9658 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Notices

interstate, or releasing into the

environment) into the United States

certain genetically engineered

organisms and products that are

considered ‘‘regulated articles.’’ The

regulations set forth procedures for

obtaining a permit for the release into

the environment of a regulated article,

and for obtaining a limited permit for

the importation or interstate movement

of a regulated article.

Pursuant to these regulations, the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has received and is reviewing

the following applications for permits to

release genetically engineered

organisms into the environment:

Application No. Applicant Date received Organisms Field test location

94–355–01 ...... Betaseed Incorporated.12/21/94 Sugar beet plants genetically engineered to express resistance to the rhizomania virus and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate.California, Idaho.

94–362–01 ...... Betaseed Incorporated.12/28/94 Sugar beet plants genetically engineered to express tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate.Idaho.

94–362–02 ...... University of Wisconsin.12/28/94 Alfalfa plants genetically engineered to express either a

lignin peroxidase or an alpha amylase, and marker genes

encoding neomycin phosphotransferase or beta glucuronidase.

Oregon, Wisconsin.

95–003–01 ...... U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

1/03/95 Fusarium graminearum genetically engineered to express

altered levels of mycotoxin production.

Illinois, Indiana.

95–010–01 ...... Monsanto Company .. 1/10/95 Wheat plants genetically engineered to express genes for

fungal resistance.

Illinois.

95–010–02 ...... Monsanto Company .. 1/10/95 Wheat plants genetically engineered to express various

marker genes.

Illinois, Montana.

95–019–01 ...... Asgrow Seed Company.1/19/95 Carrot plants genetically engineered to express genes for

fungal resistance.

Michigan.

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of

February 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4181 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

Forest Service

Siouxon Timber Sales and Other

Integrated Resource Projects, Gifford

Pinchot National Forest, Skamania

County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: On October 11, 1990, a Notice

of Intent to prepare an environmental

impact statement (EIS) for the Siouxon

Timber Sales and Other integrated

Resource Projects on the Wind River

Ranger District of the Gifford Pinchot

National Forest was published in the

Federal Register (55 FR 41363). The

Forest Service has decided not to

prepare an EIS on this proposal;

therefore, this Notice of Intent is

rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this

cancellation to Julie Knutson, Project

Leader, Wind River Ranger District,

Carson, Washington 98610; phone (509)

427–5645.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Ted Stubblefield,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–4130 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

China Basin Fire Recovery and

Associated Activities Kootenai

National Forest, Lincoln County,

Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The China Basin and Quartz

3 Wildfires burned over 7,400 acres of

Kootenai National Forest system lands

in the late summer of 1994. The Forest

Service intends to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

to assess and disclose the environmental

effects of opportunities designed to

recover economic value of burned

timber, reduce future fuels

accumulations, improve bighorn sheep

winter range, rehabilitate existing

sediment sources, improve hydrologic

conditions in affected watersheds, and

protect long-term soil productivity.

These objectives would be

accomplished through salvage harvest of

fire-killed timber; harvest of fire-killed

and green timber in bighorn sheep

winter range; reforestation of harvested

and severely burned areas; fuels

reduction in harvested areas; restoration

of roads, revegatation of road cuts and

fill slopes, and drainage improvement

on existing roads; and providing for

immediate and long-term recruitment of

instream large woody material within

the China Basin decision area. The

China Basin decision area is located

approximately 5 air miles northwest of

Libby, Montana.

The proposal’s actions to salvage firekilled trees and reforest burned areas,

harvest green and fire-killed trees in

bighorn sheep habitat, restore roads,

reduce fuels, and implement watershed

recovery projects are being considered

together because they represent either

connected or cumulative actions as

defined by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.25). The EIS will tier to the

Kootenai National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan and Final

EIS of September 1987, which provides

overall guidance for achieving the

desired forest condition of the area.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received within

30 days following publication of this

notice.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest. Written

comments and suggestions concerning

the scope of the analysis should be sent

to Lawrence A. Froberg, District Ranger,

Libby Ranger District, 12557 HWY 37,

Libby, Montana, 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Holman, Planning Forester,

Libby Ranger Station. Phone: (406) 293–

8861.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Notices 9659

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the

night of August 14–15, 1994, a lightning

storm started 207 fires on the Kootenai

National Forest in northwest Montana.

Several fires ranging in size from less

than one acre to over 7,000 acres

occurred on the Libby Ranger District.

The china Basin Fire Recovery EIS is

being prepared in response to

conditions resulting from two fires

which burned within the boundary of

the 12,000+ acre Libby Fire Complex.

