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

71459 

Vol. 70, No. 228 

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

November 23, 2005. 

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, 

Public Law 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), Pamela_Beverly_

OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or 

fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental 

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 the submission(s) may be 

obtained by calling (202) 720–8681. 

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. 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service 

Title: Expanded Food and Nutrition 

Education Program (EFNEP). 

OMB Control Number: 0524–0044. 

Summary of Collection: The 

Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative 

State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service (CSREES), Expanded 

Food and Nutrition Education Program 

(EFNEP) is a unique program that began 

in 1969, designed to reach limited 

resource audiences, especially youth 

and families with young children. 

EFNEP operates in 50 states of the 

United States, American Samoa, Guam, 

Micronesia, and the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Marianas, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands of the United States. The 

objectives of EFNEP are to assist limited 

resource families and youth in acquiring 

the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and 

changed behaviors necessary for making 

diet decisions that are nutritionally 

sound, and to contribute to their 

personal development and the 

improvement of the total family diet and 

nutritional well being. 

Need and Use of the Information: 

CSREES will collect information using 

the Evaluation/Reporting System (E/RS) 

a database that was develop to capture 

the impacts of EFNEP. The system will 

provide a variety of reports that are 

useful for management purposes, 

provide diagnostic assessments of 

participants needs and export summary 

data for State and National assessment 

of the program’s impact. E/RS stores 

information in the form of records about 

the program participants, their family 

structure and their dietary practices. 

Without the information it would be 

extremely difficult for the national 

office to compare, assess, and analyze 

the effectiveness and the impact of 

EFNEP without the annual collection of 

data. 

Description of Respondents: State, 

Local or Tribal Government. 

Number of Respondents: 56. 

Frequency of Responses: 

Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually. 

Total Burden Hours: 69,588. 

Charlene Parker, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E5–6665 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok 

Ranger District, California, Great Hunt 

Reforestation and Release Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Stanislaus National 

Forest is in the process of preparing an 

environmental analysis for the Great 

Hunt Reforestation and Release Project. 

This project is being planned on 

National Forest lands encompassing 

portions of the Groveland, Mi-Wok and 

Summit Ranger Districts. The proposal 

to be analyzed consists of conducting 

site preparation, planting, and 

plantation release treatments using a 

combination of methods on 

approximately 2330 acres. Treatments 

will include backpack application of the 

herbicide glyphosate on approximately 

545 acres; mechanically shredding or 

hand cutting competing vegetation on 

1,655 acres with follow-up glyphosate 

applications on 1,530 acres; and burning 

and hand cutting competing vegetation 

with follow up glyphosate applications 

on 30 acres. Treatments are designed to 

assure adequate survival and growth of 

planted conifers by reducing competing 

vegetation. 

The goals tied to this project in the 

Stanislaus National Forest Plan 

Direction 2005 (STF FPD) are to 

increase the frequency of large trees, 

improve the continuity and distribution 

of old forests, and restore forest species 

composition and structure following 

large scale, stand-replacing disturbance 

events (STF FPD page 9). The areas 

under consideration for management 

activities are old timber harvest units, as 

well as areas burned by the following 

wildfires: Granite Fire, 1973; River Fire, 

1987; Cotton Fire, 1990; Ruby Fire, 

1992; and Creek Fire, 1994. In areas 

identified for site preparation and 

planting, natural regeneration of conifer 

seedlings following the harvest or fire 

disturbance events is inadequate due to 

71460 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Notices 

rapid and vigorous growth of competing 

vegetation and the lack of a seed source 

in some areas (STF FPD page 146, 

Standard and Guideline 15–J: ‘‘Reforest 

all openings in available, capable, and 

suitable lands for timber production 

created by timber harvest, wind, fire, or 

insect and disease pests (36 CFR 

219.27(b)(2))’’). These areas are not on 

track to meet the goals of the STF FPD. 

As such, the benefits of a forested 

environment, and all the associated 

benefits of forest structure have not 

occurred. 

Decision to be Made: The decision to 

be made is whether to implement the 

proposed action as described above, to 

meet the purpose and need for action 

through some other combination of 

activities, or to take no action at this 

time. 

Scoping Process: Comments 

concerning the scope of the analysis 

should be received in writing within 15 

days of the date of publication of this 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. 

The project was initially listed in the 

Forest’s July and October 2005 quarterly 

edition of the Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA). Scoping letters were 

sent in September 1, 2005 to those who 

responded to the SOPA and to other 

identified interested and affected 

individuals and government agencies. In 

the SOPA, the mode of environmental 

documentation was predicted as an 

environmental assessment. 

It has now been determined that the 

environmental analysis will be 

documented in an environmental 

impact statement. Since there are no 

changes being made to the proposed 

action that was previously scoped, the 

scoping period at this point is brief. 

Scoping letters previously received by 

the Forest Service from the first scoping 

period will continue to be used for this 

process. A public scoping meeting is not 

anticipated at this time. 

The scoping process will be used to 

identify issues regarding the proposed 

action. An issue is defined as a point of 

dispute, debate, or disagreement related 

to a specific proposed action based on 

its anticipated effects. Significant issues 

brought to our attention are used during 

environmental analysis to develop 

alternatives to the proposed action. 

Some issued raised in scoping may be 

considered non-significant because they 

are: (1) Beyond the scope of the 

proposed action and its purpose and 

need; (2) already decided by law, 

regulation, or the Land and Resource 

Management Plan; (3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made; or (4) conjectural 

and not supported by scientific or 

factual evidence. 

Alternatives: Alternatives proposed to 

date are the Proposed Action as 

described above and the No Action. 

Identification of Permits or Licenses 

Required: No permits or licenses have 

been identified to implement the 

proposed action. 

Lead, Joint Lead, and Cooperating 

Agencies: The USDA Forest Service is 

the lead agency for this proposal; there 

are no cooperating agencies. 

Estimated Dates for Filing: The 

expected filing date with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for 

the draft EIS is March 1, 2006. The 

expected filing date for the final EIS is 

July 1, 2006. 

Person to Whom Comments May Be 

Mailed: Comments may be submitted to: 

District Ranger, Mi-Wok Ranger District, 

P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk Village, CA 

95346 or (209) 586–0643 (fax) during 

normal business hours. The Mi-Wok 

Ranger District business hours are from 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m Monday through 

Friday. Electronic comments, in 

acceptable plain text (.txt), rich text 

(.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats, may be 

submitted to: mgmelin@fs.fed.us using 

Subject: Great Hunt Reforestation and 

Release Project. 

Reviewer’s Obligation to Comment: 

The comment period on the draft EIS 

will be 45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability of 

the draft EIS 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 draft 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 Corp. 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 (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 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 with 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. 

Further Information: Marty Gmelin, 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader may be 

contacted by phone at (209) 586–3234 

ex. 629 for more information about the 

proposed action and the environmental 

impact statement or at the Mi-Wok 

Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk 

Village, CA 95348. 

Responsible Official and Mailing 

Address: Tom Quinn, Forest Supervisor, 

19777 Greenly Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

Dated: November 22, 2005 

Tom Quinn, 

Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 05–23426 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5410–99– M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Notice of Intent To Revise and Extend 

a Currently Approved Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13) and Office of Management 

and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), 

this notice announces the intention of 

the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) to request revision and 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection, the Vegetable 

Surveys Program. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by January 30, 2006 to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance 

Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Room 5336 South Building, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250 or sent