This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

42230

Vol. 62, No. 151

Wednesday, August 6, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

August 1, 1997.

The Department of Agriculture has

submitted the following information

collection requirement(s) to OMB for

review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. Comments regarding (a)

whether the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of burden including

the validity of the methodology and

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, including through the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology should be

addressed to: Desk Officer for

Agriculture, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB),

Washington, DC 20503 and to

Department Clearance Office, USDA,

OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC

20250–7602. Comments regarding these

information collections are best assured

of having their full effect if received

within 30 days of this notification.

Copies of this submission(s) may be

obtained by calling (202) 720–6746.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a currently valid OMB control

number and the agency informs

potential persons who are to respond to

the collection of information that such

persons are not required to respond to

the collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

• Foreign Agricultural Service

Title: Foreign Donation of

Agricultural Commodities.

OMB Control Number: 0551–0035.

Summary of Collection: Information

collected includes program agreements

and plans of operation, logistic reports

and audit submissions.

Need and Use Of The Information:

The information is used to develop

effective agreements, determine whether

the cooperating sponsor has complied

with the agreement and to assess the

value of the programs.

Description Of Respondents: Not-forprofit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 33.

Frequency Of Responses: Reporting:

Semi-annually.

Total Burden Hours: 21,417.

• Farm Service Agency

Title: Farm Reconstitutions (7 CFR

part 718).

OMB Control Number: 0560–0025.

Summary Of Collection: Information

is required when a producer wishes to

increase acreage attributed to the farm

from leases or purchases or change farm

acreage records as a result of a sale of

any part of a farm.

Need And Use Of The Information:

The information is used to determine

whether a farm is being reconstituted

primarily for the purpose of increased

program benefits, avoiding liquidated

damages, avoiding payment reductions

or marketing penalties, or for

establishing eligibility to transfer

allotments or quotas subject to sale or

lease.

Description Of Respondents: Farms.

Number Of Respondents: 359,921.

Frequency Of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 89,980.

• Farm Service Agency

Title: 7 CFR Part 1924–B,

Management Advice to Individual

Borrowers and Applicants.

OMB Control Number: 0560–0154.

Summary Of Collection: Information

is collected concerning the respondents

current financial condition along with

farm income and expense information.

Need And Use Of The Information:

The information is used to protect the

government’s financial interests by

ensuring that the farming operations of

direct loan applicants and borrowers are

properly assessed for short and longterm financial feasibility.

Descriptoin Of Respondents: Farms;

Business or other for-profit; Not-forprofit institutions.

Number Of Respondents: 77,210.

Frequrency Of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 180,441.

• Farm Service Agency

Title: 7 CFR 1951–S, Farmer Program

Account Servicing Policies.

Omb Control Number: 0560–0161.

Summary Of Collection: Information

collected includes requests for loan

servicing, appraisal agreements, and

responses to notices and acceptance of

offers.

Need And Use Of The Information:

The information is used by agency

officials to consider a financially

distressed or delinquent borrower’s

request for loan servicing.

Description Of Respondents: Farms;

Individuals or households; Business or

other for-profit.

Number Of Respondents: 10,400.

Frequency Of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 8,588.

Donald Hulcher,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–20655 Filed 8–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, White River

National Forest, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service. USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement in

conjunction with revision of the Land

and Resource Management Plan for the

White River National Forest located in

Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat,

Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit

counties, Colorado.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement in conjunction with the

revision of its Lands and Resource

Management Plan (hereafter referred to

as Forest Plan or Plan) for the White

River National Forest.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Notices 42231

This notice describes the specific

portions of the current Forest Plan to be

revised, environmental issues

considered in the revision, estimated

dates for filing the environmental

impact statement, information

concerning public participation, and the

names and addresses of the agency

officials who can provide additional

information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by November 1, 1997. The

agency expects to file a draft

environmental impact statement with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and make it available for public

comment in the fall of 1998. The agency

expects to file a final environmental

impact statement in the fall of 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Jerry Hart, Team Leader, White River

National Forest Planning Team, White

River National Forest, Box 948,

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerry Hart, Planning Team Leader, (970)

945–2521.

Responsible Official: Elizabeth Estill,

Rocky Mountain Regional Forester at

P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225–

0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to part 36 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Forester

for the Rocky Mountain Region gives

notice of the agency’s intent to prepare

an environmental impact statement for

the revision effort described above.