An interdisciplinary landscape analysis

team used an ecosystem based approach

to assess the fires affects and identify

management opportunities that could be

implemented to move the postfire

landscapes toward a desired ecological

condition.

The tree mortality levels which

resulted from the China Basin and

Quartz 3 wildfires varied considerably.

Within the fire perimeters,

approximately 1,518 acres average 90%

tree mortality, approximately 2,315

acres average 70% tree mortality and

approximately 3,643 acres average 30%

tree mortality. The China Basin fire

burned within and adjacent to a portion

of the Kootenai River corridor currently

under study for designation as a

Recreation River as provided for under

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The

China basin Fire also burned within and

adjacent to the Flagstaff Mountain

Roadless Area (X–690).

The China Basin decision area

contains approximately 10,300 acres

within the Kootenai National Forest in

Lincoln County, Montana. A portion of

the proposed projects are located in the

Quartz Creek drainage, primarily within

the Lamoka and West Fork Quartz

subdrainages. The remainder of the

proposed projects are located within

Hunter Gulch, Dad Creek, Burrel Creek

and China Creek, which flow directly

into the Kootenai River. The legal

location of the decision area is as

follows: Sections 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27,

28, 29, 30 Township 32 North, Range 32

West; Section 36, Township 32 North,

Range 33 West; Sections 1, 12, 13,

Township 31 North, Range 33 West;

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Township 31

North, Range 32 West; Principle

Montana Meridian. The decision area

includes land owned by the Department

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and lands

owned by private individuals.

Proposed Action

The primary purposes of the project

are to recover valuable timber products

from trees burned by wildfires that

occurred in 1994; restore watershed

conditions within the Quartz Creek and

China Creek drainages; and to improve

bighorn sheep winter habitat. The Forest

Service proposes to harvest

approximately 14–19 million board feet

of timber by salvaging fire-killed timber

and imminently dead trees on

approximately 1,955 acres of forest land

outside riparian protection areas and to

improve bighorn sheep habitat by

harvesting approximately 4–5 million

feet of fire-killed and green trees from

approximately 1,141 acres in an area

known locally as the Sheep Range. Only

trees that were killed, or are expected to

die as a result of the fires, would be

harvested in the areas not designed to

improve bighorn sheep winter range.

The proposal includes prescribed

burning of about 600 acres to improve

bighorn sheep winter range and about

727 acres to reduce fuel loads in

harvested areas. An estimated 1,500

acres of units proposed for harvest

would be planted with conifer seedlings

to help meet desired conditions for

species diversity. An additional 650

acres of existing conifer plantation

which burned would be replanted with

conifer seedlings. All temporary roads

constructed for this project, as well as

an estimated 17.5 miles of existing

system and non-system road are

proposed for restoration to reduce

sediment and water yields, and improve

grizzly bear and elk habitat security.

Stabilization of two slumps and riparian

planting of damaged stream banks are

included under the proposal. In

addition, projects to improve watershed

recovery, repair damaged hiking trails,

and damaged wildlife structures

(guzzler) would be accomplished if

adequate funds are available.

Approximately 468 acres of existing

old growth burned in the China Basin

Fire. These stands no longer provide

habitat for old growth dependent

species and will be recommended for a

change in management to big game

summer range. These burned areas of

pre-fire old growth have been proposed

for salvage. Approximately 764 acres

have been recommended for designation

as old growth to replace the stands

which burned.

The decision area includes a portion

of the Flagstaff Mountain Roadless Area

(X–690). Most of the proposed units

intended to improve bighorn sheep

winter range are located within this

roadless area. The activities would

include harvest and prescribed burning.

There is no proposed road construction

within the roadless area. No proposed

activities are located in areas considered

for inclusion to the National Wilderness

System as recommended by the

Kootenai National Forest Plan or present

legislative wilderness proposals.

Due to the high level of tree mortality

in proposed harvest units, most

harvested areas would resemble

clearcut, seedtree, or shelterwood

silvicultural methods. Only those live

trees which must be cut to facilitate

logging fire-killed trees would be

harvested, except in the units intended

to improve bighorn sheep habitat where

live trees would be designated for

removal to enhance forage conditions.

In addition to most live trees, clumps of

snags and downed woody debris would

remain on site for cavity habitat and for

watershed purposes. Timber harvest is

designed to have the minimal amount of

ground disturbance. Proposed harvest

would be completed by tractor, skyline,

cable winching from existing roads and

helicopter logging systems.

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives

in individual delineated management

areas (MA’s). The decision area contains

nine MA’s: 2, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19.

