[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18481-18504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 218

RIN 0596-AD07


Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture (the Department) 
is issuing this final rule to establish the

[[Page 18482]]

sole process by which the public may file objections seeking 
predecisional administrative review for proposed projects and 
activities implementing land management plans and documented with a 
Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Notice (DN). The final rule 
carries out the direction in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012, section 428, which directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
through the Chief of the Forest Service, to apply section 105(a) of the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) to provide for a 
predecisional objection process. Section 428 further directs the 
Secretary to apply these procedures in lieu of the procedures required 
by the Appeal Reform Act (ARA) sections that provided for a 
postdecisional administrative appeal process for project decisions. 
This rule revises Forest Service regulations to implement the direction 
of section 428 and also includes predecisional administrative review 
procedures applicable to projects authorized pursuant to the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA).

DATES: This rule is effective March 27, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deb Beighley, Assistant Director, 
Judicial and Administrative Reviews, Ecosystem Management Coordination 
Staff, 202-205-1277, or Kevin Lawrence, Administrative Review 
Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, 202-205-2613.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Need for the Final Rule

    On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. Section 428 of the Act 
(hereafter ``Section 428'') directs the Secretary of Agriculture 
(Secretary), acting through the Chief of the Forest Service (Chief), to 
provide for a predecisional objection process based on Section 105(a) 
of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (16 U.S.C. 
6515(a)), for proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning 
projects and activities implementing land management plans and 
documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice. The Act 
further directs that these procedures be applied in lieu of subsections 
(c), (d), and (e) of Section 322 of Public Law 102-381 (16 U.S.C. 1612 
note) (Appeal Reform Act or ARA) that collectively provide for a 
postdecisional administrative appeal process for projects and 
activities implementing land management plans. The Department has 
developed this final rule to: (1) Preserve the predecisional objection 
process already in place for proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects 
authorized under the HFRA; (2) expand the scope of that objection 
process to include other covered actions; and (3) establish a process 
for providing the notice and comment provisions of the ARA.
    President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
of 2003 (HFRA) to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while 
upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input 
during planning processes. One of the provisions of the Act (sec. 105) 
required the Secretary to issue an interim final rule establishing a 
predecisional administrative review process for hazardous fuel 
reduction projects authorized by the HFRA. The interim final rule was 
promulgated at 36 CFR part 218 on January 9, 2004 (69 FR 1529), 
followed by a final rule on September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53705), that 
incorporated the results of public comment and the knowledge gained 
through the Agency's experience with implementing the rule.
    Congress enacted the ARA in 1992. The ARA states that ``the 
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
Service, shall establish a notice and comment process for proposed 
actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities 
implementing land and resource management plans * * * and shall modify 
the procedure for appeals of decisions concerning such projects.'' ARA 
section 322(a), 106 Stat. 1419. The ARA (ARA section 322(c), 106 Stat. 
1419) further provided that qualifying individuals may file an appeal 
``[n]ot later than 45 days after the date of issuance of a decision of 
the Forest Service concerning actions referred to in subsection (a).* * 
* '' The Department promulgated implementing regulations for the ARA at 
36 CFR part 215 in 1993 and revised them in 2003.
    Prior to passage of the HFRA, public notice and comment for 
hazardous fuel reduction project proposals, and appeal of the 
decisions, would have been conducted according to the procedures set 
out at 36 CFR part 215. The HFRA objection rule exempts qualifying 
hazardous fuel reduction projects from the notice, comment, and appeal 
procedures set out at part 215 and establishes separate objection 
procedures specifically for hazardous fuel reduction projects, pursuant 
to 36 CFR part 218.
    Now, through Section 428, Congress has directed the Secretary to 
apply the predecisional objection established in part 218, in place of 
the appeal provisions at part 215, for proposed actions regarding 
projects and activities implementing land management plans and 
documented with a Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Notice (DN). The 
Department has determined the most appropriate way to carry out this 
direction is to revise part 218, by amending subparts A and B, and 
creating subpart C.
    Subpart A includes general provisions applicable to HFRA and non-
HFRA covered projects and activities.
    Subpart B provides additional direction that is specific to 
proposed actions not authorized under the HFRA. This subpart includes 
the notice and comment requirements directed by subsection (b) of the 
ARA and the emergency situation provisions directed by Section 428.
    Subpart C provides additional direction that is specific to 
proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the HFRA.

Public Involvement and Response to Public Comments

    Proposed part 218 was published in the Federal Register on August 
8, 2012 (77 FR 47337). The 30-day public comment period ended September 
7, 2012. The Forest Service received comments from 63 respondents. The 
Agency analyzed the comments and considered them in developing this 
final rule. The discussion of public comments below is divided between 
general comments and those that involve specific sections of the 
proposed rule. A summary of changes made to the proposed rule is 
included with the responses.

General Comments

    The Department received the following comments not specifically 
tied to a particular section of the 2012 proposed rule.
    Comment: A number of respondents commented on the need to include a 
requirement in the final rule that a draft environmental assessment 
(EA) be circulated for public review and comment prior to the beginning 
of the objection filing period. Some of these respondents asserted that 
providing an opportunity for public comment on a draft EA is a 
requirement of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its 
implementing regulations, and case law. ``* * * FS regulations do not 
give the Forest Service authority to ignore the CEQ [Council on 
Environmental Quality] regulations and voluminous case law which 
requires all federal agencies to provide public comment on 
Environmental Assessments.'' One respondent requested that EAs be

[[Page 18483]]

released for 45 days of public comment prior to the objection filing 
period and another suggested 30 days.
    Respondents concerned about the availability of a draft EA ahead of 
the objection filing period also commented on the limited information 
that might be available for public comment if a draft EA is not 
circulated. ``Scoping generally provides only basic information about 
the project, and does not allow the public to review and comment on the 
requisite environmental analysis and proposed alternatives. Precluding 
public comments on the potential environmental effects and alternatives 
in a draft EA would therefore short-circuit NEPA.'' Some of these 
respondents also related this concern to the direction in the proposed 
rule that issues raised in objection must be based on previously 
submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or 
activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on 
new information that arose after the opportunities for comment. 
``[W]ithout a draft EA to comment on, interested parties must throw 
every possible claim in scoping comments to ensure that they have 
exhausted issues they may wish to raise in objection.''
    Response: Direction regarding circulation of NEPA analysis 
documents is found in the NEPA, the CEQ implementing regulations, and 
Forest Service implementing regulations. The notice and comment 
provisions of the Appeal Reform Act (ARA), for which implementation 
procedures are included in this rule, direct only the requirements by 
which the public is notified of an opportunity to comment and the 
length of the comment period. The statute does not specify what 
information or documentation, other than the required notice, is to be 
made available as part of the required comment opportunity. For these 
reasons, any consideration of a requirement to make a draft EA 
available for public comment is outside the scope of this rule and is 
appropriately addressed by the Department in Forest Service NEPA 
regulations at 36 CFR part 220. At this time the Department is not 
proposing to revise the NEPA regulations at part 220.
    Regarding the respondents' concern about the limited information 
that may be available for comment if a draft EA is not circulated for 
public comment and how that may affect the ability to raise issues in 
objection, the direction of the proposed and final rules provides an 
appropriate response. Section 218.8, paragraph (c) specifies that 
``[i]ssues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted 
specific written comments regarding the proposed project and activity 
and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new 
information that arose after the opportunities for comment.'' [italics 
added] Thus, when objection issues are based on information in a final 
EA that is made available at the beginning of an objection filing 
period, and where that information was not made available during any 
prior opportunity to comment, those issues will be accepted for review 
by the reviewing officer.
    Comment: Several respondents expressed support for the proposed 
rule and the predecisional administrative review process that it 
promulgates. One of these respondents noted specifically that replacing 
the appeal process with a predecisional objection process would be a 
welcome change and should result in greater efficiencies.
    A few other respondents expressed a preference for the post-
decisional appeal process. One respondent stated that ``It is an 
important check and balance mechanism to guard against summary 
dismissal action by decision makers.''
    Response: The Department believes that considering public concerns 
early on, before a decision is made aligns with the Forest Service's 
collaborative approach to forest management and increases the 
likelihood of resolving those concerns resulting in better, more 
informed decisions.
    Comment: Several respondents provided a number of comments related 
to direction that is associated, directly or indirectly, with the NEPA 
and its implementing regulations. These comments encompassed such 
topics as availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact for 
public review, content of the Schedule of Proposed Actions, 
requirements for scoping, and the availability of the project record.
    Response: Although a predecisional administrative review process 
such as the one established through this rule necessarily integrates 
with implementation of NEPA-related direction and function, nothing in 
this rule subverts or circumvents applicable requirements found in the 
NEPA implementing regulations. Additionally, consideration of changes 
to these NEPA requirements is outside the purpose and scope of this 
rule.
    Comment: The preamble to the proposed rule described the 
circumstances and uncertainties concerning administrative review of 
categorically excluded projects, including ongoing litigation in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning the 
applicability of the Appeal Reform Act to categorically excluded (CE) 
projects implementing land management plans. The Department invited the 
public to provide written comments concerning treatment of CE projects 
in the future by the Forest Service.
    A sizeable number of respondents provided comment on the treatment 
of CE projects in administrative review processes. Preferences ranged 
from no administrative review opportunity for CE projects, to either 
post-decisional or predecisional administrative review opportunities. 
Nearly all those who indicated a preference to have CE projects subject 
to some form of administrative review, suggested the requirements be 
made applicable to CEs documented with a Decision Memo. Some 
respondents suggested that if the Appeal Reform Act is repealed through 
legislative action, the Forest Service should preserve the notice and 
comment provisions for CE projects.
    Response: The Department appreciates all of the input provided on 
this important subject. Since the proposed rule was published, little 
has changed with the judicial or legislative environment associated 
with this question. The Government's appeal to the Ninth Circuit in the 
Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell case remains pending. The Forest 
Service continues to comply with the nationwide injunction subjecting 
certain CE projects from the notice, comment, and appeal provisions of 
the Appeal Reform Act, issued by the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of California on March 19, 2012. Although several 
pieces of legislation regarding this question have been introduced in 
Congress, nothing has been enacted. Therefore, the Department is not 
yet prepared to make any regulatory changes through this or any other 
rulemaking. The public responses received in comment on the proposed 
rule that pertain to this question will be retained for consideration 
at an appropriate time in the future.
    Comment: The preamble to the proposed rule included a description 
of the history and circumstances associated with the use of legal 
notices as part of administrative review procedures to provide public 
notification of opportunities to comment and file appeals or 
objections. The description also noted that the publication dates of 
these legal notices is typically used to start the associated comment, 
appeal, or objection filing periods. The preamble explained that the 
proposed rule did not vary from the standard practice regarding the use 
of legal notices, but did request comments and suggestions concerning 
their use.

[[Page 18484]]

    Nearly all the respondents who commented on this subject expressed 
support for the continued use of legal notices to provide public 
notification of comment and objection opportunities, although many also 
described problems with their use. As a means of notification, few if 
any respondents thought that legal notices should be the sole means of 
notification. Limitations of legal notices were described as including 
newspapers that have limited distribution and little or no Internet 
presence.
    A common point of concern for respondents is the difficulty in 
determining the publication date for legal notices. Current 
administrative review regulations use the publication date of legal 
notices to establish the beginning date for associated comment, appeal, 
and objection filing opportunities. These regulations also prohibit the 
inclusion of a publication date in the legal notices to avoid the 
complications of sometimes erratic publication schedules.
    Most respondents to this question recommended the use of 
supplemental notification mechanisms, especially email and Web postings 
on the Internet.
    Response: The Department agrees that the system of notifications or 
administrative review procedures needs improvement. The changes 
possible at this time are somewhat limited, but the final rule does 
include some modifications in response to the comments received.
    One constraint on changing the method of notification is the Appeal 
Reform Act (ARA). Section 322(b)(1)(ii) directs the Secretary to give 
notice of the availability of a covered action for public comment by 
``publishing notice of the action in a newspaper of general circulation 
* * *.'' Section 322(b)(2) directs the Secretary to accept comments 
within 30 days ``after publication of the notice * * *,'' effectively 
precluding the use of another mechanism to initiate the start of the 
comment filing period. Although these requirements do not extend to 
notifications of the opportunity to file an objection, the Department 
is reluctant to add confusion by introducing a method of notification 
of the opportunity to file an objection that is different than that 
used to notify the public of an opportunity to comment. Also, because 
the same notification procedures are used for all of the Forest 
Service's administrative review procedures, introducing a change solely 
in this rule could introduce confusion.
    The Department does believe that direction in this rule 
supplementing the legal notice publication as a means of notification 
is appropriate and can address some of the concerns expressed by 
respondents. Therefore, a direction has been added to the final rule at 
Sec.  218.7(d) and Sec.  218.24(c)(3).
    Although a delay in notification of up to 4 calendar days may 
reduce the amount of time available to comment or object for some 
people, the Department believes it is necessary to provide a measure of 
flexibility for the agency.
    Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule the Department 
requested public comment on the question of whether the final rule 
should include specific limitation for the page length of objections. A 
number of respondents commented on this question and the 
recommendations were generally evenly split between those who supported 
a page limit and those who were opposed. The supporters of page limits 
generally recommended either a 20- or 30-page limit on objections. 
Those opposed to page limits most commonly referred to the informality 
of the objection process and the sometimes complex and voluminous 
environmental documents produced by the Forest Service. Also mentioned 
was the potential complication of enforcement of page limits without 
also specifying typographic and style standards to prevent inventive 
objectors from trying to squeeze more words on a limited number of 
pages.
    Response: After careful consideration, the Department has decided 
not to include a page limit for objections in the final rule. The 
establishment of this predecisional administrative review process is an 
opportunity to create a more open, collaborative approach to 
administrative reviews and the imposition of a page limit on objections 
would run counter to that approach. Additionally, the Department 
prefers, where appropriate, to reduce or otherwise minimize differences 
between its various administrative review processes. Imposing a page 
limitation on objections in this final rule would introduce an 
inconsistency with the other Forest Service administrative review 
regulations, none of which include a page limit for objections or 
appeals.

