Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66593

1The agency name of the Food and Consumer

Service was changed to the Food and Nutrition

Service by order of the Secretary of Agriculture on

November 25, 1997.

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.

Dated: December 15, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–33166 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Consumer Service 1

Food Stamp Program: Quality Control

Provisions of the Mickey Leland

Childhood Hunger Relief Act

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Request for comments on

proposed collection of information.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

action invites the general public and

other public agencies to comment on

proposed information collections.

Requirements in changes to the Food

Stamp Program regulations based on the

Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief

Act are the basis for information

collection in the areas of arbitration and

good cause. This action revises the

information collection burden that

currently includes the Quality Control

(QC) sampling plan by adding to it the

burdens for the QC arbitration and good

cause processes. While these processes

have existed since 1981, they have not

been included in the burden previously.

A notice for the development of the QC

sampling plan, as required by Food

Stamp Program regulations, was

published March 4, 1997 and has been

approved through July 31, 2000. The

Department of Agriculture published a

final rule on June 2, 1997, entitled Food

Stamp Program: Quality Control

Provisions of the Mickey Leland

Childhood Hunger Relief Act, which

implements changes to the arbitration

and good cause processes.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before February 17,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and

requests for copies of this information

collection to: Retha Oliver, Chief,

Quality Control Branch, Program

Accountability Division, Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive,

Alexandria, VA 22302.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed 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 the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (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

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.

All responses to this action will be

summarized and included in the request

for Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approval. All comments will also

become a matter of public record. The

Food and Consumer Service (FCS) will

publish a document in the rules section

of the Federal Register announcing the

effective and implementation dates of

the provisions contained in 7 CFR

§§ 275.3(c)(4) and 275.23(e)(7) of the

Leland Rule after the approval of the

provisions by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Retha Oliver, (703) 305–2474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Food Stamp Program

Regulations, Part 275—Quality Control.

OMB Number: 0584–0303.

Expiration Date: July 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection of

information.

Abstract: Pursuant to Section 13951 of

the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger

Relief Act (Pub. L. 103–66), the final

rule entitled Quality Control Provisions

of the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger

Relief Act, (‘‘The ‘‘Leland Rule’’),

published June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29652),

contains information collections which

are subject to review by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507). The reporting and

recordkeeping burden associated with

the Food Stamp Program QC sampling

plan is approved through July 31, 2000,

under OMB No. 0584–0303. This notice

proposes to add the burdens for the QC

arbitration and good cause processes to

the burden that currently includes the

QC sampling plan. The burden

approved for the QC sampling plan is

266 hours per year. The annual burdens

associated with the QC arbitration and

good cause processes are estimated to

total 1647 and 1917 respectively. The

total annual burden for the QC sampling

plan, arbitration and good cause

processes is estimated to be 3630 hours.

The increase of 3564 hours is solely the

result of adding the arbitration and good

cause processes to the burden.

The QC system contains procedures

for resolving differences in review

findings between State agencies and

FNS. This is referred to as the

arbitration process. The QC system also

contains procedures which provide

relief for State agencies from all or a part

of a QC liability when a State agency

can demonstrate that a part or all of an

excessive error rate was due to an

unusual event which had an

uncontrollable impact on the State

agency’s payment error rate. In the past,

information collections associated with

the QC arbitration or good cause

processes have not been included in the

reporting and recordkeeping burden.

However, since the good cause and

arbitration processes have been

implemented since 1981, in practice

State agencies will not notice an actual

increase in burden from current

practice.

Quality Control Burden Associated

With the Sampling Plan, Arbitration,

and Good Cause

1. Sampling Plan

Affected Public: State agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

53.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5.0236

hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 266.

2. Arbitration Process

Affected Public: State agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

53.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Respondent: 3.1.

Estimated Time Per Response:

10.0236 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

1647.

3. Good Cause Process

Affected Public: State agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

53.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Respondent: 0.226.

Estimated Time Per Response: 160

hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

1917.

4. Combined Quality Control Burden

Associated With the Sampling Plan,
66594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

Arbitration and Good Cause: 3830

hours.

Dated: December 15, 1997.

