decisions regarding motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands, as well as identification of the minimum road system. In addition, the agency has streamlined travel analysis and has given responsible officials additional discretion in determining the scope and scale of travel analysis.

By including travel analysis in the Forest Service directive system, the agency has made the process available to anyone with Internet access. Publication FS-643 was originally available only in hard copy, and while scanned versions are available on the Internet, they remain difficult to locate and, in contrast to Forest Service directives, do not meet the needs of the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d).

The Forest Service believes that additional clarification of the relationship between roads analysis and travel analysis is necessary and thus has modified the final directives to specify that travel analysis satisfies the requirement for use of a science-based road analysis when identifying the minimum road system per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) ( see FSM 7712.4, para. 1). In addition, the final directives clarify that travel analysis is not required to inform decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for those administrative units and ranger districts that have issued a proposed action as of the effective date of the final directives (FSM 7712, para. 1).

Since the approving official for FSM 7710 and FSH 7709.55 is the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, issuance of the final directives will negate the need for the statement currently in FSM 7710.41 regarding the authority of the Deputy Chief of the National Forest System to approve or rescind the roads analysis process for field use. Therefore, the agency has removed this statement from the final directives.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the agency require a complete review of the forest transportation system as part of travel planning and establish a schedule for subsequent comprehensive review of the system in the proposed directives.

Response. The agency believes that it is not necessary or appropriate to require a comprehensive review of the forest transportation system when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51. Nothing in the travel management rule requires reconsideration of any previous administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on NFS roads and NFS trails or in areas on NFS lands and that were made under other authorities, including decisions made in land management plans and travel plans. To the contrary, the travel management rule provides that these decisions may be incorporated into designations for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)).

All national forests have a system of NFS roads open to motor vehicle use, and many also have a system of NFS trails managed for motor vehicle use. Some national forests have long restricted motor vehicles to designated routes under E.O. 11644, 36 CFR part 295, and FSM 2355. Other national forests have issued comprehensive travel management decisions that restrict motor vehicle use to designated routes and have issued orders that prohibit cross-country motor vehicle use. In these cases, the responsible official may, with public notice but no further analysis or decision-making, establish that decision or those decisions as the designation pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51, effective upon publication of an MVUM. In that situation, the only substantive change effected by the designation would be enforcement of the restrictions pursuant to the prohibition in 36 CFR 261.13, rather than pursuant to an order issued under 36 CFR part 261, subpart B. Alternatively, responsible officials may choose to reconsider past decisions, with public involvement, as necessary to achieve the purposes of the travel management rule.

The travel management rule and final directives both recognize that designations of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use are not permanent. Unforeseen environmental impacts, changes in public demand, route construction, and monitoring conducted under § 212.57 of the travel management rule may lead responsible officials to consider revising designations under § 212.54 of the rule.

Designations must be consistent with the applicable land management plan. If a responsible official proposes a designation that would be inconsistent with the applicable land management plan, a proposed amendment to the plan must be included with the proposed designation so that the designation decision will conform to the plan.

The Forest Service supports the concept of adaptive management and agrees that monitoring and, if needed, revision of motor vehicle designations will be an ongoing part of travel management. Since the system of designated routes and areas will change over time, the Forest Service anticipates that responsible officials will publish MVUMs annually to provide notice that they are current, update them as necessary, and update signs as necessary or appropriate.

Neither E.O. 11644 nor the travel management rule requires periodic review of designations. Accordingly, the Forest Service does not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to require periodic review of designations. Rather, the agency believes that responsible officials should have the discretion to conduct review of designations as needed.

Comment. Some respondents objected to OHV use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. Other respondents advocated designating every NFS road and NFS trail for motor vehicle use. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives favored motorized recreation, while other respondents believed that the proposed directives favored resource protection and non-motorized recreation. Some respondents requested that the proposed directives require responsible officials to give preference in travel planning to resource values such as wilderness values and minimizing or preventing introduction of invasive species; social values, and existing uses such as non-motorized and motorized recreation, rock climbing, grazing, mining, and other authorized uses. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives include language reflecting the requirements in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) and that the proposed directives emphasize multiple use as a policy objective.

Response. Designation of a road, trail, or area for motor vehicle use does not establish that use as the dominant or exclusive use of that road, trail, or area. Pursuant to MUSY (16 U.S.C. 528-531), the Forest Service manages NFS lands for multiple uses, including motorized and non-motorized and recreational and non-recreational uses, without favoring one use over another. The Forest Service believes that NFS lands should provide access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The NFS is not reserved for any particular use, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre of NFS lands. It is not uncommon for different areas in the NFS to provide different recreation opportunities. The Forest Service believes that assessment and determination of appropriate motorized recreation opportunities are best made at the local level, in coordination with Federal, State, and local governmental entities and tribal governments and with public involvement, including input from motorized and non-motorized users, as provided for in the travel management rule and final directives.

The Forest Service does not believe that it is appropriate to cite MUSY as an authority for the final directives or to emphasize multiple use as one of their policy objectives. Like the travel management rule, the authorities for the final directives include the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (16 U.S.C. 7 U.S.C. 1011(f)), regarding regulation of national grasslands; the agency's Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 551), regarding regulation of national forests; and E.O.s 11644 and 11989 governing use of motor vehicles off roads (42 FR 26959). In addition, the final directives cite the travel management rule as an authority. Neither the travel management rule nor the final directives need to reference all the laws and regulations governing management of the NFS.

MUSY defines “multiple use” in part as “management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people * * * ” (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). MUSY specifically provides “that some land will be used for less than all of the resources” (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). MUSY does not direct that all NFS lands be open to all uses. The policy established in the final directives is consistent with MUSY.

Comment. Some respondents requested that the agency expand travel planning to include all recreation uses of roads and trails, both motorized and non-motorized. Specifically, these respondents wanted the agency to analyze the social and environmental effects associated with these uses and to make travel management decisions for both motorized and non-motorized uses.

Response. The purpose of the travel management rule and final directives is to provide better and more consistent management of motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. Regulation of non-motorized use is beyond the scope of the travel management rule and final directives.

In designating roads, trails, and areas, responsible officials must consider conflicts among uses of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.55(a)). In designating trails and areas, local agency officials must consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5)).

While there is no requirement to regulate non-motorized recreation uses as part of travel planning, the final directives identify as one of the objectives of travel planning “to provide for and manage a range of motorized and non-motorized recreational experiences, while minimizing conflicts among uses” (FSM 7710.2). Responsible officials have the discretion to use travel analysis and planning to address non-motorized recreation (FSM 7712, para. 6).

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives require consultation with counties to identify roads that could qualify as R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and that those roads should remain open to motor vehicle use until they are adjudicated. Some respondents requested that the Forest Service establish a process outside the courts for adjudicating claims for R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. Other respondents requested that the agency limit its legal research and title searches so as not to appear to be conducting an informal adjudication of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way outside the courts. Several respondents commented that discussion of existing rights in FSM 7715.65 should be expanded to include R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.

Response. The Forest Service does not believe it is appropriate to include these suggestions in the final directives. Under the travel management rule, responsible officials may designate only NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands, that is, only roads, trails, and areas under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1, 212.50(a), 212.51(a)). Adjudicated R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The Forest Service does not have the authority to adjudicate R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.

The Forest Service may, however, make a non-binding administrative determination (NBD) as to the potential validity of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way claim for land use planning and management purposes. If the Forest Service identifies a potentially valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way claim through the NBD process, the agency will encourage the claimant to accept jurisdiction pursuant to an easement granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (23 U.S.C. 317) or by the Forest Service under Section 2 of the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) (16 U.S.C. 533) or to adjudicate the claim pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (28 U.S.C. 2409a).

In making designations for motor vehicle use, the responsible official must recognize valid existing rights ( see 36 CFR 212.55(d)). FSM 7703.3 provides an administrative framework for meeting this requirement by providing guidance on documenting jurisdiction, transferring jurisdiction, and exercising jurisdiction over forest roads, based on factors such as the right of individuals and local public road authorities to own, operate, maintain, and use these roads. There is no need to repeat this guidance in FSM 7715.75 (recoded from FSM 7715.65 in the proposed directives).

Comment. Some respondents were concerned that the agency would rely on lack of jurisdiction over road segments crossing private lands in deciding not to designate the NFS road segments on either side of those private lands. Other respondents did not want the agency to be dissuaded from designating routes where jurisdiction was uncertain, particularly if those routes are on NFS lands.

Response. The Forest Service supports public access to Federal lands and supports the rights of private landowners to control access to their land. The agency generally will not consider designating an NFS road or NFS trail unless there is legal public access to that road or trail. Where access to NFS lands across private property is needed, the responsible official should seek a right-of-way from the landowner. FSM 7715.72 provides guidance regarding situations where access rights may have been acquired but are undocumented.

The Forest Service supports cooperative road development, including construction, maintenance, and reciprocal rights-of-way, where public and private lands are intermingled. When the Forest Service needs access across private land and the private landowner needs access across NFS lands, the Forest Service generally will not grant an easement to the private landowner without a reciprocal easement from the private landowner.

Comment. Some respondents objected to provisions in the proposed directives addressing transfer of jurisdiction over NFS roads to local public road authorities. Other respondents wanted the agency to retain some control over roads when transferring jurisdiction so as to influence environmental mitigation or prevent improvements.

Response. The Forest Service may transfer jurisdiction over NFS roads to local public road authorities pursuant to FSM 7703.3, for example, when more than half the use is likely to be traffic that is not generated by the Forest Service; the road is necessary for mail delivery, access to a public school, or other local governmental purposes; or the road serves year-long residents within or adjacent to the NFS. In these cases, the Forest Service would transfer jurisdiction through issuance of an easement under Section 2 of FRTA (16 U.S.C. 533). Consistent with the transfer of jurisdiction, these easements would assign full responsibility for road users' safety to the grantee.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that when the Forest Service is unable to obtain a permanent right-of-way for an NFS road or NFS trail, the agency accept less than full permanent public access when landowners are willing to grant limited access.