Comments Related to Specific Sections of the Proposed Rule

Subpart A--General Provisions

Section 218.1--Purpose and Scope
    Comment: Some respondents expressed concern related to the purpose 
and scope of the proposed rule. For example, one respondent commented, 
``The underlying assumption that appears as a thread throughout this 
rule is that the only important decision regarding the use of National 
Forests is the environmental impact decisions. There are multiple other 
uses which must be considered in a balanced way when determinations for 
use of public lands are made. For instance, mining, cattle grazing, 
logging, recreation, etc.'' Another respondent is concerned the rule 
may disenfranchise members of the local community by ``muting their 
voices relative to the powerful interests that quite often assert 
themselves in the Forest Service's land management plans.'' This 
individual went on to request that the rule work to ensure that the 
people who live and work in the national forests are provided the 
greatest opportunity for input as possible.
    Response: As described in this section, the general provisions of 
subpart A establish a predecisional administrative review process for 
proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and 
activities implementing land and resource management plans and 
documented with a Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Notice (DN). 
This reflects the direction in Section 428 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2012, and consequently the focus of the 
administrative review procedures in this rule are project proposals 
that will be subject to the NEPA environmental analysis and 
documentation requirements, including the requirements for a ROD or DN. 
Such project proposals will encompass the full range of natural 
resources and most public uses managed by the Forest Service. Decisions 
regarding the mix of uses and activities that take place on National 
Forest System lands are made as part of land management planning that 
occurs before, and results in, the specific project proposals that are 
the subject of this rule.
    The Department has designed the provisions of this rule to provide 
a fair and equitable opportunity to have unresolved public concerns 
regarding project proposals considered by a higher-level Forest Service 
line officer. The procedures related to notification, comment, and 
objection review and response are intended to be applied the same 
across all interest areas and geographic locations.
Section 218.2--Definitions
    Comment: Several respondents addressed the definition of 
``comments.'' One respondent asserted that omitting the ability to 
submit oral comments was in violation of the Appeal Reform Act (ARA) at 
section 322(b) and ``is just another means by

[[Page 18485]]

which the Forest Service is discouraging and limiting public 
involvement.''
    Response: Section 322(b) of the ARA, which is cited by the 
respondent, states, in part, ``The Secretary shall accept comments on 
the proposed action * * *.'' This subsection specifies neither written 
nor oral comments. Subsection (c) of the ARA does state, in part, ``* * 
* a person who was involved in the public comment process under 
subsection (b) through submission of written or oral comments * * * may 
file an appeal.'' [italics added] However, Section 428 of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, to apply 
section 105(a) of the HFRA in lieu of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of 
the ARA. Thus, with promulgation of this final rule, subsection (c) of 
the ARA with its reference to submission of written or oral comments 
does not control the new procedures; while section 105(a) of the HFRA 
does. Section 105(a)(3) describes the eligibility requirements for 
predecisional objection as ``a person shall submit * * *, during 
scoping or the public comment period for the draft environmental 
analysis for the project, specific written comments that relate to the 
proposed action.'' [italics added] This is the reason the definition of 
comments, for purposes of this rule, does not include oral comments, 
because oral comments cannot be considered for purposes of eligibility 
under the applicable statute.
    The Department recognizes the inability to utilize oral comments to 
establish eligibility to object could be a burden and impediment to 
full involvment in the objection process for some citizens. 
Consequently, the definition of ``comments'' (now ``specific written 
comments'' in the final rule) has been modified to suggest how comments 
made verbally could still be used to gain eligibility to object while 
meeting the applicable statutes. The relevant sentence added to the 
definition states, ``Written comments can include submission of 
transcriptions or other notes from oral statements or presentations.''
    Comment: Others who expressed concerns with the definition of 
``comments'' cited the phrases ``designated opportunity for public 
participation'' and ``specific'' as too vague or uncertain. One 
respondent questioned whether comments provided by those who may have 
opportunities to comment that are not available to the general public, 
such as collaborative groups, would meet the definition. Another 
respondent questioned whether a commenter who states that they do not 
like a proposed project but does not explain what it is they do not 
like about the project would be considered to have submitted a 
``specific'' comment under the definition.
    Response: The definition of ``comments'' (now ``specific written 
comments'' in the final rule) has been modified to address these 
concerns.
    Comment: Many respondents commented on the definition of 
``emergency situation.'' Most of the comments addressed the part of the 
definition that states, ``* * * avoiding a loss of economic value 
sufficient to jeopardize the agency's ability to accomplish project 
objectives directly related to resource protection or restoration'' and 
none of those who commented were supportive of that passage as written. 
However, the concerns were fairly equally divided along somewhat 
opposing viewpoints. One group of respondents generally did not like 
the inclusion of ``commodity values'' as a criterion for an emergency 
situation, stating that emergencies should be reserved for ``true 
emergencies'' such as action needed to reduce catastrophic damage from 
floods, windstorms, and ice storms. Another group of respondents 
generally were not opposed to the inclusion of ``loss of commodity 
values'' as a criterion, but felt the qualifying clause ``sufficient to 
jeopardize the agency's ability to accomplish project objectives 
directly related to resource protection or restoration'' is too 
limiting. This group believes tieing the definition to resource 
protection and restoration objectives ``reflects the Forest Service's 
current focus on forest restoration, rather than on the long-standing 
concepts of multiple use.''
    Response: The definition in the proposed rule modified the long 
standing definition of emergency situation in the 36 CFR 215 appeal 
procedures. The new definition primarily modified a passage in the 
original definition that had been controversial and somewhat 
problematic: ``substantial economic loss to the federal government.'' 
Arguments have been made, in and outside the courts, about whether 
economic loss to the federal government is an appropriate consideration 
for determining whether an emergency situation exists, and what 
constitutes a ``substantial'' economic loss to the government in 
general or in particular instances. The court's have generally sided 
with the Forest Service in such disputes.
    The reality is that although emergency situation determinations 
(ESDs) have been a relatively uncommon occurrence over the years, the 
predominant basis for those determinations has been the potential for 
substantial economic loss to the Federal government. For twenty years, 
Forest Service Chiefs have concluded that in carefully evaluated 
situations the potential for substantial economic loss to the Federal 
government was an appropriate and necessary reason to make an ESD that 
would permit the expedited implementation of a project. Yet the 
controversy has continued, in spite of, or perhaps because of, its 
application.
    In nearly all instances that substantial economic loss to the 
Federal government has been used as the basis for an ESD, the potential 
or actual loss has been the result of a loss of commodity value, 
generally wood products declining in value as insects and decay move 
into dead and dying trees. This is why the new definition references 
loss of commodity values, rather than substantial economic loss. 
Additionally, in nearly all instances, the greater concern of the 
Forest Service has been how that loss of economic value would translate 
into the loss of the ability to accomplish project objectives. Project 
objectives include both salvaging wood products and the ability to 
accomplish other project goals including hazard removal, fuel 
reduction, site preparation, habitat and watershed improvement, and 
forest restoration. These goals are addressed in the new definition as 
``project objectives directly related to resource protection or 
restoration.''
    For the reasons described above the Department has carefully 
considered the concerns regarding the scope and function of the ESD 
definition and has elected to maintain the language of the proposed 
regulation.
    Comment: Two respondents noted that the definition of ``objection 
period'' in the proposed rule (now ``objection filing period'' in the 
final for greater consistency in how it is used throughout the rule) 
incorrectly indicated the objection filing period is 30 days for 
projects documented with an EA and 45 days for projects documented with 
an EIS.
    Response: The respondents are correct and the definition has been 
corrected in the final rule to read ``The period following publication 
of the legal notice in the newspaper or record of an environmental 
assessment and draft Decision Notice, or final environmental impact 
statement and draft Record of Decision, for a proposed project or 
activity during which an objection may be filed with the reviewing 
officer (Sec.  218.7(c)(2)(iii) and Sec.  218.6(a) and (b)).''

[[Page 18486]]

    Comment: One respondent expressed the opinion that the definition 
of ``objector'' in the proposed rule inappropriately suggests some 
projects will not have a public comment period on a complete NEPA 
document. Several other respondents expressed support for the 
definition because it provides an incentive for early public 
participation and prevents tardy objections.
    Response: The definition in the proposed rule states that an 
objector is an individual or entity filing an objection who submitted 
comments specific to the proposed project or activity ``during scoping 
or other opportunity for public comment.'' The Department sees nothing 
in that definition to suggest one way or the other what documentation 
or information will be made available for project comment 
opportunities.
Section 218.3--Reviewing Officer
    Comment: One respondent expressed support for the clarification 
that Associate Deputy Chiefs, Deputy Regional Foresters, and Deputy 
Forest Supervisors can be reviewing officers.
    Response: The Department appreciates the expression of support for 
the clarification. These positions routinely have delegations of 
authority that are consistent with serving as an objection reviewing 
officer.
Section 218.4--Proposed Projects and Activities Not Subject to 
Objection
    Comment: One respondent commented to request the first sentence of 
this section be edited to read, ``Proposed projects and activities are 
not subject to objection when no specific and timely written comments 
regarding the proposed project or activity (see Sec.  218.2) are 
received during a designated opportunity for public comment (see Sec.  
218.5(a)) and when the draft decision does not modify the proposed 
action.'' [text to be added is in italics]
    Response: The Department disagrees with the requested edit. The 
decision made for a project or activity documented with an EA or EIS 
reflects a choice made by the responsible official from a range of 
alternatives considered in detail and documented in the analysis 
document. The proposed action will generally be one of the alternatives 
considered. Whether the alternative selected in the decision is the 
proposed action should have no bearing on whether a proposed project or 
activity is subject to objection when no specific written comments are 
received during a designated opportunity for public comment.
Section 218.5--Who May File an Objection
    Comment: A respondent requested that paragraph (a) be edited to 
clarify that comment does not have to be submitted during all public 
comment opportunities by changing the word ``and'' to ``or'' in the 
sentence that begins ``For proposed projects and activities described 
in a draft EIS * * *.''
    Response: The Department agrees with the request and the edit is 
made in the final rule.
    Comment: One respondent commented as follows:
    As written in HFRA, Indian Tribes (if classified as a `person') 
would not be allowed to appeal [sic] based on pre-scoping consultation 
interactions or any other communication that is transmitted through the 
Federal-Tribal relationship unless such Tribe submitted to being 
considered a public `person'. This could be interpreted as an 
unintended diminishment of tribal sovereignty * * *.
    Response: As suggested by the respondent, it is not the intent of 
the Department to diminish tribal sovereignty in the objection 
eligibility provisions of this rule. Federal statutory and regulatory 
requirements that recognize tribal sovereignty and the Federal 
government's responsibility regarding sovereignty create the potential 
for Federal-Tribal consultation to occur prior to opportunities for 
public comment and during which specific written comments could be 
provided to the responsible official. Consequently, paragraph (b) has 
been added to this section and states, ``Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations are also eligible to file an 
objection when specific written comments as defined in Sec.  218.2 are 
provided during Federal-Tribal consultations.''
    Comment: Two respondents provided comments disagreeing with 
paragraph (b), which directs that comments received from an authorized 
representative of an entity are considered those of the entity only, 
and that a member of an entity must submit specific written comments 
independently in order to be eligible to file an objection in an 
individual capacity. No specific rationale was provided for the 
disagreement. One respondent commented in support of the paragraph.
    Response: The Department disagrees with the opinion of the two 
respondents and believes that when comments conveying eligibility to 
object are submitted on behalf of, and by a representative of, an 
entity, the eligibility is appropriately conveyed only to that entity.
    Comment: One respondent commented in support of paragraph (c) and 
one commented that the requirement for multiple individuals and 
entities listed on an objection to each meet the eligibility 
requirements puts an unreasonable burden on the public and prevents 
parties that want to object from joining another, properly filed 
objection. The respondent requests the requirement be removed.
    Response: The Department disagrees the requirement is an 
unreasonable burden. The primary purpose of the eligibility requirement 
is to encourage early and helpful involvement in project planning and 
analysis. To allow individuals who have not established their 
eligibility by submitting specific written comments during an 
opportunity for comment to then sign-on to another's objection 
circumvents the very purpose of the eligibility requirements.
Section 218.6--Computation of Time Periods
    Comment. A few comments were received requesting that paragraph (c) 
include a requirement to publish on the Internet the required legal 
notices of an EA or final EIS subject to the objection procedures.
    Response. The Department agrees with this request and it is 
addressed more fully in the General Comments section of this preamble.
    Comment: Several respondents commented that extensions of time to 
file an objection should be permitted, generally by request and at the 
discretion of the responsible official. The respondents assert that 
extensions are especially necessary when the proposed projects are 
especially controversial or the analysis documents are complex.
    Response: Neither the administrative appeal process under 36 CFR 
part 215 nor the HFRA administrative objection process at 36 CFR part 
218 have included a provision allowing for extension of time to file 
appeals or objections. These procedures have been in place for many 
years--20 years in the case of the appeal procedures at part 215--and 
the Department does not believe the lack of a filing time extension 
provision has been a signficant problem or burden to the public. In 
many instances appellants have been able to file quite lengthy and 
complex project post-decisional appeals within the same timeframe as 
provided in this final rule for predecisional objections.

