36 C.F.R. § 216.1

Purpose and scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part sets forth the process that the Forest Service will use to ensure adequate notice and an opportunity for comment from the public, Tribal, State and local governments, and other Federal agencies with respect to the formulation in Forest Service directives of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Nothing in this Part restricts the Forest Service from providing additional public participation opportunities, including public hearings, where appropriate.

(b) This part applies to the formulation in Forest Service directives of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. This part does not apply to Forest Service directives pertaining to law enforcement and investigations; personnel matters; procurement; administrative support activities such as budget and finance; business operations; and activities undertaken by the Forest Service on behalf of other Federal agencies. To the extent that any other part in this chapter of the Code of Federal Regulations requires greater opportunities for the public to participate with respect to policymaking or the issuance of directives than are required by this part, the other Part shall be controlling.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2006 · leading case: The Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Tom Coston, Reg'l Forester, 773 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Tom Coston, Reg'l Forester, 773 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “The federations argue that the CIP is a “program” under 36 C.F.R. § 216.1 (a) (1983), and therefore, Coston’s failure to carry out the Forest Service public comment regulations with respect to the formulation of the CIP was arbitrary and capricious and without observance of…”

Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 424 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2006). “” 36 C.F.R. § 216.1 (1983). This section was revised, and the definition was eliminated in 1984.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.