Response. Long-standing Forest Service policy in FSM 5460.3 provides for acquiring rights-of-way in perpetuity to accommodate all types of traffic, unless the applicable land management plan indicates that full public access is not needed, and accepting temporary agreements, road use permits, or other road use arrangements only for immediate, temporary, limited access and when future needs of the United States do not justify the expense of providing a permanent road or trail.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service improve maintenance of NFS roads and NFS trails and increase the number of NFS trails designated for motor vehicle use by leveraging all sources of funding and volunteer work, including spending State and Federal gas tax revenues generated by OHV users on road and trail maintenance. Some respondents were concerned that the agency would use the lack of funds to maintain NFS roads and NFS trails as a rationale for reducing motorized recreation opportunities, closing NFS roads, and converting NFS roads to NFS trails. Other respondents believed that the agency should not designate routes for motor vehicle use unless they could be maintained.

Response. Funding for road and trail maintenance is beyond the scope of the final directives. Forest Service appropriations are authorized by Congress. The Forest Service is committed to using whatever funds are available to accomplish the purposes of the travel management rule in a targeted, efficient manner. The Agency makes appropriate use of all other sources of available funding and has many successful cooperative relationships. Volunteer agreements with user groups and others have proven successful in extending agency resources for trail construction, maintenance, monitoring, and mitigation. Regardless of the level of funding available, the Forest Service believes that the travel management rule and its implementing directives provide a better framework for management of motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.

The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails in accordance with their road or trail management objectives, design standards, quantity and types of traffic, and availability of funds. All roads and trails require maintenance. An extended lack of maintenance can lead to deterioration of an NFS road or NFS trail to the point where it will be closed by natural events such as precipitation, wind storms, or growth of vegetation. In other cases, while a route remains passable to some traffic, the Forest Service may have to close the route to address public safety concerns or to prevent severe environmental damage. The Forest Service actively tries to avoid closures by encouraging volunteer agreements and cooperative relationships with user groups.

The availability of resources is a consideration in designating routes for motor vehicle use. The travel management rule includes as a criterion for designation “the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration” (36 CFR 212.55(a)). The Forest Service believes, however, that these determinations involve the exercise of judgment and discretion on the part of the responsible official. The final directives clarify that the availability of resources for administration and maintenance of routes should not be the only consideration in developing travel management proposals (FSM 7715.5, para. 1c). Volunteers and cooperators can supplement agency resources for maintenance and monitoring, and their contributions should be considered in assessing the availability of resources.

To clarify that routes should not be added to the forest transportation system unless adequate resources are available to maintain them, the Forest Service has added the following to FSM 7715.03, paragraph 7: “Administrative units and ranger districts should avoid adding routes to the forest transportation system unless there is adequate provision for their maintenance.”

In addition, in FSM 7703.27 in the final directives, the Agency has enumerated factors to consider when contemplating conversion of an NFS road to an NFS trail or when overlaying an NFS trail and an NFS road.

Comment. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives should require development of area management objectives, similar to road management objectives (RMOs) and trail management objectives (TMOs).

Response. The Forest Service agrees that areas designated for motor vehicle use should have management objectives and has added a requirement for area management objectives in FSM 7715.73 in the final directives.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives establish criteria for analysis and public comment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives establish specific factors to consider in conducting cumulative effects analysis for travel management decisions, such as the effect of road closures on communities, the effect of wilderness designation, and the effect of the roadless rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B) on the availability of motorized recreation opportunities.

Some respondents stated that the proposed directives should modify the amount of public involvement in the travel planning process to reduce the burden on the commenting public. Other respondents wanted assurance that the public comment process would not be merely a voting process, that is, that public input would be considered, rather than merely tallied in support of or against particular proposals. Some respondents requested that the proposed directives establish the duration and time of year for public comment for specific travel management decisions, such as issuance of special use permits for motorized recreation events.

Response. Regulations implementing NEPA, including requirements for public involvement, are issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and are found at 40 CFR part 1500. Agency direction on NEPA compliance is found at 36 CFR part 220 and in FSH 1909.15. The scope, content, and documentation of NEPA analysis associated with designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use will depend on site-specific factors. Therefore, the Forest Service is not addressing NEPA compliance in the final directives beyond the direction found in FSM 7715.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives establish specific criteria for monitoring, including the extent and timing of monitoring, the data collected, and the storage, reporting, and use of the data collected. Some respondents believed that allowing each responsible official to develop a monitoring plan would lead to collection of inconsistent data at the local and national level.

Response. The travel management rule requires monitoring of the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads, trails, and areas, consistent with the applicable land management plan and as appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 212.57). Like travel management decisions, decisions regarding what, where, how, and when to monitor are determined by local circumstances and are therefore best left to the responsible official.

Consistent with the objective of the travel management rule to establish a national framework for local decision-making, the final directives provide guidance on monitoring in FSM 7717 and FSH 7709.55, section 16.3. The Agency has strengthened this guidance in the final directives to ensure that monitoring is consistent with the applicable land management plan and to advise responsible officials to use the applicable criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 as guidance when monitoring the effects of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use.

Comment. Some respondents believed that the provisions in proposed FSM 7703.14 and 7715.63 clarifying the size of designated areas narrowed their scope beyond what is authorized under the travel management rule. Other respondents believed that these provisions insufficiently narrowed the size of designated areas and suggested that their size be further narrowed by including additional considerations regarding their scope.

Response. As stated in the preamble to the proposed and final travel management rules, areas designated for motor vehicle use are not intended to be large or numerous. In the travel management rule, “area” is defined as “a discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a ranger district.” The final directives contain the same definition at FSM 7705, and the direction in FSM 7703.14 and 7715.73 is consistent with this definition and the preamble to the proposed and final travel management rules.

While areas are not intended to be large or numerous, the Forest Service believes that it is appropriate to designate some areas for motor vehicle use. These areas would have natural resource characteristics that are suitable for motor vehicle use or would be so significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate. Under the travel management rule and final directives, no administrative unit or ranger district is required to designate an area for motor vehicle use.

Routes and areas under the travel management rule are designated at the local level, based upon appropriate environmental analysis. Federal law does not require the Forest Service to demonstrate that there are no environmental impacts from designation of areas.

Comment . Some respondents recommended against producing multiple maps, such as a motor vehicle use map (MVUM), recreation visitor map, and opportunity maps, to display travel management data, on the grounds that multiple maps would create confusion and make it difficult to identify routes designated for motor vehicle use.

Some respondents wanted additional information displayed on MVUMs, including routes intended solely for administrative use, routes available solely for non-motorized use, and routes available for winter use. These respondents believed that the additional information would assist with orientation and increase compliance with designations. Other respondents suggested that the proposed directives state that an MVUM's primary purpose is enforcement. Some respondents suggested that MVUMs be made available to motorized recreation groups to enhance their distribution.

Response . An MVUM has a single purpose: To display designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or a ranger district. An MVUM informs visitors where, and in some cases when, they may operate certain classes of motor vehicles. After NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands have been designated (CFR 212.51) on an administrative unit or a ranger district and identified on an MVUM, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on NFS lands other than in accordance with those designations (36 CFR 261.13). The Forest Service has clarified the purpose of the MVUM in FSM 7716.41.

The MVUM is the primary enforcement tool for designation decisions. Therefore, the Forest Service believes that the MVUM needs to be separate from a visitor map and any other maps produced by the Forest Service. It is the responsibility of motor vehicle users to obtain a copy of the MVUM and to operate their motor vehicles consistent with the designations shown on the MVUM.

The Forest Service anticipates that it will be necessary to continue to produce visitor maps, recreation opportunity maps, and other types of maps to meet the needs of visitors to the NFS. Which additional maps to produce and how to make them available to the public are best determined at the local level, based on local circumstances.

The travel management rule requires that MVUMs be made available at the corresponding administrative units and ranger districts and that they be made available as soon as practicable on the Web site for those units and districts (36 CFR 212.56). The Forest Service anticipates that in some cases responsible officials will obtain assistance from cooperators in publishing and distributing the MVUM. The Forest Service also anticipates that individuals will forward, print, and copy the electronic version of MVUMs.

The Forest Service believes that it is important that the MVUM be produced consistently across the NFS. Visitors to the NFS should be able to pick up an MVUM anywhere in the country and see travel management decisions displayed consistently, using the same symbols, text, and format. To ensure consistency, the final directives require responsible officials to use national protocols for each MVUM (FSM 7711.3 and 7716.41).

Comment . Some respondents wanted the proposed directives to require that when wheeled motor vehicle use is acceptable on a snow trail and an over-snow vehicle use map has been published, the designation for wheeled motor vehicles be shown on the over-snow vehicle use map.

Response . The Forest Service agrees with this suggestion. There will be times where routes are designated for motor vehicles and both wheeled and tracked motor vehicles will be operating over snow on those routes simultaneously. In these cases, the routes will be shown on the MVUM. If the over-snow vehicle use is regulated under 36 CFR 212.81 on the same route, the use by over-snow vehicles would be shown on an over-snow vehicle use map. The over-snow vehicle use map should also show the wheeled motor vehicle use. The Agency has added direction in FSM 7718 of the final directives to address this unique situation.

Comment . Some respondents believed that the proposed directives should require full rehabilitation of all decommissioned routes. Other respondents believed that decommissioning unauthorized routes should be mandatory. Some respondents wanted the proposed directives to include a requirement to establish a schedule for decommissioning unneeded routes. Other respondents did not want any routes decommissioned. Instead, these respondents wanted the Agency to consider including all unauthorized routes in the forest transportation system and designating them for motor vehicle use. Some respondents wanted the agency to consider designating routes that have been decommissioned. One respondent requested more explanation of how roads should be decommissioned.

Response . In connection with identification of the minimum road system, the 2001 roads rule requires responsible officials to review NFS roads on each national forest and national grassland and identify those that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives and that therefore should be considered for decommissioning or other uses, such as trails (36 CFR 212.5(b)(2)). Decommissioning involves restoring roads to a more natural state. Decommissioning may involve reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing water bars, removing culverts, reestablishing drainage ways, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, scattering slash on the road bed, completely eliminating the road bed by restoring natural contours and slopes, or other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road. Further guidance on road decommissioning is provided in FSM 7734. Identification of the minimum road system and decisions regarding when and how to decommission roads are left to the discretion of the responsible official. The roads rule does not address identification of the minimum trail system or decommissioning of trails.

