Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is issuing a final rule amending its Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process regulations. These regulations establish the process by which the public may file objections seeking administrative review of proposed projects and activities implementing land management plans on national forests and grasslands. The Department is amending these regulations to consolidate and streamline processes, increase efficiency, and better align with the Agency's statutory obligations and recent rescissions and revisions to National Environmental Policy Act regulations.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64760-64774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 218

RIN 0596-AD69


Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is issuing a final rule 
amending its Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process 
regulations. These regulations establish the process by which the 
public may file objections seeking administrative review of proposed 
projects and activities implementing land management plans on national 
forests and grasslands. The Department is amending these regulations to 
consolidate and streamline processes, increase efficiency, and better 
align with the Agency's statutory obligations and recent rescissions 
and revisions to National Environmental Policy Act regulations.

DATES: The final rule is effective November 12, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua White, Acting Director, 
Ecosystem Management Coordination, 202-205-0650. Individuals who are 
deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may call 711 to 
reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, then provide the phone 
number of the person named as the point of contact for further 
information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Need

Background

    The Department is revising the Project-Level Predecisional 
Administrative Review Process

[[Page 64761]]

regulations at 36 CFR part 218 to reflect statutory requirements and to 
ensure consistency with current National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) procedures. Over the last several decades, Congress has enacted 
laws reshaping the Agency's administrative review process. Section 322 
of the October 5, 1992 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, or Appeals Reform Act of 1992, established a notice and comment 
process and a postdecisional appeal process for certain project 
decisions implementing land management plans. In 2003, section 105 of 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to publish regulations to establish a predecisional 
administrative review process for authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
projects. In 2012, section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
extended the HFRA section 105(a) administrative review framework in 
lieu of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 322 to all projects 
and activities that implement land management plans and are documented 
with a decision notice or record of decision. In 2014, section 431 of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, exempted categorically 
excluded projects and activities from predecisional objection. Congress 
subsequently repealed the Appeals Reform Act in 2014.
    The regulations at 36 CFR part 218 were amended in 2013 to 
implement section 428. Since then, the Forest Service has gained 
significant experience administering the objection process and 
identified opportunities to improve its efficiency and clarity. The 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rescinded its NEPA regulations, 
effective April 11, 2025, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
issued updated NEPA procedures at 7 CFR part 1b. The same rulemaking 
effort to update 7 CFR 1b subsequently rescinded the NEPA implementing 
regulations at 36 CFR 220 for the Forest Service. Because the objection 
process applies to certain proposed actions subject to NEPA, the 
rescission of CEQ and 36 CFR 220 regulations and the revision of USDA's 
NEPA implementing regulations necessitate aligning the administrative 
review regulations with the current NEPA framework. Taken together, 
these statutory and regulatory developments require updates to part 218 
to ensure consistency, efficiency, and legal compliance.

Need for Rulemaking

    This final rule is necessary to incorporate statutory direction 
adopted since the previous revision, update the administrative review 
process to reflect current NEPA regulations, and streamline processes 
to ensure the Forest Service conducts administrative review in a timely 
and efficient manner.
    As described above, section 431 of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act of 2014 exempts categorically excluded projects and activities from 
predecisional objection. The regulatory text in the final rule is 
therefore updated to incorporate this statutory direction and clarify 
which actions are subject to administrative review.
    Additionally, rescission of CEQ and 36 CFR 220 regulations and 
changes issued by USDA to its NEPA implementing procedures render 
existing provisions in part 218 inconsistent with the governing NEPA 
framework. This final rule revises the objection regulations to align 
them with 7 CFR part 1b by adding flexibility in the review process, 
removing references to decision notices for environmental assessments 
(EA)s, and modernizing the Agency's information exchange methods to 
rely more consistently on technology generally available to the public.
    Practical experience since 2013 also demonstrates the need to adopt 
more efficient procedures. The existing comment and objection processes 
add, at a minimum, 120 to 150 days for review of an EA and finding of 
no significant impact (FONSI) and 135 to 165 days for review of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD). This 
does not account for additional time needed for the responsible 
official to respond to instructions, if any, provided by the objection 
reviewing officer. Neither the HFRA nor the other statutes governing 
the administrative review process mandate a specific length for the 
comment or objection periods. The final rule reduces these time periods 
and clarifies how objections are reviewed and addressed to improve the 
timeliness, consistency, and predictability of administrative review. 
The rule also standardizes procedures for HFRA and non-HFRA projects, 
modernizes public notification and document distribution practices by 
transitioning from outdated publication methods to web-based 
notification, and clarifies the authorities of the Secretary and Under 
Secretary to ensure that decision-making processes remain flexible and 
legally sound.
    Collectively, these revisions are necessary to ensure that the 
administrative review process conforms to current statutory and 
regulatory requirements, supports timely and effective decision-making, 
and provides a clear, modern, and consistent framework for public 
participation in project-level environmental review.

Transition Guidelines

    For projects that published a legal notice for the notice-and-
comment period prior to the publication of the proposed rule on 
February 6, 2026, the previous 218 rule shall apply to the entirety of 
the administrative review process. For projects that published a legal 
notice for the notice-and-comment period between February 6, 2026, and 
the effective date of the final rule, and that did not notify the 
public that the project may be subject to the revised 218 rule, the 
previous 218 rule shall apply to the entirety of the administrative 
review process. For projects that published a legal notice for the 
notice-and-comment period between February 6, 2026, and the effective 
date of the final rule, and included language in the legal notice that 
the project may be subject to the revised 218 rule, the project shall 
be subject to the objection process of the rule that is in effect at 
the time the objection period is initiated. For all projects that 
initiate public notice-and-comment after the effective date of this 
rule, the revised rule shall apply. Initiation of the notice-and-
comment period means the date the responsible official published the 
required notice.
    For purposes of establishing eligibility to object under 16 U.S.C. 
6515(a)(3), any scoping period conducted for a project prior to or 
after the publication of the proposed rule shall be treated as a 
`designated comment period'.

II. Summary of Comments and Responses

Overview

    The proposed rule for the Project-Level Predecisional 
Administrative Review Process was published in the Federal Register on 
February 6, 2026 (91 FR 5387), initiating a 30-day public comment 
period. Approximately 2,270 comments were received, about half of which 
were unique comments. One hundred twenty-nine organizations provided 
comments, including eight Tribal governments, sixteen State 
governments, seven local governments, sixteen businesses and industry 
groups, eighty-one non-governmental organizations, and one educational 
institution.

General Comments

    Commenters generally expressed concerns that the proposed revisions 
to the project-level predecisional administrative review process would 
significantly reduce meaningful public

[[Page 64762]]

participation, limit transparency, and increase both legal and 
operational risk for the Agency. Many view the proposed changes as a 
shift away from collaborative practices that have strengthened public 
trust and the durability of decisions.
    Some commenters expressed support for the proposed amendments to 36 
CFR 218, citing the need for a more streamlined process facilitated by 
shorter review periods, page limits, and the consolidation of review 
responsibilities. They supported modernizing public notice requirements 
and eliminating the reviewing officer role, noting that these changes 
may reduce redundancy and increase efficiency. Some commenters further 
observed that prolonged administrative review timelines can affect 
forest health treatments, project costs, and local economic stability.