Briefly described, MA 2 is managed to

protect and enhance roadless recreation

use and provide wildlife values. MA 10

is managed to maintain or enhance

habitat effectiveness for winter use by

big-game animals and protect scenic

quality in areas visible from major travel

routes. MA 12 is managed to maintain

or enhance the summer range habitat

effectiveness for big-game species and

produce a programmed yield of timber.

MA 13 is managed to provide the

special habitat necessary for old growth

dependent wildlife. MA 15 is managed

primarily for timber production while

providing for other resource values. MA

18 are areas which have regeneration

difficulties and are managed by

maintaining the vegetation in a healthy

condition and maintaining populations

of existing wildlife. MA 19 is managed

to protect soil stability and water quality

by maintaining the vegetation in a

healthy condition and minimizing

surface disturbance. Timber salvage and

fuels reduction is proposed in MA 12

and MA 15. Harvest units and

prescribed burns to improve bighorn

sheep habitat are proposed within MA

10.

Preliminary Issues

Several preliminary issues of concern

have been identified by the Forest

Service. These issues are briefly

described below:

• Water Quality—Streams in the

decision area have been impacted by

past management and large wildfires.

How would the proposed action affect

water yield, sediment production,

stream stability, and recovery from past

impacts?
9660 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Notices

• Timber Supply—An estimated 24

million board feet of timber was killed

in the China Basin and Quartz 3 fires.

Much of this fire-killed timber will

quickly lose its commercial value due to

rapid deterioration. To what extent does

the proposed action recover the

commercial value of fire-killed timber to

help meet local and national needs?

• Activity in Roadless Areas—What

effect would the proposal have on the

roadless character of the Flagstaff

Mountain Roadless Area?

• Grizzly Bear—The decision area lies

within the recovery area for the Cabinet/

Yaak grizzly bear ecosystem. How

would the proposal maintain and

enhance grizzly bear habitat, and

contribute to recovery efforts?

• Fisheries—Some streams contain

fisheries habitat and resident fish

populations, including torrent sculpin

(a Region 1 sensitive species), bull trout

(currently being considered for listing as

a threatened or endangered species),

and westslope cutthroat trout (likely

hybridized). How would the proposed

action affect fisheries habitat and

populations?

• Bighorn Sheep Habitat—The

proposal contains approximately 1141

acres of ‘‘special cuts’’ intended to

improve bighorn sheep habitat. To what

extent does the proposed action

improve forage for wintering bighorn

sheep?

• Visual Quality along Kootenai

River—The units proposed to improve

bighorn sheep habitat are located along

the Kootenai River Corridor and can be

viewed in places from HWY 2. To what

extent will the viewshed be altered from

along HWY 2?

Forest Plan Amendment

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan has

specific management direction for the

China Basin decision area. The China

Basin proposed action is designed to

maintain or improve resource

conditions and move towards achieving

desired ecological conditions, and is

consistent with the goals and objectives

of the Forest Plan. Prior to making a

NEPA decision, a thorough examination

of all standards and guidelines of the

Forest Plan would be completed and, if

necessary, plan exceptions or

amendments would be addressed in the

EIS.

Decisions To Be Made

The Kootenai National Forest

Supervisor will decide the following:

Should dead and imminently dead

trees within fire areas be harvested and

if so how and where,

What amount, type, and distribution

of watershed restoration projects,

including road restoration, would be

implemented,

What burned areas need to be

replanted,

Should dead and green trees be

harvested to improve bighorn sheep

habitat and it so, how and where, and

If Forest Plan exception or

amendments are necessary to proceed

with the Proposed Action within the

decision area.

Public Involvement and Scoping

Some public participation efforts have

already been initiated under the Sheep

Range Environmental Assessment, prior

to the fires. The design of the proposed

units to improve bighorn sheep habitat

have been altered in response to the

Sheep Range project public

involvement. Consultation with

appropriate State and Federal agencies

has been initiated. Preliminary effects

analysis indicated that the wildfires

may significantly affect the quality of

the human environment, and fire

recovery activities have the potential to

both intensify and reduce effects. These

potential effects prompted the decision

to prepare an EIS for the China Basin

Fire Recovery Project.

This environmental analysis and

decisionmaking process will enable

additional interested and affected

people to participate and contribute to

the final decision. Public participation

will be requested at several points

during the analysis. The Forest Service

will be seeking information, comments,

and assistance from Federal, State, local

agencies, and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed projects.

This input will be used in preparation

of the draft and final EIS. The scoping

process will include:

• Identifying potential issues.

• Identifying major issues to be

analyzed in depth.

• Exploring additional alternatives

which will be derived from issues

recognized during scoping activities.

• Identifying potential environmental

effects of this project and alternatives

(i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects and connected actions).