The Agency believes that evaluation of which routes, including unauthorized routes, should be designated for motor vehicle use is also best handled at the local level by officials with first-hand knowledge of the particular circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts involved, in coordination with Federal, State, and local governmental entities and tribal governments and input from motor vehicle users and other members of the public.

Comment . Some respondents stated that allowing motor vehicles to park within one vehicle length of a designated route should not be allowed because it is inconsistent with 36 CFR 212.51(b), which limits motor vehicle use off designated routes to dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Some respondents wanted the agency to replace “one vehicle length” with a specified distance and to include provisions in the proposed directives for prohibiting parking under certain circumstances.

Response . Users of NFS lands have always been able to park along NFS roads and NFS trails when it is safe to do so, when it would not cause damage to NFS resources or facilities, and when it is not prohibited by an order issued under 36 CFR 261.50 or by State traffic law.

The travel management rule does not regulate parking of motor vehicles along NFS roads and NFS trails. NFS roads are subject to State traffic laws, which allow parking along the shoulder of public roads when it is safe to do so. Causing resource damage to NFS lands while operating a motor vehicle is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.15(h).

The final directives provide two options for specifying how far from a designated road parking will be allowed. Accordingly, FSM 7716.1, paragraph 1, of the final directives states: “The designation also includes parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road, when it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS resources or facilities, unless prohibited by state law, a traffic sign, or an order (36 CFR 261.54). Road designations must specify either that they include parking within one vehicle length of the edge of the road or within a specified distance of up to 30 feet from the centerline of the road.”

Comment . Other respondents suggested that the proposed directives allow OHVs to pull 8 to 10 feet off a route to let others, such as equestrians, pass.

Response . The Forest Service has adopted this suggestion for trails designated for motor vehicle use to promote safe, responsible, and courteous use and to reduce or eliminate use conflicts. The agency has revised FSM 7716.1 in the final directives to allow for pulling over for a safe distance on a designated trail to allow others to pass in either direction.

Comment . Some respondents commented that the Agency has devoted considerable time to development of strategic plans for recreation, but has not addressed recreation niches and how they relate to trail planning. These respondents suggested addressing these issues in the proposed directives.

Response . Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) is an administrative process, incorporating identification of an administrative unit's recreation niche to inform facility master planning decisions for recreation sites. Development of strategic plans for recreation and facility master planning are beyond the scope of these directives, which address designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. However, recreation opportunities should be consistent with the applicable land management plan, and the Agency has included this clarification in FSM 2350.2, paragraph 2. In addition, FSH 2309.18, chapter 10, was recently updated (73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008) to address trail planning considerations.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that the authority to designate routes and areas be kept at the lowest possible level so as to maximize flexibility in the designation process. Other respondents believed that the authority to designate routes and areas should be placed at the highest possible level for consistency in the designation process.

Response . The travel management rule authorizes designations at either the level of an administrative unit or a ranger district (36 CFR 212.51(a)), and the agency did not propose changing these provisions in the proposed directives. Therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of the directives.

The Forest Service believes that it is appropriate to give forest supervisors the discretion to delegate designation authority to district rangers. One of the main objectives of the travel management rule and its implementing directives is to provide a national framework for local decisionmaking. The Agency believes that the decision to designate NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use is best made by the forest or grassland supervisor or district ranger, in coordination with Federal, State, and local governmental entities and tribal governments and with public involvement. The requirements in the travel management rule and direction and guidance in the final directives provide the consistency needed in the designation process.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that FSM 7703 in the proposed directives incorporate the phrase “minimize impacts on” from E.O. 11644 in reference to the factors to consider in designating trails and areas for motor vehicle use.

Response . The phrase, “the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing,” is contained in the travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.55(b) and was not proposed for revision. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of these directives.

The phrase in question is mandatory with respect to addressing environmental and other impacts associated with motor vehicle use of trails and areas. Moreover, the Agency believes that this phrase is consistent with E.O. 11644 and better expresses its intent. It is the intent of E.O. 11644 that motor vehicle use of trails and areas on Federal lands be managed to address environmental and other impacts, but that motor vehicle use on Federal lands continue in appropriate locations. An extreme interpretation of “minimize” would preclude any use at all, since impacts always can be reduced further by preventing them altogether. This interpretation would not reflect the full context of E.O. 11644 or other laws and policies related to multiple-use management of NFS lands. Neither E.O. 11644, nor these other laws and policies, establish the primacy of any particular use of trails and areas. The Agency believes that the phrase, “shall consider * * * with the objective of minimizing * * *” will ensure that environmental impacts are properly taken into account, without categorically precluding motor vehicle use.

Comment . Some respondents believed that the Agency should not limit designations to vehicle class and time of year in proposed FSM 7703.11, paragraph 3.

Response . The travel management rule states: “Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or ranger districts of the National Forest System” (36 CFR 212.51(a)). The Agency has not proposed changing this provision. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of these directives.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7703.15 require responsible officials to work with municipalities to craft long-term, integrated transit and recreation plans that consider locating recreation opportunities where they can be accessed by public transportation, bicycles, or other means besides a private motor vehicle. These respondents also suggested including provisions in the proposed directives that would encourage providing public transportation to popular locations in the NFS that are far from urban areas.

Response . The need to provide guidance regarding alternative modes of transportation is beyond the scope of these directives, which provide direction on designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use.

However, the Forest Service agrees as a matter of principle with this Comment. The agency is working with the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and many municipalities under the Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public Lands provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. No. 109-59) to provide transit and alternative transportation in the NFS when appropriate. The agency has retained the proposed policy addressing that subject in the final directives at FSM 7703.15 and 7704.2.

Comment . Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7703.24, paragraph 4, should be modified to allow motor vehicle use for recreation events on roads that are open only intermittently.

Response . The Forest Service believes that this change is not necessary. Consistent with the travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.51(a)(8), the proposed and final directives at FSM 7703.24, paragraph 4, allow for motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulation. Recreation events involving motor vehicles are subject to the conditions in FSM 2353.28h.

Comment . Some respondents stated that responsible officials should be able to designate temporary roads for motor vehicle use under proposed FSM 7703.25, paragraph 1.

Response . Under the travel management rule, only NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands may be designated for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.51(a)). NFS roads and NFS trails are a subset of forest roads and trails (36 CFR 212.1). Temporary roads and trails are not forest roads and trails (36 CFR 212.1) and therefore cannot be designated for motor vehicle use. Consequently, this comment is beyond the scope of these directives.

However, emergency motor vehicle use on temporary roads is exempt from designations under 36 CFR 212.51(a)(5), and motor vehicle use on temporary roads that is specifically authorized under a written authorization is exempt from designations under 36 CFR 212.51(a)(8).

Comment . Some respondents suggested modifying the word “benefit” with the adjective “public” or “social” in proposed FSM 7703.26, paragraph 1, to be consistent with the discussion of social sustainability elsewhere in the proposed directives.

Response . The Forest Service agrees and has modified “benefit” with “social” and “economic” in FSM 7703.26, paragraph 1, in the final directives.

Comment . Some respondents suggested modifying the 3rd and 5th sentences in proposed FSM 7703.26, paragraph 2, to clarify that changes could be positive and expanding proposed FSM 7703.26, paragraphs 2a through 2c, to include positive effects, such as improved access and enhanced recreation opportunities.

Response . The Forest Service agrees and in the final directives has changed the word “impacted” to “affected” in the 3rd sentence and has changed the word “impacts” to “effects” in the 5th sentence of FSM 7703.26, paragraph 2. In addition, the Agency has expanded the list of considerations to include effects on recreation opportunities and access to NFS lands.

Comment . Some respondents commented that the definition of forest transportation atlas at FSM 7705 should include the environmental analysis and decision documents and the underlying electronic data that serve as the basis for the maps included in the atlas.

Response . The Forest Service does not believe it is appropriate to include environmental analysis and decision documents in the forest transportation atlas. However, the forest transportation atlas may be used to record decisions regarding forest transportation facilities and has added this use for the atlas to FSM 7711.2 in the proposed and final directives.

The Agency agrees that relevant electronic data need to be included in the forest transportation atlas and has therefore added to FSM 7711.2 in the proposed and final directives the requirement to use the Forest Service's national Infrastructure database and the transportation layer of the geographic information system for storage of information in a forest transportation atlas.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7712.3, paragraph 6, require the use of travel analysis in setting maintenance priorities.

Response . FSM 7732.04c adequately addresses setting road maintenance priorities. This section requires forest and grassland supervisors to approve an annual road maintenance plan. The requirements for these plans include consideration of both short- and long-term needs; consideration of all sources of maintenance funds available during the fiscal year, including appropriated funds and deposits made under cooperative agreements; consideration of maintenance performed by timber purchasers, other contractors, permit holders, and cooperators; and consideration of the need for expenditures of appropriated road maintenance funds for road decommissioning (FSM 7732.11, para. 1). Responsible officials conduct maintenance planning in a variety of ways that are tailored to meet local needs and availability of resources. While travel analysis could be used for maintenance planning, the Agency does not believe it would be productive to require each responsible official to do so.

Comment . One respondent noted that the discussion about travel analysis in proposed FSM 7712.4 should address trails, as well as roads.

Response . The Forest Service has modified FSM 7712 and 7712.4 to provide for the use of travel analysis to inform decisions relating to the designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use.

Comment . One respondent believed that the requirements in proposed FSM 7703.14 and 7715.63 (FSM 7715.73 in the final directives), governing designation of areas for motor vehicle use, were not well coordinated.

Response . The Forest Service disagrees with this Comment. Both sections in the proposed and final directives are consistent with the travel management rule and each other.

Comment . Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7715.66 unnecessarily and illegally limited the agency's discretion regarding management of wilderness and primitive areas and requested that this section be removed.

Response . The Wilderness Act prohibits mechanical transport and motor vehicles in wilderness areas unless they are necessary to meet minimum requirements for administration of the areas or they are expressly authorized under the applicable enabling legislation for those areas. In addition, section 3(a)(4) of E.O. 11644 prohibits designation of off-road motor vehicle use in primitive areas. Accordingly, 36 CFR 212.55(e) and FSM 7715.66 in the proposed directives (FSM 7715.76 in the final directives) prohibit designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use in wilderness areas and primitive areas, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for those areas. Primitive areas are defined as areas in the NFS that were classified as primitive on the effective date of the Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964 (36 CFR 261.2; FSM 7705).

