[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48412-48416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23408]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 48412]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AB73


National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for 
Certain Special Use Authorizations

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed interim directive; request for public 
comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to issue an interim directive to 
guide its employees in complying with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
for issuance of a special use authorization involving administrative 
changes where no changes are proposed in authorized activities or 
facilities. The interim directive would also clarify the definition of 
extraordinary circumstances. The intended effect is to facilitate 
consistent interpretation and application of NEPA requirements, CEQ 
regulations, and related agency policy by employees and to reduce the 
paperwork and delays that have resulted in a large backlog of 
unprocessed applications. Public comment is invited and will be 
considered in development of the final interim directive.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Director, Lands Staff, 4th Floor-
South, Mail Stop 1104, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest 
Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, or send 
electronic mail to [email protected]. If electronic mail is sent, the 
public is requested not to send duplicate written comments via regular 
mail. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received on this proposed 
interim directive in the Office of the Director, Lands Staff, 4th 
Floor-South, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 14th Street and 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days. Those wishing to inspect comments 
are encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205-1248 or (202) 205-0895 to 
facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Karstaedt, Lands Staff, (202) 
205-1256; Kenneth Karkula, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness 
Resources Staff, (202) 205-1426; or Rhey Solomon, Ecosystem Management 
Coordination Staff, (202) 205-0939.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Special Uses

    The Forest Service controls the occupancy and use of National 
Forest System lands through issuance of a special use authorization, 
such as a permit, lease, or easement. The evaluation of a proposed 
occupancy and use is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (NEPA); issuance of the subsequent special use authorization is 
the means by which the NEPA decision is implemented. After approval of 
a use, the responsible official issues a special use authorization, 
such as a permit, lease, or easement, that provides the framework for a 
holder's use and occupancy of National Forest System lands and 
establishes conditions for issuance of a new special use authorization 
when authorized improvements change ownership and upon the termination 
of the current special use authorization.
    In April 1997, the Forest Service completed a reengineering study 
of its special uses program to identify changes needed to manage the 
program in a more efficient and customer service-oriented manner. In 
1998, the agency issued a final rule streamlining the special use 
application process and administration of special use authorizations at 
36 CFR part 251, subpart B (63 FR 65940, November 30, 1998). The 
reengineering study found misunderstanding and inconsistency among 
agency employees in actions being taken to administratively change a 
current valid special use authorization, such as updating authorization 
rental fee clauses and incorporating new environmental requirements 
mandated by new laws and regulations. The study also revealed a large 
backlog of unprocessed special use applications involving a change of 
ownership of authorized improvements or the issuance of a new special 
use authorization upon the termination of the current special use 
authorization which, if issued, would result in no change in the 
authorized activities or facilities. The study concluded that a primary 
cause of this backlog is the inconsistent application and 
misinterpretation of agency policy found in Forest Service Handbook 
(FSH) 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, chapter 
30, which addresses categorical exclusion from documentation in an 
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 
These inconsistencies and misinterpretations have resulted in higher 
administrative costs to the agency and delayed service to the customer.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 
1500) encourage agencies to reduce paperwork and delays in processing 
applications by categorically excluding from documentation in an EIS or 
EA certain types of proposed actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Forest 
Service direction on actions that may be considered for categorical 
exclusion is contained in FSH 1909.15, chapter 30, sections 31.1b and 
31.2.
    In 1998, the Forest Service adopted an interim directive regarding 
categorical exclusions for certain ski area permit actions (63 FR 
48170, September 9, 1998) to categorically exclude from documentation 
in an EA or EIS certain actions related to permit tenure or the change 
of ownership of authorized improvements when such actions are 
ministerial and no changes are proposed in the permitted activities or 
facilities. That interim directive implemented a provision of the 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 which provided 
that issuance of a ski area permit for activities authorized under a 
previous ski area permit does not constitute a major Federal action for 
the purposes of NEPA. In issuing that interim directive to its NEPA 
implementation handbook (FSH 1909.15, Environmental Policy and

[[Page 48413]]