According to 36 CFR 219.10 (g), land

and resource management plans are

ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year

cycle. The existing Forest Plan was

approved on September 20, 1984.

The Regional Forester gives notice

that the Forest is beginning an

environmental analysis and decisionmaking process for this proposed action

so that interested or affected persons

can participate in the analysis and

contribute to the final decision.

The public will be provided many

opportunities to discuss the Forest Plan

revision. The public is invited to help

identify issues and define the range of

alternatives to be considered in the

environmental impact statement. Forest

Service officials will lead these

discussions, helping to describe issues

and the preliminary alternatives. These

officials will also explain the

environmental analysis process and the

disclosures of that analysis, which will

be available for public review. Written

comments identifying issues for analysis

and the range of alternatives will be

encouraged.

Issue identification (scoping)

meetings are scheduled for September

and October 1997. Alternative

development meetings will be held in

early 1998.

Forest plans describe the intended

management of National Forests.

Agency decisions in these plans do the

following:

* Establish multiple-use goals and

objectives (36 CFR 219.11);

* Establish forestwide management

requirements (standards and guidelines)

to fulfill the requirements of 16 USC

1604 applying to future activities

(resource integration requirements, 36

CFR 219.13 to 219.27);

* Establish management areas and

management area direction

(management area prescriptions) for

future activities in that management

area (resource integration and minimum

specific management requirements) 36

CFR 219.11 (c);

* Establish monitoring and

evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11

(d));

* Determine suitability and potential

capability of lands for resource

production. This includes designation

of suitable timber land and

establishment of allowable timber sale

quantity (36 CFR 219.14 through

219.26);

* Where applicable, recommend

designations of special areas such as

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers

to Congress.

The authorization of project level

activities on the Forest occurs through

project decision-making, the second

stage of forest land management

planning. Project level decisions must

comply with National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must

include a determination that the project

is consistent with the Forest Plan.

In addition to the programmatic

decisions described above, the Forest is

considering:

* Making site specific decisions on

travel management through

identification of specific management

for individual roads and trails,

* Identifying and analyzing vacant

range allotments for specific decision,

and

* More specific disclosure related to

management of four season resorts.

Any site specific decisions made from

the analysis in the Environmental

Impact Statement will be in separate

decision documents and the responsible

official will be the Forest Supervisor.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest

Plan

It had been almost thirteen years since

the current Forest Plan was approved.

Experience and monitoring have shown

the need for changes in management

direction for some resources or

programs. Several sources have

highlighted needed changes in the

current Forest Plan. These sources

include:

* Public involvement which has

identified new information and public

values;

* Monitoring and scientific research

which have identified new information

and knowledge gained;

* Forest plan implementation which

has identified management concerns to

find better ways for accomplishing

desired conditions.

In addition to changing public views

about how these lands should be

managed, a significant change in

information and the scientific

understanding of these ecosystems has

occurred. Some new information is a

product of research, while other

information is the result of changes in

technology.

Major Revision Topics

Based on the information sources

identified above, the combined effect of

the needed changes demand attention

through plan revision. The revision

topics that have been identified so far

are described below.

Biological Diversity

Planning Questions

* How will the forest be managed to

restore or maintain healthy ecosystems?

* How will application of ecosystem

management affect management of the

Forest?

* How does compliance with the

Endangered Species Act and related

Forest Service policy affect forest

management?

Background

Biological diversity is the full variety

of life in an area including the

ecosystems, plants and animal

communities, species and genes, and

the processes through which organisms

interact with one another and their

environment. Humans and human

activity are integral parts of ecosystems

and will be considered in the analysis

of this topic. On the White River

National Forest, biological diversity has

been reduced through human activity

and fire suppression for the past 100

years.

The current Forest Plan only partially

addresses the concept of biological

diversity. In revision, biological

diversity concepts will be used for

developing integrated forest

management strategies for the physical
42232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Notices

and biological environment. Elements of

the integrated analysis include: (1)

Analysis of landscape pattern and

ecological health; (2) Definition of a

historic range of variability to establish

an ecological baseline; and (3) Analysis

of forested and non-forested vegetation,

riparian areas, soils, geologic hazards,

watershed risk, air quality, late

successional stage forests (old growth),

risk of insect and disease infestation,

risk of noxious weed growth, wildlife

habitat, needs for fire management, and

occurrence of threatened, endangered

and sensitive species. The Forest

Service believes biological diversity will

decrease under continued

implementation of the existing Forest

Plan. The revision will develop specific

methods for management of biological

diversity and provide for monitoring of

management actions to measure

progress.