Comments and Responses

    Comments received on the proposed rule are summarized below and 
organized by topic. The Department's responses follow each comment.
(1) Public Participation Timing and Information Availability
    Comment: Commenters contend that shortened comment periods, earlier 
opening of comment periods (sometimes before the EA or EIS is 
available), and compressed objection timelines do not provide a 
meaningful opportunity for participation. They underscore practical 
constraints (weekends and holidays, internal approvals, and rural 
broadband limits) and the need for access to supporting materials 
(specialist reports, GIS layers, and Endangered Species Act and 
National Historic Preservation Act analyses documents) to craft 
substantive input.
    Response: The Department carefully considered concerns about 
comment and objection timelines and access to information at the start 
of public participation. In the proposed rule, the minimum public 
comment periods were shortened from 30 days to 10 days for EAs and from 
45 days to 20 days for EISs. Recognizing concerns raised in comments, 
in the final rule the minimum public comment period is 15 days for EAs 
and 30 days for EISs, providing ample time for review of analyses and 
preparation of comments. The final rule also identifies that when the 
comment or objection filing period ends on a weekend or Federal 
holiday, the end date is extended to the end of the next Federal 
working day.
    Consistent with Departmental NEPA procedures (7 CFR 1b.7(b)(1)), 
the final rule clarifies that sufficient environmental information must 
be available at the start of the designated comment period so the 
public can meaningfully evaluate the proposed action and its effects 
(section 218.3(d)). When materials are incorporated by reference, such 
as specialist reports, Endangered Species Act analyses, or other 
technical documents, those materials must be reasonably available for 
inspection by potentially interested parties within the time allowed 
for comment (7 CFR 1b.9(e)(7)). For EISs, the NEPA statutory 
requirement, 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c)) to solicit public comments when 
publishing a notice of intent provides a foundation for early feedback. 
The final rule specifies that the opportunity to comment for an EIS can 
be combined with the notice of intent public comment opportunity so 
long as the required minimum information is available to the public 
(section 218.3(d)). For EAs, the comment period begins when information 
is available to inform substantive input. These adjustments made in the 
final rule preserve meaningful participation while maintaining 
predictable schedules for timely, efficient decision-making.
(2) Public Notification
    Comment: Commenters broadly oppose replacing newspapers and Federal 
Register notices with web-based postings, citing concerns about 
transparency, equity, and monitoring burdens across many USDA and 
Forest Service web pages. Many favor a multi-channel approach (Federal 
Register, local papers, Schedule of Proposed Action, email or text 
alerts, direct outreach) to ensure timely and accessible notice under 
shorter comment periods.
    Response: Consistent with USDA's NEPA regulations, 7 CFR 
1b.9(k)(1), the Department is modernizing public notification practices 
to rely on web-based notice rather than newspapers of record or routine 
Federal Register publication for project-level actions. Centralized 
electronic posting on Forest Service project web pages ensures 
information is available in a uniform, timely, and accessible format. 
The final rule also establishes a requirement of direct notification 
using the Agency's current public notification tools (for example, 
email listservs or subscription services) so that interested parties 
receive notice when comment or objection opportunities open (section 
218.3(b)). These approaches modernize communications without reducing 
the public's ability to provide comments in a timely manner. 
Responsible officials may, at their discretion, issue press releases, 
provide newspaper announcements, post notifications to unit-specific 
social media pages, or use other such means to notify local and 
surrounding communities of comment and objection opportunities.
(3) Objection Process and Review of Objection Issues
    Comment: Commenters oppose eliminating the independent reviewing 
officer and consolidating objection review authority with the 
responsible official. They assert this change creates a structural 
conflict of interest that erodes impartiality, accountability, and 
public trust, and increases the risk of litigation. Some commenters 
support removing the reviewing official, stating that the Agency 
official most knowledgeable about the proposal should review the 
objections.
    Response: The final rule consolidates objection review with the 
responsible official who is most familiar with the environmental 
analysis and the issues raised. An independent reviewing officer is not 
required by the statutory authorities for the 36 CFR 218 predecisional 
objection process, including the HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6515) and the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74 Sec. 428). 
Neither NEPA nor the National Forest Management Act requires a higher-
level reviewing officer for project administrative reviews. After 
applying the objection regulations over the last 12 years, the Forest 
Service has determined that it is more conducive to the predecisional 
review and final decision-making processes to have the responsible 
official review the objections as they are most familiar with the 
project. However, in response to comments regarding the loss of an 
objective and independent review, the final rule includes a requirement 
that objection responses from a District Ranger or Forest/Grassland 
Supervisor receive concurrence by an Agency official at an 
administrative level higher than the Forest/Grassland Supervisor where 
the project is occurring before finalizing and posting the response 
online. The final rule also preserves the responsible official's 
discretion to seek an independent review when appropriate, ensuring 
flexibility without imposing additional procedural requirements.
    Comment: Commenters urge the Forest Service to retain a guaranteed 
right to request an objection-resolution meeting, emphasizing that 
digital-only processes can isolate or exclude impacted communities and 
limit meaningful dialogue with responsible officials.

[[Page 64763]]

    Response: The Department recognizes the importance of public 
engagement and the value of opportunities for direct dialogue between 
the public and responsible officials. The revised language removes 
``Meetings'' (previously found at section 218.11(a)) because resolution 
meetings are not statutorily required as part of the objection process 
and often create additional administrative burdens and unnecessary 
delays; however, this does not preclude a responsible official from 
holding public hearings, public meetings, or other opportunities for 
public involvement. Maintaining discretion allows responsible officials 
to determine whether a meeting would be beneficial for resolving issues 
raised in objections without imposing mandatory procedural requirements 
that only result in unproductive delay.
    Comment: Commenters oppose the proposal's expanded basis for 
setting aside objections or specific objection issues from review, 
arguing (1) the proposed rule creates internal contradictions by 
requiring objectors to demonstrate a connection to prior comments while 
also risking setting aside if they restate prior comments; (2) issues 
premised on new information or changes since public comment should not 
be set aside; (3) the proposed rule's handling of supportive objections 
improperly removes a way for stakeholders to preserve interests during 
resolution discussions; (4) added content requirements, such as clearly 
articulated recommendations or mitigation and citing statutory 
authority for mitigation, could create barriers for lay participants 
and increase the risk of arbitrary dismissal; and (5) setting aside 
objections ``as a whole'' could limit productive dialogue.
    Response: With respect to concerns about setting aside objections 
that are a ``restatement of previously submitted comments'' (section 
218.11(a)(4)), the intent of the requirement is not to prohibit 
objectors from referencing or building upon their earlier comments. 
Rather, the purpose is to ensure that objections are not simply a 
verbatim resubmission of a comment letter without identifying specific 
concerns with the proposed decision or explaining how those concerns 
relate to issues previously raised. For example, objectors may restate 
or elaborate on prior comments, provided they identify specific 
concerns with the proposed decision that remain unresolved and 
demonstrate a clear connection to the issues raised during the 
designated public comment period.
    Regarding the concern about issues premised on new information, if 
the proposed decision or supporting analysis differs from what was 
available during the public comment period, objectors may raise issues 
related to those changes (section 218.9(c)). Such issues would not be 
set aside solely because they were not referenced during the comment 
opportunity. This principle ensures that objectors are not 
disadvantaged by changes in the analysis or other new information that 
becomes available after the comment period.
    Regarding supportive objections, the Department acknowledges 
commenters' interest in preserving the ability to express support on a 
project. If supportive comments are submitted, the Agency will include 
them as part of the project record, but will not review them as 
eligible objections. The set-aside provisions are not intended to 
eliminate the ability to express support but rather to ensure that 
objections contain sufficient information for the responsible official 
to understand and respond to the specific issues being raised.
    The Department considered concerns about the requirement to include 
specific information with regard to recommendations or mitigation. The 
final rule clarifies that objectors must provide recommendations and/or 
mitigation, but are not required to include both in their objection 
(section 218.9 (d)(4)(ii)). This requirement is intended to focus the 
objection process on constructive solutions and does not require 
objectors to propose measures that would trigger new analysis beyond 
what has already been completed, nor does the final rule require that 
mitigation cite statutory or regulatory authority. Recommendations 
should be conveyed with sufficient clarity for the responsible official 
to understand the concern and consider potential adjustments to the 
proposal.
    The provision at section 218.11(a) for setting objections aside 
from review is intended for circumstances where an objection does not 
meet the basic requirements for filing, such as eligibility, 
timeliness, or connection to prior comments, and is not intended to 
limit the responsible official's ability to consider individual issues 
within an otherwise valid objection (section 218.11(b)).
    Comment: Commenters generally oppose the use of automated 
artificial intelligence (AI) tools to review, summarize, or filter 
public comments, arguing that automated summarization risks 
oversimplifying complex points, mischaracterizing minority viewpoints, 
and introducing bias. Several commenters also link AI concerns with the 
proposal's ``modernization'' of submission formats and shortened 
comment windows, fearing these changes will reduce meaningful 
participation or exclude those who do not use digital tools.
    Response: The final rule does not authorize, require, or reference 
the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools to review, 
summarize, or filter public comments or objections. Requirements for 
digital formats, such as machine-readable or text-based submissions, 
are intended to ensure compliance with section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, helping ensure that documents are accessible to 
individuals using assistive technologies. Executive Order (E.O.) 13960, 
Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal 
Government, encourages agencies to explore AI tools to improve 
government operations where appropriate and consistent with principles 
of transparency, accountability, and nondiscrimination. Similarly, the 
USDA AI Strategy outlines Department-wide principles for responsible AI 
use. These policies do not mandate or direct the use of AI in the 
Forest Service's objection processes, nor do they supersede the 
Agency's responsibility to ensure that public input is meaningfully 
considered by decision-makers.
    Comment: Commenters oppose the proposed page-length limits on 
objections (15 pages for EA-level and 30 pages for EIS-level 
decisions), asserting the page limits are arbitrary and inadequate for 
complex, multi-disciplinary analyses; would suppress citations, 
endnotes, and evidentiary detail needed for rigorous administrative 
review; and would disproportionately burden Tribes, small 
organizations, and individuals without legal support.
    Response: The objection process is intended to provide a concise, 
issue-focused opportunity for eligible parties to identify specific 
concerns with the proposal and suggest recommendations or mitigation. 
It is not intended to replicate the opportunity for public comment, 
which has a broader purpose and imposes no page limitations (section 
218.3(e)).
    In 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality included requirements 
in its now-rescinded regulations to limit EAs to 75 pages and EISs to 
150 pages, unless the proposal is of extraordinary complexity, in which 
case the page limits are capped at 300. In 2023, Congress amended NEPA 
with the Fiscal Responsibility Act (of 2023) to make these page limits 
a statutory requirement. As the Department is now