[[Page 18487]]

Section 218.7--Giving Notice of Objection Process for Proposed Projects 
and Activities Subject to Objection
    Comment: Several comments were provided regarding the requirement 
in paragraph (b) for the responsible official to promptly make 
available the EIS or the EA, and a draft Record of Decision or Decision 
Notice, to those who have requested the documents or are eligible to 
file an objection. Most of these comments were supportive of the 
requirement. A few comments recommended that the project record be made 
available for review by the public, preferably online.
    Response: The Department appreciates the expressions of support for 
the provision. Management of the project record is covered under the 
Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR part 220. While there is 
currently no requirement to make a project record available online, 
responsible officials have the discretion to do so and it is becoming 
more common for responsible officials to post project analysis and 
supporting documentation to a project Web page.
    Comment: Some respondents commented on the direction in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii) regarding the use of a legal notice publication date as the 
exclusive means to calculate the time to file an objection and that a 
specific date must not be included in the notice.
    Response: This comment is addressed in the General Comments section 
of this preamble.
Section 218.8--Filing an Objection
    Comment: Although one respondent was supportive of the constraint 
in the proposed rule on incorporating supporting material by reference 
in objections, a number of respondents were critical of this provision. 
Many of these comments recommended that the final rule permit an 
objector to incorporate by reference any document reasonably available 
to the Forest Service. Some noted that Forest Service NEPA procedures 
at 36 CFR 220.4(h) permit incorporation by reference in NEPA analysis 
documents when the material is reasonably available to the public.
    Response: The Department appreciates the concern expressed 
regarding the limitations on incorporating supporting materials by 
reference in objections, but believes the limitation is appropriate. 
Incorporation by reference potentially places a burden on the reviewing 
officer to locate and retrieve supporting materials that are already in 
the possession of the objector and can be readily included with the 
objection as necessary.
    Comment: Paragraph (c) of this section directs that issues raised 
in objection must be based on previously submitted specific written 
comments regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to 
the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose 
after the opportunities for comment. This direction generated mixed 
reaction from respondents. Comments expressed primary concern that a 
constraint on issues raised in objections will lead to comment letters 
raising every possible issue and ``comments on `everything but the 
kitchen sink', in order to reserve rights to future objections.'' One 
respondent asserts that NEPA does not allow the Forest Service to 
exclude consideration of issues raised prior to the final decision 
simply because they were not raised previously. Another contends the 
constraint exceeds the Forest Service's statutory authority for this 
rulemaking and notes that such a constraint is not part of the HFRA 
implementing regulations currently at part 218.
    Response: Both the objection eligibility requirement and the 
constraint on issues raised in objection are included in the proposed 
and final rule to encourage early and active involvement by the public 
in project planning and analysis. Neither is intended to be used 
primarily as a mechanism to exclude public involvement or the 
consideration of important issues. The earlier relevant concerns and 
information are brought to the attention of the responsible official, 
the more effective consideration can be ensured. This same approach is 
reflected in the direction pertaining to the predecisional objection 
process in the recently promulgated regulations for land management 
planning at 36 CFR part 219. Including the constraint on issues raised 
in objection in this rule provides greater consistency between the two 
applications of a predecisional objection process.
    To maintain an appropriate degree of flexibility, the constraint on 
issues raised in objection includes an exception, that issues not 
raised in prior comment by the objector may still be raised in 
objection if they are based on new information that arose after the 
last opportunity for comment. This exception accommodates the 
variability in documentation and information that are made available at 
the time of project comment opportunities. For example, if a draft EA 
is not circulated for public review and comment prior to the objection 
filing period, and an interested party identifies an issue with 
information in the final EA that was not previously available, the 
exception in this rule allows that issue to be raised in objection.
    The Department disagrees with the contention that the lack of a 
similar issue constraint in the current part 218 indicates inclusion of 
the constraint in this revision of that same rule exceeds the 
Department's statutory authority under the HFRA. The fact that an issue 
constraint was not included in the initial implementation regulation 
does not mean the Department interpreted the HFRA as precluding it. It 
simply means that in the time since the promulgation of the final part 
218 in 2008, the Department has come to recognize the value in its 
application.
    Comment: Some comment was received concerning the requirements at 
Sec.  218.8(d)(1) and (2) regarding the inclusion of name and address 
with objections and providing a signature or other verification of 
authorship upon request. The respondents expressed concern with the 
potential release of private information and the potential burden of 
providing a verification of authorship.
    Response: The objection process is intended to be an open and 
transparent process for considering and seeking resolution of lingering 
issues. The documents produced as part of the process are necessarily 
public records. Names and addresses are necessary to the process so 
that the Forest Service can verify eligibility, extend meeting 
invitations, and provide written responses to the objections. Based on 
past experience with both pre- and post-decisional administrative 
reviews, the Forest Service has rarely needed to request verification 
of authorship and does not expected this requirement to be a burden to 
objectors in the future.
    Comment: Several respondents questioned the requirement, at 
paragraph (d)(5), to include in an objection, if applicable, how the 
objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision 
specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. Some of these 
comments questioned the inclusion of alleged violations of policy, 
stating that interpretations of policy are subjective and that issues 
concerning adherence to policy often take the form of unsubstantiated 
opinions.
    Response: Forest Service policy is codified in the agency's 
directives, specifically the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service 
Handbook in the form of both direction and guidance. The public should 
have a reasonable expection that proposed projects and activities are 
consistent with the agency's policy documents or explanation is given 
for variances.

[[Page 18488]]

Therefore, issues associated with agency policy are appropriate for 
consideration in a predecisional administrative review as long as the 
objector is specific in the description of the alleged violation. 
Although one respondent read this paragraph as indicating an objection 
will only be accepted if it includes alleged violations of law, 
regulation or policy, the phrase ``if applicable'' renders this content 
element as optional.
    Comment: One respondent expressed support for the requirement in 
paragraph (d)(6) to include in objections a statement that demonstrates 
the link between prior written comments on the proposed project or 
activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection 
concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for 
comment.
    Response: The Department appreciates the expression of support for 
this provision.
Section 218.9--Evidence of Timely Filing
    Comment: A respondent commented that the Forest Service needs to 
establish a system for timely notification of receipt of objections and 
comments filed electronically.
    Response: The Department agrees with the respondent and has added a 
new paragraph (b) to this section of the final rule that states ``For 
emailed objections, the sender should receive an automated electronic 
acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the 
sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt of the 
objection, it is the sender's responsibility to ensure timely receipt 
by other means.'' The same direction is already present at Sec.  
218.25(a)(4)(iii) of the final rule, applicable to comments sent by 
email.
    Comment: A respondent noted that use of the phrase ``objection 
filing date'' is unique within the rule and confusing. The respondent 
recommends replacing the word ``date'' with ``period.''
    Response: The Department agrees and has made the change in the 
final rule.
    Comment: A respondent commented regarding paragraph (a)(2) that 
date and time for faxes is set up by the fax machine owner and is 
therefore subject to error. Another respondent recommends clarifying 
that the objection filing period ends at 11:59 p.m. local time on its 
final day.
    Response: The respondent is correct that the time stamping provided 
by fax machines is subject to error, but this is also true of other 
automated and even hand stamping methods for recording time of receipt. 
It is incumbent on the reviewing officer to assure that automated 
systems used as part of the objection process are functioning correctly 
and recording accurate dates and times. That said, timely filing is 
ultimately the responsibility of the individual or entity filing the 
objection. The final rule has been edited to clarify that comments or 
objections submitted electronically must be received by 11:59 p.m. in 
the time zone of the receiving office on the last day of the filing 
period.
Section 218.10--Objections Set Aside From Review
    Comment: One respondent expressed support for parapgraph (a)(4), 
which directs setting aside an objection from review when none of the 
issues included in the objection are based on previously submitted 
written comments unless one or more of those issues arose after the 
opportunities for comment. Another respondent recommended adding a 
ninth item under paragraph (a): ``When the responsible official 
withdraws the proposed decision notice or proposed record of decision 
for the respective project or activity.''
    Response: The Department appreciates the expression of support for 
paragraph (a)(4) and agrees with the need to include the scenario 
described by the second respondent, though not with the exact wording 
suggested. Paragraph (a)(9) has been added to this section in the final 
rule to read as follows: ``The responsible official cancels the 
objection process underway to reinitiate the objection procedures at a 
later date or withdraw the proposed project or activity.''
    Comment: Regarding paragraph (b) of this section, a respondent 
suggested the public should be provided an opportunity to correct 
deficiencies in an objection and refile, even if the filing period has 
closed.
    Response: The Department does not agree with this suggestion. To 
include this provision would in effect leave the objection filing 
period open-ended, and would complicate both the efforts to resolve 
issues and to develop a written response to unresolved objections if 
objections could be modified in some fashion at any time.
Section 218.11--Resolution of Objections
    Comment: Several respondents provided comment regarding the conduct 
of resolution meetings. Among these were recommendations around where 
meetings must take place and when, or whether, they can be denied. One 
respondent recommended that a first resolution meeting take place 
within 15 days of the close of the objection filing period. Another 
respondent expressed concern that the reviewing officer has the 
discretion to deny a meeting requested by an objector and a third 
respondent recommended that reviewing officers be permitted to deny 
meeting requests only within 15 days of the end of the objection review 
period, and that otherwise meeting requests from objectors must be 
accepted.
    Response: Resolution meetings are an important element of the 
objection procedures and can be very valuable in finding opportunities 
to resolve issues and for the reviewing officer to gain additional 
understanding of the issues. Nevertheless, the objection process is 
designed to be carried out within a specified timeframe (30 days for 
project proposals authorized under HFRA, with no option for extension; 
45 days for non-HFRA project proposals, with an option for the 
reviewing officer to extend for up to 30 days), so it is in the 
interest of the Forest Service and objectors to retain an appropriate 
degree of flexibility for carrying out the basic components of the 
process. It is also in the interest of the Forest Service and objectors 
to meet as early as can be arranged and to make the meetings as 
efficient and productive as possible. The number of objectors, number 
of objection issues, and schedules of the objectors, reviewing officer, 
and responsible official can all affect whether and how quickly a 
resolution meeting can be arranged. Consequently, the final rule does 
not include the respondents' recommendations for the timing of meetings 
or for whether or when meeting requests can be denied.
    Comment: One respondent commented on the involvement of the 
reviewing officer in resolution meetings, stating that ``The presence 
of the reviewing officer may inhibit the process of resolution and 
prejudice the review of the responsible official's decision.'' The 
respondent recommended that the presence of the reviewing officer at 
objection resolution meetings should be at the discretion of the 
responsible official.
    Response: Unlike the administrative appeal process at 36 CFR part 
215, where the responsible official is required to offer to meet with 
appellants and neither the appeal reviewing officer nor the appeal 
deciding officer may attend, under these predecisional objection 
procedures resolution meetings are intended as an opportunity for the 
reviewing officer to communicate directly with objectors. Appropriate 
public involvement and collaboration initiated by the

[[Page 18489]]

responsible official are expected to have already occurred by the time 
the objection procedures are set into motion. The Department sees 
objection resolution meetings as an opportunity for the reviewing 
officer to communicate directly with objectors, ask questions, gain a 
more complete understanding of objection issues, and explore 
opportunities to resolve issues with the proposal that still remain. 
The responsible official will generally be present at objection 
resolution meetings to answer questions as necessary and assist with 
identifying any opportunities for issue resolution.
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that use of the plural 
``meetings'' in this section implies that not all objections can be 
resolved in a single meeting. The respondent suggested revising the 
sentence to ``The responsible official should be a participant in any 
objection resolution meeting.''
    Response: The Department agrees with the respondent and the 
sentence has been edited as suggested.
    Comment: One respondent suggested the final rule include 
requirements for notifying other interested parties of objections 
filed, making objections available to interested parties, and allowing 
interested parties to file statements with the reviewing officer and 
participate in objection resolution meetings.
    Response: The limited timeframes for the objection review period in 
this rule preclude a broader involvement of interested parties. While 
the Department encourages a collaborative approach to project planning, 
the administrative review process, by its very nature, does not lend 
itself to being fully collaborative. That being said, the very fact the 
objection review process occurs before a final decision has been made 
increases the opportunities for a more collaborative approach to 
problem solving. Nothing in the rule prevents interested parties from 
(1) participating in project planning in such a way that they are 
eligible to object and therefore are notified directly when an 
objection filing period begins; (2) requesting copies of objections 
from the reviewing officer; (3) asking about a schedule of any 
objection resolution meetings; (4) attending objection resolution 
meetings and participating at the discretion of the reviewing officer; 
and (5) obtaining a copy of objection responses.
    Comment: A respondent commented that the reviewing officer should 
not be an ``agency employed staff person'' because such an individual 
would not have the appearance of providing a fair and impartial review 
of the issues.
    Response: The Forest Service has utilized agency line officers as 
deciding officials for administrative reviews as long as it has offered 
administrative reviews. The Department believes this arrangement has 
worked well and that issues under administrative review are considered 
fairly. If a designated reviewing officer finds a need to recuse 
himself or herself from an objection review because previous engagement 
with the project in question might result in a perceived bias, a 
provision added to the final rule at Sec.  218.3(a) directs that the 
Forest Service line officer at the next higher administrative level 
above that reviewing officer shall assume the reviewing officer 
responsibilities.
    Comment: Paragraph (b)(1) of this section directs that ``A written 
response must set forth the reasons for the response, but need not be a 
point-by-point response * * *.'' Some respondents commented that 
written responses by the reviewing officer should address all major 
points in an objection, including the rationale for his or her 
decision, and the rule should not ``provide the reviewing officers the 
discretion to ignore controversial or complicated issues raised by 
objectors.''
    Response: The Department believes the reviewing officer should have 
the flexibility and discretion to provide a written response that is 
appropriate for the objections filed and the issues raised in those 
objections. The Forest Service's experience with administrative reviews 
has demonstrated that project issues are presented in a wide range of 
completeness, specificity, and clarity. This paragraph gives the 
reviewing officer the flexibility to tailor the written response to the 
nature of the project, objections, and objection issues. By setting 
forth the reasons for the response, the reviewing officer will be 
providing his or her rationale, and although the response does not have 
to be point-by-point, reviewing officers are generally expected to 
address issues that are considered central to the objections filed.
    Comment: A respondent noted that the proposed rule does not address 
what happens when the reviewing officer fails to provide a written 
response to an objection within the alloted timeframe. The respondent 
suggests that a provision similar to that found in the 36 CFR part 215 
appeal regulations be included for instances where this occurs.
    Response: The rule provides at Sec.  218.12(a) that the responsible 
official may not sign a ROD or DN concerning a proposed project or 
activity until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all 
pending objections. Thus, it is in the interest of the reviewing 
officer and the agency that objection responses be made within the time 
allowed for the review. For this reason the Department does not believe 
any additional provision is needed regarding failure to provide a 
timely written response to objections.
Section 218.12--Timing of Project Decision
    Comment: A number of respondents commented on the need for 
additional direction in the proposed rule regarding what should happen 
if changes are made to the draft decision document that is made 
available at the beginning of an objection filing period. One 
respondent suggested the only differences permitted in the signed 
decision should be those that ``present fewer and less intense negative 
environmental impacts than those presented in the proposed decision.'' 
Most of the respondents commenting on this section requested a 
requirement be added to the rule that additional public review and 
opportunity for comment be provided when ``substantial'' changes are 
made to the project decision document. The suggestion was also made 
that an additional comment opportunity be provided if significant or 
substantial changes are made to a project proposal between the last 
public comment opportunity and the beginning of the objection filing 
period.
    Response: The Department agrees with respondents that major changes 
should generally not be made to draft decision documents without good 
cause or without an opportunity for additional public involvement 
before decisions are signed. The Department's intent is that draft 
decision documents reflect the responsible official's intended 
decision, unless circumstances generally related to the objection 
review process warrant a change. Appropriate response and documentation 
when a responsible official is presented with new information or 
changed circumstances is guided by Forest Service NEPA directives.
    Comment: A few respondents commented on the implementation of 
projects following an objection and the signing of the project decision 
document. One comment suggested there should be a mandatory and 
temporary (but unspecified) stay of implementation after approval of a 
DN. Another comment was that projects should be permitted to be 
implemented immediately after approval of a DN or ROD if no one is 
eligible to file an objection.
    Response: Provisions pertaining to implementation of project 
decisions