Travel Management

Planning Question

* What travel and transportation

opportunities should the Forest provide

to meet current and expected demands?

Background

Travel management is movement of

people, goods, and services to and

through the Forest. An economically

efficient transportation network is

essential for forest management and the

production of goods and services.

Traditional forms of recreation such as

driving for pleasure, hiking, horseback

riding, and snowmobiling are showing

steady increases. Mountain-biking,

cross-country skiing, all-terrain

vehicles, rafting and kayaking have

grown dramatically in the past decade.

Winter travel on and access to the Forest

has increased substantially and conflicts

have intensified in some areas. A

separation of uses between motorized

and non-motorized recreation activity is

an issue. Motorized and non-motorized

recreationists want to maintain or

improve their opportunities to use the

Forest. Consideration is being given to

the analysis of site-specific travel

management issues in the revision. If

this occurs, a separate decision on these

issues would be made by the Forest

Supervisor.

Urbanization

Planning Questions

* How will forest management change

in response to continuing urbanization?

* What role will National Forest

System lands play in support of

community infrastructure and

development?

Background

The human environment includes the

natural and physical environment and

the interdependent relationship of

people to that environment. Commodity

and amenity benefits from public lands

within the planning area are major

contributors to the social systems and

economic base of many neighboring

communities. Fully forty-one percent of

the one hundred thousand jobs in the

planning area are related to tourism—a

large portion of which occurs on the

Forest.

Concerns related to this topic include:

how to maintain public access to the

Forest; how to restore fire to the

ecosystem and engage in vegetation

treatment in the urban—wildland

interface; how to maintain domestic

grazing so ranching can continue to be

an element in local community

character; how to maintain critical

wildlife habitat on public lands; how to

maintain water and air quality while

continuing management and; how to

support community development

through land adjustments and special

use permits.

Recreation

Planning Question

* What range, mix, and emphasis of

recreation opportunities will best meet

the demands of a wide variety of current

and future users; while ensuring

protection of scenic, biotic and physical

resources.

Background

The White River National Forest is

one of the top forests in the nation for

recreation opportunities and use.

Recreation on the Forest has a

significant economic impact locally and

in the state of Colorado. Concerns exist

about the effect of recreation use on the

physical and biological environment. As

the four-season-resort concept evolves

for ski resorts, a change in management

direction is needed to address a variety

of management issues including

conflicts between users, changing user

preferences and the multi-season use of

the resorts. Rapidly increasing winter

recreation outside ski resort boundaries

is creating a need to address separation

of users. There is a need to review

existing direction to determine how the

demand for a wider variety of summer

uses can be met. People want more

amenities at developed recreation sites.

The need for capital investment at these

sites must be addressed. Recreation

capacities will be analyzed for the entire

Forest and allocations will be made for

commercial operators and individuals.

A new scenery management system will

be used in the allocation of lands forestwide.

Roadless Area Management

Planning Questions

* What are the roadless area on the

Forest and which qualify for wilderness

recommendation?

* How should roadless areas not

recommended for wilderness be

managed?

Background

During the revision process, the

Forest Service is required (36 CFR

219.17) to evaluate all roadless areas for

potential wilderness designation. This

process will produce an inventory of

roadless areas meeting minimum

criteria for Wilderness according to the

1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness

designation is a Congressional

responsibility; the Forest Service only

makes recommendations.

The Forest has large amounts of land

which could be considered roadless

because they have minimal

development and little evidence of

human use. All of the Forest, except

designated wilderness, will be

inventoried for roadless potential.

Recommendations for wilderness

designation will be made for those

inventoried areas which meet the

suitability and need criteria.

Special Areas

Planning Questions

* How can Congressionally

designated Wilderness be managed to

accomplish the principles of the

Wilderness Act as related to home use

and natural processes?

* What are the significant cave

resources and how will they be

protected?

* What areas on the Forest qualify for

Research Natural Area (RNA)

establishment to meet regional and

national objectives?

* How will the Forest address

protection of heritage resources?

* What other areas qualify for special

area designation?

* What rivers on the Forest are

eligible for addition to the National

Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System?

Background

The planning area includes many

unique and outstanding combinations of

physical and biological resources, and

areas of social interest. These are

collectively referred to as ‘‘special

areas.’’