[[Page 64764]]

required to meet page limits for environmental documents, it is logical 
to also place page limits on objection documents that have, at times, 
exceeded the length of the environmental document itself. The page 
limits placed on environmental documents necessitate a focus on the 
substantive issues that inform the iterative decision-making process. 
Similarly, page limits on objections help ensure that objections remain 
focused on the issues raised during public comment and facilitate 
timely and efficient review by responsible officials, while providing 
adequate opportunity for objectors to identify specific issues based 
upon previously submitted comments.
    The page-length limits on objections (15 pages for EA-level and 30 
pages for EIS-level decisions) are reasonable based on Agency 
experience distilling objection issues and rationales from objections 
submitted over the more than twelve years since the objection process 
was put in place. Furthermore, page limitations apply only to the 
objection document itself, and do not apply to attachments and other 
documents incorporated by reference (section 218.9(b)). The page limits 
reflect a balanced approach to ensuring both meaningful participation 
and administrative efficiency.
    Comment: Commenters oppose the proposed rule's requirement that 
science or literature must be submitted as an attachment in portable 
document format (PDF) during the comment and objection stages (section 
218.3(h)). They argue that restrictions such as prohibiting web links, 
disallowing CDs or external media, requiring permission-free PDFs, 
limiting file sizes, and allowing only narrowly defined literature will 
exclude relevant science. Many commenters also assert that the cause-
and-effect justification requirement improperly shifts the analytical 
burden from the Forest Service to the public, enables selective 
exclusion of inconvenient evidence, and undermines the completeness and 
accuracy of the project record.
    Response: The final rule does not limit the amount or type of 
scientific literature that may be submitted. Commenters and objectors 
may provide peer reviewed articles, gray literature, Agency reports, 
monitoring data, photographs, and other relevant materials. These 
materials must be submitted as permission free PDF attachments to 
ensure accessibility and compliance with section 508 standards. The 
Forest Service does not accept website links because URLs are unstable 
and cannot be reliably preserved in the project record. Additionally, 
content on websites is subject to change and on occasion the 
information being cited is no longer available at the website link 
provided; therefore, it is in the best interest of the commenter or 
objector to provide a PDF of the website page they are citing to ensure 
content is captured as it appeared at the time it was referenced.
    Requiring commenters and objectors to identify the cause-and-effect 
relationship between submitted materials and the environmental analysis 
clarifies relevance and supports efficient review. The final rule also 
allows objectors to submit scientific literature that was not available 
during the comment period, such as newly published studies or recently 
released data, ensuring that relevant new information can be considered 
without reopening the comment period.
    Comment: Commenters oppose the requirement that responsible 
officials issue written objection responses within 15 days following 
the close of the objection filing period for an EA and FONSI or 20 days 
following the close of the objection filing period for an EIS and ROD, 
and they object to the 5-page limit on those responses. They assert 
that compressed timelines and page limits will reduce the quality and 
completeness of responses to complex, multi-statute objections, risking 
increased litigation exposure. Many also oppose discontinuing mailed 
responses, advocating direct notice to lead objectors in addition to 
posting on the Agency website.
    Response: The objection process is intended to provide a focused, 
predecisional administrative review to identify and resolve concerns 
efficiently before a final decision is issued. The proposed response 
timelines were designed to support timely decision-making while 
ensuring that responsible officials address the issues raised in 
objections.
    The Department acknowledges commenters' concerns that highly 
technical projects or a high volume of objections may require 
additional time for review. To address this, the final rule allows an 
Agency official one level above the responsible official to extend the 
objection review period by up to 15 additional days for EIS- level 
decisions that are highly complex or receive a high volume of 
objections. This discretionary extension provides flexibility for 
certain EIS-level decisions while maintaining the overall efficiency of 
the administrative review process.
    The primary purpose of the objection response is to identify 
objections that were reviewed in whole or in part, those that were set 
aside from review, and any changes that the responsible official will 
make prior to finalizing the FONSI or ROD. Page limits help ensure that 
objection responses remain concise, focused, and accessible to the 
public. Responsible officials may incorporate by reference relevant 
portions of the environmental analysis or other documents in the 
project record into the objection response as needed.
    In response to concerns about the discontinuation of mailed 
objection responses, the final rule requires that objection responses 
be posted on the Agency's website to ensure timely and consistent 
access. Responsible officials have the discretion to provide direct 
notice to objectors through electronic communication or other 
appropriate means.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarity on the ``substantive 
comment'' requirement to ensure it does not exclude non-technical 
participants or experience-based, on-the-ground input from 
consideration by the responsible official.
    Response: The section 218.2 definition of ``substantive'' aligns 
with the USDA NEPA rule at 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53), which defines 
substantive as information that ``meaningfully informs the 
consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts on the human 
environment, the resulting significance determination, decisions on how 
to proceed . . . or compliance with applicable laws, executive orders, 
and regulations.'' This definition does not require technical language, 
formal citations, or specialized expertise. It encompasses a wide range 
of input, including local and traditional knowledge, field 
observations, community-based information, photographs, monitoring 
data, and descriptive accounts.
    Comment: Commenters express concern regarding proposed and existing 
practices that would discount, consolidate, or set aside repetitive 
public input, including objections that restate previously raised 
concerns, similarly worded or form-letter comments that may be 
``counted as one,'' and policies that allow the Agency to adopt only 
one of multiple related submissions from the same signer or 
organization.
    Response: The final rule states that the responsible official shall 
consider all specific written comments but is not required to review 
multiple submissions from an objector that are submitted in different 
formats (duplicates) (section 218.3(g)). Similarly worded and form 
letters are counted as individual submissions and considered, though 
consolidated summaries may be used

[[Page 64765]]

for efficiency of response. The final rule promotes an issue-based 
approach to understanding concerns and identifying recommendations. 
When similar concerns or recommendations are expressed more than once, 
it is reasonable to consolidate and consider the concern or 
recommendation once.
(4) Emergency Situations and Exclusion Mechanisms
    Comment: Commenters assert that emergency situation determinations 
referenced at 218.14 are insufficiently defined and applied too 
broadly, and oppose categorical exclusion practices that reduce notice, 
scoping, and objection opportunities--particularly for fuels and 
vegetation projects that are large in scope.
    Response: The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 provides a 
broad authority to determine that a ``proposed action shall not be 
subject to the predecisional objection process'' because ``an emergency 
situation exists for which immediate implementation of a proposed 
action is necessary'' (Pub. L. 112-74, Sec. 428). The section 218.14 
provision on Emergency Actions clarifies when this authority applies 
while maintaining the ability to use the emergency authority as needed, 
as provided by Congress. In addition to the section 218.14 Emergency 
Situations authority, section 218.5(a)(6)(i) clarifies that the 
project-level objection process also does not apply to projects 
authorized pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 
2021 (IIJA) section 40807 Emergency Situation Determinations or other 
applicable emergency authorities. The IIJA emergency authority is 
defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 6592c) and specific Emergency Situation 
Determinations are declared via Secretarial Memoranda (for example, 
Secretarial Memorandum 1078-006). Even in an emergency situation, the 
Agency continues to provide public notice and maintain NEPA compliance 
commensurate with the circumstances and legal requirements.
    Categorical exclusions (CEs) are exempted from project-level 
objections by statute (Pub. L. 113-76 and 113-79) and section 218 does 
not modify CE scope or create new CEs.
(5) Legal/Policy Alignment and Justification
    Comment: Commenters assert that the proposed reductions in comment 
and objection periods are inconsistent with NEPA's participatory 
purpose and with the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement for 
reasoned Agency decision-making. They further contend that the proposal 
does not adequately explain what they view as a departure from the 
Agency's prior interpretation of congressional direction under the 
Appeals Reform Act, the 2012 Appropriations Act, HFRA, and the 2014 
repeal of the ARA, citing the State Farm and Fox standards governing 
changes in Agency policy. Commenters also allege potential 
inconsistencies between the revised procedures and other Federal 
accessibility and administrative statutes, including the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, section 504, and public-comment provisions applicable 
to FAST-41 projects. In addition, they request clarification regarding 
the relationship between part 218, USDA's NEPA procedures at 7 CFR 1b, 
and the rescission of the Forest Service's former NEPA regulations at 
36 CFR 220.
    Response: The revisions to 36 CFR 218 reflect a reasoned balance 
among public participation, timeliness, and administrative efficiency 
and compliments the public participation provisions set forth in the 
USDA NEPA regulations. In developing the final rule, statutory 
authorities, public input, and implementation experience were evaluated 
to ensure that the objection procedures continue to support NEPA 
statutory requirements for soliciting comments and the Administrative 
Procedure Act's (APA) requirement for reasoned decision-making. The 
authorities cited in the comment on the proposed rule do not prescribe 
specific comment or objection periods, and the 2014 repeal of the 
Appeals Reform Act restored discretion to structure predecisional 
review procedures consistent with HFRA and the 2012 Appropriations Act. 
The Department considered statutory requirements and relevant 
legislative history and determined that the final rule is consistent 
with statutory requirements concerning the objections process and 
provides opportunity for the public to raise substantive issues before 
decisions are finalized.
    Part 218 establishes procedural requirements for administrative 
review and does not alter or supersede statutory obligations under NEPA 
or any other environmental or accessibility statute identified by 
commenters. FAST-41 (``Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,'' 
title 41) provides permitting process coordination, schedules, and 
dashboard requirements for ``covered projects,'' but it does not create 
new or additional comment periods where no other applicable provision 
of law creates a comment period, nor does it create any public 
participation requirement. References in the FAST-41 to processes 
required by the now rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508) are obsolete.
    The final rule is consistent with USDA NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 
part 1b, and the rescission of 36 CFR 220 does not affect the statutory 
basis for the objection process or control the provisions set forth in 
this rule.
(6) Tribal Consultation, Rights, and Cultural Resources
    Comment: Tribal governments and intertribal organizations warn that 
shortened windows and exclusive reliance on website posting impede 
timely, reliable participation and government-to-government 
consultation, especially given seasonal subsistence cycles (Alaska 
Native Interest Lands Conservation Act Sec. 810), internal coordination 
needs, and limited broadband in rural areas. They express concern that 
the reduced comment and objection periods would severely impede 
meaningful Tribal participation, particularly when comment or objection 
periods for multiple projects overlap. They argue changes undermine 
trust and treaty responsibilities and obligations under E.O. 13175, the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Native American 
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). They request longer, 
flexible timelines, direct notice, and assurance that consultation 
comments qualify for objection eligibility.
    Response: The final rule is consistent with the United States' 
trust responsibilities and consultation obligations as specified in the 
comment received. The Forest Service will continue to conduct early, 
meaningful, and ongoing government-to-government consultation when 
undertakings may affect culturally significant sites or subsistence 
practices. The final rule extends the comment periods from those 
proposed to 15 days for an EA and 30 days for an EIS and clarifies the 
minimum information required during the opportunity for public comment 
(section 218.3 (d)). In response to comments received, the responsible 
officials will supplement electronic web-posting with direct 
notifications to Tribes and tailored outreach appropriate to local 
communities, Sections 218.3(b) and 218.8. For objection eligibility, 
section 218.6(b) allows specific written comments provided during 
Federal-Tribal consultation to establish eligibility to object. 
Procedural adjustments (page limits and set-aside clarifications) 
promote concise, issue-