[[Page 18490]]

made subsequent to an objection process are outside the scope of the 
rule. The Department does recognize that the proposed rule lacked 
direction pertaining to the timing of a project decision when the 
proposal is not subject to objection because no individual or entity is 
eligible to object. Therefore, the final rule includes the addition of 
paragraph (d) in this section to direct that when a project or activity 
is not subject to objection because no specific and timely written 
comments were received during a designated opportunity for public 
comment, the approval of the project or activity must be in accordance 
with the relevant CEQ and Forest Service NEPA regulations.
Section 218.14--Judicial Proceedings
    Comment: A few respondents commented on the section of the proposed 
rule that states the Department's position regarding Federal judicial 
review of decisions covered by the rule. The respondents found the 
section either complicated and ``onerous,'' or confusing. One comment 
questioned whether an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement 
is applicable in the case of predecisional administrative reviews 
because ``final agency action'' does not occur until the objection 
period ends and the Forest Service issues a NEPA decision. Another 
respondent recommended including a specific reference to statutory 
exhaustion requirements of 7 U.S.C. 6912(e).
    Response: The Department believes the section as it was published 
in the proposed rule correctly and clearly states its position 
regarding the need to exhaust the administrative review process set out 
in part 218 before filing for Federal judicial review of a decision 
covered by the rule. The Department agrees the suggested citation to 
U.S. Code is relevant to this position and it has been included in the 
final rule. The HFRA directs that a person may bring a civil action 
challenging an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in a Federal 
district court only if the person has challenged the authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction project by exhausting the administrative 
review process established by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 
HFRA. The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 provides 
that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall 
exhaust all administrative appeal procedures established by the 
Secretary or required by law before the person may bring an action in a 
court of competent jurisdiction against--(1) the Secretary; (2) the 
Department; or (3) an agency, office, officer, or employee of the 
Department.''
    Comment: One respondent contends an Indian tribe by definition in 
the language of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 is not a 
``person,'' and that therefore it should be acknowledged in the 
regulation that ``Indian tribes'' are exempt from exhaustion of 
administrative review requirements and can initiate judicial review or 
legislative remedy at any point in time.
    Response: The 218.14 Judical Proceedings provision represents the 
Department's informed understanding and interpretation of Congressional 
requirements concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies under the 
1994 Reorganization Act and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Read 
as a whole, these statutes do not evidence an intent to exempt Tribes 
from exhausting administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial 
review.
Section 218.16--Effective Dates
    Comment: A respondent commented that applying the predecisional 
objection process to projects for which the scoping comment period has 
already passed would be unjust because some citizens may have waited to 
comment on the draft EA to submit comments and therefore would not be 
eligible to object if no draft EA is circulated for comment.
    Response: Those interested in a particular project proposal are 
encouraged to provide specific comment at the earliest opportunity. 
Early feedback can provide the most helpful assistance to the Forest 
Service as project planning and environmental analysis proceeds. 
Direction pertaining to public involvement as part of the NEPA process 
is found in NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 
36 CFR part 220. Although responsible officials have the discretion to 
circulate draft analysis documentation, including draft EAs, there is 
not currently, nor has there ever been, a requirement to do so.
    Comment: A respondent commented that the ``grace period'' should be 
much shorter than 6 months and suggested 3 months as a more appropriate 
period of time to transition to the new administrative review process.
    Response: The proposed rule directs that if the legal notice of an 
opportunity to comment on a proposed project or activity subject to the 
rule has already been published and the decision document (DN or ROD) 
is signed within 6 months of the effective date of the rule, the 
decision will be subject to the administrative appeal process under 36 
CFR 215. If the decision will be signed more than 6 months after the 
effective date of the rule, the project proposal will be subject to the 
requirements of the rule.
    Hundreds of project proposals are made and project decisions signed 
by the Forest Service each year. When the final rule at part 218 
becomes effective there will be project proposals at all stages of 
development and public involvement. The Department considered a range 
of possible lengths of time for transitioning to use of the new rule 
and believes that 6 months provides for the best combination of a 
smooth, equitable, and efficient transition.

Subpart B--Provisions Specific to Project-Level Proposals Not 
Authorized Under Heatlthy Forests Restoration Act

Section 218.21--Emergency Situations
    Comment: The proposed rule directs that the Chief and Associate 
Chief are authorized to make the determination that an emergency 
situation as defined in the rule exists relative to a proposed project 
or activity. A respondent suggests that the Chief should be able to 
delegate emergency situation determination (ESD) authority to the 
Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems and Regional Foresters.
    Response: Forest Service administrative appeal regulations at part 
215 include an ESD provision similar to that in the proposed rule. 
Under part 215, when an ESD is made for a project, the normal stay of 
implementation during the administrative appeal process is lifted and 
the project may be implemented as soon as the decision has been signed. 
Under this rule, when an ESD is made the proposed project is not 
subject to the predecisional objection process and may be implemented 
immediately after providing the required notification of the decision.
    Agency experience with the ESD provision of part 215 has shown that 
given the uncommon occurrence of such emergency situations and the 
significance of the procedural effect of an ESD, it is in the best 
interest of the Forest Service and the public for ESD authority to rest 
solely with the Chief and Associate Chief.
    Comment: Some respondents suggest the public be provided an 
opportunity to comment on a request for an ESD, including requiring a 
statement of intent to seek an ESD in scoping notices. One suggestion 
is that the responsible official be required to ``provide a 
certification or explanation as to why the agency has authority to seek

[[Page 18491]]

emergency status in that particular situation.''
    Response: By its nature an emergency situation requires a more 
rapid response than a non-emergency situation. Responsible officials 
will be alert to the potential for an emergency situation; however, the 
conditions that contribute to an emergency situation may not exist from 
the very beginning of a project proposal. Once the need for an ESD has 
been identified, it is necessary that project planning, decision 
making, and implementation proceed as quickly as possible. Projects 
found to be emergency situations under the provisions of this rule are 
still subject to the public involvment and other requirements of the 
NEPA and its implementing regulations, yet the imperative nature of an 
emergency situation is not compatible with an additional opportunity 
for public involvement related to the ESD itself. The responsible 
official's request to the Chief to make an ESD will describe the 
reasons for the request and any ESDs made by the Chief will include the 
rationale. These documents are public records and are available upon 
request.
    Comment: A respondent suggests the decision and implementation be 
stayed 10 days following an ESD to allow the public an opportunity to 
seek injunctive relief.
    Response: Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012 directs that when the Chief of the Forest Service determines that 
an emergency situation exists the proposed action shall not be subject 
to the predecisional objection process, and implementation shall begin 
immediately after the Forest Service gives notice of the final decision 
for the proposed action. Staying implementation of a decision following 
an ESD would not be consistent with the direction of Congress.
Section 218.22--Proposed Projects and Activities Subject to Legal 
Notice and Opportunity To Comment
    Comment: A respondent suggested, regarding paragraph (e), that 
research activities should not be subject to objection because they are 
exempt from an EA or EIS under Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 
1b.3(a)(7).
    Response: The correct reference is 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(3), which directs 
that among the category of activities which have been determined not to 
have a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human 
environment and are excluded from the preparation of EA's or EIS's are 
``Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 
inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 
limited in context and intensity.'' The regulation only categorically 
excludes research activities when they are limited in context and 
intensity; therefore, research activities that are not limited in 
context and intensity or are not as otherwise described in the 
regulation may require preparation of an EA or EIS and would 
appropriately be subject to the provisions of part 218. To clarify this 
point, paragraph (e) in the final rule has been edited to read 
``Proposed research activities to be conducted on National Forest 
System land for which an EA or EIS is prepared.''
Section 218.23--Proposed Projects and Activities Not Subject to Legal 
Notice and Opportunity To Comment
    Comment: One respondent, in reference to paragraph (b), commented 
``This section claims that `Land Management Proposals' are separate and 
apart from property projects. And thus should `Not be subject to public 
involvement.' '' A similar comment was made with regard to hazardous 
fuel reduction projects authorized under the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (HFRA) as described at paragraph (g) of this section.
    Response: The respondents misunderstand the paragraphs. Section 
218.23 describes proposed projects and activities that are not subject 
to the legal notice and opportunity to comment procedures of this 
subpart. Paragraph (b) lists proposed land management plans, plan 
revisions, and plan amendments that are made separately from any 
proposed projects, and paragraph (g) lists hazardous fuel reduction 
projects authorized under the HFRA. Therefore, the land management plan 
and HFRA-authorized proposals are not subject to the opportunity to 
comment provisions of this rule; however, they are still subject to the 
public involvement requirements of NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508 
and 36 CFR 220. In addtion, the plan proposals are subject to public 
involvement and notification requirements of the Forest Service 
planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 and the HFRA-authorized projects are 
subject to public involvement and collaboration requirements under 
section 104 of the HFRA.
    Comment: Paragraph (d) of this section describes proposed projects 
and activities not subject to the provisions of the NEPA and its 
implementing regulations as not being subject to the legal notice and 
opportunity to comment on procedures of subpart B. One respondent 
requested that the rule provide either a comprehensive list of projects 
and activities not subject to NEPA or reference to another regulation 
for a better description of what is included or excluded.
    Response: Because of the very broad range of actions taken and 
decisions made by the Forest Service a comprehensive list of projects 
and activities not subject to the NEPA would not be reasonable. The 
references listed in paragraph (d) provide a more complete description 
of actions subject and not subject to the NEPA, descriptions that are 
not appropriate to repeat in this rule.
Section 218.24--Notification of Opportunity To Comment on Proposed 
Projects and Activities
    Comment: Paragraph (b) of this section lists the content 
requirements of the legal notice of an opportunity to comment. One 
comment requested the addition of a description of the potential issues 
and concerns of the proposed project and a Web link to a location map.
    Response: Paragraph (a)(2) of this section directs the responsible 
official to determine the most effective timing for publishing the 
legal notice. Because the amount and type of information developed for 
a proposal will vary as the planning and environmental analysis process 
progresses, a more specific description of information to be made 
available in the legal notice is not feasible. Responsible officials 
are guided by Forest Service NEPA regulations and directives in 
determining what project information to make available to the public 
and when. Paragraph (b)(2) of this section directs that the legal 
notice shall include sufficient information about the location of a 
proposed project or activity to allow the interested public to identify 
the location. A Web link to a map is one possible way to make this 
information available for those who have access to the Internet.
    Comment: A respondent commented that it is unclear if paragraphs 
(b)(4) and (5), which describe timeframes for commenting on EAs and 
EISs, applies to emergency situations. The respondent asks, once an 
emergency situation determination is made, do the notice and comment 
provisions of the rule still apply?
    Response: Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012 (``Section 428'') directs that if the Chief of the Forest Service 
determines an emergency situation exists, the proposed action ``shall 
not be subject to the pre-decisional objection process * * *.'' The 
notice and comment requirements of subpart B of this rule implement the 
direction of the Appeal

[[Page 18492]]

Reform Act, sections 322(a) and (b). Although the notice and comment 
requirements of the ARA and subpart B of this rule are integrated with 
the predecisional objection process directed by Congress in Section 428 
and promulgated in this rule, the Department does not consider them 
part of the pre-decisional objection process in the context of ESDs. 
This is demonstrated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, which directs 
the responsible official to include in the legal notice a statement, 
when applicable, that the responsible official is requesting an ESD or 
that an ESD has been made. If a project proposal was exempt from the 
notice and comment requirements after an ESD has been made by the Chief 
or Associate Chief, there would be no reason to require notification of 
that determination in the legal notice. Thus, the legal notice and 
opportunity to comment are still required if an ESD is made.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that this section should 
include a requirement that the required legal notice be published at 
the same time a draft EA is made available for public review and 
comment.
    Response: This comment is addressed in the General Comments section 
of this preamble.
Section 218.25--Comments on Proposed Projects and Activities
    Comment: Several respondents requested that paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of 
this section include a provision for extensions of time to comment on 
an EA, for example when the documentation is complex or controversial. 
One respondent recommended that extensions of up to 15 days be 
permitted if they are requested by individuals or entities within 15 
days of the start of the comment period.
    Response: A comment period of 30 days is directed by Congress in 
Section 322(b)(2) of the Appeal Reform Act and does not provide the 
Forest Service the opportunity to consider an extension of the comment 
period.
    Comment: Several respondents commented on the different notice and 
comment requirements regarding EAs for non-HFRA (subpart B of the rule) 
and HFRA (subpart C of the rule). These comments suggest there is no 
compelling reason that HFRA and non-HFRA projects should be treated 
differently under this rule with regard to comments on EAs. ``The 
Forest Service's new notice-comment-objection regulations attempt to 
seriously undermine public participation because it fails to use of 
[sic] a consistent public involvement process that the public can 
understand and follow.''
    Response: Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012 (``Section 428'') directs the Secretary of Agriculture, Acting 
through the Chief of the Forest Service, to apply section 105(a) of the 
HFRA to provide a pre-decisional objection process to a specified 
category of projects in lieu of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the 
Appeal Reform Act. Because section 105(a) of the HFRA has no specific 
notice and comment requirements, the implementing regulations for that 
section, first promulgated as an interim final rule in 2004 and then as 
a final rule in 2008, have had no specific notice and comment 
requirements. Direction pertaining to public involvement for HFRA 
projects has always come from section 104 of the HFRA, and NEPA 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and 36 CFR 
part 220.
    Notice and comment requirements for projects under the authority of 
the Appeal Reform Act are found in section 322(a) and (b) of that 
statute and are unchanged by the direction of Section 428. Therefore, 
the Department has to develop implementing regulations for two statutes 
that are related and not in conflict, but result in a potentially 
confusing combination of requirements, especially pertaining to notice 
and comment for proposed projects and activities. The Department 
determined that the most appropriate way to organize implementing 
regulations under these circumstances was to establish subparts with 
the requirements specific to each, non-HFRA and HFRA proposed projects 
and activities.
    Comment: Several respondents suggested that paragraph (b) of this 
section should require the responsible official to respond to all 
comments in the final EIS or EA or ``an appendix thereto.''
    Response: NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4 require 
federal agencies to include a response to comments received on a draft 
EIS in the final EIS. There is no corresponding requirement in Council 
on Environmental Quality or Forest Service NEPA regulations for EAs. 
The Department has determined it to be most appropriate to rely on the 
long-established NEPA direction regarding the use of public comments. 
Therefore, the final rule requires consideration of public comments 
received during the required comment opportunity, but appropriately 
leaves the subject of disposition of those comments to the relevant 
NEPA regulations.
Section 218.26--Objection Time Periods
    A number of respondents provided comment on the timeframes for 
filing objections and for responding to objections.
    Comment: Regarding the time for filing an objection, some of the 
respondents commenting supported the 45-day filing period for non-HFRA 
projects in the proposed rule, while others asserted the time should be 
shortened to 30 days because it would be consistent with the filing 
time set for HFRA projects and because, in respondents' opinion, it 
would be more in keeping with Congress' intent to speed management and 
reduce project delays.
    Response: The time period for filing administrative appeals of 
covered projects has been 45 days since the rule at part 215 was first 
promulgated in 1993. The Department believes this amount of time has 
worked reasonably well and provides an appropriate balance between the 
need to move forward efficiently toward a project decision while 
offering a reasonable opportunity for review of environmental documents 
and documenting unresolved issues. The time for filing objections of 
non-HFRA projects is left at 45 days in the final rule.
    Comment: Most of those who commented on the time to respond to 
objections of non-HFRA projects believed the time should be shortened 
from 45 days to 30 days. One respondent stated, ``There is nothing in 
the legislative history of Section 428 to suggest that Congress wanted 
the HFRA objection process to apply in anything less than the 
expeditious manner that it is applied to hazardous fuels reduction 
projects.''
    Response: Again, the time for responding to an administrative 
appeal has also been 45 days since the rule at part 215 was first 
promulgated in 1993 and this amount of time has generally worked well. 
Respondents asserted that there is nothing in the legislative history 
of Section 428 to suggest that Congress wanted different timeframes 
than are provided under the HFRA objection process, but conversely, 
neither Section 428 nor the HFRA directs a specific number of days for 
resolving and responding to objections. The Department chose to use 30 
days when the interim final rule implementing the HFRA predecisional 
objection process was promulgated in 2004, largely in recognition that 
the type of hazardous fuel reduction projects covered by the act 
carried an inherent degree of urgency for their accomplishment. 
Resources, property, and sometimes

[[Page 18493]]

lives may be at stake when there is a need to reduce hazardous fuels.
    For the reasons described above, the Department believes that a 
difference in the time required to respond to objections of non-HFRA 
and HFRA projects is appropriate. The final rule retains a response 
period for non-HFRA objections for which both the public and the Forest 
Service are familiar, and provides a reasonable opportunity to explore 
options for resolving objection issues. It should be noted that the 
amount of time by which the reviewing officer has the discretion to 
extend the time for responding to objections has been increased in the 
final rule from up to 10 days to up to 30 days. The reason for this 
change is provided in the section of this preamble titled Summary of 
Changes to the Proposed Rule.

