36 C.F.R. § 216.3

Notice and an opportunity for public comment

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

(a) Prior to issuing a final directive subject to this part, the Forest Service shall:

(1) Provide notice to the public of a proposed directive or interim directive and provide an opportunity to submit comments during a comment period of not less than 30 days in accordance with the requirements this section; and,

(2) Review, consider and respond to timely comments received.

(b) Notices required by paragraph (a) of this section shall:

(1) Be published on a schedule for proposed directives and interim directives maintained by the Forest Service in a centralized repository on the Forest Service website.

(2) Provide a physical mailing address and an internet address or similar online resource for submitting comments.

[83 FR 13649, March 30, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 2864, Jan. 16, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2012 · leading case: Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 424 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 424 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 216.3 (a)(2). 3 The Forest Service makes three arguments to support its position that implementation of the new trail classification system did not trigger the public participation requirements of section 1612.”

Nat'l Ski Areas Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 910 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 216.3 (a)(2). Here, the Forest Service houses the 2012 Directive in the Forest Service Handbook, not the Manual.”

Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). “§ 216 (c) with 36 C.F.R. § 216.3 (a)(2). The Court had the task of deciding whether the regulations’ distinction and the Agency’s decision not to notify the public about its trail reclassification plan reasonably comported with the requirements of 16 U.”

Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). “§ 216 (c) with 36 C.F.R. § 216.3 (a)(2). The Court had the task of deciding whether the regulations' distinction and the Agency's decision not to notify the public about its trail reclassification plan reasonably comported with the requirements of 16 U.”

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.