Predecisional Administrative Review Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, 53705-53716 [E8-21751]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53705-53716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 215 and 218

RIN 0596-AC15


Predecisional Administrative Review Process for Hazardous Fuel 
Reduction Projects Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
of 2003

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes final the interim rule that was published 
on January 9, 2004, with minor changes to both parts 215 and 218. This 
rule establishes a process by which the public may file objections to 
seek administrative review of proposed hazardous fuel reduction 
projects authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
(HFRA), Public Law 108-148. Section 105 of the act directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to publish final regulations following public 
comment on the interim final regulations. This final rule refines the 
HFRA objection procedures based on public comment and agency experience 
applying the interim final rule. These changes add clarity to the 
procedural direction, describe authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
projects not subject to objection, clarify notification requirements, 
clarify the eligibility criteria for who may file an objection, provide 
for the incorporation of certain documents into objections by 
reference, and clarify how timeliness of objection filing will be 
determined.

DATE: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The Forest Service objection procedures for proposed 
hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA are set out in 
36 CFR part 218, which is available electronically on the World Wide 
Web at https://www.fs.fed.us/objections/objections_related.php#app_
work . Single paper copies are available by contacting Kevin Lawrence, 
Forest Service-USDA, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (Mail Stop 
1104), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. 
Additional information can be found at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/
applit/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director for Appeals and 
Litigation Deborah Beighley at (202) 205-1277 or Appeal Specialist 
Kevin Lawrence at (202) 205-2613. Individuals who use telecommunication 
devices for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 
through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 3, 2003, President George W. 
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 (section 105) required the 
Secretary of Agriculture to issue an interim final rule to establish a 
predecisional administrative review process for hazardous fuel 
reduction projects authorized by the HFRA and to promulgate final 
regulations after providing for public comments.
    On January 9, 2004, the Forest Service published an interim final 
rule and request for comments (69 FR 1529). The interim final rule 
established a predecisional administrative review process at 36 CFR 
part 218, subpart A, and 36 CFR part 215 was amended to exempt 
hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA from the 
notice, comment, and appeal procedures set out at part 215.
    In giving direct notice of the interim final rule, the Department 
also set a 90-day comment period and invited comments from individuals, 
industry, national organizations, and Federal agencies. A total of 67 
comment letters were received from individuals, representatives of 
State government agencies, environmental groups, professional 
organizations, and industry. Each comment received consideration in the 
development of the final rule.
    The Department has also used the intervening time since the comment 
period on the interim final rule to gain additional experience with its 
implementation. Forest Service records indicate approximately 80 
decisions have been issued for fuels reduction projects under HFRA 
Title I authority since the beginning of 2005. The Agency's application 
of the pre-decisional objection process to these projects has provided 
valuable insight to

[[Page 53706]]

how the interim final rule functions in practice, including where it 
might be improved. The lessons learned from this experience are 
reflected in several of the changes made in the final rule.
    The following is a summary of public comments and the Department's 
responses, including changes from the interim final rule.

General Comments

    The Forest Service received some comments related to support for, 
or opposition to, the HFRA. These comments are not directly relevant to 
this rulemaking. They were read and considered, but are not being 
discussed in this notice.