Subpart C--Provisions Specific to Proposed Projects Authorized Under 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act

Section 218.31--Authorized Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Subject to 
Objection
    Comment: Several respondents commented that the rule must include 
specific provisions for notice and public comment opportunities on 
proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the HFRA, 
of the same nature as are included in the rule for non-HFRA projects. 
The concern expressed by these respondents is that without such notice 
and comment provisions in this rule the potential exists for those 
interested in a particular proposal to have no means to gain 
eligibility to object and the project would be in violation of the NEPA 
and HFRA.
    Response: The projects and activities that are subject to the 
provisions of this rule, both HFRA-authorized and non-HFRA projects, 
are also subject to the requirements of the NEPA and its Council on 
Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) 
and Forest Service implementing regulations (36 CFR part 220). The 
statute and the two regulations include specific provisions for 
notifying the public of proposed projects and activities, and for 
providing opportunities for public involvement in the environmental 
analysis that is conducted for them.
    Section 104, paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of the HFRA also include 
provisions for public notice, collaboration, and public comment 
associated with applicable hazardous fuel reduction projects. This 
final rule provides implementing direction for section 105 of the HFRA, 
and although implementing regulations for section 104 of the statute 
are not promulgated in this or any other rule, the statutory 
requirements of that section are applicable to the same hazardous fuel 
reduction projects that are subject to this final rule.
    This final rule does include additional specific notice and comment 
requirements for non-HFRA projects and activities because of the 
statutory direction in the Appeal Reform Act (ARA). Congress enacted 
the ARA in 1992 and the statute states that the Secretary of 
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall 
establish a notice and comment process for proposed actions of the 
Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land and 
resource management plans (ARA section 322(a), 106 Stat. 1419).
    The HFRA was enacted in 2003 and section 105 of that act requires 
the Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing a predecisional 
administrative review process that would be the sole means by which a 
person can seek administrative review regarding hazardous fuel 
reduction projects authorized by the HFRA. Final implementing 
regulations were published in 2008 at part 218 and it is that part that 
is now being revised in this final rule.
    Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 directs 
the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
Service, to provide for a predecisional objection process based on 
Section 105(a) of the HFRA, for proposed actions of the Forest Service 
concerning projects and activities implementing land management plans 
and documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice. Section 
428 further directs that these procedures be applied in lieu of 
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the ARA, but makes no express 
reference to subsections (a) and (b). Therefore, the Department 
interprets subsections (a) and (b), which contain the notice and 
comment provisions of the ARA, as remaining in effect and is therefore 
promulgating this rule for non-HFRA projects and activities documented 
in an EA or EIS.

Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rule

    Unless otherwise noted, the section numbers listed below reflect 
the numbering system of the final rule.

Subpart A--General Provisions

Section 218.2 Definitions
    Address. The word ``alone'' was added to clarify that while an 
objector's email address is desirable to aid in communication, the 
objector's physical mailing address is a minimum requirement when an 
address is requested.
    Decision notice (DN). The definition was edited to improve 
consistency with the definition provided in the Forest Service NEPA 
regulations at 36 CFR part 220.
    Emergency situation. The definition was moved to Sec.  218.21(b).
    Environmental assessment. The definition was edited to improve 
consistency with the definition provided in the Forest Service NEPA 
regulations at 36 CFR part 220.
    Environmental impact statement. An incorrect citation was removed.
    Forest Service line officer. The phrase ``and who has the delegated 
authority to make and execute decisions approving projects subject to 
this part'' has been removed because the phase more accurately 
describes the responsible official than it does a Forest Service line 
officer.
    Name. The word ``complete'' was added to clarify that partial names 
of entities are not sufficient to establish identity.
    Objection filing period. The word ``filing'' was added to provide 
consistency with how the phrase is used in the rule text. The 
references to a specified number of calendar days were removed because 
they were not entirely correct. The phrase ``and draft Decision 
Notice'' was added after ``environmental assessment'' and the phrase 
``and draft Record of Decision'' was added after ``environmental impact 
statement'' to clarify the documentation that will be made available 
when an objection filing period is initiated. Appropriate citations to 
relevant sections of the rule were added. The statement ``The objection 
filing period closes at 11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving 
office on the last day of the filing period (Sec.  218.6(a))'' was 
added at the end of the definition to provide a more complete 
definition.
    Record of Decision (ROD). An incorrect citation was removed.
    Responsible official. The definition was edited to improve 
consistency with the definition provided in the Forest Service NEPA 
regulations at 36 CFR part 220.
    Specific written comments. The phrase being defined was changed 
from ``comments'' in the proposed rule to ``specific written comments'' 
to be more consistent with its usage in the rule text.

[[Page 18494]]

    Two clarifying sentences were added to the definition. One sentence 
was added to describe how oral comments could be considered within the 
parameters of the definition. Another sentence was added to better 
describe the desired elements of a specific written comment--``within 
the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the 
proposed action, and include comment rationale for the responsible 
official to consider.''
Section 218.3 Reviewing Officer
    In paragraph (a) the phrase ``The reviewing officer is a Forest 
Service line officer'' was changed to ``The reviewing officer is the 
Forest Service line officer'' to provide clarification that the 
reviewing officer may not be just any line officer at the next higher 
administrative level, but must be the line officer (including the 
respective Deputy Regional Forester, Deputy Forest Supervisor, or 
Associate Deputy Chief) directly above the responsible official in the 
Forest Service organizational structure.
    Additionally, paragraph (a) was edited to state that in instances 
where a project or activity proposal is made by the Chief, the 
reviewing officer will be the Secretary of Agriculture or Under 
Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
Section 218.5 Who May File an Objection
    Paragraph (a) was edited to clarify that opportunities for public 
comment from which eligibility to object may be established are those 
where comment is specifically requested by the responsible official. 
Also in paragraph (a), the phrase ``and any other periods public 
comment is specifically requested'' was changed to ``or other public 
involvement opportunity where written comments are requested by the 
responsible official'' to more correctly convey that, in the case of 
multiple opportunities for public comment on a project proposal, 
specific written comments must be provided during any one of those 
opportunities to gain eligibility to object.
    A new paragraph (b) was added to specify that Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations may also gain eligibility 
to file objections by submitting specific written comments during 
Federal-Tribal consultations conducted pursuant to Executive Order 
13175 and 25 U.S.C. 450 note. Such government-to-government 
consultation often occurs outside of comment opportunities available to 
the general public.
    Paragraph designations (b) through (e) in the proposed rule were 
changed to (c) through (f) because of the addition of a new paragraph 
(b).
Section 218.6 Computation of Time Periods
    The subtitle of paragraph (b) was changed from ``Objection filing 
period'' to ``Starting date'' to more accurately reflect the content of 
the paragraph.
Section 218.7 Giving Notice of Objection Process for Proposed Projects 
and Activities Subject to Objection
    Paragraph (b) was edited to more fully and accurately describe the 
documents that must be made available as part of giving notice of an 
opportunity to file an objection when an environmental assessment (EA) 
has been prepared. In addition to the EA, a draft Decision Notice and 
Finding of No Significant Impact must be made available to those who 
have requested the documents or are eligible to file an objection to 
that proposed project or activity.
    The second sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) was edited to add the 
words ``and timely'' in front of ``written comments'' to clarify that 
specific written comments must be timely, i.e., received before the 
close of a comment opportunity, to be a basis for gaining eligibility 
to object.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) was removed and the requirement to identify 
whether the special procedures of subpart B or subpart C is applicable 
was added at paragraph (c)(2). Paragraph designations (c)(2)(v) and 
(c)(2)(vi) in the proposed rule were changed to (iv) and (v) because of 
the removal of the proposed rule's paragraph (iv).
    The sentence ``The statement must also describe the evidence of 
timely filing in Sec.  218.9'' was added to paragraph (c)(2)(v) to 
require a more complete disclosure of timeliness requirements when 
giving notice of an opportunity to file an objection. Also in this 
paragraph, the last sentence beginning with ``It should also be stated 
that * * *'' was moved to the end of paragraph (c)(2)(vi) because it 
pertained more to the content of objections than the time period for 
filing objections.
    A new paragraph (d) was added that describes the requirement for 
posting a copy of the legal notice or Federal Register notice of the 
opportunity to object on the Web. The requirement was added to provide 
another means for informing those interested in objection filing 
opportunities. The Web postings must be made within 4 calendar days of 
the date of publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of record 
or, when applicable, the Federal Register. With the addition of the new 
paragraph (d), the paragraph designated (d) in the proposed rule has 
been changed to paragraph (e) in this final rule.
Section 218.8 Filing an Objection
    The passage ``or the reviewing officer will designate a lead 
objector as defined at Sec.  218.5(d)'' was added to the end of 
paragraph (d)(3) to clarify how the lead objector will be designated 
when an objection lists multiple names as the filers and no lead 
objector is identified by the filers.
    Paragraph (d)(5) was edited to include the objection content 
requirement of supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to 
consider.
Section 218.9 Evidence of Timely Filing
    The opening paragraph, which had no designation in the proposed 
rule, has been designated paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) through (d) 
have been redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1) through (4).
    A new paragraph (b) has been added that specifies for emailed 
objections, the sender should receive an automated electronic 
acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. The 
paragraph further states that if the sender does not receive an 
automated acknowledgement of receipt of the objection, it is the 
sender's responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. This 
provision mirrors the provision at Sec.  218.25(a)(4)(iii), which 
pertains to comments submitted for project-level proposals not subject 
to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Section 218.10 Objections Set Aside From Review
    The word ``specific'' was added before ``written comments'' in 
paragraph (a)(4) to make the usage of the phrase consistent throughout 
the rule and a clarifying citation to Sec.  218.8(c) was added to the 
end of the paragraph.
    Paragraph (a)(4) was edited to instruct that the reviewing officer 
must set aside and not review an objection when, except for issues that 
arose after the opportunities for comment, none of the issues included 
in the objection are based on previously submitted specific written 
comments and the objector has not provided a statement demonstrating a 
connection between the comments and objection issues.
    A new sub-paragraph (9) has been added to paragraph (a) to include 
an additional instance when objections may be set aside from review. 
The new provision permits setting aside objections from review when the 
responsible official cancels the objection

[[Page 18495]]

process underway with the intention of reinitiating the objection 
procedures at a later date or withdrawing the proposed project or 
activity from further consideration.
Section 218.11 Resolution of Objections
    Paragraph (a) has been edited to clarify the extent of 
responsibility and discretion held by the reviewing officer as it 
pertains to meetings with objectors. The description of the discretion 
available to the reviewing officer now reads, ``The reviewing officer 
has the discretion to determine whether adequate time remains in the 
review period to make a meeting with the objector practical, the 
appropriate time and location for any meetings, and how the meetings 
will be conducted to facilitate the most beneficial dialogue; e.g., 
face-to-face office meeting, project Web site visit, teleconference, 
video conference, etc.'' The edit clarifies that the reviewing officer 
is responsible for all aspects of any meetings with objectors. The 
paragraph further clarifies that ``[a]ll meetings are not required to 
be noticed but are open to attendance by the public, and the reviewing 
officer will determine whether those other than objectors may 
participate.'' This clarification is consistent with the Agency's 
policy regarding informal disposition meetings conducted under the 
administrative appeal process (part 215) that is being replaced by the 
procedures in this rule.
Section 218.12 Timing of Project Decision
    Paragraph (b) has been edited to clarify that the responsible 
official may not sign a ROD or DN until all concerns and instructions 
identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been 
addressed.
    The proposed rule failed to include a provision for signing a 
project decision when a proposed project or activity is not subject to 
objection because no specific and timely written comments were received 
during a designated opportunity for public comment. Paragraph (d) has 
been added in the final rule to address such an occurrence and 
specifies that when a proposed project or activity is to be documented 
in a ROD its approval must be in accordance with NEPA implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10 and Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 
CFR 220.5(g); and when the proposed project or activity will be 
documented in a DN its approval must be in accordance with Forest 
Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.7(c) and (d).
Section 218.14 Judicial Review
    Citations to 7 U.S.C. 6912(e) and 16 U.S.C. 6515(c) have been added 
to the end of the paragraph.