Comment . Some respondents believed that the restrictions in proposed FSM 7715.67 on motorized mixed use would limit the network of OHV routes.

Response . The Forest Service anticipates the need to mix highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic on some NFS roads at maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 and on a significant percentage of NFS roads at maintenance level 2. These decisions will be advised by professional engineering judgment and, when appropriate, will include design features deemed appropriate in engineering studies. The Forest Service believes that the guidance provided in FSM 7715.77 and FSH 7709.55, chapter 30, in the final directives is necessary for public safety and enjoyment.

Comment . Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7715.69 (FSM 7715.79 in the final directives) should preclude exemptions from designations for people with disabilities. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7715.69 should promote more use of OHVs by disabled hunters.

Response . Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. Consistent with section 504, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the Americans With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are battery-powered, that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for location and that are suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel.

There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on trails, or in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from designations for people with disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and other management objectives of designation decisions and would fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest Service's travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Comment . Some respondents wanted to know how new vehicles such as utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) would be included in designations.

Response . Designations are made by vehicle class (36 CFR 212.51; FSM 7716.11). The final directives establish seven categories of motor vehicle classes for use when producing a motor vehicle use map: (1) Road open only to highway-legal motor vehicles; (2) road open to all motor vehicles; (3) trail open to all motor vehicles; (4) trail open only to motor vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches in width; (5) trail open only to wheeled motor vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches in width; (6) trail open only to motorcycles; and (7) special vehicle designation (includes any classes of vehicles that are not already listed) (FSM 7711.3, para. 5a through 5g). UTVs could fall into category 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7, depending on their width.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7716.12 require responsible officials to standardize seasonal restrictions to promote consistency and to make compliance with designations easier for the public.

Response . The Forest Service agrees that responsible officials should, to the extent possible, standardize seasonal restrictions for consistency. Accordingly, the Agency has revised FSM 7716.12, paragraph 2, in the final directives to emphasize consistency in designating roads, trails and areas by time of year.

Comment . Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7716.4 provide direction on adequate signage to ensure the public knows which routes and areas are designated for motor vehicle use. Other respondents objected to providing direction on signage for designations so as to encourage reliance on MVUMs.

Response . The Forest Service will continue to use signs widely to provide information and to inform users on a variety of topics, including regulations and prohibitions. However, the Agency does not believe it is appropriate or necessary to require signing for designations. The Agency has found that posting routes as open or closed to particular uses has not always been effective in controlling use. Signs have proven difficult to maintain, are subject to vandalism, and may not be as high a priority for scarce road maintenance funds as providing for user safety and environmental protection. Therefore, the Agency believes that decisions regarding signing are best made at the local level, based on site-specific circumstances. However, the final directives suggest that each route designated for motor vehicle use have a route marker on the ground that corresponds to the route identification shown on the corresponding MVUM (FSM 7716.42, para. 2). The travel management rule makes motor vehicle users responsible for obtaining MVUMs from the headquarters or Web sites of corresponding administrative units and ranger districts (36 CFR 212.56).

Comment. Some respondents believed that paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in section 10.02 of proposed FSH 7709.55 conflict with each other, to the extent that it is impossible simultaneously to limit gridlock, simply confirm existing travel management decisions, limit inventories of routes, and engender trust and credibility in travel management.

Response. The Forest Service disagrees with this Comment. For many years, some administrative units have limited motor vehicle use to a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. There is nothing in the travel management rule or the final directives that requires these units to reconsider these travel management decisions. To the contrary, the travel management rule provides that these decisions may be incorporated into designations for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)).

The Forest Service believes that it is not necessary to inventory unauthorized routes to complete travel planning. Trust and credibility in designating NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands are best engendered through coordination with Federal, State, and local governmental entities and tribal governments per 36 CFR 212.53 and public involvement per 36 CFR 212.52.

Comment. Some respondents stated that proposed FSH 7709.55, section 21.11, should require use in travel analysis of the data required to be collected in proposed FSH 7709.55, Section 20.03, paragraph 2.

Response. The Forest Service believes that FSH 7709, section 21.11, paragraphs 1a through 1m, in the final directives adequately address what should be considered in travel analysis and track the guidance in FSH 7709.55, section 20.03, paragraph 2, regarding travel analysis.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Agency add guidance in FSH 7709.55, section 21.4, on use of data and analysis of issues associated with social and economic sustainability.

Response. The Forest Service believes that FSH 7709.55 adequately addresses social and economic effects by providing a framework for conducting travel analysis in general that gives the responsible official the discretion to design the analysis to address economic and social issues unique to that administrative unit or ranger district.

Comment. Some respondents objected to elimination of the concept of recreation road management. These respondents stated that travel analysis is focused exclusively on efficient road system management and fails to consider the value of recreation, which is a critical use of NFS lands.

Response. The Agency agrees that driving for pleasure and other forms of recreational use of motor vehicles are legitimate uses of the forest transportation system. The agency has provided guidance on these uses in FSM 2353.28.

Travel analysis is used both to identify the minimum road system per 36 CFR 212.5(b) and to designate NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51(a).

Recreation management in general is beyond the scope of the final directives, which implement the travel management rule.

Comment. Some respondents requested that the agency remove Web page references throughout this section and instead make a cross-reference to the FSM or FSH.

Response. The Forest Service's accessibility guidelines reside on a Web site. Therefore, references to this Web site must remain. The Agency has removed references to the Recreation and Heritage Resources Integrated Business Management Web site because the external Web site is no longer active and the Agency has incorporated much of this information in recently issued directives at FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18 (73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008).

Comment. Some respondents believed that the description of difficulty levels for NFS trails in proposed FSM 2353.05 could be improved by incorporating the variation in these levels from region to region. Other respondents suggested that the Agency provide a reference guide for assigning difficulty levels for all types of trails in all parts of the country.

Response. Current direction is adequate to allow trail managers to assign difficulty levels, as appropriate, to all different types of NFS trails in different parts of the country. In FSM 2353 and FSH 2309.18, chapter 20, of the recently issued directives implementing the Agency's national trail classification system (TCS), the Agency clarified the definitions for and guidance on use of difficulty levels (73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008).

Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 2353.12 require posting of MVUMs on national forest Web sites.

Response. The travel management rule and the final directives require MVUMs to be made available to the public on Web sites of corresponding administrative units and ranger districts (36 CFR 212.56; FSM 7711.3).

Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Agency provide guidance on development of TMOs in FSM 2353.18 or elsewhere in the FSM or FSH that is similar to the guidance on RMOs in FSM 7720 and 7730. These respondents also believed that there should be a clear link between TMOs and travel planning.

Response. The Agency has clarified direction on development of TMOs by adding a definition for “trail management objective” in FSM 2353.05 in the new directives implementing the TCS (73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008). In addition, the Agency has added a definition for the Trail Fundamentals and their components of Trail Class, Trail Type, Managed Use, Designed Use, and Design Parameters. The applicable Trail Type, Trail Class, Managed Use, Designed Use, and Design Parameters are reflected in the TMOs for each NFS trail. The link between TMOs and travel planning is established at FSM 2353.12 in the final directives, which requires identifying and documenting TMOs for all NFS trails. In addition, the directives governing application of the Design Parameters for motorized trails require those trails to be designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 and displayed on an MVUM (FSH 2309.18, sec. 23.21, para. 1; 23.22, para. 1; and 23.23, para. 1). Management of the TCS is beyond the scope of these directives, which govern designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use.

Comment. Some respondents recommended including in proposed FSM 2353.28f a discussion of permits and fees for motorized use authorized under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA).

Response. Issuance of special recreation permits and fees for those permits under REA are beyond the scope of these directives, which govern designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use.

Comment. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 2353.28h should be modified to include language from FSM 2355 regarding issuance of permits for motorized recreation events. Other respondents stated that motorized recreation events should occur only on designated routes and in designated areas.

Response. The final directives at FSM 2353.28h appropriately incorporate direction from current FSM 2355. The direction not to issue permits for motorized recreation events that can be conducted off NFS lands was narrowed to include only competitive events and activities that are not appropriate for a national forest or national grassland setting. Rather than prohibiting motorized recreation events off designated routes and outside designated areas, FSM 2353.28h in the final directives requires the authorized officer to consider, with the objective of minimizing, adverse effects on natural and cultural resources; to promote activities in harmony with the natural terrain; and to enhance the experience and appreciation of the national forest setting.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 2353.33a identify who should prepare the establishment report for a National Recreation Trail. One respondent suggested that proposed FSM 2353.33a identify who conducts studies for National Historic Trails and who makes recommendations regarding establishment of National Historic Trails. One respondent suggested that proposed FSM 2353.04g identify a leadership role for the regional forester in the agency's trail program.

Response. Forest Supervisors are responsible for preparing establishment reports for National Recreation Trails (FSM 2353.04i, para. 6). Congress authorizes studies for National Historic Trails (16 U.S.C. 1241-1251), and Regional Foresters are responsible for conducting those studies (FSM 2353.04g, para. 3c). The Agency revised FSM 2353.04g in the final directives to identify the regional forester's responsibilities for trails.

To ensure timely and consistent implementation of the travel management rule, the Forest Service is amending travel management directives in FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55. While some of the changes in the directives simply reiterate direction in the travel management rule, other changes provide clarifying instructions, delegations of authority, or other guidance on implementing the travel management rule.

The final directives consolidate Forest Service policy for travel management into FSM 7700. The Agency changed the title of this chapter from “Transportation System” to “Travel Management” to be consistent with the new title of 36 CFR part 212. The Agency added authorities and responsibilities to FSM 7700.

The Agency added direction on travel analysis and route and area designation to FSM 7710, “Travel Planning.” In addition, the Agency revised the Travel Planning Handbook, FSH 7709.55, to identify a process for designating roads, trails, and areas, to describe travel analysis, and to identify a process for conducting engineering analysis. Directives governing road maintenance and operations remain in FSM 7730, Operations and Maintenance, and FSH 7709.59, the Road System Operations Handbook.