Comments in Response to Specific Sections

    Set out below are discussions and responses to public comments 
received on specific sections in 36 CFR part 218 during the comment 
period on the interim final rule. The discussion identifies differences 
between the interim final rule and the final rule and why these changes 
were made. The final rule has been reorganized and, for the reader's 
convenience, new titles and new designations are set out in the table 
below. In addition, references to ``land and resource management 
plans'' in part 218 and the amended section 215.3(a) of the interim 
final rule have been shortened to ``land management plans'' to reflect 
the wording in the recently published 36 CFR part 219 final rule for 
National Forest System Land Management Planning (73 FR 21468).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Interim rule section number and title    Final section number and title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   218.1 Purpose and scope.........  Sec.   218.1 Purpose and scope.
Sec.   218.2 Definitions...............  Sec.   218.2 Definitions.
Sec.   218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel   Sec.   218.3 Authorized
 reduction projects subject to the        hazardous fuel reduction
 objection process.                       projects subject to objection.
                                         Sec.   218.4 Authorized
                                          hazardous fuel reduction
                                          projects not subject to
                                          objection.
Sec.   218.4 Legal notice of objection   Sec.   218.5 Giving notice of
 process for proposed authorized          objection process for proposed
 hazardous fuel reduction projects.       authorized hazardous fuel
                                          reduction projects subject to
                                          objection.
Sec.   218.5 Reviewing officer.........  Sec.   218.6 Reviewing officer.
Sec.   218.6 Who may file an objection.  Sec.   218.7 Who may file an
                                          objection.
Sec.   218.7 Filing an objection.......  Sec.   218.8 Filing an
                                          objection.
Sec.   218.8 Objections set aside from   Sec.   218.9 Objections set
 review.                                  aside from review.
Sec.   218.9 Objection time periods and  Sec.   218.10 Objection time
 process.                                 periods and process.
Sec.   218.10 Resolution of objections.  Sec.   218.11 Resolution of
                                          objections.
Sec.   218.11 Timing of authorized       Sec.   218.12 Timing of
 hazardous fuel reduction project         authorized hazardous fuel
 decision.                                reduction project decision.
Sec.   218.12 Secretary's authority....  Sec.   218.13 Secretary's
                                          authority.
Sec.   218.13 Judicial proceedings.....  Sec.   218.14 Judicial
                                          proceedings.
Sec.   218.14 Information collection     Sec.   218.15 Information
 requirements.                            collection requirements.
Sec.   218.15 Applicability and          Sec.   218.16 Applicability and
 effective date.                          effective date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 218.1 Purpose and scope. This section describes the purpose 
and scope of the rule. There were no comments on section 218.1, and no 
changes were made to this section in the final rule.
    Section 218.2 Definitions. This section defines some of the 
commonly used terms and phrases in the final rule. In addition to the 
changes made in response to public comment as described below, a 
sentence has been added to the end of the definition for ``objection 
period'' to specify that when the Chief is the responsible official the 
objection period begins following publication of a notice in the 
Federal Register. This addition reflects a change made at section 
218.5(c) of the final rule.
    Comment: Definition of Lead Objector. One respondent stated the 
section 218.2 definition for lead objector, under which the objection 
reviewing officer could choose one person to represent all parties 
participating in a multi-party objection, is ill advised. The 
respondent believed all objectors should have the right to communicate 
with the Forest Service during the informal disposition process and at 
any other time when communication between objectors and the Forest 
Service is appropriate or necessary.
    Response: The interim final rule does not state that the lead 
objector is appointed by the objection reviewing officer. Section 
218.7(d) of the interim final rule (section 218.8(c) in the final rule) 
describes the minimum content requirements of an objection and one of 
those requirements is ``(3) When multiple names are listed on an 
objection, identification of the lead objector (Sec.  218.2).'' This is 
required by the Department so that a lead objector speaks for one 
objection filed by multiple parties. A lead objector has been so 
defined at section 218.2.
    Identification of a lead objector is important for timely and 
effective communication. The regulations also state that the objector 
may request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection, and the 
regulations state that all meetings are open to the public. If the lead 
objector of a multi-party objection requests a meeting, the meeting 
would be open to all the parties.
    Comment: Definition of Objector. Some respondents commented that 
the rules for who could object were not consistent throughout part 218. 
They felt terminology should be used that would clarify whether 
objectors had to comment during scoping or during a comment period.
    Response: The criteria for qualifying as an objector have been 
clarified in section 218.7(a) of the final rule, and that section is 
now specifically referenced in the definition of an objector in section 
218.2. For proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 
described in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), such 
opportunity for public comment will be fulfilled during scoping, the 
comment period on the draft EIS in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 
1506.10, or any other periods where public comment is specifically 
requested. For proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 
described in an environmental assessment (EA), such opportunity for 
public comment will be fulfilled during scoping or any other periods 
where public comment is specifically requested.

[[Page 53707]]

    Comment: Definition of Reviewing Officer. Some respondents 
commented that the reviewing officer should be someone other than an 
agency employee who they allege may have a conflict of interest or 
financial bias in the decision. Some respondents felt that the 
reviewing officer should have some ``distance'' from the decision. They 
felt a reviewing officer for a district ranger decision should be at 
the regional level and not a forest supervisor who has a supervisory 
interest in the district ranger decision. Other respondents felt the 
