28886 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices

4. The project area forms the backdrop

for Thompson Falls and the Clark Fork

valley. The scenic character of the

landscape is distinctive due to its

unique combination of vegetation

patterns, rock formations and proximity

to the Clark Fork River. How would

prescribed burning and timber harvest

affect the scenic quality?

5. Most of the project area is within

two to three miles of Thompson Falls.

How would prescribed burning affect air

quality in town and the Clark Fork

Valley?

6. Noxious weeds are established on

much of the lower part of the analysis

area. Would prescribed burning and

timber harvest affect conditions, spread

of existing weeds or establishment of

new weeds in the area? What effect does

noxious weed stocking have on big

game forage and growing conditions for

native plants? How can noxious weed

stocking be reduced and native

vegetation increased?

7. Approximately 5680 acres of the

Game Range analysis area is within the

Cube Iron—Silcox Roadless Area.

Timber harvest and prescribed burning

is proposed with no road construction.

Concern for management of the area was

expressed both within the agency and

during public scoping. What effect

would the project have on the roadless

resource?

8. Concern has been expressed that

complex silvicultural prescriptions that

are designed to achieve multi-resource

objectives and to be compatible with

ecosystem processes, would not be

economically feasible. Using prescribed

fire in some areas may result in a loss

of economically valuable timber.

Because there are few roads in the area,

86 percent of the proposed harvest area

would need to be helicopter yarded. Is

this cost effective? What is the net

public cost and benefit of the proposed

project including effects on recreation?

Other issues commonly associated

with timber harvesting and prescribed

burning include effects on cultural

resources, soil compaction and

nutrients, and other resources. This list

will be verified, expanded, or modified

based on additional public scoping for

this proposal.

Comment Period and Draft EIS

Schedule

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in July 2001. At that time, the

EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability of the Draft EIS in the

Federal Register. The comment period

on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the

date the EPA’s notice of availability

appears in the Federal Register. It is

very important that those interested in

management of the Game Range project

participate at that time. The Final EIS is

scheduled for completion by October

2001.

The Forest Service believes it is

important, at this early stage, to give

reviewers notice 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 its is

meaningful and alerts the 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 at the draft environmental impact

statement stage but 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 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin

Heritages v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334,

1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these

court rulings, it is very important those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 45-day

comment period so 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 draft environmental

impact statement 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 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.

I am the responsible official for this

environmental impact statement. My

address is Lolo National Forest,

Building 24—Fort Missoula, Missoula,

MT 59804.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Deborah L.R. Austin,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–13205 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Collection of

Information

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 35), this notice announces the

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA)

intention to request an extension for a

currently approved collection of

information. The collection of

information is used to determine

whether a State’s central filing system

for notifying farm product buyers of

liens on farm products can be certified

by the Secretary.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this notice; we will consider all

comments that we receive by July 24,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gerald

Grinnell, Economic/Statistical Support,

Packers and Stockyards Programs,

GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

3641; or via facsimile to (202) 690–1266.

Comments received may be inspected

during normal business hours in the

Economic/Statistical Support offices,

room 3052 (same address as listed

above).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the collection of

information activities and the use of the

information, contact Gerald Grinnell, at

(202) 720–7455 (same address as listed

above).

For a copy of the collection of

information, contact Sharon Vassiliades,

GIPSA, Regulatory Contact, at (202)

720–1738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘Clear Title’’ Regulations to

implement section 1324 of the Food

Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1631).

OMB Number: 0580–0016.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31,

2001.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection of

information.

Abstract: The information is needed

to carry out the Secretary’s

responsibility for determining whether a

State’s central filing system for

notification of buyers of farm products

of any mortgages or liens on the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices 28887

products meets certification

requirements under section 1324 of the

Food Security Act of 1985. Section 1324

of the Food Security Act of 1985

requires that States implementing

central filing systems for notification of

liens on farm products must have such

systems certified by the Secretary of

Agriculture. GIPSA has been delegated

responsibility for certifying the systems.

Nineteen States currently have certified

central filing systems.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

and recordkeeping burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 12 hours per response.

Respondents: States seeking

certification of central filing systems to

notify buyers of farm products of any

mortgages or liens on the products.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 12 hours.

We are asking the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to

extend its approval of our use of this

collection of information activity for an

additional 3 years.

We are soliciting comments to: (1)

Evaluate 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;

(2) evaluate 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; (3) enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (4)

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 forms of

information technology.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

David R. Shipman,

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–13269 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Notice of Request for Extension and

Revision of a Currently Approved

Information Collection

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice

announces the Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards Administration’s

(GIPSA) intention to request an

extension for and revision to the

currently approved information

collection for ‘‘Regulations Governing

the National Inspection and Weighing

System under the United States Grain

Standards Act and under the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.’’

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this notice; we will consider all

comments that we receive by July 24,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Tess

Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–3604; or FAX to

(202) 690–2755; e-mail:

comments@gipsadc.usda.gov.

Comments received may be inspected

during normal business hours in the

office listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the collection of

information activities and the use of the

information, contact Tess Butler (202)

720–7486, or at the address listed above.

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from Cathy McDuffie,

the Agency Support Services, Specialist,

at (301) 734–5190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress

enacted the United States Grain

Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71 et

seq.) and the Agricultural Marketing Act

(AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) to

facilitate the marketing of grain,

oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related

commodities. These statutes provide for

the establishment of standards and

terms which accurately and consistently

measure the quality of grain and related

products, provide for uniform official

inspection and weighing, provide

regulatory and service responsibilities,

and furnish the framework for

commodity quality improvement

incentives to both domestic and foreign

buyers. The Federal Grain Inspection

Service (FGIS) of USDA’s Grain

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration establishes policies,

guidelines, and regulations to carry out

the objectives of the USGSA and the

AMA.

The USGSA, with few exceptions,

requires official certification of export

grain sold by grade. Official services are

provided, upon request, for grain in

domestic commerce. The AMA

authorizes similar inspection and

weighing services, upon request, for

rice, pulses, flour, corn meal, and

certain other agricultural products.

Conversely, the regulations

promulgating the USGSA and AMA

require specific information collection

and recordkeeping necessary to carry

out requests for official services.

Applicants for service must specify the

kind and level of service desired, the

identification of the product, the

location, the amount, and other

pertinent information in order that

official personnel can efficiently

respond to their needs.

Official services under the USGSA are

provided through FGIS field offices and

delegated and/or designated State and

private agencies. Delegated agencies are

State agencies delegated authority under

the Act to provide official inspection

service, Class X or Class Y weighing

services, or both, at one or more export

port locations in the State. Designated

agencies are State or local governmental

agencies or persons designated under

the Act to provide either official

inspection services, Class X or Class Y

weighing services, or both, at locations

other than export port locations. State

and private agencies, as a requirement

for delegation and/or designation, must

comply with all regulations, procedures,

and instructions in accordance with

provisions established under the

USGSA. FGIS field offices oversee the

performance of these agencies and

provide technical guidance as needed.

Official services under the AMA are

performed, upon request, on a fee basis

for domestic and export shipments

either by FGIS employees, individual

contractors, or cooperators. Contractors

are persons who enter into a contract

with FGIS to perform specified

inspection services. Cooperators are

agencies or departments of the Federal

Government which have an interagency

agreement or State agencies which have

a reimbursable agreement with FGIS.

Title: Regulations Governing the

National Inspection and Weighing

System Under the USGSA and AMA of

1946.

OMB Number: 0580–0013.

Expiration Date of Approval:

September 30, 2001.