Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices 15649

OSDBU, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, AG STOP 9501, Washington, DC

20250–9501, telephone: (202) 720–7117,

or visit the OSDBU Home Page on the

Internet at www.usda.gov/da/

smallbus.html.

Sharron L. Harris,

Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged.

Business Utilization

[FR Doc. 97–8276 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–P

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 that the Farm Service

Agency (FSA) intends to request an

extension for currently approved

collection of information pertaining to

foreign investment in United States

(U.S.) agricultural land as authorized by

the Agricultural Foreign Investment

Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA).

DATE: Comments on this notice must be

received on or before June 2, 1997 to be

assured consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Patricia A. Blevins, Agricultural

Foreign Investment Specialist, Foreign

Investment Disclosure Branch,

Operations Analysis Staff, USDA, FSA,

STOP 0531, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–

0531, (202) 720–0604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Agricultural Foreign Investment

Disclosure Act Report.

OMB Number: 0560–0097.

Expiration Date: June 30, 1997.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved information

collection.

Abstract: AFIDA requires foreign

persons who hold, acquire, or dispose of

any interest in U.S. agricultural land to

report the transactions to the FSA on an

AFIDA report. The information

collected from the AFIDA reports is

used in the preparation of an annual

report to Congress and the President by

the Economic Research Service

concerning the effect of foreign

investment upon family farms and rural

communities. Congress reviews the

annual report and decides if further

regulatory action is required.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average .4818 hours per

response.

Respondents: Foreign investors,

corporate employees, farm managers or

attorneys.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

4,375.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 2,108 hours.

Proposed topics for comment include:

(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 collected; or

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of the 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.

Comments should be sent to the Desk

Officer for Agriculture, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, D.C. 20503 and to Patricia

A. Blevins, Agricultural Foreign

Investment Specialist, Foreign

Investment Disclosure Branch,

Operations Analysis Staff, USDA, FSA,

STOP 0531, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–

0531, (202) 720–0604.

Signed at Washington, DC, on March 26,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–8412 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05 P

Forest Service

Nicore Mining Plan of Operation,

Siskiyou National Forest, Josephine

County, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, in

cooperation with the Bureau of Land

Managment, will prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

to disclose the environmental impacts

for a site-specific Proposed Action to

approve a Plan of Operation for access

and mining with mitigation, in the West

Fork Illinois River drainage, of the

Illinois Valley Ranger District, Siskiyou

National Forest, Josephine County,

Oregon. These are two access

alternatives presently under

consideration. The Agency gives notice

of the full environmental analysis and

decision-making process that will occur

on the Proposed Action, so that

interested and affected persons are

aware of how they may participate and

contribute to the analysis.

DATES: Issues with the Proposed Action

must be received in writing before May

5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written issues with

the Proposed Action to Mary Zuschlag,

District Ranger, Illinois Valley Ranger

District, 26568 Redwood Highway, Cave

Junction, Oregon, 97523.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the Proposed

Action and EIS to Don McLennan,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Illinois

Valley Ranger District, 26568 Redwood

Highway, Cave Junction, Oregon, 97523

or by calling (541) 592–2166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1872

Mining Law, Section 1 states that all

valuable mineral deposits in lands

belonging to the United States are to be

free and open to exploration.

The 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy

Act declares that it is the policy of the

Federal Government to foster and

encourage private enterprise in the

development of economically sound

and stable domestic mining, minerals,

metal and mineral reclamation

industries. The Act also declares that it

is the policy of the Federal Government

to foster and encourage private

enterprise in the orderly and economic

development of domestic mineral

resources.

In preparing the EIS, the Agency will

tier to the Amended Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Siskiyou

National Forest, consider submitted

written issues with Proposed Action,

and develop additional alternatives that

respond to the significant issues with

the Proposed Action. In addition, the

agency will analyze a no-action

alternative.

Public participation will be important

at several times during the analysis. The

first time is during the scoping period

[Reviewer may wish to refer to the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environment Policy Act (CFR) at 40 CFR

150.7]. The Agency will be seeking

written issues with the Proposed Action

from Federal, State, and local agencies,

any affected Indian tribes, the permit

applicant, and other individuals who

may be interested in or affected by the

Proposed Action. This input will be
15650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices

used to develop additional alternatives.

The scoping process includes:

1. Contacting Federal, State, and local

agencies, any affected Indian tribes, the

permit applicant, and other individuals

who may be interested in or affected by

the Proposed Action.

2. Identifying potential issues.

3. Selecting significant issues with the

Proposed Action, needing in-depth

analysis.

4. Eliminating insignificant issues;

issues that have been analyzed and

documented in a previous EIS, issues

that controvert the need for the

Proposed Action, or issues that are

outside the authority of the Responsible

Official to decide.

5. Identifying resources that have a

potential for being effected by the

Proposed Action.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for

review by July 1997. At that time, EPA

will publish a Notice of Availability for

the Draft EIS in the Federal Register.

A 45-day comment period for the

Draft EIS will be from the date the EPA’s

Notice of Availability appears in the

Federal Register. To assist the Agency,

comments on the Draft EIS will need to

be written, be as specific as possible,

refer to specific pages and chapters of

the Draft EIS, and address either the

adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits

of the alternatives discussed in the Draft

EIS (40 CFR 1503.3).