reviewing officer should be an independent administrative law judge 
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
    Response: Those alleging a potential for financial bias on the part 
of a higher-level agency official contend that hazardous fuel reduction 
projects may result in revenue retained by the Forest Service (e.g., 
deposits made to the Salvage Sale Fund, Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, Brush-
Disposal Fund, or other Forest Service account), and that the 
Constitution requires that adjudicators employed independently of the 
Forest Service decide objections to this class of projects. It is 
correct that receipts generated from the sale of timber products 
generated by hazardous fuel reduction projects may be directed into any 
of a number of special fund accounts. The Forest Service annually 
reports to Congress, as part of the President's Budget, all its 
receipts, including those from timber sales, and how those receipts are 
disbursed--disbursed to the states and counties where National Forest 
System lands are located, returned to the U.S. Treasury, or deposited 
to the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, the Brush-Disposal Fund, etc. The 
Forest Service must use the receipts that it keeps from timber sales 
for tightly defined purposes, as required by the statutes authorizing 
the special fund accounts. This information is available to Congress as 
it develops the annual budget appropriation for the Forest Service. The 
statutes authorizing collection of these funds and the budget process 
clearly demonstrate that Congress understands that money is generated 
from the sale of timber from the national forests, and that a portion 
of that money may be used for specific forest management purposes.
    This issue is closely related to one discussed in the final rule at 
36 CFR 215, Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest 
System Projects and Activities (60 FR 33582, June 4, 2003). The 
Department decided for project-level appeals that it was appropriate 
that the position deciding an appeal should be at the field level. With 
the Agency's decentralized organization, review by the decisionmaker's 
direct supervisor creates a healthy relationship in the chain of 
command and creates incentives for collaboration at the decisionmaking 
level. The Department feels that this level of review has been 
successful in the part 215 rule for administrative appeals and; 
therefore, the part 218 rule for a predecisional administrative review 
process follows the same procedure.
    Section 218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject 
to objection. This section describes hazardous fuel reduction projects 
subject to the objection process. In addition to the change made in 
response to public comment as described below, the title of the section 
has been changed slightly to be more concise and consistent with the 
corresponding section in the part 215 rule for administrative appeals 
of project decisions.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that non-significant amendments 
to a land management plan for HFRA projects should also use the 
objection process.
    Response: The Department agrees that non-significant amendments to 
a land management plan, when approved for a specific HFRA project at 
the same time the project decision is made, should be subject to the 
predecisional review process. This is consistent with the 
administrative review of non-significant amendments associated with 
non-HFRA projects (36 CFR part 215) and the objection process under the 
planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219. Section 218.3(b) has been 
added to the final rule to clarify that such amendments are subject to 
the objection process.
    New Section 218.4 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects not 
subject to objection. This section has been added in response to public 
comment. It explains when authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 
are not subject to objection.
    Comment: A comment was received that a project does not need to be 
subject to objection if there were no written comments or if written 
comments were supportive, similar to administrative appeal regulations 
at part 215.
    Response: The Department agrees that the objection process is not 
needed when written comments were not received. Clearly, if no one has 
established their eligibility to object pursuant to section 218.7, 
there is no need to provide an opportunity to file objections.
    The Department does not agree that the objection process is not 
needed if only supportive comments were received. The HFRA (section 
105(a)(3)) directs that those who submit specific written comments that 
relate to the proposed action are eligible to participate in the 
objection process. No distinction is made between supportive and 
critical comments; eligibility is extended in either case. Because 
eligibility to participate can be gained through the proper submittal 
of supportive comments, it is appropriate to preserve the procedural 
opportunity for those who participated in project planning, even where 
the filing of objections may be unlikely.
    A provision has been added at section 218.4 for making authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction projects not subject to objection when no 
written comments were received.
    Section 218.5 (was section 218.4 in interim final rule) Giving 
notice of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject 
to objection. This section establishes the requirements for giving 
public notice of the opportunity to file an objection to a proposed 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. In addition to the changes 
made in response to public comment as described below, several changes 
were made based on additional agency review of the interim final rule 
and the Agency's experience with implementing that rule.
    The title of the section was modified to more clearly reflect its 
purpose and content.
    Section 218.5(b) was reworded to specify that the responsible 
official must promptly ``distribute'' the final EIS or EA, rather than 
``mail'' the documents as stated in the interim final rule. The change 
was made to more clearly allow for dissemination of the documents by 
means other than just the mail, for example by e-mail. The description 
of who should be provided the documents was also changed to remove the 
reference to those on a project mailing list and to provide specific 
reference to the section of the rule describing who may file an 
objection. The reference to a project mailing list was removed so as 
not to imply that such a list must be maintained.
    An addition was made at section 218.5(c)(1) to require, as part of 
the objection content, a concise description of any proposed land 
management plan amendments that were proposed along with the project. 
This wording was added to provide more consistency with the change at 
section 218.3(b) that makes authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
projects approved contemporaneously with a plan amendment subject to 
objection.