The Agency consolidated management direction for motor vehicle use in FSM 2350, Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. Directives governing trail maintenance and operations remain in FSM 2350 and the Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18.

The following lists the substantive changes made to the proposed directives. These changes were based on public comment or on the Agency's 3 years of experience in implementing the travel management rule. In addition to these substantive revisions, the Agency improved organization, enhanced clarity by renaming sections, and removed duplication.

2350 —Added rock climbing to the list of recreational activities that involve relatively low-density use and limited infrastructure.

2350.2 —Clarified that recreation opportunities provided must be consistent with the applicable land management plan.

2350.2, paragraph 3 —Added the phrase, “on the ground management, including law enforcement.”

2350.3, paragraph 7 —Added direction not to maintain unauthorized trails.

2353.01b, paragraph 3 —Clarified language regarding prohibitions that apply in wilderness and primitive areas.

2353.03, paragraph 3 —Clarified that an NFS trail may not have more than one national trail classification.

2353.03, paragraph 6 —Added that trails may be included in the forest transportation atlas even if they are under the jurisdiction of another entity.

2353.03, paragraph 8 —Added direction to designate trails for motor vehicle use.

2353.04d, paragraph 10 —Added direction to disseminate information to the public to enhance understanding of the proper use of motor vehicles.

2353.04e, paragraphs 4 and 5 —Added responsibilities to issue technical specifications for signs and posters and to approve non-standard symbols and traffic control devices.

2353.04g, paragraph 1 —Added general responsibilities for NFS trails.

2353.04i, paragraph 11 —Clarified that the responsibility for temporary, emergency closures may not be delegated to district rangers.

2353.04j —Added responsibilities, including approval of TMOs.

2353.05 —Added definitions for “motorcycle,” “over-snow vehicle,” “route,” and “utility terrain vehicle.”

2353.23, paragraph 2 —Added direction to consult with the regional sign coordinator for approval of non-standard signs.

2353.25 —Provided direction to consider available resources and costs and decommissioning when alternative routes are available.

2353.28, paragraphs 3 and 4 —Added direction on linking routes into a trail system and use conflicts.

2353.28a, paragraph 2 —Added direction to use appropriate and effective communication methods to ensure understanding of motor vehicle management strategies and requirements.

2353.28b, paragraph 3 —Added direction to review mixed use analysis when existing conditions change.

2353.28c —Deleted redundant direction and referred to FSM 7716.42.

2353.28d, paragraph 5 —Added requirements regarding signing for temporary emergency closures.

2353.28h —Modified direction regarding when recreation event permits should not be issued.

2353.28i —Added a requirement to use applicable criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to monitor.

2353.28j —Added section entitled, “Relationship Between Motorized NFS Roads and NFS Trails.”

2353.53 —Added additional guidance regarding the type of trail experience provided.

2353.54 —Added examples of elements to address when describing the history of a National Recreation Trail.

7703.11 —Removed erroneous direction regarding over-snow vehicle management.

7703.23 —Removed direction regarding management of non-motorized recreation.

7703.26 —Added provisions regarding the positive effects of adding roads to the forest transportation system.

7703.27 —Added section entitled, “Converting NFS Roads to NFS Trails and Managing Coincidental Routes.”

7705 —Added a definition for “primitive area.”

7710.3 —Clarified that a science-based travel analysis will be used when identifying the minimum road system.

7710.42 —Added a responsibility for the Washington Office Director of Engineering to produce a production guide for MVUMs.

7710.43 —Added a responsibility for the Director of Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources to monitor implementation of the travel management rule.

7710.44 —Added a responsibility for regional foresters to ensure that MVUMs comply with the production guide.

7711.2, paragraph 3b —Clarified that the forest road atlas constitutes the forest development road system plan for purposes of the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1608).

7711.3 —Included a seventh standard vehicle class category.

7712, paragraph 1 —Clarified that travel analysis is not required to inform decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for those administrative units and ranger districts that have issued a proposed action as of the effective date of these directives.

7712, paragraph 2 —Modified direction to state that travel analysis may address identification of the minimum road system and route and area designation decisions separately or simultaneously.

7712, paragraph 3 —Added direction to state that proposals resulting from travel analysis may be addressed in the same or different environmental analyses.

7712, paragraph 7 —Clarified that a roads analysis completed in accordance with Publication FS-643 satisfies the requirement for travel analysis relative to roads.

7712.3 —Clarified that travel analysis is not required for decommissioning unauthorized routes.

7712.4, paragraph 1 —Clarified that travel analysis satisfies the requirement for incorporating a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale when identifying the minimum road system.

7712.4, paragraph 5 —Clarified that a report produced subsequent to a roads analysis conducted pursuant to Publication FS-643 also meets the requirement to use travel analysis relative to roads.

7715.03 —Added a statement that administrative units and ranger districts should avoid adding routes to the forest transportation system unless there is adequate provision for their maintenance.

7715.5, paragraph 2f —Removed grazing allotments as specific criteria to be considered when designating trails and areas, since they are not identified as criteria to be considered when designating trails and areas in the travel management rule.

7715.73 —Added guidance on use of signs to identify the boundaries of a designated area; added a requirement to establish and document management objectives for designated areas; and clarified that motor vehicle use in a designated area cannot be restricted by the type of activity.

7715.74 —Added guidance on including in a designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest routes, rather than merely designated routes, solely for the purposes of big game retrieval and dispersed camping; clarified the use of terminal facilities for dispersed camping; and suggested coordinating dates for motor vehicle use for big game retrieval with the appropriate State agency.

7715.77 —Clarified that motor vehicles licensed under a State green sticker or other similar program do not meet the definition of a highway-legal vehicle for purposes of the agency's directives.

7715.77 —Added a provision regarding use of engineering judgment to determine if and to what extent an engineering analysis is needed to ascertain whether over-snow vehicle use should be allowed on roads that are designated for highway-legal vehicles only.

7716.1, paragraph 1 —Revised to require that road designations provide for parking within one vehicle length of the edge of the road or within a specified distance of up to 30 feet from the centerline of the road.

7716.12, paragraph 2 —Added emphasis on use of standard seasonal designations.

7716.13 —Identified limitations on designations for big game retrieval.

7716.41 —Added direction to meet requirements for the MVUM established by the Washington Office Director of Engineering.

7717.1, paragraph 1 —Added the requirement to establish a regular schedule for monitoring motor vehicle use; to monitor for consistency with the applicable land management plan; and use applicable criteria established in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to monitor. Stated that if over time monitoring of motor vehicle use in a designated area identifies a well-established system of routes, consider designating those routes.

7718.1, paragraph 1 —Clarified that over-snow vehicle use may be prohibited or restricted pursuant to orders issued under 36 CFR part 261, subpart B, and that wheeled motor vehicles that are modified with tracks and/or skis meet the definition of “over-snow vehicle.”

Section 13 —Included a statement that the steps of the travel planning process overlap with the steps of the travel analysis process and that planners should avoid duplication of effort.

Section 15.1 —To be consistent with FSM 7711.3, included direction on the contents of an MVUM and direction on how to notify the public that an MVUM is available.

Section 15.2 —Identified a possible need to adjust RMOs and TMOs after travel management decisions are made.

Section 16.3 —Added the requirement to use applicable criteria established in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to monitor.

Section 21.1, paragraph 3 —Added the requirement to identify the scope of travel analysis.

Section 21.12 —Deleted the example, since it did not clearly illustrate effects on the timeframe for implementing travel management decisions.

Section 21.6 —Deleted the requirement to include a map in a travel analysis report.

The final directives provide policy and procedural guidance to Agency officials implementing the travel management rule. Travel management decisions implementing these directives are made with appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The final directives have no effect on the ground until designations of roads, trails, and areas are completed at the field level, with opportunity for public involvement, as appropriate. Section 31b of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The Agency has concluded that these final directives fall within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

These final directives have been reviewed under USDA procedures and E.O. 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that these directives are not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. These final directives cannot and may not reasonably be anticipated to lead to an annual effect of $100 million or more on or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; raise novel legal or policy issues; or materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, these final directives are not subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866.

The Agency has considered these final directives in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq. ). The final directives require identification at the field level, with public input, as appropriate, of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. The Agency has determined that these final directives will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the directives will not impose recordkeeping requirements on them; 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. Therefore, the final directives will not have any effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Agency has analyzed these final directives in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630. The Agency has determined that these final directives will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

The Agency has considered these final directives under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism and has determined that the final directives conform to the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; 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 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.

Moreover, these directives do not have Tribal implications as defined by E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required.

The Agency has reviewed these final directives under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect the Energy Supply. The Agency has determined that these final directives do not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

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 these final directives on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. These final directives 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.

These final directives do not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

The Forest Service organizes its directive system by alphanumeric codes and subject headings. The intended audience for this direction is Forest Service employees charged with travel planning and management. The full text of FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55 is available electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/ .

On September 11, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part , 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008) ( Final Results ).

We received a timely allegation of a ministerial error pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.224(c) from The Timken Company, a petitioner, that our recalculation of NTN's home-market packing expenses reflected use of incorrect expense ratios. We agree that there is a ministerial error.

Before the Department issued amended final results reflecting correction of the ministerial error, NTN filed a summons and complaint to challenge the Final Results . Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd., also filed a summons and complaint with the Court of International Trade (CIT) to challenge the Final Results . In both cases, jurisdiction over the administrative proceeding vested with the CIT.

The Department subsequently moved for leave of court to amend the Final Results . On November 24, 2008, the CIT granted the Department's motion. See NTN Corporation v. United States , Slip Op. 08-129, Consol. Court No. 08-00329 (November 24, 2008). Therefore, we are hereby amending the Final Results with respect to NTN to correct the error in our calculation of NTN's home-market packing expenses in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.224(e). For details regarding the ministerial error, see the memorandum from Thomas Schauer to the File entitled “Ball Bearings from Japan - NTN Corporation (NTN) Amended Final Results Analysis Memorandum” dated December 3, 2008.

In addition, because the margin we calculated for respondents not selected for individual examination was based on a simple average of the rates of the two selected respondents in this review (JTEKT Corporation and NTN), we have recalculated the margin for the non-selected respondents to reflect the change in NTN's margin.