The analysis will consider a range of

alternatives, including the proposed

action, no action, and other reasonable

action alternatives.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The draft China Basin Fire Recovery

EIS is expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and to be available for public review by

May, 1995. At that time 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 publishes

the Notice of Availability in the Federal

Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed in August, 1995. In the final

EIS, the Forest Service is required to

respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies considered in making a

decision regarding the proposal.

Reviewer’s Obligations

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 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 Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

statement stage 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 and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the

draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and may address the adequacy

of the statement or the merit of the

alternatives discussed. 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.

Responsible Official

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest, 506 US

Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923 is the

Responsible Official. I have delegated

the responsibility to prepare the China

Basin Fire Recovery Environmental

Impact Statement to Lawrence A.

Froberg, District Ranger, Libby Ranger

District. As the Responsible Official I
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Notices 9661

will decide which, if any, of the

proposed projects will be implemented.

I will document the decision and

reasons for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

Robert L. Schrenk,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–4084 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 33–93]

Foreign-Trade Zone 92—Gulfport/

Biloxi, MS; Application for Subzone;

Chevron U.S.A. Products Company (Oil

Refinery), Pascagoula, MS;

Amendment of Application

Notice is hereby given that the

application of the Gulfport/Biloxi

Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ

92, requesting special-purpose subzone

status for the oil refinery of Chevron

U.S.A. Products Company (Chevron), in

Pascagoula, Mississippi (58 FR 41710,

8/5/93) has been amended to expand the

scope of authority for activity to be

conducted under zone procedures.

The original application indicated

that Chevron would accept approval

subject to the standard oil refinery

restrictions (privileged foreign status on

incoming foreign merchandise and full

duties on fuel consumed). The

amendment requests authority for the

option to elect nonprivileged foreign

status (NPF option) on foreign-sourced

inputs used in the production of

petrochemical feedstocks and refinery

by-products, including the following:

benzene, toluene, xylene, liquified

petroleum gas, propane, butane, ethane,

ethylene, propylene, butylene,

butadiene, petroleum coke, asphalt,

sulfur, sulfuric acid, distillates, fuel oils,

kerosene.

The application remains otherwise

unchanged.

The comment period is reopened

until March 23, 1995.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4198 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

International Trade Administration

[A–351–825, A–533–810, A–588–833]

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless

Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Darzenta or James Terpstra, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3320 or (202) 482–

6965, respectively.

Scope of Orders

The product covered by these orders

is stainless steel bar (SSB). SSB means

articles of stainless steel in straight

lengths that have been either hot-rolled,

forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled

or otherwise cold-finished, or ground,

having a uniform solid cross section

along their whole length in the shape of

circles, segments of circles, ovals,

rectangles (including squares), triangles,

hexagons, octagons or other convex

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished

SSBs that are turned or ground in

straight lengths, whether produced from

hot-rolled bar or from straightened and

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to these orders is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of these

orders is dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Orders

In accordance with section 735(a) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), on December 19, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) made its final

determinations that SSB from Brazil,

India and Japan was being sold at less

than fair value (59 FR 66914, 66915,

66930 (Brazil, India and Japan,

respectively) December 28, 1994). On

February 10, 1995, the International

Trade Commission notified the

Department of its final determinations,

pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the

Act, that an industry in the United

States is materially injured by reason of

imports of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, all unliquidated entries of

SSB from Brazil, India and Japan

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after August 4,

1994, which is the date on which the

Department published its notices of

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, are liable for the

assessment of antidumping duties.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1)

of the Act, the Department will direct

Customs officers to assess, upon further

advice by the administering authority,

antidumping duties equal to the amount

by which the foreign market value of the

merchandise exceeds the United States

price for all relevant entries of SSB from

Brazil, India and Japan. Customs officers

must require, at the same time as

importers would normally deposit

estimated duties on this merchandise, a

cash deposit equal to the estimated

weighted-average antidumping duty

margins as noted below. The ‘‘All

Others’’ rate applies to all exporters of

subject merchandise not specifically

listed below.

The ad valorem weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter

Margin

percentage (percent)

Brazil:

Acos Villares, S.A. .................... 19.43

All Others .................................. 19.43

India:

Grand Foundry, Ltd. .................. 3.87

Mukand, Ltd. ............................. 21.02

All Others .................................. 12.45

Japan:

Aichi Steel Works, Ltd .............. 61.47

Daido Steel Co., Ltd ................. 61.47

Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd .... 61.47

All Others .................................. 61.47

This notice constitutes the

antidumping duty orders with respect to

SSB from Brazil, India and Japan,

pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act.

Interested parties may contact the