[[Page 53708]]

    An addition was made in section 218.5(c)(2)(iv) requiring notices 
of objection opportunities to specify that incorporation of documents 
by reference is permitted only as provided for at section 218.8(b).
    Comment: Some respondents commented that it would be hard for 
interested parties to know the objection deadline because it is 
published in local newspapers. Some respondents commented that notices 
of HFRA projects should be published and publicly available on stable 
Web sites on the internet, as well as in newspapers of record.
    Response: The requirement for publishing the legal notice in the 
newspaper of record is consistent with how notification under the 
project-level appeal regulations at 36 CFR part 215 has been conducted 
since 1993. The Department believes the rule as stated is the most 
accurate method for potential appellants to know the filing end date.
    One portion of this section was found upon further review to be 
potentially confusing. Section 218.5(b) of the interim final rule 
included a requirement, upon completion and mailing of a final EIS or 
EA for an authorized hazardous fuel project, to publish legal notice of 
the opportunity to object in the applicable newspaper of record. The 
section went on to state, ``When the Chief is the Responsible Official, 
notice shall also be published in the Federal Register.'' The use of 
the word ``also'' suggests in these instances a notice is to be 
published in a newspaper of record and the Federal Register even though 
there is no provision in the rule for the Chief establishing a 
newspaper of record. Furthermore, given the broad geographic scope of 
interest in many decisions made by the Chief, it makes little sense to 
rely on any one newspaper for providing public notice. This requirement 
has, therefore, been modified to remove the word ``also'' so that the 
Federal Register will be the only required location for published 
notice of an opportunity to object when the Chief is the responsible 
official. The option to publish additional notices in one or more 
newspapers, as appropriate, will always exist.
    At one time, the part 215 rule for project-level appeals directed 
that the deadline for filing appeals be published with the notice. As a 
result, the Agency had to estimate the date of publication when 
preparing notices. Although the Agency can request that newspapers 
publish notices on a certain date, a publication date is not 
guaranteed. When publication occurs on a different date than estimated, 
the result has been conflicting dates and confusion. The Department 
believes that removing this requirement resolved the potential for 
conflicts and leaves all parties with the same information. The 
Department believes that the matter is best addressed by having the 
appellant calculate the appeal filing deadline from the published 
notice.
    The Department also recognizes that those participants eligible to 
object to a given decision will be made aware of that opportunity when 
they receive a copy of the final EIS or EA that must be distributed 
(section 218.5(b) of the final rule; section 218.4(a) of the interim 
final rule).
    Comment: Some respondents stated that for an EA the public would 
not have the opportunity to review and comment on a draft EA, and that 
commenting during scoping is difficult because the project plans are 
vague. The first time the public would see the EA is when it is 
distributed for the 30-day objection process.
    Response: Section 104 of the HFRA requires public notice of each 
project, a public meeting during the preparation stage of each project, 
and collaboration in order to ``encourage meaningful public 
participation during preparation of projects.'' The Department believes 
these requirements serve to assure ample opportunities for involvement 
are provided for those interested in HFRA projects.
    There is no precedent for a requirement to take comment on a draft 
EA because circulation of a draft EA is not required for projects 
falling outside HFRA authority. It is not required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Appeal 
Reform Act (Pub. L. 102-381, 106 Stat. 419), or their implementing 
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and 36 CFR part 215, 
respectively). Section 218.5 of the final rule does require the 
responsible official to distribute a final EIS or EA prior to making a 
decision so that those eligible to file an objection (section 218.7) 
have an opportunity to do so.
    Given these factors, the Department does not feel that requiring 
circulation of a draft EA for HFRA-authorized projects is warranted. 
Responsible officials have the option of circulating a draft EA if they 
deem it appropriate, but it is not required.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that the public must be 
informed at the beginning of a project whether it is an HFRA project 
and falls under the objection procedure set out in part 218. The public 
needs and deserves to know in advance what opportunities will be 
available for further comment after scoping.
    Response: The final rule requires notification that an authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction project is subject to the objection process in 
the required newspaper legal notice or Federal Register notice. 
However, the public notices, public meetings, and collaboration 
required under HFRA will also provide multiple opportunities for public 
involvement that will inform the participants early in the process that 
the project is an HFRA project. The Department believes an additional 
requirement to provide early disclosure that a proposed project is 
authorized under HFRA is not warranted; however, paragraph (a) has been 
added in the final rule at section 218.5 to clarify that it is 
advisable that such disclosure be made during scoping and in the EIS or 
EA.
    Section 218.6 (was section 218.5 in interim final rule) Reviewing 
officer. This section describes the role and authority of the reviewing 
officer. No comments were received on section 218.5 of the interim 
final rule and no changes were made other than the section designation.
    Section 218.7 (was section 218.6 in interim final rule) Who may 
file an objection. This section describes who may file an objection, 
including the type and timing of participation in the project planning 
process that is required to be recognized as an objector.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that not allowing the public to 
comment on draft EAs violates NEPA.
    Response: This assertion is incorrect. NEPA does not require a 
draft EA or a comment opportunity on a draft EA. Implementing 
regulations for NEPA merely require agencies to ``involve environmental 
agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, in 
preparing assessments'' (40 CFR 1501.4(b)).
    Comment: Some respondents commented that prohibiting individuals of 
an organization from filing an objection as a member of that 
organization undermines case law regarding organizational standing.
    Response: Caselaw on organizational standing defines when an 
organization may sue in court and assert the rights of the 
organization's members in accordance with Article III of the 
Constitution. This rule defines the prerequisites for an administrative 
review under the HFRA. The two concepts are related, but have separate 
legal foundations and need not be identical.
    Any number of members of an organization can submit written

[[Page 53709]]

