41336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

is soliciting comments on its proposal to

change the voluntary United States

Standards for Beans. Specifically,

GIPSA is proposing to change the name

of the class Black Turtle Soup beans to

Black beans and to establish a separate

grade chart for Cranberry beans. These

changes have been requested by the

industry in order to improve the

usability of the voluntary United States

Standards for Beans.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

submitted to Sharon Vassiliades at

GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3649, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250–3649; faxed to

(202) 720–4628; or e-mailed to

svassili@fgisdc.usda.gov.

All comments received will be made

available for public inspection at the

above address during regular business

hours (8 a.m.—3:30 p.m.).

The current United States Standards

for Beans, along with the proposed

changes, is available either through the

above addresses or by accessing GIPSA’s

Home Page on the Internet at:

www.usda.gov/gipsa/strulreg/standard/

beans.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Sharon Vassiliades at (202)

720–1738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act

of 1946, as amended, directs and

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture

‘‘to develop and improve standards of

quality, condition, quantity, grade, and

packaging and recommend and

demonstrate such standards in order to

encourage uniformity and consistency

in commercial practices* * *’’ The

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is

committed to carrying out this authority

in a manner that facilitates the

marketing of agricultural commodities

and makes copies of official standards

available upon request. The United

States Standards for Beans do not

appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations but are maintained by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is

proposing to change the United States

Standards for Beans using the

procedures it published in the Federal

Register on February 13, 1997 (62 FR

6705). Specifically, GIPSA is proposing

to change the name of the class Black

Turtle Soup beans to Black beans and to

establish a separate grade chart for

Cranberry beans.

In June 1995, the Michigan Bean

Commission and the Michigan Bean

Shippers Association requested that the

U.S. Standards for Beans be revised to

establish a separate grade chart for

Cranberry beans. Currently, the grades

and grade requirements for Cranberry

and Yelloweye beans are shown

together on one chart. These groups also

asked that the class Black Turtle Soup

beans be renamed as Black beans.

Cranberry beans are grown

predominately in Michigan.

Traditionally, most Cranberry beans

have been exported to Italy. The

Cranberry bean market has expanded,

and these beans are now being shipped

in volume to Spain, Portugal, and other

Mediterranean countries. As commerce

has grown, acreage has increased to

include parts of Minnesota and North

Dakota. To ensure continued market

stability, U.S. producers and shippers

need more precise export tonnage

information. Currently, the Department

of Commerce combines Cranberry and

Yelloweye bean export information into

one database. Establishing a separate

grade chart for Cranberry beans will

enable the Department of Commerce to

develop a separate database for

Cranberry beans.

Michigan is also the primary producer

of Black Turtle Soup beans. These beans

are commonly known in the United

States, and throughout the world, as

Black beans. According to the Michigan

Bean Commission and the Michigan

Bean Shippers Association, ‘‘The Black

bean has been saddled with the illadvised, meaningless, and in many

circles, derogatory label ‘Black Turtle

Soup’ bean too long.’’ These groups feel

that the U.S. class designation, Black

Turtle Soup bean, is confusing to

potential Black bean buyers. For this

reason, the U.S. bean industry strongly

favors renaming the class Black Turtle

Soup beans as Black beans.

Accordingly, GIPSA has determined

that establishing a separate grade chart

for Cranberry beans and renaming the

class Black Turtle Soup beans as Black

beans will improve the usability of U.S.

Standards for Beans.

These standard changes were

recommended to us and reviewed by the

affected trade. Therefore, GIPSA is

publishing this notice with a 30-day

comment period which will provide a

sufficient amount of time for interested

persons to comment on changes to the

standards.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.

Dated: July 24, 1997.

James R. Baker,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20100 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Jackson County Water

Association, Jackson County Lake

Project and Notice of Public Scoping

Meeting

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of

meeting.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS), announces its intent to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508) and

Agency regulations 7 CFR 1940–G. The

primary scope of the EIS is to evaluate

the environmental impacts of and

alternatives to the Jackson County Water

Association’s applications for financial

assistance to provide water supply for

the residents of Jackson and

surrounding counties. This project,

known as the Jackson County Lake

(Project), is one of the initiatives

developed for the Kentucky Highlands

Empowerment Zone. The project

proposes to construct a 115 foot tall dam

on the Laurel Fork of the Rockcastle

River in Jackson County, Kentucky

creating a 640 acre lake, storing

approximately 28,440 acre feet of water.

Included in the proposal is a raw water

intake, pumps, water treatment plant

upgrade from 1.0 million gallons per

day (MGD) to 2.0 MGD, and pipelines

necessary for transporting raw water to

the Jackson County Water Association’s

water treatment plant for treatment and

distribution to residents in Jackson

County and portions of Lee, Madison,

Owsley, and Rockcastle Counties. In

addition to improving the water supply

of the areas specified above, the Project

will serve to meet a stated goal of the

Kentucky Highland Empowerment

Zone’s Strategic Plan for increasing

local recreational and tourism

opportunities in the Jackson County

area.