Procedures Handbook), the Forest Service reviewed applicable statutory 
authority and regulations and concluded that a similar categorical 
exclusion should be provided for certain special use applications and 
authorizations. As suggested by the reengineering study, a record of 
EA's and resulting findings of no significant impact (FONSI's) for 
special uses has been collected, which shows that certain categories of 
actions involving special use authorizations generally have no 
significant effect on the human environment, supporting the Forest 
Service determination that the proposed changes to the categorical 
exclusions are appropriate and should be implemented.
    Because the agency plans to propose additional revisions to this 
handbook within the next few years, the agency has concluded that these 
proposed categorical exclusions for certain special use authorization 
actions should be issued as an interim directive. Upon completion of 
other revisions to this handbook, this interim directive will be 
incorporated into an amendment at that time.
    Accordingly, the Forest Service proposes to revise its NEPA 
implementation handbook (FSH 1909.15) to classify the following special 
use authorizing actions as categorical exclusions: (1) Amendment of a 
special use authorization during its term, for purposes of initiating 
an administrative change; (2) changes in ownership of authorized 
improvements during the term of an existing special use authorization; 
and (3) issuance of a new special use authorization upon termination of 
an existing special use authorization. Use of these new categories 
would be appropriate only when the special use authorization involves 
no change in the nature or scope of the occupancy and use and no change 
in the effects on the environment. The proposed direction for the 
categorical exclusions would be included as paragraphs under sections 
31.1b and 31.2. The intent of these proposed changes to categorically 
exclude certain special use authorization actions is not to avoid 
environmental analysis and documentation, but rather to recognize that 
administrative amendments to authorizations, changes in ownership of 
authorized improvements, and issuance of a new authorization upon the 
termination of an existing authorization have little to no individual 
or cumulative environmental effect on the ground. The proposed interim 
direction is set out at the end of this notice.
    The agency proposes to add two new paragraphs 10 and 11 to section 
31.1b, Categories Established by the Chief. The categories in this 
section identify proposed actions requiring no additional analysis or 
documentation in an EIS or EA and for which a project or case file and 
a decision memo are not required.
    Proposed paragraph 10 would address situations that involve the 
amendment of an existing special use authorization when there would be 
no change to the scope or nature of the authorized occupancy or use. 
Proposed paragraph 10 also would include examples of the type of 
administrative actions that could be considered. For example, updating 
authorization rental fee clauses to reflect a new or modified land use 
rental fee for a power line would have no significant effect on the 
environment and use of a categorical exclusion would be appropriate; 
however, if the utility company that owns the power line requests an 
amendment to its special use authorization to include additional power 
line extensions that are outside an existing utility corridor, then use 
of a categorical exclusion would not be appropriate.
    Proposed paragraph 11 would address situations involving a change 
of ownership of authorized improvements during the term of an existing 
special use authorization. Actions within this category would allow 
issuance of a special use authorization to a new owner of the currently 
authorized improvements, as long as there is no change in the 
authorized occupancy or use of National Forest System lands.
    The actions in these proposed categories normally do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment. For example, consider the case of a telephone 
line that has been in existence and authorized for a 30-year term. Five 
years remain in the authorized term when the telephone company is 
purchased by another entity. The new owner is not proposing any changes 
to the authorized use and occupancy. Agency review indicates that 
issuing a new special use authorization for the five years remaining in 
the term to effect a name change, when there is no change to the use or 
occupancy authorized, would not have a significant effect on the 
environment. Use of a categorical exclusion, as set out in this 
proposed interim directive, would be appropriate.
    In summary, the proposed categorical exclusions in section 31.1b 
would be applicable to those cases that do not involve a physical 
change to the environment. Review of the proposed action would ensure 
that the proposed categorical exclusions allow only for administrative 
changes that have no significant effect on the environment.
    Section 31.2 of the handbook lists those categories of actions for 
which a project or case file and a decision memo are required. The 
Forest Service proposes to add a new paragraph 10 to section 31.2 to 
classify as a categorical exclusion the issuance of a new special use 
authorization upon the termination of the existing special use 
authorization, when the current holder and operations under the 
existing special use authorization are in full compliance with the 
terms and conditions of the special use authorization and no changes in 
the physical environment or facilities are proposed. Generally, special 
use authorizations are issued for terms ranging between 5 and 20 years.
    The following is an example of a situation involving a special use 
authorization in which use of a categorical exclusion would be 
appropriate: An organization camp has been authorized for a term of 20 
years and its term has expired. The holder applies for a new special 
use authorization and does not propose any change to the use or 
occupancy previously authorized. Agency review indicates that the use 
has been consistent with the terms and conditions of the authorization 
and that previous analysis determined there were no individually or 
cumulatively significant effects on the environment. Thus, the decision 
to issue a new special use authorization may be categorically excluded, 
so long as the requirements listed at 36 CFR 251.64 can be met and 
there are no significant effects on the environment.
    In contrast, consider an example involving an oil and gas pipeline 
authorized 30 years ago. The special use authorization is due to 
expire, and the holder applies for a new special use authorization. The 
use and holder meet the requirements set out at 36 CFR 251.64. In this 
example, agency review indicates that the use had not previously been 
analyzed pursuant to NEPA, and new information shows threatened or 
endangered species may be significantly affected. Thus, continuing the 
use previously authorized may cause significant effects on the 
environment. A categorical exclusion would not be applied in this 
situation, and the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation 
would have to be completed prior to issuance of a new special use 
authorization.