As a result of the corrections of the ministerial error, we determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings and parts thereof exist for the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007:

The Department will determine and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Except where the CIT has issued preliminary injunctions enjoining the liquidation of certain entries during the period of review, we intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these amended final results of review. For a general discussion of the application of assessment rates, see Final Results , 73 FR at 52825-6.

We will also direct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at the rates as amended by this notice and in accordance with the procedures discussed in the Final Results , 73 FR at 52825-6. The amended deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 11, 2008, the date on which we published the Final Results in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, based on these amended final results, retroactively effective to September 11, 2008, the date of publication of the Final Results .

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR § 351.224(e).

This review covers three producers/exporters: Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen). Chia Far is the only company participating in this review, and we are rescinding the review with respect to YUSCO and Ta Chen.

On August 5, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393 (Aug. 5, 2008) ( Preliminary Results ).

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In September 2008, we received a case brief from the petitioners  1 and a rebuttal brief from Chia Far.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc. ) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Arnokrome III. 2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Gilphy 36. 3

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Durphynox 17. 4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6. 6

The POR is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

As noted in the “Background” section above, we are rescinding the review with respect to two respondents, Ta Chen and YUSCO. As noted in the Preliminary Results, both Ta Chen and YUSCO certified to the Department that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. The Department subsequently confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the no-shipment claim made by YUSCO. See the August 31, 2007, Memorandum to The File from Nichole Zink, Analyst, titled, “2006-2007 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strips in Coils from Taiwan: Entry Information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)” (CBP Memo). Regarding Ta Chen, CBP information indicated that this company may have had shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. See the CBP Memo. However, Ta Chen provided documentation showing these entries were not of subject merchandise. Because the evidence on the record indicates that neither Ta Chen nor YUSCO exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily determined it was appropriate to rescind the review for both companies. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 45395.

Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has commented on our preliminary rescission for these two companies. As a result, we are rescinding the review with respect to Ta Chen and YUSCO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and the Department's practice. See, e.g., Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1374 (2004); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); and Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998).

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below its cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 45398-99. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results.

We found that more than 20 percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act.

Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we find that Chia Far made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117, of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no changes in the margin calculations for Chia Far.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates for Chia Far based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of SSSSC from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555, 40557 (July 27, 1999). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Advisory Council for Cordell Bank was established in 2002 to support the joint management plan review process currently underway for the CBNMS and its neighboring sanctuaries, Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. The Council has members representing education, research, conservation, maritime activity, and community-at-large. The government seats are held by representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Coast Guard, and the managers of the Gulf of the Farallones, Monterey Bay and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries. The Council holds four regular meetings per year, and one annual retreat.

Sanctuary Advisory Council members and alternates serve three-year terms. The Advisory Council meets bi-monthly in public sessions in communities in and around the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council was established in December 1998 to assure continued public participation in the management of the sanctuary. Serving in a volunteer capacity, the advisory council's 15 voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public. In addition, five Federal government agencies and one federally funded program serve as non-voting, ex officio members. Since its establishment, the advisory council has played a vital role in advising the sanctuary and NOAA on critical issues. In addition to providing advice on management issues facing the Sanctuary, the Council members serve as a communication bridge between constituents and the Sanctuary staff.

The subject modification to Permit No. 1547-01, issued on March 22, 2007, is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The permit holder is currently authorized under Permit No. 1547-01 to conduct scientific research to evaluate seasonal movement of shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ) in the Haverstraw and Newburgh Bays of the Hudson River. Annually, a maximum of 500 adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon are captured with gill nets, measured, weighed, genetic tissue sampled, scanned for tags, PIT and Carlin tagged (if untagged), and released. The applicant proposes to annually perform anesthesia and gastric lavage on up to 200 fish. The researcher also requests an unintentional mortality of one shortnose sturgeon annually. The goal of the additional research would be to document the diet of shortnose sturgeon occupying the same habitat as Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus) in the lower Hudson River. This modification would be valid through the expiration date of the original permit, October 31, 2011. All other aspects of the currently permitted activity would remain the same.

On October 20, 2008, NTIA published a Notice of Closing Date for Solicitation of Applications for the FY 2009 PTFP grant round. The Notice established Thursday, December 18, 2008 as the Closing Date. 1

On November 3, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules for the use of Distributed Transmission System (DTS) Technologies in the digital television service. 2 In paragraph 28 of the Report and Order, the FCC adopted an immediate waiver policy to use DTS to continue to provide over-the-air service to existing analog viewers after the digital transition even before its new DTS rules and forms take effect. 3 Under the timeline adopted by the FCC in the DTS Report and Order, licensees must submit DTS applications using this waiver policy to the FCC no later than August 18, 2009 (six months after the February 17, 2009 deadline for shut-down of full-power analog television service), and applicants must commit to build the DTS facility as quickly as possible. 4 Consistent with PTFP's purposes, NTIA is extending the Closing Date for DTS applications so stations may apply for the financial assistance necessary to build DTS facilities as allowed by the new FCC rules and waiver policy. 5

For DTS projects that require an FCC waiver under the aforementioned waiver policy, NTIA will accept applications for DTS projects until May 18, 2009 (DTS Closing Date). Such applications will be placed in Subpriority A. While applicants may file requests for FCC authorizations with the FCC after the DTS Closing Date, applicants are reminded that no grant will be awarded until confirmation has been received from the FCC that any necessary authorization will be issued. As noted in the Federal Funding Opportunity Notice of October 20, 2008, “[t]ransmission equipment required by public television stations to complete their digital broadcast facilities will be considered in Broadcast Other, Subpriority A” and that facilities “should replicate the station's comparable analog Grade B coverage.” 6

Applications for DTS projects will utilize the same forms, and undergo the same review and evaluation process contained in the PTFP Closing Date Notice. The Closing Date for receipt of all other PTFP applications, including applications for those DTS projects that do not require a FCC waiver as discussed above, remains Thursday, December 18, 2008. 7

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Nordstrom, Inc. (“Nordstrom”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below.

2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089 (“CPSA”).

3. Nordstrom is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal offices located in Seattle, WA. Nordstrom is a fashion specialty retailer selling a wide selection of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women, men, and children.

4. From November 2007 to December 2007, Nordstrom held for sale and/or sold 2,418 Micros boy's hooded jackets and Hearts & Stars and Robot reversible zip hooded sweaters with drawstrings (“Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters”).

5. Nordstrom sold the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters to consumers nationwide.

6. The Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, Nordstrom was a “retailer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a), (5), (8), and (13), 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a), (5), (8), and (13).

7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12.

8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard.

9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements.

10. Nordstrom reported to the Commission there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters.

11. Nordstrom's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children.

12. By December 10, 2007, Nordstrom had removed the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters from sale and had removed the drawstrings from those garments.

13. On February 6, 2008 and March 11, 2008, the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters were recalled. The recall informed consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard.

14. Nordstrom had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(l), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(l). Nordstrom had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(3) and (4), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), required Nordstrom to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk.

15. Nordstrom knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Jackets and Sweaters as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(3) and (4), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Nordstrom to civil penalties.

16. Nordstrom denies the Staff's allegations that Nordstrom violated the CPSA.

17. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Nordstrom.

18. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Nordstrom, or a determination by the Commission, that Nordstrom has knowingly violated the CPSA.

19. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, Nordstrom shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of sixty-thousand dollars ($60,000.00) within twenty (20) calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury.

20. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth (16th) calendar day after the date it is published in the Federal Register .

21. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Nordstrom knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have regarding the Staff's allegations to the following: (1) An administrative or judicial hearing; (2) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions; (3) a determination by the Commission of whether Nordstrom failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations; (4) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (5) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

22. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.

23. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Nordstrom and each of its successors and assigns.

24. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject Nordstrom to appropriate legal action.

25. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced.

26. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Nordstrom agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Nordstrom, Inc. (“Nordstrom”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Nordstrom, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is

Ordered , that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is

Further ordered , that Nordstrom shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) within twenty (20) calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Nordstrom to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Nordstrom at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 196 1(a) and (b).

When the Government purchases supplies that are new to the supply system, nonstandard, or modifications of previously shipped items, and different freight classifications may apply, offerors are requested to indicate the full Uniform Freight Classification or National Motor Freight Classification. The information is used to determine the proper freight rate for the supplies.

Respondents : 2,640.

Responses Per Respondent : 3.

Annual Responses : 7,920.

Hours Per Response : .167.

Total Burden Hours : 1,323.

Obtaining copies of proposals : Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0055, Freight Classification Description, in all correspondence.

Incentive contracts are normally used when a firm fixed-price contract is not appropriate and the required supplies or services can be acquired at lower costs, and sometimes with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee payable under the contract to the contractor's performance.

The information required periodically from the contractor, such as cost of work already performed, estimated costs of further performance necessary to complete all work, total contract price for supplies or services accepted by the Government for which final prices have been established, and estimated costs allocable to supplies or services accepted by the Government and for which final prices have not been established, is needed to negotiate the final prices of incentive-related items and services.

The contracting officer evaluates the information received to determine the contractor's performance in meeting the incentive target and the appropriate price revision, if any, for the items or services.

Respondents: 3,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,000.

Hours per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 3,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal Technology Program (GTP) is working with industry and educators to address important challenges in the geothermal program under authorities such as 42 U.S.C. Section 7381(b) of the Department of Energy Education Enhancement Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 931(a)(2)(C). Glitnir Geothermal Research's 2008 United States Geothermal Energy Market Report asserts that human capital will be a bottleneck to advancing geothermal energy technology and could delay development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) technology.

The limited capability for meeting this need is further illustrated by the current lack of formal university degree programs. The Federal government and industry, together, must address the growing inadequacy of workforce competencies due to the small size of the existing geothermal industry and the competition for human resources, as the geothermal industry competes with the oil and gas industry for qualified personnel.

Future GTP funding and administrative efforts may focus on the following goals:

• Institute program activities affiliated with the development and retention of the geothermal-specific competencies.

• Develop teaming opportunities with universities and industry to invest in geothermal education programs.

• Co-sponsor student design competitions with industry focused on critical technology challenges for EGS.

