SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244) at 36 CFR 294 Subpart B to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System. The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in these areas, subject to limited exceptions.

Since its promulgation, the 2001 Roadless Rule has been the subject of extensive and complex litigation. The rule has been enjoined and reinstated on multiple occasions. Notably, a 2006 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set aside a 2005 replacement rule (the State Petitions Rule) and reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision in California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009). Consequently, 36 CFR 294 Subpart B, as it was originally promulgated, is the version currently in effect, although the text published in the Code of Federal Regulations has not been amended to remove the State Petitions Rule to reflect this judicial history. In the intervening years, state-specific rules were developed for Idaho (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) and Colorado (36 CFR 294 Subpart D) in response to petitions received under the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and Department regulations at 7 CFR 1.28, and these state-specific rules remain in effect.

Purpose and Need for Action

The Department is proposing this rule rescission to reduce regulatory burden and return land management decisionmaking for inventoried roadless areas to local Forest Service officials. In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule established a single, nationwide set of prohibitions intended to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management. Today, the Department believes increased management flexibility in the administration of these lands is needed ( printed page 53828) to better meet the multiple-use mission and provide benefits to the American people. This approach prioritizes decisionmaking by local Forest Service officials informed by Tribes, State, and local communities. As explained below, there is a need to increase local management flexibility and, where necessary, allow for active management to respond to changing and localized conditions, such as increasing wildfire risk, the spread of insect and disease infestations, and the need for community protection in the wildland-urban interface.

Under the current Administration, the Department has refocused policies, programs, and resources on increasing rural economic opportunity, decreasing Federal regulation, and streamlining Federal Government services. Specifically, this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” In Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the President declared that “it is the policy of the United States to fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources” and “maximize the development and production of the natural resources located on both Federal and State lands within Alaska.” Consistent with this policy, Executive Order 14153 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to reinstate the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule that exempted the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the 2001 Roadless Rule. This proposed rescission does not mandate timber cutting or road construction but would relieve regulatory burden relative to management of National Forest System lands.

Rationale for the Proposal

As resource conditions and national policy have evolved, the Department has determined that a single, national blanket approach to the management of inventoried roadless areas taken in the 2001 Roadless Rule constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion needed to meet the Forest Service's multiple-use mission. In addition, evolving national priorities and changed conditions have required more active management approaches. The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service's ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which in turn has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibited cutting, sale, or removal of timber—except when one of a limited set of exceptions applied. Per the Rule's text, the use of these exceptions was “expected to be infrequent” (36 CFR 294.13(b) (2001)). In addition, while exceptions were available, their use was limited and inconsistent due to associated reviews and approvals to demonstrate consistency with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Furthermore, the limited number of roads within inventoried roadless areas and the inability to reconstruct or build new roads to provide the needed access further limit management flexibility. Taken together, the prohibitions have removed important management tools for key areas where there are needs or opportunities to address overgrown and fuel-loaded national forests.

This proposed rescission is intended to return primary authority for determining the appropriate management of inventoried roadless areas at the local level to the land management planning process mandated by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The National Forest Management Act requires that plans shall assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)). The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions. These statutory requirements are implemented through the Agency's land management planning framework, which require consideration of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape and requires that each plan reflects the unit's expected distinct roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation. The land management planning framework ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address, such as ecological integrity (including air, soil, and water), sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), sustainable recreation, scenic character, and protection of cultural and historic resources. At the same time, this planning approach allows for place-based, collaborative decisionmaking that is responsive to specific on-the-ground resource conditions, rather than a “one-size-fits-all” national mandate. While national-level considerations are important, land management planning efforts by local decisionmakers at the national forest or regional scale are best positioned to make decisions about inventoried roadless areas because they understand the unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities.

In 2001, USDA and the Forest Service asserted that a national prohibition was the best means to reduce conflict and potential for incremental impacts to the ecological and social values of these areas. Since then, conditions across National Forest System lands have changed substantially, especially in the Western United States where many inventoried roadless areas are located, with increasing drought, extreme temperatures, wildfire frequency and severity, and insect and disease outbreaks. Alongside these landscape changes, the Agency's land management planning framework has become more adaptive, science-based, efficient, and effective. These changes, combined with evolving Department priorities for active forest management and deregulation, diminish the basis for a national prohibition. The proposed rule would return land management decisionmaking for inventoried roadless areas to local Forest Service officials—giving them the flexibility to address conservation and resource issues informed by input from stakeholders, communities, and state, local, and tribal governments. Local decisionmaking would remain subject to the substantive requirements of the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and other related laws and regulations.