[[Page 48414]]

Extraordinary Circumstances

    The proposed interim directive also would clarify the policy in the 
handbook regarding extraordinary circumstances at paragraph 2 of 
section 30.3 and the definition in section 30.5, which currently 
defines extraordinary circumstances as ``conditions associated with a 
normally excluded action that are identified during scoping as 
potentially having effects which may significantly affect the 
environment.'' The agency proposes to make minor revisions to clarify 
this definition. The revised definition would state: ``Instances where 
a proposed action normally excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA 
is identified as potentially having a significant effect on the 
resource conditions as set out in section 30.3, paragraphs 2a through 
2g.'' Section 30.3 would be revised to clarify that it may be 
appropriate and permissible to categorically exclude from documentation 
in an EIS or EA those proposed actions where certain resource 
conditions are present, but only when the responsible official 
determines the proposed action would not have a significant 
environmental effect, either individually or cumulatively, on those 
conditions.
    Considerable public and employee confusion exists regarding the 
application of a categorical exclusion to a proposed action when a 
listed resource condition is present. Additionally, Federal Circuit 
Courts have interpreted Forest Service direction on this issue 
differently. For example, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Forest 
Service intended that the ``mere presence'' of any extraordinary 
circumstances precluded use of the categorical exclusion (Rhodes v. 
Johnson, 153 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1998)). However, the Ninth Circuit has 
held that an agency may issue a categorical exclusion even where a 
certain resource condition, in this case threatened or endangered 
species, is present (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. 
Forest Service, 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Kirchbaum 
v. USFS, 17 F. Supp. 2d 549, 557-58 (W.D. Va. 1998)).
    The proposed revisions to the definition in section 30.5 and the 
direction in section 30.3, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, would clarify the 
agency's intent that the presence of a listed resource condition does 
not automatically preclude use of a categorical exclusion. Treating the 
``mere presence'' of a resource condition as an absolute bar to the 
availability of categorical exclusions has a major impact on the Forest 
Service's ability to efficiently fulfill its land management 
responsibilities. The resource conditions identified in the agency 
handbook (FSH 1909.15, section 30.3, paragraphs 2a-2g) are intended to 
act as guideposts that alert decision makers to potential instances 
where a categorical exclusion would be inappropriate. The procedures 
were never intended to override the responsible official's ability to 
determine that no significant environmental effects are associated with 
a proposed action and, therefore, that a categorical exclusion is 
appropriate. The proposed interim directive would make explicit the 
agency's intent that even in the presence of certain resource 
conditions, a proposal could still be categorically excluded if the 
responsible official determines the proposed action would not have a 
significant environmental effect on those resource conditions. 
Paragraph 3 retains the important requirement regarding scoping for all 
proposed actions. Proposed changes to paragraph 3 would, however, 
remove redundant guidance on preparation of EA's and EIS's, as adequate 
guidance already exists in chapters 20 and 40 of FSH 1909.15. Paragraph 
4 would be expanded to reference FSH 1909.15, section 18, on the need 
to review and document new information or changed circumstances.
    In addition, paragraph 2b of section 30.3, which lists threatened 
and endangered species or their critical habitat as examples of 
resource conditions, would be expanded to include species proposed for 
threatened or endangered listing, sensitive species, or their 
designated or proposed critical habitat. The proposed interim directive 
is set out at the end of this notice.

Environmental Impact

    These proposed revisions to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 
would clarify direction and improve consistent interpretation by field 
employees of requirements regarding NEPA documentation. Section 31.1b 
of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from 
documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement 
``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The 
agency's preliminary assessment is that this proposed action falls 
within this category of actions, and that no extraordinary 
circumstances exist as currently defined which would require 
preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental 
assessment. A final determination will be made upon adoption of the 
final interim directive. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.1 and 
1507.3, the agency is consulting with the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) to ensure full compliance with the purposes and 
provisions of NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations.