Potential initiatives may include, but are not limited to:

• EGS curriculum—Competitively fund institutions of higher education to develop geothermal educational curricula and degree programs/minors/specializations.

• Educational scholarship program—Support student enrollment in programs with geothermal development and curricula for education, research and/or internships. These programs may apply to undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs.

• Vocational training—Develop the next generation of skilled workers for widespread geothermal facility construction and operation.

• University cooperative education and professional internship program.

• University student competition.

• Allow students to solve real-life problems and implement solutions in the field.

• Co-sponsor with industry student design competitions focused on critical technology challenges.

• Co-sponsor student paper challenges to showcase student research in a public forum and make connections to industry.

• K-12 education modules—Provide early exposure to and curricula for geothermal energy and technology. This may include supplementing the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Education Web site.

• Pilot education program.

• Day programs/workshops at universities.

• Innovative education models for post-undergraduate education.

EIA recognizes the importance of understanding and anticipating supply changes that could add to already high prices being paid by consumers for petroleum products. Refinery availability is an important element of this issue, and was highlighted in Section 804 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140), requiring EIA to assess the impact of planned outages using commercially available data. Before EIA could implement Section 804, Congressional interest increased in having EIA collect such data, partially as a result of unusually high refinery outages in 2007. In response, EIA put out a Federal Register notice on February 2008 (Proposed Collection Comment Request on “Report of Refinery Outages,” 73 FR 10745, Thursday, February 28, 2008) to solicit comments on collecting such data. The EIA data collection would be an enhancement to the monthly refinery survey (Form EIA-810). In addition, the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) put out a Federal Register notice in July 2008 (Notice and Request for Comments on Proposal for a Refinery Disruption and Incident Report, 73-FR 37451, July 1, 2008, http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/FRN_RefDisrupt070108.pdf ) to collect complementary after-the-fact outage information on a short-term, real-time basis in order to monitor ongoing issues as part of its role in monitoring potential supply emergencies. A second Federal Register notice on this proposed emergency report was published on November 5, 2008, taking into consideration comments received after the first notice. Public comments are being solicited through December 5, 2008, on the proposed emergency form and instructions (Proposed Agency Information Collection, 73-FR 65841, November 5, 2008, http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/FRN_RefDisrupt110508.pdf ). EIA's data collection on planned outages would necessarily be prospective, but any historical outage information in an EIA survey would ultimately reflect those reported in the proposed DOE Refinery Emergency Disruption and Incident Report.

Prior to the February 2008 EIA Federal Register Notice, EIA had looked at potentially collecting outage data or alternatively using commercial data. EIA's review of commercial outage data indicated that such data is relatively comprehensive. It captures most significant outages; contains unit-by-unit outages for individual refineries (thereby serving many State-specific informational needs as well as Federal needs for estimating supply impacts); and may be able to be shared in a useable form with State energy officials more economically than a government survey. However, the commercial data does not contain production impacts.

A government data collection would more likely capture all refinery outage plans, but differences from commercial data may be small. Government-collected data could potentially have greater credibility and could add information on potential impacts on product output. However, government collection would cost the Federal government more than using commercial data and would take several years of data to accumulate adequate history to be useful.

In addition to cost considerations, data quality differences between commercial data and an EIA collection must be considered. EIA does not currently collect planned refinery unit outages. Rather, outages are reflected retrospectively in EIA's historical inputs to major refinery units, although there is no distinction between planned and unplanned outages, or between outages as a whole and economically-driven utilization decisions in the refinery input data. However, commercial data is available that reflects planned unit outages, as well as unplanned and planned historical outages.

Reporting planning information is not the same as reporting historical data. While an EIA data collection could be somewhat more accurate than a commercial data source, EIA's experience with collecting “planned” activities is that such data inherently have an element of uncertainty because plans shift and actual maintenance may take more or less time than planned.

Commercial data does not contain impacts of outages on production, although some private firms estimate aggregate impacts from outages. EIA already collects data on historical inputs to major refinery processing units. As outages occur, unit inputs decline. EIA has used these data to estimate outage impacts on production. If EIA were to collect refinery estimates of planned unit outage impacts on production, results still would be uncertain, would involve different methods of estimation by different refiners, and would only provide an indicator of supply changes. Having EIA specify estimation methods for determining planned outage impacts on production would not necessarily improve the accuracy, as different methods may be appropriate for different refinery situations. Whether using commercial data or government-collected data, EIA will have to do extensive analyses to make a supply-adequacy determination. That is, one data option will not provide savings in analytical effort over the other option.

The responses to the EIA Federal Register notice did not shed further light on EIA's earlier assessment. The comments opposing government data collection questioned the usefulness of the data in affecting the market, difficulties in obtaining consistent information, and the large burden needed to respond. Comments supporting the collection felt the information would be helpful in preparing States or regions for potential supply problems and noted commercial data is not readily available to States or the public. Comments on both sides noted that if a survey is proposed, more clarification on information to be collected is needed.

EIA could not begin a refinery outage data collection before 2010. The approval process and time needed for both industry and the government to make appropriate systems changes preclude a 2009 collection. Furthermore, EIA's resources are fully engaged in changing forms to meet EPACT 2005 requirements and other changes.

The retrospective real-time survey of refinery outages, first proposed by DOE in its July Federal Register notice, could meet some of the needs listed in the comments made by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) in response to EIA's comment request. However, the revised form in DOE's subsequent (November) Federal Register notice no longer seeks to collect information on actions taken, units or processes affected, and estimated production impacts. Also, NASEO was not familiar with the extent of commercially available data. It may be more cost-effective for the Federal government to pay for State access to commercial information than to collect it itself.

Since EIA is moving ahead to produce reports on planned outages using commercial data, and since it is not possible to begin a new collection immediately, EIA proposes to postpone a decision on this data collection until spring 2009. This will allow some additional time to assess the adequacy of the commercial data and EIA's analysis using that data to meet State and Congressional concerns. It also will provide the time for DOE to finalize its emergency report survey, providing EIA with the information to determine which State and Congressional concerns the DOE survey may ultimately address. Last, a spring decision date will give EIA more time to revisit potential government survey costs and industry burden associated with a government collection. In the interim, EIA will work with the Congress and the States (the latter through the NASEO) to determine if existing information and associated analyses can be used to meet their needs.

Should the EIA determine a survey is necessary, a Federal Register notice will be issued with the proposed survey form and another opportunity for comments will be provided. A survey proposal would fall under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq. ) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. ), which require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near- and longer-term domestic demands.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received following a survey proposal help the EIA prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA would later seek approval for this collection by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32325), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0437, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov .

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0270.43, OMB Control No. 2040-0090.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program ICR examines Public Water System (PWS), primacy agency, EPA, laboratories, and tribal operator certification provider burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities which have recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 include the following: Consumer Confidence Reports, Variance and Exemption Rule, Capacity Development, General State Primacy Activities, Public Notification, Operator Certification/Expense Reimbursement Program, Tribal Operator Certification Program, Constructed Conveyances, and Proficiency Testing Studies for Drinking Water Laboratories. The information collection activities for both the Operator Certification/Expense Reimbursement Program and the Capacity Development Program are driven by the grant withholding and reporting provisions under Sections 1419 and 1420, respectively, of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the information collection is driven by grant eligibility requirements outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines and the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Guidelines.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: New and existing public water systems (PWS), primacy agencies, and laboratories.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 158,113.

Frequency of Response: varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,913,544.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $165.9 million includes $25.2 million annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 687,517 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is primarily due to adjustments to burden based on consultations with drinking water associations, updated compliance information, and restructuring adjustments from the incorporation of the burden hours for Laboratory Proficiency Testing.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0809, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is 202-566-1752.

Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which import pesticides and devices.

Title: Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-1).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0152.09 OMB Control No. 2070-0020.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire March 31, 2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The U. S. Customs and Border Protection regulations at 19 CFR 12.112 require that an importer desiring to import pesticides into the United States shall, prior to the shipment's arrival, submit a Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-1) to EPA who will determine the disposition of the shipment. The form requires identification and address information of the importer or his agent and information on the identity and location of the imported pesticide or device shipment. After completing the form, EPA returns the form to the importer, or his agent, who must present the form to U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon arrival of the shipment at the port of entry. This is necessary to ensure that EPA is notified of the arrival of pesticides and devices as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 17(c), so that EPA has the ability to examine such shipments to determine if they are in compliance with FIFRA.

When the form is submitted to EPA regional personnel for review, it is examined to determine whether the shipment should be released for entry upon arrival or whether it should be detained for examination. The responsible EPA official returns the form to the respondent with EPA instructions to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service as to the disposition of the shipment.

Upon arrival of the shipment, the importer presents the completed Notice of Arrival form to the District Director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the port of entry. U.S. Customs and Border Protection compares the entry documents for the shipment with the Notice of Arrival form and notifies the EPA Regional Office of any discrepancies, which EPA will resolve with the importer or broker. At this point the shipment may be retained for examination. If there are no discrepancies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection follows instructions regarding release or detention. If EPA inspects the shipment and it appears from examination of a sample that it is adulterated, misbranded, or in any other manner violates the provisions of FIFRA, or is otherwise injurious to health or the environment, the pesticide or device may be refused admission into the United States.

This reporting requirement is needed to inform the Agency of pesticides arriving in the customs territory of the United States and to ensure compliance with FIFRA by the responsible party importing pesticides or devices. This reporting requirement is needed to meet direct statutory requirements of FIFRA regarding notification of EPA of such arrivals.

The information collected is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and compliance staff and the Headquarters Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of Pesticide Programs. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other Federal agencies may also make use of this information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/affected entities: 25,000.

Estimated number of respondents: 25,000.

Frequency of responses: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 7,500.

There are no capital/startup costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this ICR since all equipment associated with the ICR is present as part of ordinary business practices.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the County Agricultural Commissioners in the state of California.

Title: Survey of 56 California County Agricultural Commissioners for Readiness to Implement the Enforcement component of the U.S. EPA Endangered Species Protection Program.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2287.01, OMB Control No. 20XX-NEW.