Subpart B--Provisions Specific to Project-level Proposals Not 
Authorized Under Healthy Forests Restoration Act

Section 218.21 Emergency Situations
    The definition of an emergency situation has been moved from Sec.  
218.2 to paragraph (b) of this section. Paragraphs (b) through (d) of 
the proposed rule have been re-designated as paragraphs (c) through (e) 
with the inclusion of a new paragraph (b) in the final rule.
    Paragraph (c) has been edited to clarify that when the Chief or 
Associate Chief of the Forest Service has determined that an emergency 
situation exists with respect to all or part of a proposed project or 
activity, the proposed action is not subject to the predecisional 
objection process. This clarification is consistent with the statutory 
direction at Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012.
Section 218.22 Proposed Projects and Activities Subject to Legal Notice 
and Opportunity To Comment
    The phrase ``for which an EA or EIS is prepared'' has been added to 
paragraph (e) because under Forest Service policy not all research 
activities conducted on National Forest System land require preparation 
of an EA or EIS.
Section 218.23 Proposed Projects and Activities Not Subject to Legal 
Notice and Opportunity To Comment
    A new paragraph (c) was added in the final rule to provide 
necessary consistency with Forest Service land management planning 
regulations at 36 CFR 219.59(b). With the addition, proposed projects 
and activities not subject to legal notice and opportunity to comment 
under the final rule include plan amendments approved in a decision 
document also approving a project or activity where the amendment 
applies not just to the included project or activity but to all future 
projects and activities. Under the land management planning regulations 
cited above, such proposed projects and activities are subject to the 
notification and public involvement requirements of those regulations.
    With the addition of the new paragraph (c), paragraphs designated 
(c) through (f) in the proposed rule have been changed to paragraphs 
(d) through (g) in the final rule.
Section 218.24 Notification of Opportunity To Comment on Proposed 
Projects and Activities
    Paragraph (a)(5) has been removed because the action it describes, 
identifying all specific written comments, is not a direct function of 
providing notification of an opportunity to comment on a proposed 
project or activity. It is an administrative function associated with 
implementing the procedures of this rule and, as such, will be 
addressed in the relevant Forest Service directives.
    Paragraph (a)(6) has been edited to add specific reference to the 
Sec.  218.2 where the definition of ``specific written comments'' is 
found and to add the phrase ``is specifically requested by the 
responsible official'' to provide improved clarity and greater 
consistency with the description at Sec.  218.5(a) of the comment 
opportunities when eligibility to object can be established.
    A new paragraph (c)(3) was added that describes the requirement for 
posting a copy of the legal notice or Federal Register notice of the 
opportunity to object on the Web. The requirement was added to provide 
another means for those interested in objection filing opportunities to 
learn about them. The Web postings must be made within 4 calendar days 
of the date of publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of 
record or, when applicable, the Federal Register.
Section 218.25 Comments on Proposed Projects and Activities
    Paragraph (a)(2) has been edited to add the phrase ``in the time 
zone of the receiving office for comments filed by electronic means 
such as email or facsimile'' to provide a more complete description of 
how the end of the comment period will be determined and to add 
consistency with how the closing of objection filing periods will be 
determined in the final rule.
    Paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) have been removed because the 
instruction duplicates that found in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 
(a)(1)(ii).
    Paragraph (a)(3)(i) has been edited to clarify that a postal 
mailing address must be provided with specific written comments by 
individuals and entities wanting to be eligible to object, and that an 
email address is recommended but not required.
    Paragraphs (a)(3)(iv)(A) and (a)(3)(iv)(B) have been collapsed into 
paragraph (a)(3)(iv) and the word ``comments'' was added in place of 
the word ``objections'' to correct an error in the proposed rule.

[[Page 18496]]

    The phrase ``in the time zone of the receiving office'' was added 
after the time 11:59 p.m. in paragraph (a)(4)(i) to clarify when the 
comment period ends for those wanting to establish their eligibility to 
object.
Section 218.26 Objection Time Periods
    The opportunity to resolve concerns associated with a proposed 
project or activity is an important component of the predecisional 
administrative review process. For this reason, the proposed rule in 
paragraph (b) of this section directed that the reviewing officer would 
have the discretion to extend the time available for responding to 
objections for up to 10 days when he or she determines that additional 
time is necessary to provide adequate response to objections or to 
participate in resolution discussions with the objector(s). In giving 
further consideration to the logistics and scheduling issues that can 
occur regarding objection resolution meetings, the Department has 
determined that a discretionary extension of up to 30 days is more 
appropriate to ensure a reasonable opportunity for convening meetings 
and preparing a written response. This paragraph has been edited 
accordingly in the final rule.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been 
determined that this is not a significant rule. This final rule will 
not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor 
will the final rule adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, 
the environment, public health or safety, or State and local 
governments. This final rule will not interfere with any action taken 
or planned by another agency or raise new legal or policy issues. 
Finally, this final rule will not alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of beneficiaries of those programs.
    Moreover, the Department has considered this final rule in light of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Department 
has determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that 
Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for 
this final rule.

Environmental Impact

    This final rule revises the procedures and requirements for the 
administrative review of proposed projects and activities implementing 
land and resource management plans and documented with a Record of 
Decision or Decision Notice. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 
220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment 
or environmental impact statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to 
establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or 
instruction.'' The Department has determined that this final rule falls 
within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances 
exist which require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement.

Energy Effects

    The Department has reviewed this final rule under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Department has determined that this 
final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined 
in the Executive Order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520), the Forest Service requested and received approval of a new 
information collection requirement for part 218: OMB Number: 0596-0172. 
During the public comment period for proposed part 218, comments were 
sought on the information collection requirement associated with the 
predecisional administrative objection process in part 218; no comments 
on the information collection requirement were received.

Federalism

    The Department has considered this final rule under Executive Order 
13132 on federalism. The Department has determined that this final rule 
conforms with the federalism principles set out in this executive 
order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, the Department concludes that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' to 
the extent practicable and permitted by law, the Forest Service is 
required to consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes before 
promulgating a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and 
that is not required by statute. Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the 
Forest Service determined that this rule would not have Tribal 
implications requiring advance notification. Yet the Forest Service 
maintains its strong commitment to government-to-government 
consultation on Agency policies that may substantial affect federally-
recognized Indian Tribes, and to consulting with Alaska Native 
Corporations. In that spirit, information about the proposed rule was 
sent to the Forest Service Regional Offices on March 21, 2012, with 
instructions to distribute the information to tribes in their region by 
April 2, 2012, and to follow up with visits to tribes if requests for 
consultation were received. The information about the proposed rule 
included a copy of the current (at that time) regulation at 36 CFR 218, 
annotated to show the key revisions contemplated by the Forest Service 
to promulgate the requirements of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
for 2012, Section 428. On July 13, 2012, the Forest Service Regional 
Offices were notified that due to changes in the timeline for 
publication of the proposed rule, the tribal consultation period was 
being extended and that tribes were to be notified of this extension by 
July 31, 2012. Finally, the proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register on August 8, 2012, beginning a 30-day public comment period to 
coincide with the end of the tribal consultation period. As a result of 
this consultation effort, a total of 159 days--April 2, 2012 to 
September 7, 2012--was provided for an opportunity to formally consult 
on the proposed rule.
    Comments from two tribes were received, and no requests for 
government-to-government consultation were made. One Tribe expressed 
concern about the amount of time provided for formal consultation on 
the proposed rule and the amount of information made available during 
that time. The Tribe asserted that the formal consultation offered was 
not in compliance with a July 2012 Interim Directive requiring a 
minimum 120 days

[[Page 18497]]

of formal consultation on proposed national-level actions. The Tribe 
expressed its belief that to be consistent with Forest Service policy, 
the Forest Service should, prior to issuing the final rule, provide an 
additional 90 days for tribes to consult formally with the Forest 
Service.
    As described above, a total of 159 days was provided for formal 
consultation with Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations on the proposed rule at part 218. The formal consultation 
period of 159 days was fully consistent with the Interim Directive to 
Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, issued on July 17, 2012, while the 
opportunity for formal consultation on the proposed rule was already 
underway. Because the consultation on the proposed rule complies with 
Forest Service policy, no additional time for formal consultation on 
the final rule at part 218 is necessary.
    Comments provided by another Tribe asserted ``* * * 
interdepartmental fund transfers could be supplied to fund tribes in 
the operation of mutually beneficial programs and projects. This should 
be clarified in the regulation so as to facilitate and expedite 
planning implementation, research, monitoring and continued 
consultation to further the effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal 
Relationship in regards to wildland fire management and programs.'' 
Funding mechanisms for project planning and implementation are outside 
the scope of the rule at part 218 and therefore not addressed in this 
final rule. This same Tribe also provided several comments specific to 
certain sections of the proposed rule, including Sec.  218.5--Who May 
File an Objection and Sec.  218.14--Judicial Proceedings. The responses 
to those comments, including changes made to the proposed rule as part 
of comment response, are included in the preceding section of this 
preamble, titled Public Involvement and Response to Public Comments.
    The Department has determined that this final rule does not have 
substantial direct or unique effects on Indian tribes. This final rule 
is revising predecisional administrative review regulations for 
proposed projects and activities implementing land and resource 
management plans and documented with a Record of Decision or Decision 
Notice. Tribal governments may participate in the administrative 
objection process by establishing eligibility as provided at Sec.  
218.5 and then filing a timely objection in accordance with the 
requirements at Sec.  218.8.

No Takings Implications

    The Department has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. The Department has determined that this final rule 
will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has reviewed this final rule under Executive Order 
12988 on civil justice reform. Upon adoption of this final rule, (1) 
all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule 
or that impede full implementation of the rule will be preempted; (2) 
no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) this 
final rule will not require the use of administrative proceedings 
before parties could 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), the Department has assessed the effects of this 
final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector. This final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million 
or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the 
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is 
not required.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 218

    Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 36 CFR part 218 is 
revised to read as follows:

PART 218--PROJECT-LEVEL PREDECISIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS

Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
218.1 Purpose and scope.
218.2 Definitions.
218.3 Reviewing officer.
218.4 Proposed projects and activities not subject to objection.
218.5 Who may file an objection.
218.6 Computation of time periods.
218.7 Giving notice of objection process for proposed projects and 
activities subject to objection.
218.8 Filing an objection.
218.9 Evidence of timely filing.
218.10 Objections set aside from review.
218.11 Resolution of objections.
218.12 Timing of project decision.
218.13 Secretary's authority.
218.14 Judicial proceedings.
218.15 Information collection requirements.
218.16 Effective dates.
Subpart B--Provisions Specific to Project-Level Proposals Not 
Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
218.20 Applicability and scope.
218.21 Emergency situations.
218.22 Proposed projects and activities subject to legal notice and 
opportunity to comment.
218.23 Proposed projects and activities not subject to legal notice 
and opportunity to comment.
218.24 Notification of opportunity to comment on proposed projects 
and activities.
218.25 Comments on proposed projects and activities.
218.26 Objection time periods.
Subpart C--Provisions Specific to Proposed Projects Authorized Under 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
218.30 Applicability and scope.
218.31 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to 
objection.
218.32 Objection time periods.

    Authority: Pub. L. 108-148, 117 Stat 1887 (16 U.S.C. 6515 note); 
Sec. 428, Pub. L. 112-74 125 Stat 1046.

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec.  218.1  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart establishes a predecisional administrative review 
(hereinafter referred to as ``objection'') process for proposed actions 
of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing 
land and resource management plans documented with a Record of Decision 
or Decision Notice, including proposed authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction projects as defined in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
2003 (HFRA). The objection process is the sole means by which 
administrative review of qualifying projects.
    (a) This subpart A provides the general provisions of the objection 
process, including who may file objections to proposed projects and 
activities, the responsibilities of the participants in an objection, 
and the procedures that apply for review of the objection.
    (b) Subpart B of this part includes provisions that are specific to 
proposed projects and activities implementing land and resource 
management plans documented with a Record of Decision or Decision 
Notice, except those authorized under the HFRA.
    (c) Subpart C of this part includes provisions that are specific to 
proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the HFRA.

[[Page 18498]]

Sec.  218.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this part:
    Address. An individual's or organization's current physical mailing 
address. An email address alone is not sufficient.
    Authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. A hazardous fuel 
reduction project authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
2003 (HFRA).
    Decision notice (DN). A concise written record of a responsible 
official's decision when an environmental assessment and a finding of 
no significant impact (FONSI) have been prepared (36 CFR 220.3). The 
draft decision notice made available pursuant to Sec.  218.7(b) will 
include a draft FONSI unless an environmental impact statement is 
expected to be prepared.
    Entity. For purposes of eligibility to file an objection (Sec.  
218.5), an entity includes non-governmental organizations, businesses, 
partnerships, state and local governments, Alaska Native Corporations, 
and Indian Tribes.
    Environmental assessment (EA). A concise public document for which 
a Federal agency is responsible that provides sufficient evidence and 
analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), aids an 
agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
when no EIS is necessary, and facilitates preparation of a statement 
when one is necessary (40 CFR 1508.9(a)).
    Environmental impact statement (EIS). A detailed written statement 
as required by Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1508.11).
    Forest Service line officer. The Chief of the Forest Service or a 
Forest Service official who serves in the direct line of command from 
the Chief.
    Lead objector. For an objection submitted with multiple individuals 
and/or entities listed, the individual or entity identified to 
represent all other objectors for the purposes of communication, 
written or otherwise, regarding the objection.
    Name. The first and last name of an individual or the complete name 
of an entity. An electronic username is insufficient for identification 
of an individual or entity.
    National Forest System land. All lands, waters, or interests 
therein administered by the Forest Service (36 CFR 251.51).
    Newspaper(s) of record. Those principal newspapers of general 
circulation annually identified in a list and published in the Federal 
Register by each regional forester to be used for publishing notices of 
projects and activities implementing land management plans.
    Objection. The written document filed with a reviewing officer by 
an individual or entity seeking predecisional administrative review of 
a proposed project or activity implementing a land management plan, 
including proposed HFRA-authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects, 
and documented with an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement.
    Objection filing period. The period following publication of the 
legal notice in the newspaper of record of an environmental assessment 
and draft Decision Notice, or final environmental impact statement and 
draft Record of Decision, for a proposed project or activity during 
which an objection may be filed with the reviewing officer (Sec.  
218.7(c)(2)(iii) and Sec.  218.6(a) and (b)). When the Chief is the 
responsible official the objection period begins following publication 
of a notice in the Federal Register (Sec.  218.7(c)(2)(iii)). The 
objection filing period closes at 11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the 
receiving office on the last day of the filing period (Sec.  218.6(a)).
    Objection process. The procedures established in this subpart for 
predecisional administrative review of proposed projects or activities 
implementing land management plans, including proposed HFRA-authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction projects.
    Objector. An individual or entity filing an objection who submitted 
written comments specific to the proposed project or activity during 
scoping or other opportunity for public comment. The use of the term 
``objector'' applies to all persons or entities who meet eligibility 
requirements associated with the filed objection (Sec.  218.5).
    Record of decision (ROD). A document signed by a responsible 
official recording a decision that was preceded by preparation of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) (see 40 CFR 1505.2).
    Responsible official. The Agency employee who has the authority to 
make and implement a decision on a proposed action subject to this 
part.
    Specific written comments. Written comments are those submitted to 
the responsible official or designee during a designated opportunity 
for public participation (Sec.  218.5(a)) provided for a proposed 
project. Written comments can include submission of transcriptions or 
other notes from oral statements or presentation. For the purposes of 
this rule, specific written comments should be within the scope of the 
proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and 
must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to 
consider.