[[Page 64766]]

specific review and do not diminish consideration of Tribal input.
(7) Resource Impacts
    Comment: Commenters express concern that shortened comment and 
objection periods, elimination of review extensions, and limits on the 
length of submissions increase the likelihood that the objection review 
process will miss cumulative or long-term impacts on wildlife, 
sensitive and listed species, migration corridors, aquatic systems, and 
mature and old-growth forests. Commenters note that adequate objection 
review time is essential for Endangered Species Act compliance, land 
management plan consistency, and adherence to E.O. 14072 and the 
Northwest Forest Plan. They maintain that compressed objection review 
timelines would diminish science-based input, reduce the ability to 
verify technical accuracy, and heighten the risk of irreversible 
impacts on resources. Commenters request longer or complexity-based 
review windows and greater involvement of State wildlife agencies and 
other jurisdictional experts to ensure decisions reflect robust 
scientific understanding.
    Response: The final rule maintains adequate opportunity for 
concise, directed issues to be raised to responsible officials based 
upon comments submitted previously, as well as targeted review and 
adjustments by those officials to ensure compliance with federal laws. 
Agency experience, coupled with statutory direction and resource 
conditions, support the procedural changes in time periods set forth in 
the final rule. Statutory requirements are unaffected by the time 
periods set forth in this rule. Agency experience indicates that longer 
time periods do not result in improvement in objection quality or 
depth, nor does a longer time period automatically improve objection 
responses.
    Consistent with 7 CFR 1b.2(g), the Forest Service conducts NEPA 
reviews concurrently and in an integrated manner with all other 
environmental analyses, surveys, and studies required by Federal 
environmental laws and executive orders. This includes Endangered 
Species Act consultation, cultural resource review under the National 
Historic Preservation Act, water-quality considerations under the Clean 
Water Act, and other resource-specific requirements. The procedural 
adjustments in part 218 do not modify these responsibilities or the 
depth of analysis required to support informed decision-making.
    In addition, the National Forest Management Act authorizes the 
Agency to develop, maintain, and appropriately revise land management 
plans for units of the National Forest System. These land management 
plans contain standards, guidelines, and desired conditions applicable 
to project-level decisions. All projects, regardless of administrative 
review timelines, must be consistent with the applicable land 
management plan or must be adjusted as soon as practicable to be 
consistent with the plan (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)).
    The final rule provides ample opportunity to provide concise, 
specific issues (based on previous comments submitted) for review by 
the responsible official to ensure continued compliance with federal 
statutes and consistency with the land management plan. The opportunity 
for public participation in the final rule, coupled with substantive 
provisions included in law, ensure that resources will be protected in 
the context of efficient Forest Service decision-making.
(8) Consultation and Collaboration
    Comment: Commenters are concerned that reduced comment periods will 
curtail meaningful public participation, which could elevate 
stewardship partners' and timber purchasers' exposure to financial, 
contractual, and reputational risk if litigation impacts project 
implementation. They also note that cooperating agencies (for example, 
those monitoring livestock grazing) rely on public engagement to 
identify resource impacts, and that eliminating or compressing 
opportunities to comment and object could reduce public input until 
after decisions are made, pushing conflict into litigation.
    Response: The Department recognizes the importance of early 
engagement with stewardship partners, permittees, cooperating agencies, 
and other stakeholders. These relationships often help identify issues 
early, improve project design, and reduce the likelihood of disputes. 
Nothing in the final rule limits the Forest Service's ability to engage 
proactively with partners before the formal comment or objection period 
begins to discuss the resource issues as well as potential litigation 
risk. Responsible officials retain discretion to share preliminary 
information, coordinate technical review, and work collaboratively with 
purchasers, permittees, and cooperators throughout project development.

III. Changes to the Final Rule

    In response to public comments, the Department is making the 
following changes to the rule as proposed on February 6, 2026.

Section 218.1 Purpose, Applicability, and Scope

    Added a cross-reference to 218.16.

Section 218.2 Definitions

    Updated the definition of ``Recommendations'' to be consistent with 
7 CFR 1b.7(f) and updated the definition of ``Substantive'' to be 
consistent with 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53).
    Removed the definition for Forest Service line officer as that term 
is not referenced in the final rule.
    Updated the definition for National Forest System land to reference 
16 U.S.C. 1609(a).

Section 218.3 Designated Opportunity for Public Comment

    Section 218.3(b) Added a requirement for the responsible official 
to send a notification to interested parties of the designated 
opportunity to comment using the Agency's current public notification 
tools.
    Section 218.3(c) Increased the time to file comments from 10 days 
in the proposed rule to 15 days in the final rule for EAs and from 20 
days in the proposed rule to 30 days in the final rule for EISs. In 
section 218.3(c)(1), clarified that computation applies to comment and 
objection filing time periods.
    Section 218.3(c) Removed the last sentence from the paragraph 
regarding ``Notice of the opportunity to comment . . .'' because it is 
already stated in 218.3(b).
    Section 218.3(d) Added language regarding what information is 
required to be available to the public during the designated 
opportunity to comment and removed 218.3(d)(4) as a requirement.
    Section 218.3(e) Changed ``the designated opportunity for public 
comment'' to ``a designated opportunity for public comment'' to 
indicate that there may be more than one opportunity for public comment 
to establish eligibility to object. This update from ``the'' to ``a'' 
was made throughout the rule where appropriate. In (e)(2) updated 
``national forest(s)'' to ``national forest(s) and grassland(s)'' to 
appropriately include grasslands. This update to reference grasslands 
in addition to forests was made throughout the regulations where 
needed.
    Section 218.3(g) Corrected a reference to ``objections'' when it 
should read ``comments.''

Section 218.4 Projects and Activities Subject to the Project-Level 
Objection Process

    Added ``project-level'' to this section heading to distinguish it 
from the objection process for land management

[[Page 64767]]

plan revision and plan amendments at 36 CFR 219, subpart B.

Section 218.5 Projects and Activities Not Subject to the Project-Level 
Objection Process

    Added ``project-level'' to this section heading to distinguish it 
from the objection process for land management plan revision and plan 
amendments at 36 CFR 219, subpart B.
    Removed text in 218.5(b) that exempted projects from the objection 
process that have already been through ``a previous Forest Service 
administrative review process, or another agency's pre- or post-
decisional administrative review process.''
    Added reference to ``previous findings, or decisions'' that were 
relied upon as not subject to objection review.