Special area designations may include

Wilderness; Wild and Scenic Rivers;

Research Natural Areas; and special
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Notices 42233

recreational areas with scenic,

historical, geological, botanical,

zoological, paleontological,

archaeological, or other special

characteristic. These special areas will

influence land allocation and

management in the revision.

The Forest manages all or part of eight

Wilderness Areas totalling over 750,000

acres. Issues include the level of human

use and the loss of biological diversity

due to past fire suppression.

Seventy-four caves are known to

occur within or near the Forest

boundary. Caves will be protected to

meet the intent of the National Cave

Resources Protection Act.

The Forest Service has recognized a

lack of ecosystems protected as

Research Natural Areas. Twenty-six

areas are being inventoried to determine

their potential for establishment.

There are three scenic byways on the

Forest and a number of natural trails.

Proposals are under consideration for

additional trails. Byways and trails will

be designed in the revision and made

part of the management of the Forest.

The Forest currently has four sites

listed in the National Register of

Historic Places. Heritage resources must

be protected by law. The Forest is part

of the traditional homeland of the Ute

Nation and there is an increased

awareness of sacred sites. Protection of

these sites will be part of revision.

The purpose and authority for study

of Wild and Scenic Rivers is in the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1,

1968, as amended. Rivers and streams

determined eligible for potential

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River

System will be examined. Currently, 77

river segments totaling over 700 miles

have been identified for study to

determine if they are eligible for

addition to the system. The next step in

the process, suitability analysis, will not

be done as part of the revision process.

Timber Suitability and Management

Planning Questions

* What areas of the Forest are

suitable for timber harvest?

* What volume of timber should the

Forest provide?

* What is the financial efficiency of

the Forest’s timber sales program?

Background

In the plan revision process, the

Forest Service is required (36 CFR

219.14) to determine which lands are

not suited for timber production. This

allows an estimate to be made of the

potential of the Forest to produce a

continuous supply of timber.

Preliminary analysis shows the

tentatively suited timber lands on the

Forest are similar to those identified in

the current plan. Alternative levels of

commercial timer harvest will be

identified in the revision.

Of significant concern to the Forest

Service is the biological condition of

forested vegetation. The Forest Service

believes it will be necessary to use

prescribed fire and timber harvest as

tools in its effort to restore a healthy

vegetative condition. Others believe the

best way to restore this condition is to

minimize human intervention and to

allow natural processes to restore

diversity.

What to do with this Information

This revision effort is being

undertaken to develop management

direction to:

*Provide goods and services to

people;

*Sustain ecosystem functions.

*Collaborative stewardship,’’ which is

defined as caring for the land and

serving the people by listening to all

constituents and living within the limits

of the land, will be used in the revision

effort.

Framework for Alternatives to be

Considered

A range of alternatives will be

considered when revising the Forest

Plan. The alternatives will address

different options to resolve concerns

raised as revision topics listed above

and to fulfill the purpose and need. A

reasonable range of alternatives will be

evaluated and reasons will be given for

eliminating some alternatives from

detailed study. A ‘‘no-action

alternative’’ is required by law. The noaction alternative under this analysis

will assume continuation of the existing

Forest Plan without revision. Additional

alternatives will provide a range of ways

to address and respond to public issues,

management concerns, and resource

opportunities identified during the

scoping process. In describing

alternatives, desired vegetation and

resource conditions will be defined.

Resource outputs will be estimated in

the Forest Plan based upon achieving

desired conditions. Preliminary

information is available to develop

alternatives; however, additional public

involvement and collaboration will be

done for alternative development.

Involving the Public

An atmosphere of openness is one of

the objectives of the public involvement

process, where all members of the

public feel free to share information

with the Forest Service on a regular

basis. All parts of this process will be

structured to maintain the openness.

The Forest Service is seeking

information, comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations and

federal, state, and local agencies who

may be interested in or affected by the

proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The

Forest Service is also looking for

collaborative approaches with members

of the public who are interested in forest

management. Federal and state agencies

and some private organizations have

been cooperating in the development of

assessments of current biological,

physical, and economic conditions. This

information will be used to prepare the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS). The range of alternatives to be

considered in the DEIS will be based on

public issues, management concerns,

resource management opportunities,

and specific decisions to be made.

Public participation will be solicited

by notifying in person and/or by mail

known interested and affected publics.

News releases will be used to give the

public general notice, and public

scoping opportunities will be offered in

numerous locations. Public

participation activities will include (but

are not limited to) requests for written

comments, open houses, focus groups,

field trips, and collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought

throughout the revision process and will

be especially important at several points

along the way. The first formal

opportunity to comment is during the

scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7).

