Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13109

kanamycin during plant tissue culture.

These genes were stably transferred into

the genome of potato plants through an

A. tumefaciens-mediated

transformation.

The subject potato lines have been

considered ‘‘regulated articles’’ under

APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340

because their noncoding regulatory

sequences were derived from the plant

pathogens A. tumefaciens and

cauliflower mosaic virus. However,

evaluation of field data reports from

field tests of the subject potato lines

conducted since 1991 in the major

potato-growing areas of the country

indicate that there were no deleterious

effects on plants, nontarget organisms,

or the environment as a result of the

subject patato lines’ release into the

environment.

Determination

Based on its analysis of the data

submitted by Monsanto, a review of

other scientific data, the comments

received from the public, and a review

of field tests of the subject potato lines,

APHIS has determined that the subject

patio lines: (1) Exhibit no plant

pathogenic properties; (2) are no more

likely to become weeds than CPBresistant potato lines that could

potentially be developed by traditional

breading techniques; (3) are unlikely to

increase the weediness potential of any

other cultivated plant or native wild

species with which the organisms can

interbreed; (4) will not cause damage to

processed agricultural commodities; (5)

are unlikely to harm other organisms,

such as bees or earthworms, that are

beneficial to agriculture; and (6) should

pose no greater threat to the ability to

control CPB in potatoes and other crops

than that posed by the widely-practiced

method of applying insecticides to

control CPB on potatoes. APHIS has also

concluded that there is a reasonable

certainty that new varieties developed

from the subject potato lines will not

exhibit new plant pest properties, i.e.,

properties substantially different from

any observed in the field-tested potato

lines, or those observed in standard

potatoes in traditional breeding

programs.

The effect of this determination is that

the seven Russet Burbank potato lines

designated as BT6, BT10, BT12, BT16,

BT17, BT18, and BT23 and all other

lines developed from them are no longer

considered regulated articles under

APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Therefore, the permit and notification

requirements pertaining to regulated

articles under those regulations no

longer apply to the field testing,

importation, or interstate movement of

the subject potato lines or their progeny.

However, the importation of the subject

potato lines and any potato nursery

stock or seeds capable of propagation is

still subject to the restrictions from in

APHIS’ foreign quarantine notices in 7

CFR part 319.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment (EA)

has been prepared to examine the

potential environmental impacts

associated with this determination. The

EA was prepared in accordance with: (1)

The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),

(2) Regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality for

Implementing the Procedural Provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA Regulations Implementing NEPA

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS NEPA

Procedures. Based on that EA, APHIS

has reached a finding of no significant

impact (FONSI) with regard to its

determination that the subject potato

lines and other lines developed from

those lines are no longer regulated

articles under its regulations in 7 CFR

part 340. Copies of the EA and the

FONSI are available upon request from

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–5993 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

Commodity Credit Corporation

Uniform Grain and Rice Storage

Agreement Fees

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of fees.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to publish, in accordance with 7 CFR

1421.5558(b), a schedule of fees to be

paid to Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC) by grain and rice warehouse

operators requesting to: (a) enter into a

storage agreement; or (b) renew an

existing storage agreement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Steven Closson, Warehouse and

Inventory Division, Consolidated Farm

Service Agency, United States

Department of Agriculture, Room

5968—South Building. P.O. Box 2415,

Washington, DC 20013, (202) 720–4018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12372

The Uniform Grain and Rice Storage

Agreements are not subject to the

provisions of Executive Order 12372

which requires intergovernmental

consultation with State and local

officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR

part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR

29115 (June 24, 1983).

Paperwork Reduction Act

The fees set forth in this Notice do not

generate any new or revised information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements on the public.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that this

Notice will not significantly impact a

substantial number of small entities.

Contracting with CCC under the

Uniform Storage Agreements is strictly

voluntary. CCC is also not required by

5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of

law to publish a Notice of proposed

rulemaking with respect to the subject

matter of this Notice. Therefore the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not

applicable to this notice, and a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not

prepared.

Executive Order 12612

It has been determined that the

policies contained in this Notice will

not have substantial direct effects on

States or their political subdivisions, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of Government.

Background

In accordance with the provisions of

CCC’s Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq),

CCC enters into storage agreements with

private grain and rice warehouse

operators to provide for the storage of

commodities owned by CCC or pledged

as security to CCC for price support

loans.

The regulation, 7 CFR 1421.5558

requires that all non-federally licensed

grain and rice warehouse operators in

States that do not have a cooperative

agreement with CCC for warehouse

examinations and who do not have an

existing agreement with CCC for storage

and handling of CCC-owned

commodities or commodities pledged to

CCC as loan collateral, but who desire

such an agreement, must pay an

application and inspection fee prior to

CCC conducting the original warehouse

examination. Such grain or rice

warehouse operator who is already a

party to a storage agreement with CCC

must pay the annual contract fee in
13110 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

advance of the renewal date of the

agreement.