Section 218.7 Objection Filing Period

    Added clarification for timing of filing the EIS with the 
Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 218.8 Notice of Opportunity To Object

    Added a requirement for the responsible official to send a 
notification to interested parties of the objection filing period using 
the Agency's current public notification tools. Added a cross-reference 
to section 218.3(c)(1) with regards to calculating objection start and 
end dates.

Section 218.9 Filing an Objection

    Updated language in section 218.9(a)(1) to be consistent with 
section 218.3(g) regarding the acceptable document formats.
    Updated language at section 218.9(b)(5) to be consistent with 
section 218.9(c)(4).
    Updated language at section 218.9(c)(3) to clarify when issues 
raised in objections may be based on new information.
    Updated language at section 218.9(d)(4)(ii) to indicate that 
recommended mitigation included in an objection should include 
reference to statutory or regulatory authority but is not required to 
include reference to statutory or regulatory authority.

Section 218.11 Objections or Issues Set Aside From Review

    Added reference to section 218.9(c) and clarified language at 
section 218.11(a)(4), section 218.11(b)(3), and section 218.11(b)(4) 
regarding when objections may be set aside from review.

Section 218.12 Review of Objections

    Added language to indicate that the Agency official one level above 
the responsible official has the discretion to extend the review of 
objections on an EIS an additional 15 days if the project is of 
extraordinary complexity (NEPA, section 107(e)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 
4336a(e)(1)(B)) and/or has received a high volume of objections.
    Updated the ``end date'' for the objection response period for an 
EA to 15 calendar days from the start date and 20 calendar days from 
the start date for an EIS, unless extended to 35 days for an EIS 
(218.12(b)). Also clarified the computation applies to the time period 
for review of objections.
    Added a requirement a requirement at 218.12(c)(4) that for District 
Ranger or Forest/Grassland Supervisor objection responses, an Agency 
official at an administrative level higher than the Forest/Grassland 
Supervisor where the project is occurring must concur with the 
objection response before finalizing and posting on the USDA website 
(218.12(d)).

Section 218.13 Timing of Finding or Decision

    Updated the time to publish a final FONSI or ROD to ``after the 
fifth business day following the end of the objection period.'' Added 
cross-reference to section 218.7(c) regarding timing of filing an EIS 
with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 218.14 Emergency Actions

    Updated language of this section to reference section 428 of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, which establishes that when 
the Chief or Associate Chief determines that an emergency situation 
exists, the project shall not be subject to the predecisional objection 
process.

Section 218.15

    Corrected the reference to the Under Secretary for Natural 
Resources, which previously read ``National Resources.''

Section 218.16

    Changed the reference to ``administrative review process'' in the 
last sentence to ``objection process'' to be consistent with section 
218.1.
    The Department has also made non substantive editorial and 
clarifying revisions to the regulatory text between the proposed and 
final rule. These changes improve clarity, correct minor 
inconsistencies, and enhance the precision of the rule language without 
altering the intent or scope of the rule.
Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine 
whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and 
will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA has determined that 
this final rule is not significant as defined by E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563 
reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements 
in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce 
uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome 
tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Department has developed the 
final rule consistent with E.O. 13563.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.), OIRA has designated this final rule as not a major rule 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The final rule will update, consolidate, and streamline the process 
by which the public may file objections seeking administrative review 
of proposed projects and activities implementing land management plans 
on national forests and grasslands. Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 
1b.4(c)(20) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment 
or environmental impact statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to 
establish service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or 
instructions.'' The Department's assessment is that this final rule 
falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary 
circumstances exist which will require preparation of an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department has considered this final rule under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et. seq.). This final rule will not have 
any direct effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This final rule will not impose recordkeeping 
requirements on small entities; will not affect their competitive 
position in relation to large entities; and will not affect their cash 
flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. Therefore, the 
Department has determined that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

[[Page 64768]]

Federalism

    The Department has considered this final rule under the 
requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Department has determined 
that the final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in 
this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, 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 has concluded that this final rule will not 
have federalism implications.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal 
implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed 
legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. This final rule will update, consolidate, 
and streamline the process by which the public may file objections 
seeking administrative review of proposed projects and activities 
implementing land management plans on national forests and grasslands. 
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the 
requirements of E.O. 13175 and has determined that this final rule 
could have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. Therefore, consultation and coordination 
with Indian Tribal governments is required for this final rule.
    Tribal Impact Summary Statement: On September 29, 2025, Tribes and 
Alaska Native Corporations were notified by email about the opportunity 
to consult on proposed changes to regulations at 36 CFR part 218. The 
Forest Service provided a National Policy Summary Analysis describing 
the proposal and identifying how its implementation may affect Tribal 
governments, Alaska Native Corporations, and the citizens they 
represent. This information was also available on the Forest Service 
National Consultation web page at <a href="https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/tribal-relations/national-consultation">https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/tribal-relations/national-consultation</a>.
    Input was provided by seven federally recognized Tribal governments 
(Chilkat Indian Village, Chilkoot Indian Association, Tlingit and 
Haida, Hoonah Indian Association, Ketchikan Indian Community, Organized 
Village of Kasaan, and Tulalip Tribes) and by the Great Lakes Indian 
Fish and Wildlife Commission, a Tribal organization representing member 
Tribes in natural resource management. The Tulalip Tribe requested 
formal consultation on the proposed rule, and the Forest Service met 
with members of the Tribe on April 6, 2026, to discuss their concerns. 
On April 17, 2026, the Forest Service met with the Alaska Native 
Council to provide additional information about the proposed rule. The 
other Tribes that provided comments on the proposed rule expressed 
interest in continued government-to-government consultation during 
project planning. The Tribes raised several concerns regarding the 
proposed revisions, including:
    <bullet> Reduced Timelines for Comments and Objections: Concern 
that the proposed rule shortens the timeframe for submitting comments 
and objections, which may not provide adequate time for Tribes to 
conduct necessary research, consultation, and coordination.
    <bullet> Narrowing of NEPA Review: Concern that the recent changes 
to NEPA regulations may reduce the analysis of indirect and cumulative 
effects, placing additional burdens on Tribes.
    <bullet> Removal of Public Notice Mechanisms: Concern that the 
proposed rule eliminates the requirement to publish legal notices in 
newspapers of record or the Federal Register, relying solely on a USDA 
website.
    <bullet> Procedural Constraints: Concern about additional 
procedural constraints, such as page limits on objections and detailed 
documentation requirements.
    <bullet> Federal Trust Responsibility and Consultation Obligations: 
Several Tribes emphasized the Federal Government's trust responsibility 
to federally recognized Tribes and the need for robust government-to-
government consultation.
    <bullet> Digital-Only Notification Systems and Accessibility 
Concerns: Concern that the proposed rule's reliance on digital-only 
notification systems may reduce accessibility for some Tribal 
governments and citizens.
    <bullet> Weakening of Objection Process and Transparency: Concern 
that the proposed rule weakens the objection process by narrowing the 
substance of Forest Service responses, reducing transparency, and 
allowing issues to be dismissed with limited explanation.
    <bullet> Impact on Treaty-Protected Resources and Cultural Sites: 
Concern that the proposed rule has potential impacts on treaty-
protected resources, cultural sites, and traditional use areas.
    The rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 
E.O. 13175, and the Forest Service has determined that the rule does 
not impact the provisions of the E.O., which allows Tribes to initiate 
consultation with the Forest Service at any time. For future projects, 
administrative units will continue to conduct early, meaningful, and 
ongoing government-to-government consultation when undertakings may 
affect culturally significant sites, subsistence practices, or other 
Tribal interests. The final rule extends comment periods to 15 days for 
an EA and 30 days for an EIS, and clarifies the information that must 
be provided to support informed participation during comment windows. 
Responsible officials will supplement electronic web-posting with 
direct notifications to Tribes and tailored outreach appropriate to 
local communities. For objection eligibility, section 218.6(b) allows 
specific written comments provided during Tribal consultation to 
establish eligibility to object. Procedural adjustments remain focused 
on concise, issue-specific review and do not diminish substantive 
obligations to consider Tribal input.

Family Policymaking Assessment

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for a rule that may affect family well-
being. The final rule will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment for the final rule.

Takings Implications

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

[[Page 64769]]

Energy Effects

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

Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Upon 
publication of the final rule, (1) all State and local laws and 
regulations that conflict with the 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), the Department has assessed the effects of the final 
rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 
The final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more, 
adjusted annually for inflation, in any one year by State, local, and 
Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector. 
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 218

    Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the 
authority of the Organic Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. secs. 472 and 551), the 
Department amends chapter II of title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations by revising part 218 to read as follows:

PART 218--PROJECT-LEVEL PREDECISIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS

Sec.
218.1 Purpose, applicability, and scope.
218.2 Definitions.
218.3 Designated opportunity for public comment.
218.4 Projects and activities subject to the project-level objection 
process.
218.5 Projects and activities not subject to the project-level 
objection process.
218.6 Who may or may not file an objection.
218.7 Objection filing period.
218.8 Notice of opportunity to object.
218.9 Filing an objection.
218.10 Evidence of timely filing.
218.11 Objections or issues set aside from review.
218.12 Review of objections.
218.13 Timing of finding or decision.
218.14 Emergency situations.
218.15 Secretary and Under Secretary authority.
218.16 Judicial proceedings.
218.17 Severability.