comments. Under this rule, if one comment was submitted by one 
authorized representative of the organization, the organization may 
object, but the Agency will not accept objections from multiple members 
of the organization who did not participate during the process. An 
organization represents all its members but does not give standing to 
each member to file individual objections. This is the same approach 
used with project-level appeal regulations at 36 CFR part 215 that 
state, ``Comments received from an authorized representative(s) of an 
organization are considered those of the organization only; individual 
members of that organization do not meet appeal eligibility solely on 
the basis of membership in an organization; the member(s) must submit 
substantive comments as an individual in order to meet appeal 
eligibility'' (36 CFR 215.13(a)).
    Comment: Some respondents commented that anyone should be able to 
file an objection. Restricting who can object seems to be an attempt on 
the part of the Agency to shortchange the public.
    Response: The HFRA specifically states that to be eligible to 
participate in the administrative review process for an authorized 
hazardous fuels reduction project a person must submit specific written 
comments that relate to the proposed action (section 105(a)(3)). 
Congress intended for interested persons to participate early in the 
project planning process and not wait until the documentation has been 
finalized or after the decision has been issued to become involved. 
Although the administrative review process is an opportunity to voice 
concerns, it is more advantageous to both the responsible official and 
the public when those who have helpful and important information that 
could affect a decision bring it forward during project planning.
    Section 218.8 (was section 218.7 in interim final rule) Filing an 
objection. This section describes how to file an objection, including 
content requirements and limitations. In addition to the change made in 
response to public comment as described below, another change was made 
based on additional Agency review of the interim final rule. The 
direction in the interim final rule at section 218.7(b) describing the 
objector's responsibility for including sufficient narrative in an 
objection has been moved to section 218.8(c)(5) in the final rule 
because it is more appropriately included with the other content 
requirements for an objection.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that objections should be 
limited to issues raised in specifically written comments. They believe 
the Agency should have a fair chance to address and document 
significant issues prior to the initiation of administrative review.
    Response: The Department interprets HFRA's requirements to provide 
an opportunity for public comment, conduct a public meeting, and 
facilitate collaboration during preparation of the project as 
sufficient to insure issues surface early in the planning process. 
While it is most effective to the planning effort if issues are 
surfaced early in the process, it is most important that they be 
identified and addressed before the decision is made. Therefore, the 
Department believes it is unnecessary to limit objections to issues 
previously raised in written comments.
    Comment: Several respondents commented that the provision that 
``incorporation of documents by reference shall not be allowed'' 
exceeds what is reasonable. Most respondents to this section 
recommended that the regulation be revised to prohibit incorporation by 
reference of documents outside the existing record. They assert the 
requirement in the interim final rule would necessitate the submittal 
of large volumes of material and could make faxing or e-mailing 
comments difficult or impossible if they could not incorporate relevant 
documents by reference. The respondents contend objectors who have 
submitted certain documents with previous comments on the project would 
have to re-submit them with the objection, even though incorporation by 
reference is a standard writing technique in both the scientific and 
legal professions and is standard practice by the agencies of the 
Federal Government, including the Forest Service.
    Response: The Department agrees that there is no need to receive 
volumes of information already in the project record, but experience 
shows there have also been examples of reference made to studies or 
documents that the Agency could not locate or are not readily available 
to the reviewing officials. The Department has made changes at section 
218.8(b) to list exceptions to the limitation on incorporating 
documents by reference, including Federal laws and regulations, Forest 
Service directives and land management plans, documents referenced by 
the Forest Service in the project documentation, and written comments 
previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the 
project comment period.
    Comment: Some respondents requested a provision that allows for 
third-party intervention during the objection process so that those 
persons who were satisfied with the HFRA project as proposed remain 
involved and aware of possible changes that might occur through the 
objection process.
    Response: Section 218.11 states that all meetings with objectors 
are open to the public. Anyone may attend these meetings and remain 
informed.
    Section 218.9 (was section 218.8 in interim final rule) Objections 
set aside from review. This section defines what criteria allow the 
objection to be set aside and not reviewed.
    Comment: Section 218.8(a)(6) errantly refers to section 218.7(c)(1) 
instead of section 218.7(d)(2).
    Response: This error has been corrected.
    Section 218.10 (was section 218.9 in interim final rule) Objection 
time periods and process. This section describes the time period when 
objections must be filed, how those time periods are computed, what 
evidence will be used to determine timely filing, extensions of time 
periods, and the timeframe for issuing written responses to objectors. 
In addition to the changes made in response to public comment as 
described below, several changes were made for consistency with changes 
made elsewhere in the final rule. Specifically, changes were made at 
sections 218.10(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) to reflect the fact that when 
the Chief is the responsible official notice of the EA or final EIS is 
to be published in the Federal Register (sec. 218.5(c)).
    The description of methods for determining timeliness, listed at 
section 218.10(c) has been changed to avoid confusion. The rule now 
lists four methods of submittal: By mail (that is, sending via the U.S. 
Postal Service), electronic transmission (e-mail or facsimile), private 
carrier, and hand delivery. For the methods listed at (c)(1)-(3), the 
date the objection is sent will be determinative; for hand delivery 
((c)(4)), the Agency's date stamp of receipt will be determinative.
    It should be noted that, in reference to the method listed at 
(c)(1), the term ``postmark'' is a term that only applies to the date 
stamp applied by the U.S. Postal Service, but to be abundantly clear 
and avoid confusion for those who may not be aware of the narrow 
definition of the term, the rule refers to ``U.S. Postal Service 
postmark.''
    Comment: Several respondents commented on the difficulty in 
obtaining the newspaper of record to calculate the end of the objection

[[Page 53710]]