Scoping includes: (1) Identifying

potential issues, (2) from these,

identifying significant issues or those

that have been covered by prior

environmental review, (3) exploring

alternatives in addition to No Action,

and (4) identifying potential

environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives. Scoping

meetings are currently scheduled from

4:30 pm to 7:30 pm in the following

locations:

September 18, 1997: Days Inn, 950

Cowen Drive, Carbondale, Co.

September 23, 1997: First Choice Inn,

51359 US Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood

Springs, Co.

September 25, 1997: Kilowatt Korner,

233 6th Street, Meeker, Co.

September 30, 1997: Rifle Fire

Station, 1850 Railroad Ave., Rifle Co.

October 2, 1997: Avon Library, 200

Benchmark Rd., Avon, Co.

October 7, 1997: Eagle Library, 600

Broadway, Eagle, Co.

October 9, 1997: Four Points Inn, 137

Union Blvd., Lakewood, Co.

October 14, 1997: Hilton Inn, 743

Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, Co.
42234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Notices

October 16, 1997: Summit Middle

School, 0156 Summit County Road

1030, Frisco, Co.

October 21, 1997: Inn at Aspen, 38750

Highway 82, Aspen Co.

Release and Review of the EIS

The DEIS is expected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and be available for public

comment in the fall of 1998. At that

time, the EPA will publish a notice of

availability for the DEIS in the Federal

Register. The comment period of the

DEIS will be 90 days from the date the

EPA publishes the notice of availability

in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, 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 an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions;

Vermong Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

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

environmental objections that could be

raised at the DEIS stage but are not

raised until after completion of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

may be waived or dismissed by the

courts; City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

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

Wisconsin Heritages, 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 by the close

of the three-month comment period so

that substantive comments and

objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when it can

meaningfully consider them and

respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed actions,

comments on the DEIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of

the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statements. 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, comments will be analyzed,

considered, and responded to by the

Forest Service in preparing the Final

EIS. The FEIS is schedules to be

completed in the fall of 1999. The

responsible official will consider the

comments, responses, environmental

consequences discussed in the FEIS,

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies in making decisions regarding

these revisions. The responsible official

will document the decisions and

reasons for the decisions in a Record of

Decision for the revised Plan. The

decision will be subject to appeal in

accordance with 36 CFR 217.

Dated: July 30, 1997.

Elizabeth Estill,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–20631 Filed 8–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Farm Service

Agency’s (FSA) intention to request an

extension for an information collection

currently approved for FSA’s regulation

governing the Emergency Loan program.

The regulations concerning this activity

are published under the authority of the

Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development Act, as amended.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received on or before October 6, 1997 to

be assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven R. Bazzell, Senior Loan Officer,

Farm Loan Programs, Loan Making

Division, Farm Service Agency, STOP

0522, 1400 Independence Avenue,

S.W.,Washington, DC 20250–0522.

Telephone (202) 720–3889; e-mail

sbazzell@wdc.fsa.usda.gov; or facsimile

(202) 690–1117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Emergency Loan Policies,

Procedures, and Authorizations.

Expiration Date of Approval: August

31, 1997.

OMB Number: 0560–0159.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved information

collection.

Abstract: The information collected

under Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Number 0560–0159, as indicated

above, is needed to enable FSA to carry

out its mission of providing emergency

assistance to family-size farmers, who

have suffered physical and/or

production losses in a Presidential,

Secretarial, or Adminstratively declared

natural disaster, and who are unable to

secure commercial credit to recover

from the losses. This regulation outlines

the process for determining an

applicant’s eligibility based on the

nature and extent of the physical or

production losses suffered.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated at 0.51 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals or

households and farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,100.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondents: 4.10.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 12,710.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of FSA, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of FSA’s estimate of the

burden of the collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions; (c) ways

to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information.

Comments may be sent to the Desk

Officer for Agriculture, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, Washington, D.C. 20503, and to

Steven R. Bazzell at the address listed

above. All responses to this notice will

be summarized and included in the

request for OMB approval.

All comments will become a matter of

public record.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on July 31,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–20692 Filed 8–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

U.S. Warehouse Act Fees; Correction

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency

published a notice in the Federal

Register on June 20, 1997 (62 FR 33582),

which contained a schedule for

increasing the fees to be charged under

the United States Warehouse Act