The Secretary of Agriculture has broad authority under statutes such as the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to manage the National Forest System for a variety of uses. Just as the establishment of the 2001 ( printed page 53829) Roadless Rule was discretionary, this proposed rule is an exercise of discretion to determine the most appropriate process for balancing competing values and uses in inventoried roadless areas within that legal framework.

Scope of the Proposed Rule

The USDA proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by removing and reserving 36 CFR part 294, Subpart B. The state-specific roadless rules for Idaho (36 CFR part 294, Subpart C) and Colorado (36 CFR part 294, Subpart D) will not be affected by this proposed rule and will remain in effect.

If this proposed rule is finalized, the management direction for inventoried roadless areas would continue to be governed by the applicable land management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. This action does not authorize any specific ground-disturbing projects. Nor does it require or compel the amendment or revision of any land management plan. When this rule is implemented, the governing land management plan could still include restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in roadless areas within the management unit, as well as management direction that influences when, where and how these activities may be carried out. Further, any future proposals for timber harvesting or road construction within an inventoried roadless area would require site-specific compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws, and would have to be consistent with the governing land management plan. Future projects in inventoried roadless areas will be proposed, reviewed, and approved by local Forest Service officials.

Any State, Tribe, or other interested entity seeking to establish roadless management provisions tailored to specific geographic or resource conditions may submit a petition for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) and USDA regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The Department will consider such petitions consistent with applicable law and policy. Federally recognized Tribes may separately submit requests for related roadless management provisions under government-to-government consultation. Records of such consultation will be retained and may be referenced in future rulemaking. This process ensures that requests for new or modified roadless management approaches are evaluated transparently and in accordance with established rulemaking procedures.

Summary of Potential Impacts

While the Department believes the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule is an important step towards reducing regulatory burden and returning decisionmaking to local Forest Service officials, USDA acknowledges the near-term effects of the rescission would be bounded by existing land management plan direction, as well as operability, budget, and legal constraints. Where plans allow, rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could increase management flexibility for access (roads), vegetation management, targeted fuels treatments, and access for minerals or energy uses. However, management opportunities would be modest and localized. A discussion of the potential environmental and economic impacts is described in the draft Environmental Impact Statement and cost benefit analysis. A summary of key considerations follows:

• Roads. Budget, conservation objectives, and physical resource limits are expected to constrain new permanent road construction. Following transportation planning, roads could be constructed for a variety of administrative or multiple use benefits, though timber harvest or other vegetation management activity would likely create the greatest need for new roads. Any near-term permanent road additions would be anticipated to occur on lands where current land management plans allow them (but where the 2001 Roadless Rule currently prohibits them)—totaling about 18.2 million acres, or 45.5 percent of the potentially affected environment. Temporary roads, if proposed, are more likely to occur on lands within 0.5 miles of existing roads—totaling about 11.3 million acres, or 28.3 percent of the potentially affected environment. Permanent road construction within the same 0.5-mile band is less likely because of costs, terrain, and maintenance obligations.
• Timber. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would expand opportunities for active forest management on lands where both operability and plan allowances are met—totaling about 4.8 million acres, or 16 percent of forested areas in potentially affected inventoried roadless areas. The management flexibility or opportunities in these areas could provide resulting benefits, aligned with land management plan desired conditions, such as improving habitat or reducing wildfire risk to resources. In addition, if annual timber harvest in all those areas occurred (which is unlikely due to budgets, unforeseen limits on operability, and market conditions), it could result in an estimated 5 to 10 percent increase in total annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest and $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry. However, given the small number of operable areas for timber harvest in roadless areas and the large number of variables that may occur, it is difficult to predict the potential impact rule rescission may have on timber harvest. Increased planning flexibility may improve timber sale design (such as more direct haul routes and access to stands that appraise positively). This could lower delivered costs and make some sales more feasible under current plan goals. However, any efficiency gains are expected to be incremental and limited by road costs, maintenance funding gaps, and the $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges.
• Wildfire risk. While greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential in some locations, the 2001 Roadless Rule's prohibitions have limited mechanical thinning options and some fire control tactics in inventoried roadless areas. Substantial acreage within potentially affected inventoried roadless areas has a relatively high likelihood of burning under high intensity conditions that are difficult to manage or could pose a risk to communities, infrastructure, or drinking water sources. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would increase opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments in the wildland-urban interface, where 9.8 million acres (or 24 percent) overlap with inventoried roadless areas, and, where justified, would allow strategically placed roads that can improve suppression effectiveness near communities and critical infrastructure.
• Recreation. U.S. National Forests—including inventoried roadless areas—support a wide range of recreation and tourism activities. These lands are used by outfitters, guides, tour operators, visitors, and the general public for recreational fishing, hunting, hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing, boating, and other recreation and tourism. Under the proposed rule, there could be temporary impacts to recreation and related industry opportunities, including noise, visible infrastructure, and temporary closures. In the longer term, developed and road-based recreation could expand through development of some new permanent roads, though this expansion ( printed page 53830) is uncertain and anticipated to be limited due to land management plans, budget, and resources. This expansion could increase road-based recreation and accessibility improvements but would result in tradeoffs with opportunities for quiet, remote and self-reliant recreation and may increase user conflicts and result in lost economic benefits. Losses in economic benefit to recreationists are most likely to be associated with the operable areas of current IRAs and could be an estimated $6.1 million annually.
• Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing. Given the small amount of operable areas for timber harvest in roadless areas, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant change to the commercial fishing or fish-processing industries. Any changes in the long term to land management plans could result in effects to commercial fisheries if resource conditions are affected.
• Minerals and Energy. Locatable mineral exploration and development is generally accompanied by an access right, and therefore, there are no anticipated changes based on the proposed rule. Under this proposed rule, there is additional flexibility for potential future leasable mineral development (primarily oil, gas, and coal) opportunities and it is reasonably foreseeable that some development could occur in potentially affected inventoried roadless areas, resulting in associated costs and benefits. However, it is anticipated that there would be no net change, relative to baseline conditions, in domestic leasable production under the proposed rule for domestic oil, gas, and coal production.