period, asserting that the newspaper of record is sometimes a very 
small local or rural paper that is unfamiliar or has limited 
distribution. Some suggested that the appropriate forest office provide 
a copy of the formal legal notice to anyone requesting it in an 
immediate and timely fashion. Some suggested that the rule require the 
Forest Service to notify the public of due dates. Some respondents 
supported the requirement.
    Response: The approach for publishing the legal notice in the 
newspaper of record is consistent with the Agency practice for 
administrative appeals. The Department believes a consistent approach 
will lead to less potential for confusion and provide the most accurate 
method for potential objectors to know the filing deadline.
    The final rule at section 218.5(b) requires the responsible 
official to ``promptly distribute the final environmental impact 
statement (FEIS) or the environmental assessment (EA) to those who have 
requested the document or are eligible to file an objection in 
accordance with Sec.  218.7(a).'' Participants eligible to object will 
receive the documents and be made aware of the process and timeframe 
for objecting.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that the rule states there are 
no time extensions for objections, yet the precedent has always been 
that in extenuating circumstances the public has been allowed to 
request an extension of the comment deadline. Some respondents felt the 
objection period should be 120 days long.
    Response: One of the purposes of the HFRA is to reduce the threat 
of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and 
encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. 
The time periods were set to keep the analysis process timely. The 
intent is for interested persons to participate early in the project 
planning process and not wait until after the decision has been issued 
to become involved.
    Comment: Some respondents felt that the objector should not be 
required to ensure receipt of their electronically submitted 
objections. They expressed frustration with failures in the electronic 
filing system in various locations. One suggestion was that the Forest 
Service should acknowledge receipt of electronically submitted comments 
or objections.
    Response: As a general practice, e-mail inboxes set up to receive 
appeals and objections are configured to provide an automated return 
receipt; however, as the respondents noted in their comments, these 
systems are not infallible and confusion has sometimes resulted. 
Because the Agency cannot know when an objection has been e-mailed but 
not received, the reference to automated electronic acknowledgement of 
e-mailed objections has been removed in the final rule. A statement is 
added at section 218.10(c) emphasizing that the responsibility for 
assuring timely submittal of an objection is with the objector.
    Section 218.11 (was section 218.10 in interim final rule) 
Resolution of objections. This section describes the objection 
resolution process, including resolution meetings and written responses 
to objections.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that the reviewing officer's 
response should reply to every point made by the citizens; that a 
point-by-point review of an objection should be required. Some felt 
that allowing the officer to only ``set forth the reasons for the 
response'' and consolidate multiple objections to answer with a single 
response will not meet the intent of having meaningful public 
participation.
    Response: It is the intent of the Department that all issues raised 
through objection will be reviewed, although the responses may not 
necessarily address them individually. To clarify this intent the 
wording at section 218.11(b)(1) has been changed to specify a ``point-
by-point response'' is not necessary, rather than a ``point-by-point 
review'' as stated in section 218.10(b)(1) of the interim final rule.
    The provision stating that the reviewing officer shall ``set forth 
the reasons for the response'' means that the response cannot just say 
whether or not the objection will lead to a change, but must also 
explain why. Consolidating multiple objections and answering with a 
single response is appropriate for objections of a similar nature. One 
response to all objectors can be entirely appropriate. Consolidated 
responses allow same or similar issues to be examined and reported on 
efficiently. Duplicating the same response to several objectors is 
inefficient and not necessary.
    Comment: Some respondents stated section 218.10 of the interim 
final rule allows the reviewing officer to give instructions to the 
responsible official that could, in effect, change the original 
decision. This change could have serious consequences that are not 
analyzed in the NEPA document, so this changed decision must be sent 
back for NEPA review and a new decision.
    Response: The objection process provides a pre-decisional 
opportunity for administrative review. There is no ``original'' 
decision and, therefore, no ``new'' decision that could be issued as a 
result of instructions given to the responsible official. The 
respondents overlook that Congress selected a pre-decisional review 
model to encourage early participation and assure that the Agency has 
the flexibility to make changes and accommodations before a decision is 
made.
    Comment: Some respondents commented that there is nothing in the 
interim final regulations to prevent the reviewing officer 
consolidating two divergent appeals, appointing a representative with 
interests quite antithetical to one or the other party, and then 
deciding the consolidated objections based on the participation of the 
appointed representative.
    Response: Part 218 does not state that the lead objector is 
appointed by the reviewing officer. The Department requires, in 
instances where multiple names are listed on a single objection, that 
the objectors identify their lead objector. This requirement is found 
at section 218.8(c)(3) of the final rule. For communication efficiency, 
a lead objector is the point of contact for one objection that has been 
signed by multiple parties. Separate objections from different parties 
may be consolidated for purposes of the Agency response, but are not 
represented by one lead objector.
    Comment: A respondent commented that section 218.10(b)(2) of the 
interim final rule appears to disallow any review of the Forest 
Service's response to objections. This appears to conflict with the 
Inspector General laws, whistleblower protection laws, and the Data 
Quality Act.
    Response: This rule only defines the administrative review 
permitted under the HFRA. It does not affect rights under any other 
statutory or regulatory structure.
    Section 218.12 (was section 218.11 in interim final rule) Timing of 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project decision. This section 
describes when a responsible official may make a final decision 
regarding a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project 
pursuant to the HFRA.
    Comment: A respondent commented that section 218.11 should be 
specific about when implementation may begin.
    Response: The part 218 regulations establish a pre-decisional 
administrative review process as required by the HFRA. Direction 
pertaining to implementation of a decision once it is made will be 
found in the NEPA regulations and Agency directives. To clarify the 
relationship with the NEPA regulation requirements for decisions made 
after preparation of a final EIS, a

[[Page 53711]]