    Authority: Pub. L. 108-148, 117 Stat. 1887 (16 U.S.C. 6515); 
sec. 428, Pub. L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1046 (16 U.S.C. 6515 note); sec. 
431, Pub. L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5; sec. 8006, Pub. L. 113-79, 128 
Stat. 649.


Sec.  218.1   Purpose, applicability, and scope.

    This part establishes an administrative review process (hereinafter 
referred to as ``objection process'') for proposed actions of the 
Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land 
management plans and documented with a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD). The objection process is the 
sole means of administrative review for qualifying projects (see Sec.  
218.16).


Sec.  218.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this part:
    Commenter. An individual or entity that submits timely, specific 
written comments that meet the requirements outlined in Sec.  218.3.
    Contact information. For comments submitted electronically, this is 
a current email address at which an entity or individual may be 
reached. For comments not submitted electronically, this is a current 
phone number or a current physical mailing address where an entity or 
individual may be reached.
    Entity. For purposes of eligibility to file an objection (Sec.  
218.6), an entity includes non-governmental organizations, businesses, 
partnerships, State and local governments, Alaska Native Corporations, 
and Indian Tribes.
    Environmental assessment (EA). See NEPA section 111(4), 42 U.S.C. 
4336e(4).
    Environmental documents. See NEPA section 111(5), 42 U.S.C. 
4336e(5).
    Environmental impact statement (EIS). See NEPA section 111(6), 42 
U.S.C. 4336e(6).
    Finding of no significant impact (FONSI). See NEPA section 111(7), 
42 U.S.C. 4336e(7).
    Issue. A logical cause-and-effect relationship between the actions 
proposed (cause) and the reasonably foreseeable impacts (effect) on 
resources found in the affected environment.
    Lead commenter or objector. The individual or entity identified to 
represent all other commenters or objectors (for comments or objections 
submitted with multiple individuals and/or entities listed) for the 
purposes of communication, written or otherwise, regarding the comments 
or objections. (Also see definitions for commenter and objector.)
    Mitigation. Constraints or requirements that avoid, minimize, or 
compensate for adverse impacts caused by a proposed action or selected 
alternative, which are documented in a FONSI or ROD and are determined 
by the responsible official, in accordance with statutory or regulatory 
authority, in reaction to the effects described in an EA or EIS.
    Name. The first and last name of an individual or the complete name 
of an entity. (An electronic username is insufficient for the 
identification of an individual or entity.)
    National Forest System land. See 16 U.S.C. 1609(a).
    Objection. The written document filed with a responsible official 
by an individual or entity seeking administrative review of a proposed 
project or activity implementing a land management plan and documented 
with a FONSI or ROD.
    Objector. An individual or entity filing an objection who meets the 
eligibility requirements associated with the filed objection (Sec.  
218.6).
    Proposal (or Project or Activities). See NEPA section 111(12), 42 
U.S.C. 4336e(12).
    Proposal record (or project record). All relevant documentation and 
records, including all environmental analysis documents and comment 
submissions, that contain information the responsible official relies 
on to make iterative decisions throughout the NEPA process or to 
determine if and how the action will be approved.
    Recommendations. Actions the responsible official should consider 
taking based on substantive issues raised to remedy an issue. Actions 
in response to the recommendation may include: modifying alternatives,

[[Page 64770]]

including the proposed action; developing and evaluating alternatives 
that have not been previously given serious consideration by the 
responsible official; supplementing, improving, or modifying analyses; 
considering science or literature that has not been previously 
considered; making factual corrections; or choosing not to take action.
    Record of decision (ROD). A documented determination by the 
responsible official on how to proceed with respect to a proposed 
action and action alternatives that have reasonably foreseeable 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment, as 
described in an environmental impact statement (see NEPA section 
111(6), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(6)).
    Responsible official. The Forest Service employee who has the 
authority to determine: when NEPA applies, what level of NEPA review is 
appropriate, the extent of environmental review, the final NEPA 
finding, and compliance with other applicable laws, regulations, and 
executive orders; and how to proceed for a proposed action or action 
alternative(s).
    Scope. The range of actions and alternatives developed for a 
proposal, or the issues and impacts to be considered in an 
environmental analysis.
    Specific written comments. A written statement that identifies a 
substantive issue that is within the scope of the project or activity. 
See the definitions provided for issue, scope, and substantive.
    Substantive. Information that meaningfully informs the 
consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts on the human 
environment, the resulting significance determination, decisions on how 
to proceed (that is, alternatives to be considered or analyzed or the 
alternative selected for implementation), or compliance with applicable 
laws, executive orders, and regulations.


Sec.  218.3  Designated opportunity for public comment.

    (a) Designated opportunity. The responsible official shall provide 
notice of a designated opportunity for public comment for projects and 
activities subject to the objection process (see Sec.  218.4). EAs or 
EISs for which an opportunity for public comment or an objection 
process has already been provided and that are updated to include 
changes stemming from the designated opportunity for public comment or 
objection review process, or when issuing updated or supplemental 
environmental documents in response to court orders, shall not be 
subject to another opportunity for comment.
    (b) Notice of opportunity. Notice of the opportunity to comment 
will be published on the USDA website where the EA or EIS, or 
preliminary information associated with these documents, is published, 
and the responsible official shall send a notification to interested 
parties using the Agency's current public notification tools (for 
example, email listservs or subscription services). The notice shall:
    (1) Disclose that the project or activity is subject to the 
objection process (Sec.  218.4) unless at any point in the development 
and analysis process the project or activity is no longer subject to 
the objection process (Sec.  218.5 or Sec.  218.15).
    (2) Specify how comments must be submitted (for example, mailing 
address, email address, or web platform);
    (3) State the title of the responsible official to whom the 
comments are to be addressed;
    (4) Specify where the project or activity information for comments 
can be located electronically;
    (5) State the date the notice of designated opportunity to comment 
is published on a USDA website and the dates the designated opportunity 
for public comment begins and ends (see paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of 
this section); and
    (6) Include the requirements for filing comments in paragraphs (e) 
through (h) of this section or include a link to the requirements as 
provided in this section.
    (c) Time to file comments. The length of the designated opportunity 
for public comment is 15 days for a project or activity that is to be 
documented in an EA, or 30 days for a project or activity that is to be 
documented in an EIS, with no extension.
    (1) Computation. The time periods for the designated opportunity 
for public comment and objection filing 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 until the end of the next Federal working day (11:59 
p.m. in the receiving office's time zone for comments filed by 
electronic means, such as email).
    (2) Start date. The date after a notice of a designated opportunity 
for comment is published on a USDA website is the first day of the 
designated opportunity for public comment.
    (3) End date. The date specified as the last day of the designated 
opportunity for public comment, as stated in the notice of opportunity 
for comment.
    (d) Providing information for comment. The timing of the notice of 
a designated opportunity for public comment will be determined by the 
responsible official and should take into account the complexity of the 
project or activity, the context of the substantive issues, and whether 
sufficient information is available for the public to make informed 
comments. For an EIS, the opportunity for comment may be combined with 
the request for comment included in the notice of intent to publish an 
EIS (NEPA, section 107(c); 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c)), and the notice of 
intent may be referenced as the place to find the information for 
comment. The information provided for comment shall include, at a 
minimum:
    (1) A detailed description of the purpose and need and proposed 
action;
    (2) Alternatives, if any, already being considered for detailed 
analysis, with sufficient description to indicate how each alternative 
differs from the proposed action. Discussion may include alternatives 
already considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis, and 
the rationale for this; and
    (3) Issues to be analyzed in detail. Discussion shall include 
preliminary anticipated effects associated with issues to be analyzed 
in detail, and may also identify those issues considered but not 
carried forward for detailed analysis, and the rationale for this.
    (e) Comment requirements. To be eligible to submit an objection, 
individuals and entities must provide the following in writing during a 
designated opportunity for public comment:
    (1) Commenter's name and contact information;
    (2) The name of the project or activity and the name(s) of the 
national forest(s) or grassland(s) on which the project or activity 
will be implemented;
    (3) Specific written comments, along with supporting reasons. 
Commenters should also provide recommendations for the responsible 
official to consider that would remedy the issues raised; and
    (4) Identification of the individual or entity who authored the 
comment(s) and, when multiple names are listed on a comment, 
identification of the lead commenter. Individual members of an entity 
must submit their own comments to establish personal eligibility to 
object. Comments received on behalf of an entity are considered as 
those of the entity only.
    (f) Timeliness. It is the commenter's responsibility to ensure the 
timely filing of comments in accordance with the notice, see paragraph 
(b)(5) of this