Sec.  218.3  Reviewing officer.

    (a) The reviewing officer is the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) or Forest Service official having the delegated authority and 
responsibility to review an objection filed under this part. For 
project or activity proposals made below the level of the Chief, the 
reviewing officer is the Forest Service line officer at the next higher 
administrative level above the responsible official, or the respective 
Associate Deputy Chief, Deputy Regional Forester, or Deputy Forest 
Supervisor with the delegation of authority relevant to the provisions 
of this part. When a project or activity proposal is made by the Chief, 
the Secretary of Agriculture or Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 
Environment is the reviewing officer.
    (b) The reviewing officer determines procedures to be used for 
processing objections when the procedures are not specifically 
described in this part, including, to the extent practicable, such 
procedures as needed to be compatible with the administrative review 
processes of other Federal agencies, when projects are proposed 
jointly. Such determinations are not subject to further administrative 
review.


Sec.  218.4  Proposed projects and activities not subject to objection.

    Proposed projects and activities are not subject to objection when 
no timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project or 
activity (see Sec.  218.2) are received during any designated 
opportunity for public comment (see Sec.  218.5(a)). The responsible 
official must issue a statement in the Record of Decision or Decision 
Notice that the project or activity was not subject to objection.


Sec.  218.5  Who may file an objection.

    (a) Individuals and entities as defined in Sec.  218.2 who have 
submitted timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed 
project or activity that is subject to these regulations during any 
designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. 
Opportunity for public comment on a draft EIS includes request for 
comments during scoping, the 40 CFR 1506.10 comment period, or other 
public involvement opportunity where written comments are requested by 
the responsible official. Opportunity for

[[Page 18499]]

public comment on an EA includes during scoping or any other instance 
where the responsible official seeks written comments.
    (b) Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations are also eligible to file an objection when specific 
written comments as defined in Sec.  218.2 are provided during Federal-
Tribal consultations.
    (c) Comments received from an authorized representative(s) of an 
entity are considered those of the entity only. Individual members of 
that entity do not meet objection eligibility requirements solely on 
the basis of membership in an entity. A member or an individual must 
submit timely, specific written comments independently in order to be 
eligible to file an objection in an individual capacity.
    (d) When an objection lists multiple individuals or entities, each 
individual or entity must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of 
this section. If the objection does not identify a lead objector as 
required at Sec.  218.8(d)(3), the reviewing officer will delegate the 
first eligible objector on the list as the lead objector. Individuals 
or entities listed on an objection that do not meet eligibility 
requirements will not be considered objectors. Objections from 
individuals or entities that do not meet the requirements of paragraph 
(a) of this section will not be accepted and will be documented as such 
in the objection record.
    (e) Federal agencies may not file objections.
    (f) Federal employees who otherwise meet the requirements of this 
subpart for filing objections in a non-official capacity must comply 
with Federal conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 202-209 and 
with employee ethics requirements at 5 CFR part 2635. Specifically, 
employees must not be on official duty nor use Government property or 
equipment in the preparation or filing of an objection. Further, 
employees must not use or otherwise incorporate information unavailable 
to the public, such as Federal agency documents that are exempt from 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).


Sec.  218.6  Computation of time periods.

    (a) Computation. All time periods are computed using calendar days, 
including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. However, when the 
time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time 
is extended to the end of the next Federal working day as stated in the 
legal notice (11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving office for 
objections filed by electronic means such as email or facsimile).
    (b) Starting date. The day after publication of the legal notice 
required by Sec.  218.7(c) is the first day of the objection-filing 
period.
    (c) Publication date. The publication date of the legal notice of 
the EA or final EIS in the newspaper of record or, when the Chief is 
the responsible official, the Federal Register, is the exclusive means 
for calculating the time to file an objection. Objectors may not rely 
on dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.
    (d) Extensions. Time extensions are not permitted except as 
provided at paragraph (a) of this section, and Sec.  218.26(b).


Sec.  218.7  Giving notice of objection process for proposed projects 
and activities subject to objection.

    (a) In addition to the notification required in paragraph (c) of 
this section, the responsible official must disclose during scoping and 
in the EA or EIS that the proposed project or activity is:
    (1) A hazardous fuel reduction project as defined by the HFRA, 
section 101(2), that is subject to subparts A and C of this part, or
    (2) A project or activity implementing a land management plan and 
not authorized under the HFRA, that is subject to subparts A and B of 
this part.
    (b) The responsible official must promptly make available the final 
EIS or the EA, and a draft Record of Decision (ROD) or draft Decision 
Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), to those who 
have requested the documents or are eligible to file an objection in 
accordance with Sec.  218.5(a).
    (c) Upon distribution, legal notice of the opportunity to object to 
a proposed project or activity must be published in the applicable 
newspaper of record identified as defined in Sec.  218.2 for the 
National Forest System unit. When the Chief is the responsible 
official, notice must be published in the Federal Register. The legal 
notice or Federal Register notice must:
    (1) Include the name of the proposed project or activity, a concise 
description of the draft decision and any proposed land management plan 
amendments, name and title of the responsible official, name of the 
forest and/or district on which the proposed project or activity will 
occur, instructions for obtaining a copy of the final EIS or EA and 
draft ROD or DN as defined in Sec.  218.2, and instructions on how to 
obtain additional information on the proposed project or activity.
    (2) State that the proposed project or activity is subject to the 
objection process pursuant to 36 CFR part 218; identify whether the 
special procedures of subpart B or subpart C of this part are 
applicable; and include the following:
    (i) Name and address of the reviewing officer with whom an 
objection is to be filed. The notice must specify a street, postal, 
fax, and email address, the acceptable format(s) for objections filed 
electronically, and the reviewing officer's business hours for those 
filing hand-delivered objections.
    (ii) A statement that objections will be accepted only from those 
who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the 
proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for 
public comment in accordance with Sec.  218.5(a). The statement must 
also specify that issues raised in objections must be based on 
previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the 
proposed project unless based on new information arising after 
designated opportunities.
    (iii) A statement that the publication date of the legal notice in 
the newspaper of record or Federal Register notice is the exclusive 
means for calculating the time to file an objection (see Sec. Sec.  
218.26(a) and 218.32(a)), and that those wishing to object should not 
rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. 
A specific date must not be included in the notice.
    (iv) A statement that an objection, including attachments, must be 
filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, express delivery, or 
messenger service) with the appropriate reviewing officer (see 
Sec. Sec.  218.3 and 218.8) within 30 days of the date of publication 
of the legal notice for the objection process if the proposal is an 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project, or within 45 days if the 
proposal is otherwise a project or activity implementing a land 
management plan. The statement must also describe the evidence of 
timely filing in Sec.  218.9.
    (v) A statement describing the minimum content requirements of an 
objection (see Sec.  218.8(d)) and identify that incorporation of 
documents by reference is permitted only as provided for at Sec.  
218.8(b).
    (d) Within 4 calendar days of the date of publication of the legal 
notice in the newspaper of record or, when applicable, the Federal 
Register, a digital image of the legal notice or Federal Register 
publication, or the exact text of the notice, must be made available on 
the Web. Such postings must clearly indicate the date the notice was 
published in the newspaper of

[[Page 18500]]

record or Federal Register, and the name of the publication.
    (e) Through notice published annually in the Federal Register, each 
regional forester must advise the public of the newspaper(s) of record 
utilized for publishing legal notice required by this part.


Sec.  218.8  Filing an objection.

    (a) Objections must be filed with the reviewing officer in writing. 
All objections are available for public inspection during and after the 
objection process.
    (b) Incorporation of documents by reference is not allowed, except 
for the following list of items that may be referenced by including 
date, page, and section of the cited document, along with a description 
of its content and applicability to the objection. All other documents 
must be included with the objection.
    (1) All or any part of a Federal law or regulation.
    (2) Forest Service directives and land management plans.
    (3) Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the proposed 
project EA or EIS that is subject to objection.
    (4) Comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the 
objector during public involvement opportunities for the proposed 
project where written comments were requested by the responsible 
official.
    (c) Issues raised in objections must be based on previously 
submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or 
activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on 
new information that arose after the opportunities for comment. The 
burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with this 
requirement for objection issues (see paragraph (d)(6) of this 
section).
    (d) At a minimum, an objection must include the following:
    (1) Objector's name and address as defined in Sec.  218.2, with a 
telephone number, if available;
    (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a 
scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);
    (3) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification 
of the lead objector as defined in Sec.  218.2. Verification of the 
identity of the lead objector must be provided upon request or the 
reviewing officer will designate a lead objector as provided in Sec.  
218.5(d);
    (4) The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the 
responsible official, and the name(s) of the national forest(s) and/or 
ranger district(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented;
    (5) A description of those aspects of the proposed project 
addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the 
proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the 
environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, 
regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the 
objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; 
and
    (6) A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior 
specific written comments on the particular proposed project or 
activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection 
concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for 
comment (see paragraph (c) of this section).


Sec.  218.9  Evidence of timely filing.

    (a) It is the objector's responsibility to ensure timely filing of 
a written objection with the reviewing officer. Timeliness must be 
determined by the following indicators:
    (1) The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark for an objection 
received before the close of the fifth business day after the objection 
filing period;
    (2) The agency's electronically generated posted date and time for 
email and facsimiles;
    (3) The shipping date for delivery by private carrier for an 
objection received before the close of the fifth business day after the 
objection filing period; or
    (4) The official agency date stamp showing receipt of hand 
delivery.
    (b) For emailed objections, the sender should receive an automated 
electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. 
If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgment of receipt 
of the objection, it is the sender's responsibility to ensure timely 
filing by other means.


Sec.  218.10  Objections set aside from review.

    (a) The reviewing officer must set aside and not review an 
objection when one or more of the following applies:
    (1) Objections are not filed in a timely manner (see Sec. Sec.  
218.7(c)(2)(v) and 218.9).
    (2) The proposed project is not subject to the objection procedures 
in Sec. Sec.  218.1, 218.4, 218.20, and 218.31.
    (3) The individual or entity did not submit timely and specific 
written comments regarding the proposed project or activity during 
scoping or another designated opportunity for public comment (see Sec.  
218.5(a)).
    (4) Except for issues that arose after the opportunities for 
comment, none of the issues included in the objection are based on 
previously submitted specific written comments and the objector has not 
provided a statement demonstrating a connection between the comments 
and objection issues (see Sec. Sec.  218.8(c) and 218.8(d)(6)).
    (5) The objection does not provide sufficient information as 
required by Sec.  218.8(d)(5) and (6) for the reviewing officer to 
review.
    (6) The objector withdraws the objection.
    (7) An objector's identity is not provided or cannot be determined 
from the signature (written or electronically scanned) and a reasonable 
means of contact is not provided (see Sec.  218.8(d)(1) and (2)).
    (8) The objection is illegible for any reason, including 
submissions in an electronic format different from that specified in 
the legal notice.
    (9) The responsible official cancels the objection process underway 
to reinitiate the objection procedures at a later date or withdraw the 
proposed project or activity.
    (b) The reviewing officer must give prompt written notice to the 
objector and the responsible official when an objection is set aside 
from review and must state the reasons for not reviewing the objection. 
If the objection is set aside from review for reasons of illegibility 
or lack of a means of contact, the reasons must be documented and a 
copy placed in the objection record.


Sec.  218.11  Resolution of objections.

    (a) Meetings. Prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer's 
written response, either the reviewing officer or the objector may 
request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection and potential 
resolution. The reviewing officer has the discretion to determine 
whether adequate time remains in the review period to make a meeting 
with the objector practical, the appropriate date, duration, agenda, 
and location for any meeting, and how the meeting will be conducted to 
facilitate the most beneficial dialogue; e.g., face-to-face office 
meeting, project site visit, teleconference, video conference, etc. The 
responsible official should be a participant along with the reviewing 
officer in any objection resolution meeting. Meetings are not required 
to be noticed but are open to attendance by the public, and the 
reviewing officer will determine whether those other than objectors may 
participate.
    (b) Reviewing officer's response to objections. (1) A written 
response must set forth the reasons for the response, but need not be a 
point-by-point response and may contain instructions to the responsible 
official, if necessary. In cases involving more than one

[[Page 18501]]

objection to a proposed project or activity, the reviewing officer may 
consolidate objections and issue one or more responses.
    (2) No further review from any other Forest Service or USDA 
official of the reviewing officer's written response to an objection is 
available.


Sec.  218.12  Timing of project decision.

    (a) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to 
the provisions of this part until the reviewing officer has responded 
in writing to all pending objections (see Sec.  218.11(b)(1)).
    (b) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to 
the provisions of this part until all concerns and instructions 
identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been 
addressed.
    (c) When no objection is filed within the objection filing period 
(see Sec. Sec.  218.26 and 218.32):
    (1) The reviewing officer must notify the responsible official.
    (2) Approval of the proposed project or activity documented in a 
ROD in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.10, or in a DN may occur on, but not 
before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection 
filing period.
    (d) When a proposed project or activity is not subject to objection 
because no timely, specific written comments regarding the proposal 
were received during a designated opportunity for public comment (see 
Sec.  218.4), the approval of a proposed project or activity documented 
in a ROD must be in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.10 and 36 CFR 220.5(g), 
and the approval of a proposed project or activity documented in a DN 
must be made in accordance with 36 CFR 220.7(c) and (d).


Sec.  218.13  Secretary's authority.

    (a) Nothing in this section shall restrict the Secretary of 
Agriculture from exercising any statutory authority regarding the 
protection, management, or administration of National Forest System 
lands.
    (b) Projects and activities proposed by the Secretary of 
Agriculture or the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, 
are not subject to the procedures set forth in this part. Approval of 
projects and activities by the Secretary or Under Secretary constitutes 
the final administrative determination of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.


Sec.  218.14  Judicial proceedings.

    (a) The objection process set forth in this subpart fully 
implements Congress' design for a predecisional administrative review 
process. These procedures present a full and fair opportunity for 
concerns to be raised and considered on a project-by-project basis. 
Individuals and groups must structure their participation so as to 
alert the local agency officials making particular land management 
decisions of their positions and contentions.
    (b) Any filing for Federal judicial review of a decisions covered 
by this subpart is premature and inappropriate unless the plaintiff has 
exhausted the administrative review process set forth in this part (see 
7 U.S.C. 6912(e) and 16 U.S.C. 6515(c)).