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed interim directive has been reviewed under USDA 
procedures and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
It has been determined that this is not a significant action. This 
proposed action to clarify agency direction would not have an annual 
effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, nor State or local governments. This proposed action would not 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise 
new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed action would not 
alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. 
Accordingly, this proposed action is not subject to Office of 
Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
    Moreover, this proposed action has been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been 
determined that this proposed action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by 
the act because it will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; 
it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large 
entities; and it would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or 
ability to remain in the market.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The agency has considered this proposed interim directive under the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has made an 
assessment that the proposed interim directive conforms with the 
federalism principles set out in this Executive order; would not impose 
any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial 
direct effects on the States or the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the 
agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism 
implications is necessary at this time.

[[Page 48415]]

    Moreover, this proposed interim directive does not have tribal 
implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance 
consultation with tribes is not required.

No Takings Implications

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, and it has been determined that the proposed action 
does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected 
private property.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This proposed action has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed interim directive were adopted, 
(1) all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with 
this proposed interim directive or which would impede its full 
implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be 
given to this proposed interim directive; and (3) it would not require 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court 
challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this proposed action on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This 
proposed action would 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.

Energy Effects

    This proposed interim directive has been reviewed under Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this 
proposed interim directive does not constitute a significant energy 
action as defined in the Executive order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This proposed interim directive does not contain any additional 
record-keeping or reporting requirements associated with the special 
uses program 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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Number 
0596-0082) has approved the information collection associated with the 
special uses program. 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.

    Dated: August 31, 2001.
Sally Collins,
Acting Chief.

Text of Proposed Interim Directive

    Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by 
alphanumeric codes and subject headings. Only those sections of the 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Environmental Policy and 
Procedures Handbook, affected by this policy are included in this 
notice. The intended audience for this direction is Forest Service 
employees charged with issuing and administering special use 
authorizations. Selected headings and existing text are provided to 
assist the reader in placing the proposed direction in context, but 
primarily the revised text is set out here. Reviewers who wish to 
view the entire chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15 may obtain a copy from the 
address shown earlier in this notice and from the Forest Service 
home page on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/
cgi-bin/Directives/get__directives/fsh?1909.15.

FSH 1909.15--ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK

CHAPTER 30--CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FROM DOCUMENTATION

    (No change to the following section 30.3, paragraphs 1 and 1a:)
30.3--Policy.
    1. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from 
documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 
environmental assessment (EA) only if the proposed action:
    a. Is within one of the categories in the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) NEPA policies and procedures in 7 CFR part 1b.
    (Proposed revision to the following section 30.3, paragraphs 1b and 
2, as follows:)
    b. Is within a category listed in section 31.1b or 31.2 and there 
are no instances of extraordinary circumstances (as described in the 
following para. 2 and defined in sec. 30.5) related to the proposed 
action that could result in a significant environmental effect.
    2. Extraordinary circumstances (as defined in sec. 30.5) occur when 
a proposed action would have a significant effect on the resource 
conditions set out in the following paragraphs 2a through 2g. The 
responsible official may issue a categorical exclusion even when one or 
more of the resource conditions listed in paragraphs 2a through 2g are 
present, only if the official determines on a case-by-case basis that 
the proposed action would not have a significant effect on these 
resource conditions and thus an instance of extraordinary circumstances 
does not exist for that proposed action. The resource conditions to be 
considered in determining if extraordinary circumstances exist are:
    (No change to the following paragraph 2a:)
    a. Steep slopes or highly erosive soils.
    (Proposed revision to paragraph 2b, as follows:)
    b. Threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species or their 
designated or proposed critical habitat.
    (No change to the following paragraphs 2c-2g:)
    c. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.
    d. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness 
study areas, or National Recreation Areas.
    e. Inventoried roadless areas.
    f. Research Natural Areas.
    g. Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological 
sites, or historic properties or areas.
    (Proposed revision to paragraph 3 and 4, as follows:)
    3. Scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those 
that would appear to be categorically excluded (ch. 20 and 40).
    4. If an action has been sufficiently analyzed in a completed EIS 
or an EA, but not approved in the appropriate decision document, issue 
a record of decision or a decision notice and finding of no significant 
impact without considering the categories in this chapter (ch. 30). If 
an action has been sufficiently analyzed in a completed EIS or EA and 
approved in the appropriate decision document, it can be implemented 
without considering the categories in this chapter (ch. 30). In these 
situations, consider the need to evaluate new information or changed 
circumstances that may have a bearing on the decision (sec. 18).
    (No change to the following section 30.5, unnumbered paragraphs 1 
and 2:)
30.5--Definitions.
    Categorical Exclusion. (sec. 05)
    Decision Memo. (sec. 05)
    (Proposed revision to section 30.5, unnumbered paragraph 3, 
definition of