[[Page 64771]]

section. Timeliness must be determined by the following indicators:
    (1) The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark for a hard-copy 
comment received before the close of the fifth business day after the 
designated opportunity for public comment;
    (2) The shipping date for delivery by private carrier for a hard-
copy comment received before the close of the fifth business day after 
the designated opportunity for public comment; or
    (3) The Agency's electronically generated date and time for email 
and web-based platforms.
    (g) Submission format. Comments submitted on or via electronic 
external media (such as CD-ROMs or external hard drives) shall not be 
accepted due to computer security policies. If comments from the same 
entity or individual are submitted in more than one format (for 
example, hard-copy, email, and electronically through web-based 
platforms), the responsible official will accept and review only one 
submission at their discretion. Comments submitted electronically must 
be in .doc, .docx, .pdf, or .txt document formats or provided on an 
Agency web-based platform. Documents must not have permission 
restrictions on printing, copying, or accessing text by screen reader 
devices.
    (h) References and attachments. Only the following documents may be 
referenced or attached in comments. Other documents, attachments, or 
website links are not allowed and if submitted will not be reviewed by 
the responsible official.
    (1) All or part of a Federal law or regulation.
    (2) Forest Service directives and land management plans.
    (3) Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the information 
provided for comment.
    (4) Science or literature may be considered if the commenter 
clearly identifies the cause-and-effect issues relating literature to 
the environmental analysis. Science or literature must be included as 
an attachment in portable document format (.pdf) that does not have 
permission restrictions on printing, copying, or accessing text by 
screen reader devices. Website links will not be accepted.
    (i) Comment consideration. The responsible official shall consider 
all specific written comments to identify the substantive issues raised 
and the recommendations made to remedy the issues. All comments 
received by the responsible official shall be placed in the project 
record and shall become a matter of public record.


Sec.  218.4  Projects and activities subject to the project-level 
objection process.

    The objection process applies to:
    (a) Projects and activities implementing land management plans for 
which an EA is prepared, including projects authorized under the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA);
    (b) Projects and activities implementing land management plans for 
which an EIS is prepared, including HFRA projects; and
    (c) Amendments to a land management plan that are included as part 
of a project or activity covered in paragraph (a) or (b) of this 
section, which are applicable only to that project or activity.


Sec.  218.5  Projects and activities not subject to the project-level 
objection process.

    (a) The objection process does not apply when:
    (1) No timely, specific written comments regarding the project or 
activity are received during a designated opportunity for public 
comment (see Sec.  218.3);
    (2) Any project or activity is categorically excluded from 
documentation in an EA or EIS;
    (3) Any proposed land management plan, plan revision, and plan 
amendment is subject to the objection process set forth in 36 CFR part 
219, subpart B;
    (4) A FONSI or ROD is updated to incorporate changes stemming from 
the objection review process or when otherwise issuing an updated FONSI 
or ROD that does not change the Agency's original finding or decision;
    (5) Rules are promulgated in accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) or policies and procedures are 
issued in the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (36 CFR part 216); or
    (6) Authorizing the following:
    (i) Emergency Situation Determinations or authorized emergency 
action under section 40807 of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs 
Act of 2021 (16 U.S.C 6592c(d)) or determinations of emergency 
situations pursuant to any applicable emergency authorities; or
    (ii) Emergency situations pursuant to Sec.  218.14.
    (b) For projects or components of projects that rely on other 
environmental analyses that have already been subject to the objection 
process of this part, the environmental analysis, previous findings, or 
decisions relied upon shall not be subject to objection review.


Sec.  218.6  Who may or may not file an objection.

    (a) Individuals and entities, including federally recognized Indian 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, that submitted timely specific 
written comments in response to a designated opportunity to comment as 
required in Sec.  218.3 and in accordance with Sec.  218.3(e) through 
(h) for a project or activity subject to this part may file an 
objection. Objections from one or more individuals or entities must 
identify a lead objector (Sec.  218.9(d)(2)).
    (b) Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations are also eligible to file an objection when specific 
written comments are provided during Federal-Tribal consultations.
    (c) Federal agencies may not file objections.
    (d) Federal employees who otherwise meet the requirements of this 
regulation for filing objections in a non-official capacity must comply 
with Federal conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 202 through 209 
and with employee ethics requirements at 5 CFR part 2635.


Sec.  218.7  Objection filing period.

    (a) Time to file an objection. Written objections must be filed 
with the responsible official within 10 days following the publication 
of the draft FONSI or 20 days following the publication of the draft 
ROD on a USDA website. The objection filing period will not be 
extended. Computation of the objection filing period will follow Sec.  
218.3(c)(1).
    (b) Start date. The day after publication of the draft FONSI (for 
an EA) or draft ROD (for an EIS) required by paragraph (c) of this 
section is the first day of the objection filing period.
    (c) Publication date. The publication date of the draft FONSI or 
draft ROD on a USDA website is the exclusive means for calculating the 
time to file an objection. The most recent version of the applicable EA 
or EIS may be published prior to publication of the draft FONSI or 
draft ROD, but it must be available to the public at the time the draft 
FONSI or draft ROD is published. The EIS need not be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency, if required by the applicable NEPA 
regulations, until after the objection process concludes, but shall be 
filed prior to or in conjunction with issuance of the signed ROD. The 
responsible official shall ensure the term ``draft'' is included in the 
title of the FONSI or ROD for purposes of publishing the documents for 
the objection process.
    (d) End date. The date specified as the last day of the objection 
period as stated in the notice of opportunity to object

[[Page 64772]]

(Sec.  218.8(b)(5)). Objectors may not rely on dates or timeframe 
information provided by any other source.


Sec.  218.8  Notice of opportunity to object.

    (a) For projects and activities subject to the objection process 
(see Sec.  218.4), the responsible official shall offer eligible 
individuals and entities (see Sec.  218.6) an opportunity to object. 
Notice of the opportunity to object will be published on the USDA 
website where the applicable EA and draft FONSI or EIS and draft ROD 
are published, and the responsible official shall send a notification 
to interested parties using the Agency's current public notification 
tools (for example, email listservs or subscription services).
    (b) The notice shall be posted on a USDA website on the same day as 
the draft FONSI or draft ROD and must:
    (1) Specify how objections will be submitted (for example, mailing 
address, email address, or web platform);
    (2) State the title of the responsible official offering the 
opportunity to object;
    (3) Specify where the EA and draft FONSI, or the EIS and draft ROD, 
can be located electronically;
    (4) Identify the date the draft FONSI or draft ROD was published on 
a USDA website and specify the start date of the objection filing 
period, as determined in accordance with Sec. Sec.  218.7(b) and 
218.3(c)(1);
    (5) Identify the objection filing period end date, as determined in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  218.7(d) and 218.3(c)(1); and
    (6) Include the requirements for filing an objection as found in 
Sec.  218.9 or include a link to Sec.  218.9.


Sec.  218.9   Filing an objection.

    (a) Objections must be filed with the responsible official in 
writing and shall be formatted to be no longer than 15 pages for an EA 
and draft FONSI or 30 pages for an EIS and draft ROD (not including 
documents and attachments as permitted in paragraph (b) of this 
section).
    (1) For objections submitted electronically, a page is defined as 
8.5 by 11 inches with one-inch margins, in at least 12-point 
proportionally spaced font, and single-spaced. Electronic documents 
must be in .doc, .docx, .pdf, or .txt format or provided on an Agency 
web-based platform and must not have permission restrictions on 
printing, copying, or accessing text by screen-reader devices. For 
objections submitted via web-based forms (not uploaded as an electronic 
document), a page is defined as 500 words.
    (2) Objections submitted on or via electronic external media (such 
as CD-ROMs or external hard drives) shall not be accepted due to 
computer security policies. If objections from the same entity or 
individual are submitted in more than one format (for example, hard 
copy, email, or electronically through web-based platforms), the 
responsible official will accept and review only one submission at 
their discretion.
    (b) Only the following documents may be referenced or attached in 
objections. Other documents, attachments, or website links are not 
allowed and if submitted will not be reviewed by the responsible 
official.
    (1) All or part of a Federal law or regulation.
    (2) Forest Service directives and land management plans.
    (3) Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the project EA or 
EIS, or the draft FONSI or draft ROD, that are subject to objection.
    (4) Comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the 
objector during the opportunity for public comment.
    (5) Science or literature not previously considered that was 
published after the designated opportunity for public comment may be 
considered at the responsible official's discretion if the objector 
clearly identifies the cause-and-effect issues relating the literature 
to the environmental analysis. Science or literature must be included 
as an attachment in portable document format (.pdf) that does not have 
permission restrictions on printing, copying, or accessing text by 
screen reader devices. Website links will not be accepted.
    (c) Issues raised in objections must be based on previously 
submitted specific written comments provided by the objector during a 
designated opportunity for public comment (see Sec.  218.3(e)) unless 
the issue is based on:
    (1) Modified alternatives, including the proposed action;
    (2) Alternatives not previously analyzed;
    (3) Supplemental analysis or analyses not previously disclosed; or
    (4) Consideration of science or literature not previously 
considered because it was published after the designated opportunity to 
comment, and the objector clearly identifies cause-and-effect issues 
relating the literature to the environmental analysis.
    (d) At a minimum, an objection must include the following:
    (1) Objector's name and contact information;
    (2) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification 
of the lead objector;
    (3) The name of the project or activity and the name(s) of the 
national forest(s) or grassland(s) on which the project or activity 
will be implemented; and
    (4) Clearly stated issues, and for each issue:
    (i) A statement that demonstrates the connection between the issue 
included in the objection and the issue as it was included in prior 
specific written comments or a statement indicating the issue is based 
on one or more of the exceptions in paragraph (c) of this section; and
    (ii) Clearly articulated recommendations for the responsible 
official to consider taking and/or clearly stated specific mitigation 
for the responsible official to consider (and should include statutory 
or regulatory authority for the mitigation specified) when finalizing 
the FONSI or ROD.