Yvette S. Jackson,

Administrator, Food and Consumer Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33190 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Fatty-Piper Access Requests Project,

Flathead National Forest, Swan Lake

Ranger District, Lake County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Flathead National Forest,

Swan Lake Ranger District, will prepare

an environmental impact statement on a

proposal to grant easements and

authorize construction of roads across

National Forest System lands in the

Cedar Creek, Fatty Creek, and Piper

Creek watersheds. The action is

proposed in response to an applicant

seeking permanent, roaded access to

approximately 1,760 acres of nonfederal land located within the Flathead

National Forest boundary. The

requested easements are located roughly

20 miles south of Swan Lake, Montana.

The non-federal land to be accessed is

located in sections 9, 15, and 23,

Township 22 North, Range 18 West and

section 35, Township 23 North, Range

18 West, Lake County, Montana. The

easements are requested on National

Forest System lands in sections 4, 10,

and 14, Township 22 North, Range 18

West and section 34, Township 23

North, Range 18 West. The proposed

project will be in compliance with the

direction in the Flathead National

Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (December, 1985), which provides

the overall guidance for management of

the area. The agency gives written

notice of this analysis so that interested

and affected people are aware of how

they may participate and contribute to

the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing at the address shown below by

January 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to Charles E. Harris, District Ranger,

Swan Lake Ranger District, 200 Ranger

Station Road, Bigfork, Montana 59911.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about this environmental

impact statement should be directed to

Dennis McCarthy, Planning Team

Leader, Swan Lake Ranger District, 200

Ranger Station Road, Bigfork, Montana

59911; phone (406) 837–7500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Swan

Lake Ranger District is initiating this

action in response to four applications

filed by Plum Creek Timber Company,

L.P. (Plum Creek). Plum Creek requested

rights-of-way across Forest Service

lands for the purpose of establishing

permanent, roaded access to

approximately 1,760 acres in four

sections of Plum Creek land. The

applications involve requests for five

segments of road totaling approximately

three miles across Forest Service land.

Plum Creek has stated that it intends to

manage these sections of land for longterm timber production using

conventional ground-based logging

systems and build roads on the

permitted rights-of-way, sufficient to

support timber production.

Plum Creek has no roaded access to

two of the sections of land, which are

surrounded by National Forest System

lands. Plum Creek has limited access to

the other two sections and has requested

additional roaded access to them. Plum

Creek seeks permanent, roaded access

pursuant to federal regulations at 36

CFR part 251 (subpart D—Access to

Non-Federal Lands), 36 CFR part 212

(Ingress and Egress) and the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) and its implementing

regulations.

Swan Lake Ranger District personnel

invited comments on the environmental

analysis for this project in September,

1996, by sending a scoping notice to

people on the District’s mailing list.

Subsequently, District personnel

determined that they should prepare an

environmental impact statement. The

comments received in response to the

September, 1996 scoping will be taken

into consideration along with comments

received on the draft environmental

impact statement. Some of the issues

identified include impacts to: Water

quality; soils and slope stability; air

quality; proximity to the Mission

Mountains Wilderness; threatened,

endangered, and sensitive animal, plant,

and fish species and habitat (i.e., grizzly

bear, bull trout, water howellia); oldgrowth forests; roadless area; and

recreational experiences.

Swan Lake Ranger District personnel

will be seeking information, comments,

and assistance from Federal, State, and

local agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed actions. The

scoping period for the draft

environmental impact statement will

extend to January 23, 1998. This

information will be used in preparation

of the draft environmental impact

statement.

The draft environmental impact

statement will be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency and

will be made available for public review

in February, 1998. At that time, copies

of the draft environmental impact

statement will be distributed to

interested and affected agencies,

organizations, and members of the

public for their review and comment.

The Environmental Protection Agency

will publish a notice of availability of

the draft environmental impact

statement in the Federal Register. The

comment period will be no less than 45

days from the date that appears in the

Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements 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.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553

(1978). Also, environmental objections

that could be raised at the draft

environmental impact statement stage

but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon

v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (8th

Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages,

Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338

(E.D. Wisconsin, 1980). Because of these

court rulings, it is very important that

those interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 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 final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the environmental impact

statement should be as specific as

possible. It is also helpful if comments

refer to specific pages of chapters of the

draft environmental impact statement 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.