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: For nearly twenty years, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has worked with county agricultural commissioners on behalf of U.S. EPA to refine measures that would protect federally listed species while minimizing impacts on agriculture and other beneficial uses of pesticides. DPR vetted these measures in local advisory groups consisting of farmers, pest control advisors, pesticide applicators, representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other species experts and they were ultimately adopted by the County Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA). DPR developed the Pesticide Regulation's Endangered Species Custom Real-time Internet Bulletin Engine (PRESCRIBE), an Internet database, to simplify distribution of endangered species protection measures (California's county bulletins) and has trained county agricultural commissioner staff and pesticide professionals in its use. So far, these measures have been voluntary. While many counties have incorporated endangered species protection as a routine part of their regulatory programs, DPR does not know the full extent of implementation in all counties. All (56) California county agricultural commissioners will be surveyed through a written questionnaire to determine their readiness to implement the U.S. EPA Endangered Species Protection Program as it transitions from voluntary to mandatory status. Responses are voluntary. The collected information will guide further work needed by DPR to prepare for the new stage in the protection of endangered species. A summary report will be provided to the respondents to inform them of the survey results.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than one hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 56.

Frequency of response: Once.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 12—based on the # of questions on the questionnaire.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 56.

Estimated total annual costs: $6,000 for collection of information and an estimated cost of $3,000 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The CBCA requires the information collected in order to conduct proceedings in contract appeals and petitions, and cost applications. Parties include those persons or entities filing appeals, petitions, cost applications, and Government agencies.

Respondents: 85.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Hours per Response: .108.

Total Burden Hours: 9.2.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, in all correspondence

General Services Administration (GSA) requires contractors submitting Multiple Award Schedule Contracts to identify in their GSA price lists those products that they market commercially that have environmental attributes. The identification of these products will enable Federal agencies to maximize the use of these products to meet the responsibilities expressed in statutes and executive orders.

Respondents 18,000.:

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 18,000.

Hours per Response: 5.

Total Burden Hours: 90,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0262, Identification of Products with Environmental Attributes, in all correspondence.

“Overcoming Barriers to Expanded Health Information Exchange (HIE) Participation in Indiana.”

AHRQ, through its contractor, the Regenstrief Institute at Indiana University, proposes to assess the barriers to participation in health information exchange (HIE) in Indiana. The Regenstrief Institute will use its experience to date working with a variety of organizations to establish specific barriers to engagement in HIE cited by stakeholders, define the barriers and evaluate them.

The Regenstrief Institute will develop and implement a questionnaire and survey process to identify barriers that may exist throughout the State of Indiana to participation in the Indiana Network of Patient Care (INPC). The INPC is a local health information infrastructure that includes information from five major hospital systems (fifteen separate hospitals), the county and State public health departments, and Indiana Medicaid and RxHub. The INPC began operation seven years ago and is one of the first examples of a local health information infrastructure.

This research will elicit and aggregate feedback from large and small physician groups, as well as hospitals, throughout the State of Indiana. The goal is to identify the gaps in understanding, barriers and disconnects that may exist with providers' adoption of, and membership in, the INPC. The relationship between the stakeholders involved in the Indiana HIE is governed by a contract between the participants. The Regenstrief Institute, acting on behalf of the participants, created and operates the exchange, including serving as the custodian of the data.

The Regenstrief Institute will survey three key stakeholder groups in the State of Indiana: Small hospitals, small physician practices (less than 5 providers) and large physician practices (greater than 20 providers) to identify barriers for each of these groups to participate in a HIE in general, and specifically the INPC. It is difficult to predict the barriers that will be identified, but based on their experience to date, anecdotal evidence suggests that the cost of interfaces and the management attention needed to participate will be the two major barriers. The findings will be used to create approaches to engage specific entities to participate in their statewide HIE.

This project is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory mandates to conduct and support research, evaluations and initiatives to advance information systems for health care improvement (42 U.S.C. 299b-3) and to promote innovations in evidence-based health care practices and technologies by conducting and supporting research on the development, diffusion, and use of health care technology (42 U.S.C. 299b-5(a)(1)). This project is also being conducted pursuant to a modification to an earlier AHRQ request for proposals entitled “State and Regional Demonstrations in Health Information Technology” (issued under contract 290-04-0015).

To ease the burden on the participating health care providers a Web-based questionnaire will be used. An initial screener interview will be conducted by telephone to describe the purpose of the survey and the survey process and to request the hospital's or physician practice's participation in the survey. After a hospital or practice agrees to participate, a communication packet will be sent by e-mail to the contact person identified during the telephone screening. The communication packet includes: (a) An HIE description and definition; (b) description of the INPC, its mission, overall direction, and other relevant background information; and (c) purpose for the contact, estimated time required to complete the Web-based questionnaire and a link to the questionnaire.

Responses to the survey are expected from about 20 hospitals and 40 physician practices of each size. Two to three individuals from each hospital will be asked to respond to the questionnaire. For physician practices, one person from each practice will be asked to respond: A practice manager, director of technology, or person occupying a similar role.

Following the completion of the Web-based questionnaire, respondents will be re-contacted by telephone for a follow-up interview. The purpose of the follow-up interview is to determine the steps necessary to overcome the barriers to HIE identified in the Web-based questionnaire. A structured interview guide has been developed with standard questions for the telephone follow-up.

The data will be aggregated, analyzed and a final report will be prepared that focuses on the following major topic areas:

a. General perceptions on electronic sharing of health information;

b. The extent to which electronic health information sharing exists in the contact's current environment;

c. Barriers to the adoption and implementation of electronic health information sharing and, specifically, INPC; and

d. Recommendations for addressing and resolving issues preventing the adoption of HIE (general as well as entity-specific recommendations).

This information will assist AHRQ's mission to advance “the creation of effective linkages between various sources of health information, including the development of information networks.” 42 U.S.C. 299b-3(a)(3). A seventy-five percent (75%) response rate is anticipated.

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this research. A screener interview will be completed once by each of the 20 hospitals and 80 physician practices and is expected to require about 5 minutes to complete. The Web-based questionnaire will be completed by an average of 3 persons from each of the 20 hospitals and by one person from each of the 80 physician practices and will take about 10 minutes to complete. The telephone follow-up interview will be conducted with each person that completed the Web-based questionnaire and is expected to last about 15 minutes. The total burden hours for the participating health care providers is estimated to be 66 hours.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden to the responding health care providers based on their time to participate in this research. The total cost burden is estimated to be $3,074.

The ambulatory Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety (SOPS), an adapted version of AHRQ's Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC), was developed in 2005 to measure specific components of patient safety culture in the ambulatory setting. A pilot study (OMB #0935-0131) assessed and refined the psychometric properties of specific survey items, and a final version of SOPS is now ready for public dissemination. However, in order for the survey to be most useful to ambulatory medical offices in identifying areas of relative strength and weakness in patient safety culture, reliable benchmarks to which a practice's responses can be compared need to be established.

AHRQ has determined, through discussions with potential end-users of SOPS, including leaders of physician and other provider groups, that an ambulatory practice is unlikely to have confidence in SOPS benchmarks unless the benchmarking data are based on responses derived from offices with similar characteristics. Office characteristics thought to have a potential effect on SOPS responses include practice size, provider specialty mix, and use of electronic information technology. A separate survey to collect information about these practice characteristics has been developed and was tested and refined as part of the pilot study.

In order to establish SOPS benchmarks that can be tailored with respect to specific practice-related characteristics, survey responses from a large sample of practices stratified by these characteristics are required. AHRQ therefore intends to recruit and administer SOPS to ambulatory medical offices that have been selected on the basis of practice characteristics. In addition, AHRQ intends to collect from these practices evaluative information about administrative barriers and facilitators to survey participation as well as a description of how the office used (or plans to use) the survey results to enhance patient safety culture. These data will inform future efforts by AHRQ to maximize the use of SOPS and the utility/value of survey results to ambulatory practices across the country.

This project is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory mandates to (1) promote health care quality improvement by conducting and supporting research that develops and presents scientific evidence regarding all aspects of health care, including methods for measuring quality and strategies for improving quality (42 U.S.C. 299(b)(1)(F)) and (2) conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to quality measurement and improvement (42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(2)).

A purposive sample of 400 outpatient medical offices will be identified and recruited. The goal is for the sample to be proportionately distributed with regard to three practice characteristics: Office size (number of physicians and employed staff); provider specialty mix (single- vs multi-specialty); and extent to which electronic health information tools are used. All physicians and employed staff in the practices will be asked to complete the SOPS. Additionally, one office manager for the practice will be asked to complete the Office Characteristics Survey. Since higher response rates have been demonstrated when paper-based (compared to electronic) surveys are administered to busy ambulatory clinicians, SOPS will be administered in paper form. Standard non-response follow-up techniques such as reminder postcards and distribution of a second survey will be used. Additionally, all respondents will subsequently be asked to complete a Web-based evaluation assessing barriers and facilitators to survey completion, and the intended use(s) of survey data. Individuals and organizations contacted will be assured of the confidentiality of their replies under 42 U.S.C. 924(c).

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours for the medical offices' time to participate in this one-time data collection. It is anticipated than an average of 10 persons (about 3 physicians and 7 staff) in each of the approximately 400 medical offices will respond to the survey, resulting in a maximum of 4000 responses (approximately 1,200 physicians and 2,800 staff). The Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety (MO-SOPS) and post survey evaluation will be completed by both physicians and staff, while the Office Characteristics Survey will be completed by the office manager at each of the participating medical offices. Standard techniques such as using a cover letter of support from the medical office, reminder postcards, and distribution of a second survey will be used to achieve the target response rate.

The MO-SOPS survey and Office Characteristics survey each require approximately 15 minutes to complete. All staff will be asked to complete the MO-SOPS, however only the office manager will need to complete the Office Characteristics Survey. Additionally, the Post-Survey Evaluation, which will take an estimated 15 minutes to complete, will be distributed to all respondents electronically. It is estimated that the total annualized respondent burden for completing the surveys will be 2,100 hours.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondent's time to participate in this project. Based on the burden hours and hourly rates of physicians and staff, the total annualized cost burden is estimated at $58,662.

The total cost to the Government for conducting this research will be approximately $340,000. This estimate includes the costs of medical office identification and recruitment; data collection and aggregation; shipping, inputting and cleaning of data; analysis and report writing.

In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.