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 a Draft EIS must structure

their participation in the environmental

review process of the Proposed Action

so that it is specific, meaningful, and

alerts an agency 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 early-on in the environmental

review process, but that are not raised

until after completion of the Final EIS,

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 45-day comment period so that

substantive comments are available to

the Agency at a time when the Agency

can meaningfully consider and respond

to them in the Final EIS.

After the 45-day comment period

ends on the Draft EIS, comments will be

considered and analyzed by the Agency

in preparing the Final EIS. The Final

EIS is scheduled to be completed by

December 1997. In the Final EIS, the

Agency is required to respond to the

comments received (40 CFR 1503.4).

The Responsible Official will be Mike

Lunn, Forest Supervisor, who will

consider the Final EIS, applicable laws,

regulations, policies, and analysis files

in making decision regarding this

Proposed Action. The Responsible

Official will document the decision and

rationale in the Record of decision. That

decision will be subject to appeal by the

general public under 36 CFR 215 and by

the miner under 36 CFR 251.

Dated: March 25, 1997.

Liz Agpaoa,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–8339 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW

BOARD

Formal Determinations, Releases,

Assassination Records Designation,

and Corrections

AGENCY: Assassination Records Review

Board.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Assassination Records

Review Board (Review Board) met in a

closed meeting on March 13–14, 1997,

and made formal determinations on the

release of records under the President

John F. Kennedy Assassination Records

Collection Act of 1992 (Supp. V 1994)

(JFK Act). By issuing this notice, the

Review Board complies with the section

of the JFK Act that requires the Review

Board to publish the results of its

decisions on a document-by-document

basis in the Federal Register within 14

days of the date of the decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel and

Associate Director for Research and

Analysis, Assassination Records Review

Board, Second Floor, Washington, D.C.

20530, (202) 724–0088, fax (202) 724–

0457.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice complies with the requirements

of the President John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of

1992, 44 U.S.C. 2107.9(c)(4)(A) (1992).

On March 13–14, 1997, the Review

Board made formal determinations on

records it reviewed under the JFK Act.

These determinations are listed below.

The assassination records are identified

by the record identification number

assigned in the President John F.

Kennedy Assassination Records

Collection database maintained by the

National Archives.

Notice of Formal Determinations:

For each document, the number of

releases of previously redacted

information immediately follows the

record identification number, followed

in turn by the number of postponements

sustained, and, where appropriate, the

date the document is scheduled to be

released or re-reviewed.

FBI Documents: Open in Full

124–10085–10307; 1; 0; n/a

124–10085–10324; 1; 0; n/a

124–10145–10250; 7; 0; n/a

124–10145–10301; 11; 0; n/a

124–10146–10204; 25; 0; n/a

124–10151–10144; 1; 0; n/a

124–10180–10186; 3; 0; n/a

124–10188–10072; 3; 0; n/a

HSCA Documents: Open in Full

180–10142–10269; 10; 0; n/a

FBI Documents: Postponed in Part

124–10062–10331; 1; 3; 10/2017

124–10062–10456; 0; 6; 03/2007

124–10062–10457; 0; 5; 10/2017

124–10063–10129; 2; 2; 03/2007

124–10066–10062; 1; 1; 10/2017

124–10066–10482; 0; 1; 10/2017

124–10067–10272; 2; 1; 10/2017

124–10071–10230; 0; 1; 10/2017

124–10072–10413; 0; 2; 10/2017

124–10073–10429; 1; 1; 03/2007

124–10089–10093; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10106–10246; 0; 1; 10/2017

124–10120–10017; 2; 1; 10/2017

124–10121–10027; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10137–10129; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10138–10008; 6; 2; 03/2007

124–10140–10129; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10147–10155; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10149–10066; 5; 1; 10/2017

124–10150–10104; 1; 1; 10/2017

124–10156–10014; 2; 1; 10/2017

124–10160–10031; 1; 1; 10/2017

124–10164–10151; 0; 2; 10/2017

124–10172–10020; 5; 5; 10/2017

124–10173–10486; 9; 2; 03/2007

124–10173–10487; 5; 2; 03/2007

124–10173–10490; 9; 2; 03/2007

124–10179–10045; 0; 1; 10/2017

124–10179–10056; 1; 4; 03/2007

124–10179–10133; 5; 1; 03/2007

124–10179–10358; 11; 2; 10/2017

124–10181–10348; 5; 3; 03/2007

124–10181–10350; 7; 8; 03/2007

124–10184–10018; 12; 2; 03/2007

124–10184–10233; 1; 1; 10/2017

124–10184–10258; 17; 6; 10/2017

124–10184–10292; 4; 2; 03/2007

124–10184–10305; 40; 26; 03/2007

124–10184–10319; 3; 3; 03/2007

124–10184–10320; 3; 3; 03/2007

124–10231–10064; 5; 5; 10/2017

124–10232–10022; 0; 5; 10/2017

124–10237–10009; 1; 1; 10/2017

124–10190–10080; 1; 2; 10/2017

124–10235–10155; 3; 1; 10/2017

124–10237–10172; 1; 6; 03/2007

124–10237–10175; 0; 5; 03/2007

124–10237–10177; 0; 6; 03/2007

124–10244–10157; 7; 1; 03/2007