The RUS has received two preapplications from the Jackson County
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41337

Water Association for the (1) Phase IV

Water Plant Expansion Project and (2)

Jackson County Lake Project. The first

application requests financial assistance

solely from RUS and the second

application requests financial assistance

from the RUS, Appalachian Region

Commission, Kentucky Department of

Transportation, Kentucky Highland

Empowerment Zone, and Housing and

Urban Development (HUD). In

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5, Lead

Agencies, the RUS will be the lead

Agency for the EIS and under

consideration and negotiation for

cooperating agencies are the U.S. Forest

Service; the Department of the Army,

Corps of Engineers, Nashville District;

Jackson County EZ Community,

Incorporated; and the Jackson County

Water Association, as recipient for

Community Development Block Grant

funds. Since the activities encompassed

by both applications are so

interconnected, the Project shall be, for

the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act, considered

as one action.

With this notice, RUS invites any

affected Federal, State, and local

Agencies and other interested persons to

comment on the scope, alternatives, and

significant issues to be analyzed in

depth in the EIS. The public scoping

meeting will be held on August 21,

1997, at the Jackson County Courthouse,

McKee, KY, at 7:00 pm.

Public participation is an integral

component of the environmental review

process for Federal actions. Public

participation will be especially

important during the scoping phase of

the project. RUS and the cooperating

agencies will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, and local agencies and other

individuals who may be interested in or

affected by the proposed action. This

input will be used in preparing the draft

EIS. Comments submitted during the

scoping process should be in writing.

The comments should describe as

clearly and completely as possible any

issues the commenter has with the

proposal.

The draft EIS (DEIS) will be filed with

the U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and will be available

for public comment by the Summer or

Fall of 1998. At that time, the USEPA

will publish a notice of the availability

of the DEIS in the Federal Register and

the applicant and EZ officials will

publish notices in local newspapers.

The comment period will be 45 days

from the date the USEPA publishes their

Federal Register notice of the

availability of the DEIS.

RUS and the cooperating agencies,

believe it is important to give reviewers

notice of several court rulings related to

public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of the DEIS must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts the agencies to

the reviewer’s position and contentions,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC. 435 U.S. 519. 553(1978). Also

environmental objections that could be

raised at the DEIS stage but that are not

raised until after the completion of the

final EIS may be waived or dismissed by

the courts, City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

F. 2d 1016 1022 (9th Circuit, 1986) and

Wisconsin Hertitage, Inc. v. Harris, 490

F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.Wis. 1980).

Because of these court rulings, it is very

important that those interested in this

proposed action participate at each

opportunity for public involvement so

that substantive comments and

objectives are made available to the

Federal agencies involved at a time

when they can meaningfully consider

them and respond to them accordingly.

To assist the involved Federal

agencies in identifying and considering

issues and concerns on the proposed

action, comments on the DEIS should be

as specific as possible. It is also helpful

if the comments refer to the specific

pages or chapters of the DEIS.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of

the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statement. Reviewers

may wish to refer to the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points.

After the comment period ends on the

DEIS, the comments will be analyzed,

considered, and responded to by the

agencies involved in preparing the final

EIS (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be

completed approximately 30 days after

the end of the comment period on the

DEIS. The public will again have the

opportunity to review and comment on

the FEIS. Upon completion of a 45 day

public comment period, the RUS will

document its decision regarding the

Project and reasons for the decision in

a Record of Decision.

Those persons who choose not to

comment on the scope of the document

at this time but desire a copy of the

DEIS should send their names and

addresses to Mark S. Plank at the

address listed below.

DATES: Written comments on the scope

of the EIS will be accepted 15 days after

the public scoping meeting is held.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Mark S. Plank, USDA, Rural Utilities

Service, Engineering and Environmental

Staff, Stop 1571, Washington, D.C.,

20250–1571, telephone (202) 720–1649

or fax (202) 720–0820 or Thomas G.

Fern, State Director, USDA, Rural

Development State Office, 771

Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington,

KY 40503, (606) 224–7300 or fax (606)

224–7340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Letcher, Vernon Brown, or Ken Slone,

USDA, Rural Development State Office,

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200,

Lexington, KY 40503, (606) 224–7300 or

Mark S. Plank, at the address and

telephone number above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Subchapter C, Part I (Empowerment

Zones, Enterprise Communities and

Rural Development Investment Areas) of

Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993, Jackson

County, Kentucky, is located in an area

designated as an Empowerment Zone/

Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) (see

Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 24,

February 6, 1995). The purpose of the

EZ/EC initiative is to empower rural

communities and their residents to

create opportunities for economic

development as part of a Federal-Statelocal and private sector partnership. The

proposed action is an integral

component of the EZ/EC initiative as

identified in the Kentucky Highland

Empowerment Zone’s Strategic Plan.

The proposed action will improve the

area’s water supply necessary for

promoting economic development in

the area. At the present time the water

supply for the area consists of the

existing Tyner Lake. Water withdrawals

from Tyner Lake are at near capacity

and raw water emergency situations

occur during periods of low rainfall.