Although the estimated annual economic effects span a wide range, the additional impacts associated with the proposed rule could exceed $100 million. Some industries, including recreation and tourism, could experience trade-offs as a result of the proposed rule. The cost benefit analysis discusses potential industry impacts in more detail for timber, recreation (including tourism), commercial fishing and seafood processing, minerals and energy. The Department is interested in comments on the baselines and range of impacts expected from the proposed rule across relevant industries, and additional data that demonstrates whether these industries would experience direct effects or distributional effects or both, with a description of the data and analytic methods used to determine these effects.

Local responsible officials (forest supervisors and regional foresters) would continue to have discretion to amend or revise a land management plan. If the proposed rule were finalized, subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed, resulting in additional management opportunities or impacts beyond those summarized above. While changes to land management plans are beyond the scope of the proposed rule, USDA nevertheless requests comment and estimates on baselines and range of impacts considering subsequent potential changes in land management plans.

Public Involvement

On August 29, 2025, the USDA published in the Federal Register a notice of intent (90 FR 42179) to prepare an environmental impact statement and rulemaking concerning the management of inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. During a 21-day public comment period, the USDA received more than 220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals and organizations. Public comments received during the comment period helped inform the development of alternatives to the proposed rule and analysis of potential environmental impacts in the draft environmental impact statement.

The USDA invites comments on all aspects of this rulemaking, including the alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement, the expected economic costs and benefits, any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal, and any additional costs and benefits. Comments received during the comment period on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement will be considered in developing a final rule and supporting analyses.

Consistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810, the Forest Service will hold public subsistence hearings to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed rule on subsistence uses in Alaska. These hearings provide an opportunity for affected communities and individuals to share input on how rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule may influence subsistence activities, including access to resources and traditional practices. Details regarding the dates, times, and locations of these hearings will be announced in a subsequent notice and posted on the Forest Service's website at www.fs.usda.gov/​managing-land/​planning/​roadless. Interested parties may also contact the Forest Service for additional information or to request accommodations for participation. The Forest Service encourages all interested individuals, Tribes, and organizations to attend these hearings and provide input. Comments received during the hearings will be considered in the development of the final rule and supporting analyses.

Petition for Rulemaking

During the public comment period on the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for this rulemaking, the Department received a petition for rulemaking from a resident of the State of Alaska, requesting review and potential amendment or repeal of regulations implementing the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule as applied to Alaska. The petitioner asserts that existing Federal statutes guarantee access rights to timber supply and for road construction that are inconsistent with a nationwide prohibition on road building. The petition further requests that any future roadless regulation recognize statutory rights of access for statehood lands, valid existing rights, mining claims, and inholdings, and exclude areas where roads already exist. The petition is included in the project record, and the Department is considering these issues as part of this rulemaking.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order (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. This proposed rule has been determined to be economically significant under E.O. 12866 section 3(f)(1). 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 proposed rule consistent with E.O. 13563.

National Environmental Policy Act

On August 29, 2025, the USDA published in the Federal Register a notice of intent (90 FR 42179) to prepare an environmental impact statement and rulemaking concerning the management of inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. The comments received helped inform the development of alternatives in the draft ( printed page 53831) environmental impact statement to the proposed rule.