A review of the revenue collected for

application and inspection fees and

contract fees indicates that the fees

collected are insufficient to meet costs

incurred by CCC for warehouse

examinations and contract origination

administrative functions. Accordingly,

beginning with the 1995–96 contract

year, the fees are changed by increasing

by 30 percent those fees applicable to

the 1994–95 contract year.

Determination

The fees set forth herein will be

collected by the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) from non-Federally

licensed warehouse operators in States

which do not have a Cooperative

Agreement with CCC for warehouse

examination services and who have

entered into a storage agreement with

CCC or who are seeking to enter into a

storage agreement with CCC.

Application and Inspection Fees

The fee will be computed at the rate

of $13 for each 10,000 bushels of storage

capacity or fraction thereof, but the fee

will be not less than $130 nor more than

$1,300.

Contract Fees

The contract fee will be collected by

CCC from warehouse operators who

have entered into or will enter into a

storage agreement with CCC but who do

not have a Federal warehouse license or

a State warehouse license issued by a

State having a Cooperative Agreement

with CCC for warehouse examination

services.

TWELVE-MONTH CONTRACT FEE

SCHEDULE

Location capacity (bushels)

Contract

fees

(dollars)

1 to 150,000 ............................. $130

150,001 to 250,000 .................. 260

250,001 to 500,000 .................. 390

500,001 to 750,000 .................. 520

750,001 to 1,000,000 ............... 650

1,000,001 to 1,200,000 ............ 780

1,200,001 to 1,500,000 ............ 910

1,500,001 to 2,000,000 ............ 1,040

2,000,001 to 2,500,000 ............ 1,170

2,500,001 to 5,000,000 ............ 1,300

5,000,001 to 7,500,000 ............ 1,430

7,500,001 to 10,000,000 .......... 1,560

10,000,001 + ............................ 1 1,560

1Plus $40 per million bushels above

10,000,000 or fraction thereof.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on March 3,

1995.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–5994 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

Forest Service

Pilot Creek Environmental Impact

Statement, Six Rivers National Forest,

Humboldt County, CA; Revised Notice

of Intent

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The Forest Service published

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

in the Federal Register (56 FR 3068) on

January 15, 1991 for the proposed

timber management project in the Pilot

and Torrey Compartments of the Mad

River Ranger District. The draft EIS was

delayed due to a change in project

objectives. A revised NOI was published

in the Federal Register (57 FR 30715) on

June 19, 1992. The objectives of the

project were modified to implement a

strategy that would accelerate the

development of late seral habitat

characteristics and result in timber

production. The draft EIS was expected

to be available for public review in June

1993. The draft EIS was delayed due to

anticipated changes resulting from

President Clinton’s Forest Conference

held in April of 1993.

As a result of the Forest Conference,

The Record of Decision for

Amendments to Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management Planning

Documents Within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl (ROD) was signed

on April 13, 1994. Subsequently, as

required by the ROD, a Watershed

Analysis for the Pilot Creek watershed

was developed. Survey protocol

requirements were also completed for

marbled murrelet within the Pilot Creek

project area.

The objectives of the Pilot Creek

project have been modified to bring the

project in line with ecosystem

management concepts and to be

consistent with direction contained

within the ROD and the Six Rivers

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP), scheduled

for implementation April 1995.

The revised project objectives are to:

1. Maintain existing late seral conifer

stands.

2. Accelerate the development of late

seral characteristics within conifer

stands.

3. Restore currently degraded

conditions which pose risks to riparian

and aquatic ecosystems.

4. Maintain or enhance oak woodland

habitat.

5. Reduce the risk of catastrophic loss

due to wildfire.

6. Contribute to the short-term

demand for timber and the socioeconomic well-being of local

communities.

Substantial scoping has been

conducted on this project and includes

public meetings, written

correspondence, field trips and one-onone discussions. The driving issues that

were used to develop project

alternatives focused on water quality

and the released roadless area. Five

alternatives were developed that will be

redesigned to incorporate the expanded

objectives and brought into consistency

with the ROD and LRMP.

The project area has been expanded to

encompass the entire Pilot Creek

watershed and now covers 25,442 acres.

The project area is within the Hayfork

Adaptive Management Area which, as

described in the ROD, is designed for

the development, testing, and

application of forest management

practices.

The draft EIS is now expected to be

filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in June 1995. At that time the

EPA will publish a notice of availability

of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

The final EIS is now scheduled to be

completed in November 1995.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the EPA’s Notice

of Availability appears 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 a Draft EIS 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 stage 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