Sec.  218.10   Evidence of timely filing.

    It is the objector's responsibility to ensure the timely filing of 
a written objection with the responsible official. Timeliness will be 
determined by the following indicators:
    (a) The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark for a hard-copy 
objection received before the close of the fifth business day after the 
objection filing period;
    (b) The shipping date for delivery by private carrier for a hard-
copy objection received before the close of the fifth business day 
after the objection filing period; or
    (c) The Agency's electronically generated date and time for email 
and web-based platforms.


Sec.  218.11   Objections or issues set aside from review.

    (a) The responsible official must set aside as a whole and not 
review an objection when one or more of the following apply:
    (1) Objections are not filed in a timely manner (see Sec.  218.10);
    (2) The project or activity is not subject to the objection process 
(see Sec.  218.5);
    (3) The individual or entity submitting the objection did not 
submit specific written comments regarding the project or activity 
during a designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 
Sec.  218.3(e) through (h), unless Sec.  218.9(c) applies;
    (4) The objection is only a restatement of previously submitted 
comments;
    (5) The objection, as a whole, refers to the wrong project, 
activity, or administrative unit;
    (6) The objection does not meet all the requirements of Sec.  
218.9;
    (7) The objector withdraws their objection;
    (8) The responsible official cancels the objection process for the 
project or

[[Page 64773]]

activity or withdraws the project or activity (notification of 
objection cancellation will be posted to the same location as the 
notice for opportunity to object); and/or
    (9) The document is labeled or submitted as an ``objection'' but is 
entirely supportive in nature.
    (b) The responsible official must set aside objections in part (not 
review certain issues in the objection) when one or more of the 
following apply to the issue(s) raised:
    (1) Not within the scope of the project or activity, or is not 
within the responsible official's decision authority (that is, the 
responsible official does not have discretion to change certain aspects 
of the project or does not have statutory authority to require certain 
outcomes);
    (2) Refers to the wrong project, activity, or administrative unit;
    (3) Contains no statement that accurately ties the objection issue 
to previously submitted written comments nor a statement that the issue 
is based on one or more of the exceptions in Sec.  218.9(c); and/or
    (4) Contains no clearly articulated recommendations for the 
responsible official to consider taking, and/or no clearly stated 
mitigation for the responsible official to consider including in the 
final FONSI or ROD.


Sec.  218.12   Review of objections.

    (a) The responsible official shall review the objections and issue 
a single written response that does not exceed five pages. A page is 
defined as 8.5 by 11 inches with one-inch margins, in at least 12-point 
proportionally spaced font, and single-spaced.
    (b) The written response shall be issued after the close of the 
objection filing period; within no more than 15 days for objections 
filed on an EA and draft FONSI, or 20 days for objections filed on an 
EIS and draft ROD. The Agency official one level above the responsible 
official has the discretion to extend the review of objections on an 
EIS an additional 15 days (for a total of 35 days) if the proposed 
action is of extraordinary complexity (NEPA, section 107(e)(1)(B); 42 
U.S.C. 4336a(e)(1)(B)) and/or has received a high volume of objections. 
Following the required concurrence described in paragraph (d) of this 
section, the objection response will be posted on the same USDA website 
where the EA and draft FONSI, or the EIS and draft ROD, are published.
    (1) Computation. The objection response period is computed using 
calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. 
However, when the time period begins or expires on a Saturday, Sunday, 
or Federal holiday, the start or end date is extended to the next 
Federal working day.
    (2) Start date. The starting date for the objection response period 
is the day after the objection filing period ends.
    (3) End date. The ending date for the objection response period is 
the close of business, 15 calendar days from the start date for an EA 
and 20 calendar days from the start date for an EIS (unless extended to 
35 days for an EIS (Sec.  218.12(b)).
    (c) The response shall state the following at a minimum:
    (1) The objections, identified by submitting party, that were 
reviewed in whole or in part (meaning some issues were set aside from 
review);
    (2) Objections, if any, that were set aside in whole or in part 
from review and the reasons for this (see Sec.  218.11(a) and (b)); and
    (3) Changes the responsible official will make prior to finalizing 
the FONSI or ROD, if any, in response to the issues raised or 
recommendations made in the objections that were reviewed in whole or 
in part.
    (4) Concurrence from an Agency official at an administrative level 
higher than the Forest/Grassland Supervisor where the project is 
occurring (see paragraph (d) of this section).
    (d) Where the responsible official is a District Ranger or Forest/
Grassland Supervisor, an Agency official at an administrative level 
higher than the Forest/Grassland Supervisor where the project is 
occurring must concur with the objection response before finalizing and 
posting on the USDA website. No concurrence is required where the 
responsible official is at an administrative level above the Forest/
Grassland Supervisor.


Sec.  218.13   Timing of finding or decision.

    (a) When eligible objections are reviewed. Upon publishing the 
response required in Sec.  218.12, and unless withdrawing the project 
or activity, the responsible official shall promptly make any changes 
as communicated in the response (Sec.  218.12(b)) and, once complete, 
promptly publish the final FONSI or ROD and ensure the term ``draft'' 
is removed. Notification of the availability of the final FONSI or ROD 
shall be provided in accordance with the applicable NEPA regulations 
and also include notification to any individuals or entities that have 
filed an objection, if they are not already included in the 
notification process. See Sec.  218.7(c) with regards to timing of 
filing an EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency.
    (b) When no objections are subject to review. If there are no 
eligible objectors or all objections filed are set aside from review 
(Sec.  218.11(a) and (b)), the responsible official shall, unless 
withdrawing the project or activity, publish a response noting that all 
objections were set aside from review, and promptly publish the final 
FONSI or ROD to a USDA website and provide notification of the 
availability of the final FONSI or ROD in accordance with the 
applicable NEPA regulations. Unless other statutes or regulations 
require otherwise, implementation of the Agency action may occur after 
the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing 
period.
    (c) When a project is not subject to objection. When a project or 
activity is not subject to the objection process (Sec.  218.5), 
notification of the availability of the FONSI or ROD shall be provided 
in accordance with the applicable NEPA regulations.


Sec.  218.14  Emergency situations.

    (a) Circumstances requiring immediate implementation. If the Chief 
or Associate Chief determines that an emergency situation exists as 
described in section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 
(16 U.S.C. 6515 note) or successor legislation and associated 
regulations, and it is necessary to take action for the public 
interest, or to avoid a loss of commodity value sufficient to 
jeopardize the Agency's ability to accomplish project objectives 
directly related to resource protection or restoration, the project or 
activity, or portion thereof, shall not be subject to the predecisional 
objection process under this part, and implementation may proceed per 
the authorizing regulation.
    (b) Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. Determinations 
made under this section shall not apply to an authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction project under title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511 et seq.).


Sec.  218.15  Secretary and Under Secretary authority.

    (a) Nothing in this section shall restrict the Secretary of 
Agriculture or the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment from exercising any statutory authority regarding the 
protection, management, or administration of National Forest System 
lands.
    (b) Projects and activities finalized, authorized, or approved by 
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Under

[[Page 64774]]

Secretary for 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.  218.16   Judicial proceedings.

    Any filing for Federal judicial review of a decision covered by 
this part is premature and inappropriate unless the plaintiff has 
exhausted the objection process set forth in this part (see 7 U.S.C. 
6912(e) and 16 U.S.C. 6515(c)).


Sec.  218.17   Severability.

    The sections of this part are separate and severable from one 
another. If any section or portion therein is stayed or determined to 
be invalid, or the applicability of any section to any person or entity 
is held invalid, it is the Agency's intention that the validity of the 
remainder of those parts will not be affected, with the remaining 
sections and all applications thereof to continue in effect.

Michael K. Boren,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 2026-20890 Filed 10-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre></body>
</html>