Sec.  218.15  Information collection requirements.

    The rules of this part specify the information that objectors must 
provide in an objection to a proposed project (see Sec.  218.8). As 
such, these rules contain information collection requirements as 
defined in 5 CFR part 1320. These information requirements are assigned 
OMB Control Number 0596-0172.


Sec.  218.16  Effective dates.

    (a) Effective dates for HFRA-authorized projects. (1) Provisions of 
this part that are applicable to hazardous fuel reduction projects 
authorized under the HFRA are in effect as of March 27, 2013 for 
projects where scoping begins on or after this date.
    (2) Hazardous fuel reduction project proposals under the HFRA for 
which public scoping began prior to March 27, 2013 may use the 
predecisional objection procedures posted at http://www.fs.fed.us/objections.
    (3) Hazardous fuel reduction project proposals that are re-scoped 
with the public or re-issued for notice and comment after March 27, 
2013 are subject to this part.
    (b) Effective dates for non-HFRA-authorized projects. (1) Project 
proposals with public scoping completed, but that have not had legal 
notice published. The applicable provisions of this part are in effect 
as of March 27, 2013 where public scoping was previously initiated for 
project proposals, but legal notice of the opportunity to comment has 
not yet been published; unless scoping or other public notification of 
the project (e.g. Schedule of Proposed Actions) has clearly indicated 
the project to be under the former 36 CFR part 215 appeal process.
    (2) Project proposals which have legal notice published, but a 
Decision Notice or Record of Decision has not been signed. If a 
Decision Notice or Record of Decision is signed within 6 months of 
March 27, 2013, it will be subject to the 36 CFR part 215 appeal 
process. If the Decision Notice or Record of Decision is to be signed 
more than 6 months beyond March 27, 2013, the project proposal will be 
subject to the requirements of this part. In this case, the responsible 
official will notify all interested and affected parties who 
participated during scoping or provided specific written comment 
regarding the proposed project or activity during the comment period 
initiated with a legal notice that the project proposal will be subject 
to the predecisional objection regulations at 36 CFR part 218. All 
interested and affected parties who provided written comment as defined 
in Sec.  218.2 during scoping or the comment period will be eligible to 
participate in the objection process.
    (3) Project proposals are subject to the requirements of this part 
when initial public scoping, re-scoping with the public, or re-issuance 
of notice and comment begins on or after March 27, 2013.

Subpart B--Provisions Specific to Project-Level Proposals Not 
Authorized Under Healthy Forests Restoration Act


Sec.  218.20  Applicability and scope.

    This subpart includes provisions that are specific to proposed 
projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans 
and documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice, except 
those authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The 
sections of this subpart must be considered in combination with the 
general provisions of subpart A of this part for the full complement of 
regulatory direction pertaining to predecisional administrative review 
of the applicable projects and activities.


Sec.  218.21  Emergency situations.

    (a) Authority. The Chief and the Associate Chief of the Forest 
Service are authorized to make the determination that an emergency 
situation exists as defined in this section.
    (b) Emergency situation definition. A situation on National Forest 
System (NFS) lands for which immediate implementation of a decision is 
necessary to achieve one or more of the following: Relief from hazards 
threatening human health and safety; mitigation of threats to natural 
resources on NFS or adjacent lands; avoiding a loss of commodity value 
sufficient to jeopardize the agency's ability to accomplish project 
objectives directly

[[Page 18502]]

related to resource protection or restoration.
    (c) Determination. The determination that an emergency situation 
exists shall be based on an examination of the relevant information. 
During the consideration by the Chief or Associate Chief, additional 
information may be requested from the responsible official. The 
determination that an emergency situation does or does not exist is not 
subject to administrative review under this part.
    (d) Implementation. When it is determined that an emergency 
situation exists with respect to all or part of the proposed project or 
activity, the proposed action shall not be subject to the predecisional 
objection process and implementation may proceed as follows:
    (1) Immediately after notification (see 36 CFR 220.7(d)) when the 
decision is documented in a Decision Notice (DN).
    (2) Immediately after complying with the timeframes and publication 
requirements described in 40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2) when the decision is 
documented in a Record of Decision (ROD).
    (e) Notification. The responsible official shall identify any 
emergency situation determination made for a project or activity in the 
notification of the decision (see 36 CFR 220.5(g) and 220.7(d)).


Sec.  218.22  Proposed projects and activities subject to legal notice 
and opportunity to comment.

    The legal notice and opportunity to comment procedures of this 
subpart apply only to:
    (a) Proposed projects and activities implementing land management 
plans for which an environmental assessment (EA) is prepared;
    (b) Proposed projects and activities implementing land management 
plans for which a draft or supplemental environmental impact statement 
(EIS) is prepared and notice and comment procedures are governed by 40 
CFR parts 1500 through 1508;
    (c) Proposed amendments to a land management plan that are included 
as part of a proposed project or activity covered in paragraphs (a) or 
(b) of this section which are applicable only to that proposed project 
or activity;
    (d) A proposed project or activity for which a supplemental or 
revised EA or EIS is prepared based on consideration of new information 
or changed circumstances; and
    (e) Proposed research activities to be conducted on National Forest 
System land for which an EA or EIS is prepared.


Sec.  218.23  Proposed projects and activities not subject to legal 
notice and opportunity to comment.

    The legal notice and opportunity to comment procedures of this 
subpart do not apply to:
    (a) [Reserved];
    (b) Proposed land management plans, plan revisions, and plan 
amendments that are subject to the objection process set out in 36 CFR 
part 219, subpart B;
    (c) Proposed plan amendments associated with a project or activity 
where the amendment applies not just to the particular project or 
activity but to all future projects and activities (see 36 CFR 
219.59(b));
    (d) Proposed projects and activities not subject to the provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act and the implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and 36 CFR part 220;
    (e) Determinations by the responsible official, after consideration 
of new information or changed circumstances, that a correction, 
supplement, or revision of the EA or EIS is not required;
    (f) Rules promulgated in accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) or policies and procedures issued 
in the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (36 CFR part 216); and
    (g) Proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.


Sec.  218.24  Notification of opportunity to comment on proposed 
projects and activities.

    (a) Responsible official. The responsible official shall:
    (1) Provide legal notice of the opportunity to comment on a 
proposed project or activity implementing a land management plan.
    (2) Determine the most effective timing and then publish the legal 
notice of the opportunity to comment as provided for in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section.
    (3) Promptly provide notice about the proposed project or activity 
to any individual or entity who has requested it and to those who have 
participated in planning for that project.
    (4) Accept all written comments on the proposed project or activity 
as provided for in Sec.  218.25(a)(4).
    (b) Content of legal notice. All legal notices shall include the 
following:
    (1) The title and brief description of the proposed project or 
activity.
    (2) A general description of the proposed project or activity's 
location with sufficient information to allow the interested public to 
identify the location.
    (3) When applicable, a statement that the responsible official is 
requesting an emergency situation determination or it has been 
determined that an emergency situation exists for the proposed project 
or activity as provided for in Sec.  218.21.
    (4) For a proposed project or activity to be analyzed and 
documented in an environmental assessment (EA), a statement that the 
opportunity to comment ends 30 days following the date of publication 
of the legal notice in the newspaper of record (see Sec.  
218.25(a)(2)); as newspaper publication dates may vary, legal notices 
shall not contain the specific date.
    (5) For a proposed project or activity that is analyzed and 
documented in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), a statement 
that the opportunity to comment ends 45 days following the date of 
publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register 
(see Sec.  218.25(a)(2)). The legal notice must be published after the 
NOA and contain the NOA publication date.
    (6) A statement that only those who submit timely and specific 
written comments regarding the proposed project or activity during a 
public comment period established by the responsible official are 
eligible to file an objection.
    (7) The responsible official's name, title, telephone number, and 
addresses (street, postal, facsimile, and email) to whom comments are 
to be submitted and the responsible official's office business hours 
for those submitting hand-delivered comments (see Sec.  
218.25(a)(4)(ii)).
    (8) A statement indicating that for objection eligibility each 
individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and 
specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity 
must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request.
    (9) The acceptable format(s) for electronic comments.
    (10) Instructions on how to obtain additional information on the 
proposed project or activity.
    (c) Publication. (1) Through notice published annually in the 
Federal Register, each Regional Forester shall advise the public of the 
newspaper(s) of record used for publishing legal notices required by 
this part.
    (2) Legal notice of the opportunity to comment on a proposed 
project or activity shall be published in the applicable newspaper of 
record identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for each National 
Forest System unit. When the Chief is the responsible official, notice 
shall also be published in

[[Page 18503]]

the Federal Register. The publication date of the legal notice in the 
newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to 
submit written comments on a proposed project or activity to be 
analyzed and documented in an EA. The publication date of the NOA in 
the Federal Register is the exclusive means for calculating the time to 
submit written comments on a proposed project or activity that is 
analyzed and documented in a draft EIS.
    (3) Within 4 calendar days of the date of publication of the legal 
notice in the newspaper of record or, when applicable, the Federal 
Register, a digital image of the legal notice or Federal Register 
publication, or the exact text of the notice, must be made available on 
the Web. Such postings must clearly indicate the date the notice was 
published in the newspaper of record or Federal Register, and the name 
of the publication.


Sec.  218.25  Comments on proposed projects and activities.

    (a) Opportunity to comment. (1) Time period for submission of 
comments--
    (i) Comments on a proposed project or activity to be documented in 
an environmental assessment shall be accepted for 30 days beginning on 
the first day after the date of publication of the legal notice.
    (ii) Comments on a proposed project or activity to be documented in 
an environmental impact statement shall be accepted for a minimum of 45 
days beginning on the first day after the date of publication in the 
Federal Register of the notice of availability of the draft EIS.
    (iii) Comments. It is the responsibility of all individuals and 
organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely 
manner as provided for in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (iv) Extension. The time period for the opportunity to comment on a 
proposed project or activity to be documented with an environmental 
assessment shall not be extended.
    (2) Computation of the comment period. The time period is computed 
using calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 
holidays. However, when the time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, 
or Federal holiday, comments shall be accepted until the end of the 
next Federal working day (11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving 
office for comments filed by electronic means such as email or 
facsimile).
    (3) Requirements. To be eligible to submit an objection, 
individuals and entities must have provided the following during the 
comment period:
    (i) Name and postal address. Email address in addition is 
recommended but not required.
    (ii) Title of the proposed project or activity.
    (iii) Specific written comments as defined in Sec.  218.2 regarding 
the proposed project or activity, along with supporting reasons.
    (iv) Signature or other verification of identity upon request and 
identification of the individual or entity who authored the comment(s). 
For comments listing multiple entities or multiple individuals, a 
signature or other means of verification must be provided for the 
individual authorized to represent each entity and for each individual 
in the case of multiple names. A scanned signature or other means of 
verifying the identity of the individual or entity representative may 
be used for electronically submitted comments.
    (v) Individual members of an entity must submit their own comments 
to establish personal eligibility; comments received on behalf of an 
entity are considered as those of the entity only.
    (4) Evidence of timely submission. When there is a question about 
timely submission of comments, timeliness shall be determined as 
follows:
    (i) Written comments must be postmarked by the Postal Service, 
emailed, faxed, or otherwise submitted (for example, express delivery 
service) by 11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving office on the 
30th calendar day following publication of the legal notice for 
proposed projects or activities to be analyzed and documented in an EA 
or the 45th calendar day following publication of the NOA in the 
Federal Register for a draft EIS.
    (ii) Hand-delivered comments must be time and date imprinted at the 
correct responsible official's office by the close of business on the 
30th calendar day following publication of the legal notice for 
proposed projects or activities to be analyzed and documented in an EA 
or the 45th calendar day following publication of the NOA in the 
Federal Register for a draft EIS.
    (iii) For emailed comments, the sender should normally receive an 
automated electronic acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of 
receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgment of 
the receipt of the comments, it is the sender's responsibility to 
ensure timely receipt by other means.
    (b) Consideration of comments. (1) The responsible official shall 
consider all written comments submitted in compliance with paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (2) All written comments received by the responsible official shall 
be placed in the project file and shall become a matter of public 
record.


Sec.  218.26  Objection time periods.

    (a) Time to file an objection. Written objections, including any 
attachments, must be filed with the reviewing officer within 45 days 
following the publication date of the legal notice of the EA or final 
EIS in the newspaper of record or the publication date of the notice in 
the Federal Register when the Chief is the responsible official (see 
Sec.  218.7(c)). It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure that 
their objection is received in a timely manner.
    (b) Time for responding to an objection. The reviewing officer must 
issue a written response to the objector(s) concerning their 
objection(s) within 45 days following the end of the objection filing 
period. The reviewing officer has the discretion to extend the time for 
up to 30 days when he or she determines that additional time is 
necessary to provide adequate response to objections or to participate 
in resolution discussions with the objector(s).

Subpart C--Provisions Specific to Proposed Projects Authorized 
Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act


Sec.  218.30  Applicability and scope.

    This subpart includes provisions that are specific to proposed 
hazardous fuel reduction projects documented with a Record of Decision 
or Decision Notice, and authorized under the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (HFRA). The sections of this subpart must be considered 
in combination with the general provisions of subpart A of this part 
for the full complement of regulatory direction pertaining to 
predecisional administrative review of the applicable projects and 
activities.


Sec.  218.31  Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to 
objection.

    (a) Only authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects as defined by 
the HFRA, section 101(2), occurring on National Forest System land that 
have been analyzed in an EA or EIS are subject to this subpart. 
Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects processed under the 
provisions of the HFRA are not subject to the requirements in subpart B 
of this part.
    (b) When authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects are approved 
contemporaneously with a plan amendment that applies only to that 
project, the objection process of this subpart applies to both the plan 
amendment and the project.

[[Page 18504]]

Sec.  218.32  Objection time periods.

    (a) Time to file an objection. Written objections, including any 
attachments, must be filed with the reviewing officer within 30 days 
following the publication date of the legal notice of the EA or final 
EIS in the newspaper of record or the publication date of the notice in 
the Federal Register when the Chief is the responsible official (see 
Sec.  218.6(c)). It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure that 
their objection is received in a timely manner.
    (b) Time for responding to an objection. The reviewing officer must 
issue a written response to the objector(s) concerning their 
objection(s) within 30 days following the end of the objection filing 
period.

    Dated: March 20, 2013.
Harris D. Sherman,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment (NRE).
[FR Doc. 2013-06857 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P