reference to the relevant section of those regulations has been added 
at section 218.12(b) of the final rule.
    Comment: A respondent commented that section 218.11(a) provides 
that the Forest Service ``may not issue a Record of Decision (ROD) or 
Decision Notice (DN) concerning an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
project until the Reviewing Officer has responded to all pending 
objections.'' However, section 218.9(e) states that the ``Reviewing 
Officer shall issue a written response to the objector(s) within 30 
days following the end of the objection-filing period.'' The respondent 
was concerned that the combined effect of these two provisions could be 
to delay issuance of a final decision of the project if the ``written 
response'' is not a decision on the objection and urged clarification 
that a ``written response'' is the final resolution of the objection.
    Response: The ROD and DN are decision documents prepared in 
accordance with the NEPA, are signed by the responsible official, and 
are directly related to the project itself and how it will be 
implemented. The written objection response is the final resolution of 
the objection and is written by the reviewing officer. The objection 
process is predecisional, meaning it occurs before the project decision 
is written by the responsible official. This differs from the project 
appeal process at part 215 where appeals are made after the project 
decision is made. Under this rule, the EIS or EA is noticed and 
distributed, followed by a 30-day period for eligible parties to file 
objections. Objections are then resolved within 30 days through a 
written response, and then the project decision can be signed by the 
responsible official.
    Section 218.13 (was section 218.12 in interim final rule) 
Secretary's authority. This section describes the Secretary's authority 
and establishes that authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 
proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Under Secretary for 
Natural Resources and Environment are not subject to the objection 
procedures of this part.
    Comment: Several respondents were opposed to the exemption of 
hazardous fuel reduction projects proposed by the Secretary or Under 
Secretary of Agriculture from the provisions of this rule saying this 
provision is not authorized by the HFRA and ignores judicial rulings 
including interpretations of the Appeal Reform Act. Some respondents 
felt that fuel reduction projects are in relatively small local areas 
and approval by the Secretary or Under Secretary, in other words, an 
officer several levels above the local district ranger or forest 
supervisor, would be inappropriate.
    Response: Nothing in the HFRA alters the Secretary's long-
established authority to make decisions affecting the Forest Service. 
The Department's position has always been that secretarial decisions 
are not subject to an administrative review or appeal process under any 
of the Forest Service's administrative review systems, and there is no 
indication that Congress intended to make such a change through the 
HFRA.
    Comment: A respondent stated that section 218.12 of the interim 
final rule is not clear because it states that authorized hazardous 
fuel reduction projects ``proposed'' by the Secretary of Agriculture or 
the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment are not 
subject to the objection procedures of part 218. The respondent 
questioned whether it means that a project is exempt from the objection 
procedure if the Under Secretary merely proposes a project but does not 
make the final decision.
    Response: The Secretary or Under Secretary would be the responsible 
official for any authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects they 
propose and would, therefore, be the decisionmaker for those proposals.
    Section 218.14 (was section 218.13 in interim final rule) Judicial 
proceedings. This section describes when judicial proceedings are 
appropriate.
    Comment: A respondent commented that judicial review must not be 
artificially limited, that the scope of judicial review should be for 
Congress and the courts to decide, and that Congress did not create any 
new limitations with the HFRA.
    Response: For purposes of these regulations, section 105(c)(1) of 
the HFRA provides that civil action challenging an authorized hazardous 
fuel reduction project in Federal district court may only be brought if 
the person has exhausted their administrative remedies by using the 
administrative review process established in the Act and part 218. The 
Act also specifies (105(c)(2)) that an issue may be considered during 
the judicial review of an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project 
only if the issue was raised in the administrative review processes 
previously described. Exceptions to the requirement of exhausting the 
administrative review process before seeking judicial review are 
provided in the act at section 105(c)(3). Section 218.13 of the interim 
final rule is fully consistent with the exhaustion requirements 
established by Congress when it enacted the HFRA.
    Section 218.15 (was section 218.14 in interim final rule) 
Information collection requirements. This section explains that the 
rule contains information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR 
part 1320 by specifying the information that objectors must supply in 
an objection.
    Comment: A respondent suggested that this section should also 
contain a stipulation that all Agency records on any of these projects 
must be immediately available for public inspection and investigation.
    Response: Federal regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, Controlling 
Paperwork Burdens on the Public, implement the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 
concerning collections of information from the public. The regulation 
is designed to reduce, minimize, and control the burden on the public 
associated with public information collections. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approves qualifying collections of 
information from the public, and the purpose of section 218.15 is 
simply to disclose that the information collection requirements 
associated with filing objections are subject to the requirements of 5 
CFR part 1320 and have been assigned a control number by OMB.
    The availability to the public of records associated with the 
planning and analysis of HFRA-authorized projects are governed by the 
requirements of the NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), these 
regulations (36 CFR part 218), and the Freedom of Information Act.
    Section 218.16 (was section 218.15 in interim final rule) 
Applicability and effective date. This section sets out the effective 
date of this final rule. There were no comments on this section.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been 
determined that this is not a significant rule. This final rule will 
not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor 
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This final 
rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another 
agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will 
not alter the budgetary

[[Page 53712]]

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the 
rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
    Moreover, this final rule has been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been 
determined that this action 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 Impacts

    This final rule establishes a predecisional administrative review 
process for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects on National 
Forest System lands pursuant to section 105 of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation 
in an EA or EIS ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-
wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.'' 
This final rule clearly falls within this category of actions, and no 
extraordinary circumstances exist that would require preparation of an 
EA or an EIS.

Energy Effects

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of 
May 18, 2001, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' It has been determined 
that this rule does not constitute a significant energy action as 
defined in the Executive order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This final rule represents an information collection requirement as 
defined in 5 CFR part 1320, Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 
Public. In accordance with those rules and the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the Forest Service was 
granted approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on 
December 18, 2003, for the new information collection required by the 
interim final rule. That approval has been extended twice, most 
recently on December 28, 2007. The current approval expires on December 
31, 2010. The information to be collected from those who choose to 
participate in the predecisional administrative review process for 
hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the HFRA is the 
minimum needed for the reviewing officer to make an informed decision 
on an objection filed under the HFRA.

Federalism

    The Agency has considered this final rule under the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and Executive Order 12875, 
Government Partnerships. The Agency has made a preliminary assessment 
that the final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in 
these Executive orders; would not impose any compliance costs on the 
States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Comments received on the interim final rule were 
considered, and the Agency determined that no additional consultation 
was needed with State and local governments prior to adopting the final 
rule.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have Tribal implications as defined in 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, and, therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not 
required.

No Takings Implications

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined 
that the final rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private 
property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on 
civil justice reform. After adoption of this final rule, (1) all State 
and local laws and regulations that conflict with this final rule or 
that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no 
retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will 
not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the Agency has assessed the effects of this final rule on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule 
does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, 
local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the private sector. 
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 215

    Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.

36 CFR Part 218

    Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.

0
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest 
Service adopts as final the interim final rule published at 69 FR 1529, 
January 9, 2004, with the following changes:

PART 215--NOTICE, COMMENT, AND APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL 
FOREST SYSTEM PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322, Public Law 102-381 
(Appeals Reform Act), 106 Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note).


0
2. Amended Sec.  215.3 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  215.3  Proposed actions subject to legal notice and opportunity 
to comment.