Accompanying the proposed rule, the USDA has prepared a draft environmental impact statement that discloses the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed rule and its alternatives. All documents, including the proposed rule and other supporting information, may be found at www.regulations.gov, under docket number FS-2025-0001, or on the following website: www.fs.usda.gov/​managing-land/​planning/​roadless.

This draft environmental impact statement is also being published to facilitate comments on the proposal and alternatives in accordance with Department regulations (7 CFR 1b.7(n)). The USDA invites written electronic comments on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement per the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section above. Substantive comments received will be published electronically and will be considered in developing the final environmental impact statement and final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been considered in light of E.O. 13272 that addresses the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended, which requires agencies to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic effect of a proposed or final rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Furthermore, section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is not expected to impose any direct requirements or compliance obligations on small entities. Further, this rule is intended to remove a redundant layer of regulation. The Department nevertheless has considered the effects of the proposed rule on small entities and prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis. The analysis can be found at www.regulations.gov, under docket number FS-2025-0001, or on the following website: www.fs.usda.gov/​managing-land/​planning/​roadless. The Forest Service is directly affected by this rulemaking and is not a small entity. The proposed rule imposes no costs or recordkeeping requirements on small entities; nor does it seek to impose any direct regulatory restrictions on any small entities. A number of small and large entities may experience greater flexibility under the proposed rule or otherwise benefit from it. In consideration of the facts and analysis set forth in the regulatory flexibility analysis prepared by the Forest Service, the undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Federalism

The Department has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Department has determined that the proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O., would not impose compliance costs on the States, and would 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 proposed rule would 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. While Section I(B) of the Office of Management and Budget memorandum on Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions (M-25-36, October 21, 2025) states that rescinding a regulation does not inherently require consultation, the Department has determined that removing and reserving 36 CFR part 294 Subpart B would 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 and therefore warrants consultation under E.O. 13175. Accordingly, the U.S. Forest Service will coordinate with the Department's Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation occurs, and the remainder of this section summarizes Tribal engagements and input received to date.

Tribal Consultation and Collaboration

On July 22, 2025, the Forest Service notified Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations of the opportunity to consult on the rulemaking to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, with a summary analysis of proposed changes and an invitation to a Tribal forum engagement session. This information was also emailed to Regional Foresters on July 25, 2025. The Forest Service Office of Tribal Relations held a Tribal forum engagement session on August 5, 2025.

To date, the Forest Service received 64 requests for consultation, 34 consultations have been scheduled, and 29 consultations have been held. Tribal consultations were held either in person or virtually with local or regional Forest Service line officers serving as consulting officials. Some Tribes submitted letters in lieu of, or in addition to, consultations. Consultations will be ongoing throughout the rulemaking process, and a final Tribal Impact Summary Statement will be included with the final rule. In addition, many Tribes submitted comment letters during the public comment period on the notice of intent published on August 29, 2025. The comment letters received from Tribes or Tribal organizations during the comment period (via hardcopy or the regulations.gov comment portal) were included in the public comment summary and considered in the development of the draft environmental impact statement and proposed rule. The summary below includes the input received to date through the consultation process.

Tribal Input Received

The majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule, viewing it as a threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands. Support for the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule was received from an Alaska Native Corporation, which asserted that the national rule limits their economic and legal rights to access and develop lands. According to the majority Tribal sentiment, a central procedural concern is the Federal Government's failure to fulfill its trust responsibilities by proceeding without adequate government-to-government consultation. Tribes consistently argued that removing this layer of national ( printed page 53832) protection shifts the unsustainable burden of project-level review onto their limited resources and exposes previously untouched areas to industrial activity, mining interests, and destructive recreational access, all of which threaten sacred sites, traditional gathering areas, water quality, and subsistence resources. Proposed alternatives that were frequently requested included retaining the existing rule (“No Action”) or establishing new co-management structures, such as a “Strengthened Roadless Rule Alternative” or a “Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule” that integrates Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Tribal co-stewardship, and Tribal consent for major decisions. For ancestral lands in Alaska, representatives stressed the need for a comprehensive ANILCA Section 810 subsistence analysis prior to any decision and noted the global climate significance of the forest as a critical carbon sink.

A complete Tribal summary impact statement may be found at www.regulations.gov, under docket number FS-2025-0001, or on the following website: www.fs.usda.gov/​managing-land/​planning/​roadless.

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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule.

Takings Implications

The Department has analyzed the proposed 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 proposed rule would not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

Energy Effects

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

Civil Justice Reform

The Department has analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Upon publication of the proposed rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with the proposed rule or that impede its full implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of the proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation, in any 1 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 proposed 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.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture proposes to amend part 294 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 294 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 205.

2. Remove and reserve subpart B, consisting of §§ 294.10 through 294.18.

91 FR 53827