Prior to submitting applications to

RUS and other Federal and state

agencies for financial assistance, local

and Jackson County Empowerment

Zone officials held a series of public

meetings exploring alternative project

sites for the Project, which has been an

ongoing proposal since the early to mid

1980s. Project sites that have been at

one time or another considered are as

follows: Horse Lick Site No. 1; Laurel

Fork/Indian Creek Site No. 1; Laurel

Fork/Highway 290 Bridge Site No. 2;

War Fork Site No. 1; War Fork/Hughes

Fork Site No. 2; South Fork/ Highway

89 Site No. 4 (small lake); South Fork/

Highway 89 Bridge Site No. 4 (large

lake); South Fork/War Fork Site No. 3A
41338 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

(small lake); and South Fork/War Fork

No. 3A (large lake). Preliminary studies

concluded that the Horse Lick and

Water Fork watershed should be

preserved due to environmental

sensitivities. Of the sites previously

considered, local officials are proposing

that the preferred alternative sites for an

impoundment structure are located

within the Laurel Fork watershed. There

are two primary dam sites to be

considered—(1) Laurel Fork near the

confluence with Indian Creek and (2)

Laurel Fork near the Highway 290

Bridge. The EIS proposes to document

the extensive analyses already

performed and evaluate in detail the

two sites that have been designated as

preferred alternatives by local officials.

Which ever site is chosen, the applicant

and Empowerment Zone officials will

be required to secure a construction

permit from the Kentucky Department

for Environmental Protection, Division

of Waters and a Section 10, Rivers and

Harbor Act permit from the Department

of the Army, Corps of Engineers.

Dick Mansfield,

Assistant Administrator, Water and

Environmental Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–20336 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Additions to the procurement

list.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List commodities and

service to be furnished by nonprofit

agencies employing persons who are

blind or have other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403,

1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 21, June 6 and 13, 1997, the

Committee for Purchase From People

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

published notices (62 F.R. 8003, 31065

and 32288) of proposed additions to the

Procurement List.

The following comments pertain to

Strap, Webbing (5340–01–114–7712):

Comments were received from the

current contractor for this webbing strap

and from another manufacturer of

webbing straps. The current contractor

indicated that addition of the strap to

the Procurement List would have a

severe adverse impact on the company

because of the loss of tooling and

equipment costs and possible loss of

jobs in a firm that had recently

substantially reduced its manufacturing

staff. The other manufacturer objected to

the Committee removing from the

competitive marketplace yet another

Government item it considers itself

capable of making.

This strap represents a very small

percentage of the current contractor’s

total sales. Tooling and equipment costs

are a business decision a contractor

undertakes to get specific business.

Because no company is guaranteed

continuing contracts under the

Government’s competitive bidding

system, the contractor could lose this

investment even if the Committee did

not add the strap to the Procurement

List. While the contractor noted that it

had reduced its staff recently, it did not

indicate that its sales, which expanded

considerably over the past decade, had

fallen to the point that this contract

represented a significant portion of its

business. In addition, the Committee

has been advised by the contracting

activity that there is a substantial

amount of other webbing strap business

that has not been placed on the

Procurement List, which represents

potential business for the current

contractor and other commercial firms.

For all these reasons, the Committee has

concluded that addition of the strap to

the Procurement List will not have a

severe adverse impact on the current

contractor.

The Committee does not consider loss

of the opportunity to bid on

Government procurements of an item

for which a bidder does not hold a

contract to constitute severe adverse

impact on a company, because the

company would lose only the hope of

getting a contract and not actual

business. While the commenting

manufacturer has been raising the same

argument periodically with the

Committee for many years, it has not

been able to show actual impact on its

business from Procurement List

additions where it has not been the

current contractor. Moreover, as noted

above, a large number of webbing straps

remain available for the commenting

manufacturer to compete to supply.

Consequently, the Committee has

concluded that addition of this webbing

strap to the Procurement List will not

have a severe adverse impact on the

commenting manufacturer.

After consideration of the material

presented to it concerning capability of

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide

the commodities and service and impact

of the additions on the current or most

recent contractors, the Committee has

determined that the commodities and

service listed below are suitable for

procurement by the Federal Government

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–

2.4.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

commodities and service to the

Government.

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on current contractors

for the commodities and service.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

commodities and service to the

Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the commodities and

service proposed for addition to the

Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following

commodities and service are hereby

added to the Procurement List:

Commodities

Strap, Webbing

5340–01–114–7712

Tape, Electronic Data Processing

7045–01–086–2044

Mophead, Looped-end

7920–01–437–8636

7920–01–437–9805

7920–01–437–9806

7920–01–437–9810

7920–01–437–9811

Vest, Grenade Carrier

8415–01–317–1622

Service

Administrative/General Support Services,

Various Field Offices,

Richmond/Charlottesville, Virginia

This action does not affect current

contracts awarded prior to the effective

date of this addition or options that may

be exercised under those contracts.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–20357 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P