* * * * *
    (a) Proposed projects and activities implementing land management 
plans (Sec.  215.2) for which an environmental assessment (EA) is 
prepared, except hazardous fuel reduction projects conducted under 
provisions of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), as set out at 
part 218, subpart A, of this title.
* * * * *

PART 218--PREDECISIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Public Law 108-148, 117 Stat. 1887 (Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003).


0
4. Revise subpart A to part 218 to read as follows:

Subpart A--Predecisional Administrative Review Process for 
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003

Sec.
218.1 Purpose and scope.
218.2 Definitions.
218.3 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to 
objection.

[[Page 53713]]

218.4 Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects not subject to 
objection.
218.5 Giving notice of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
projects subject to objection.
218.6 Reviewing officer.
218.7 Who may file an objection.
218.8 Filing an objection.
218.9 Objections set aside from review.
218.10 Objection time periods and process.
218.11 Resolution of objections.
218.12 Timing of authorized hazardous fuel reduction project 
decision.
218.13 Secretary's authority.
218.14 Judicial proceedings.
218.15 Information collection requirements.
218.16 Applicability and effective date.


Sec.  218.1  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart establishes a predecisional administrative review 
(hereinafter referred to as ``objection'') process for 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 a proposed authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction project on National Forest System land may be 
sought. This subpart identifies who may file objections to those 
proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects, the 
responsibilities of the participants in an objection, and the 
procedures that apply for review of the objection.


Sec.  218.2  Definitions.

    Address: An individual's or organization's current physical mailing 
address. An e-mail address is not sufficient.
    Authorized hazardous fuel reduction project: A hazardous fuel 
reduction project authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
2003 (HFRA).
    Comments: Specific written comments related to a proposed 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project pursuant to the HFRA.
    Decision notice (DN): A concise written record of a responsible 
official's decision based on an environmental assessment and a finding 
of no significant impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 1508.13; Forest Service 
Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, chapter 40).
    Environmental assessment (EA): A public document 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; FSH 1909.15, Chapter 40).
    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; FSH 1909.15, Chapter 20).
    Forest Service line officer: A Forest Service official who serves 
in a direct line of command from the Chief and who has the delegated 
authority to make and execute decisions approving hazardous fuel 
reduction projects subject to this subpart.
    Lead objector: For an objection submitted with multiple individuals 
and/or organizations listed, the individual or organization 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 name of an 
organization. An electronic username is insufficient for identification 
of an individual or organization.
    National Forest System land: All lands, water, or interests therein 
administered by the Forest Service (Sec.  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 organization seeking predecisional administrative 
review of a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project as 
defined in the HFRA.
    Objection period: The 30-calendar-day period following publication 
of the legal notice in the newspaper of record of an environmental 
assessment (EA) or final environmental impact statement (EIS) for a 
proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during which an 
objection may be filed with the reviewing officer. When the Chief is 
the responsible official the objection period begins following 
publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
    Objection process: Those procedures established for predecisional 
administrative review of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
projects subject to the HFRA.
    Objector: An individual or organization filing an objection who 
submitted comments specific to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction project during scoping or other opportunity for public 
comment as described in the HFRA. The use of the term ``objector'' 
applies to all persons who meet eligibility requirements associated 
with the filed objection (Sec.  218.7(a)).
    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) (40 CFR 1505.2; FSH 1909.15, 
Chapter 20).
    Responsible official: The Forest Service employee who has the 
delegated authority to make and implement a decision approving proposed 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to this subpart.
    Reviewing officer: The United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) or Forest Service official having the delegated authority and 
responsibility to review an objection filed under this subpart. The 
reviewing officer is the next higher level supervisor of the 
responsible official.


Sec.  218.3  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 lands 
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 notice, comment, and 
appeal provisions set forth in part 215 of this chapter.
    (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 part applies to both the plan 
amendment and the project.


Sec.  218.4  Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects not subject 
to objection.

    Projects are not subject to objection when no comments (Sec.  
218.2) are received during the opportunity for public comment (Sec.  
218.7(a)). The responsible official must issue an explanation with the 
record of decision (ROD) or decision notice (DN) that the project was 
not subject to objection.


Sec.  218.5  Giving notice of proposed authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction projects subject to objection.

    (a) In addition to the notification required in paragraph (c) of 
this section, the responsible official should disclose during scoping 
and in the EA or EIS that the project is authorized under the HFRA and 
will therefore be subject to the objection procedure at 36 CFR 218, in 
lieu of the appeal procedure at 36 CFR 215.

[[Page 53714]]

    (b) The responsible official must promptly distribute the final EIS 
or the EA to those who have requested the document or are eligible to 
file an objection in accordance with Sec.  218.7(a).
    (c) Upon completion and distribution mailing of the final EIS or 
EA, legal notice of the opportunity to object to a proposed authorized 
hazardous fuel reduction project must be published in the applicable 
newspaper of record identified (218.2) for each 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 authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction project, a concise description of the preferred alternative 
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 authorized hazardous fuel reduction project will occur, 
instructions for obtaining a copy of the final EIS or EA, and 
instructions on how to obtain additional information on the proposed 
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.
    (2) State that the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR part 
218, subpart A, 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 e-mail address, the acceptable format(s) for objections filed 
electronically, and the reviewing officer's office business hours for 
those filing hand-delivered objections.
    (ii) A statement that objections will be accepted only from those 
who have previously