[[Page 48416]]

Extraordinary Circumstances, as follows:)
    Extraordinary Circumstances. Instances where a proposed action 
normally excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA is identified as 
potentially having a significant effect on resource conditions as set 
out in section 30.3, paragraphs 2a through 2g.
    31--Categories of Actions Excluded From Documentation.
    (No change to the following sections 31 through 31.1b, paragraph 
9c:)
    31.1--Categories for Which a Project or Case File and Decision Memo 
Are Not Required. At the discretion of the responsible official, a 
project or case file and a decision memo are not required but may be 
prepared for the categories of actions set forth in sections 31.1a and 
31.1b.
    31.1a--Categories Established by the Secretary. The rules at 7 CFR 
1b.3 exclude from documentation in an EIS or an EA the following 
categories:
    (a)  * * *
    (1) Policy development, planning and implementation which relate to 
routine activities, such as personnel, organizational changes, or 
similar administrative functions;
    (2) Activities which deal solely with the funding of programs, such 
as program budget proposals, disbursements, and transfer or 
reprogramming of funds;
    (3) Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 
inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 
limited in context and intensity;
    (4) Educational and informational programs and activities;
    (5) Civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative 
activities;
    (6) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other 
agencies and public and private entities, such as legal counseling and 
representation;
    (7) Activities related to trade representation and market 
development activities abroad. (7 CFR 1b.3)
    31.1b--Categories Established by the Chief. The following 
categories of routine administrative, maintenance, and other actions 
normally do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment (sec. 05) and, therefore, may 
be categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or an EA unless 
scoping indicates extraordinary circumstances (sec. 30.5) exist:
    (The unchanged text of paragraphs 1 through 9 is not set out.)
* * * * *
    (Proposed new paragraphs 10 and 11, section 31.1b, as follows:)
    10. Amendment to an existing special use authorization during its 
term, involving no change in the authorized use and occupancy other 
than administrative changes. Examples include but are not limited to:
    a. Amending a special use authorization to reflect administrative 
changes, such as changes to the land use rental fee or conversion to a 
new type of special use authorization for a particular occupancy or use 
(for example, converting a permit to a lease or easement).
    b. Amending a special use authorization to include nondiscretionary 
environmental standards or updating a special use authorization to 
bring it into conformance with current laws or regulations (for 
example, new water quality standards that require monitoring).
    11. Change in ownership of authorized improvements during the term 
of an existing special use authorization, involving no change in the 
authorized use and occupancy of National Forest System lands other than 
administrative changes. Examples include but are not limited to 
issuance of a new special use authorization to a new owner of the 
authorized improvements, when there is no change to the authorized use 
and occupancy.
    (No change to the following section 31.2 through (1):)
    31.2--Categories of Actions for Which a Project or Case File and 
Decision Memo Are Required. Routine, proposed actions within any of the 
following categories may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an 
EA; however, a project or case file is required and the decision to 
proceed must be documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, 
the project or case file should include any records prepared, such as:
    (1) the names of interested and affected people, groups, and 
agencies contacted;
    (Proposed revision to section 31.2 (2) and (3) as follows:)
    (2) the determination that no instance of extraordinary 
circumstances related to the proposed action exists that may have a 
significant environmental effect on resource conditions; (3) a copy of 
the decision memo (sec. 30.5, para. 2);
    (No change to the following section 31.2 (4) and (5):)
    (4) a list of the people notified of the decision; (5) a copy of 
the notice required by 36 CFR Part 217, or any other notice used to 
inform interested and affected persons of the decision to proceed with 
or to implement an action that has been categorically excluded. 
Maintain a project or case file and prepare a decision memo for 
routine, proposed actions within any of the following categories.
    (The unchanged text of paragraphs 1 through 9, section 31.2, is not 
set out.)
* * * * *
    (Proposed new paragraph 10, section 31.2, as follows:)
    10. Issuance of a new special use authorization to the holder of an 
existing special use authorization when:
    a. The existing special use authorization terminates at the end of 
its term;
    b. The holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions 
of the terminating special use authorization; and
    c. There would be no change in the physical environment or 
facilities or the scope or intensity of the operations.
    (No change to the rest of chapter 30, sections 32-33.)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-23408 Filed 9-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P