8038 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Winschell Dugway Motorized Trail 

Project; Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest, Idaho 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement to analyze and disclose the 

environmental effects of constructing a 

motorized trail from Morgan Meadows 

to Caribou City on the Soda Springs 

Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

March 18, 2016. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected June, 2016 and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected October, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Garth Smelser, Forest Supervisor, 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 

Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83402. 

Comments may also be sent via email to 

comments-intermtn-caribou-targhee@

fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 208–557– 

5827. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Taylor, Forest NEPA Coordinator 

at 208–557–5837. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose for this project is to 

respond to outside public interest to 

provide a motorized trail opportunity 

from Morgan Meadows to Caribou City 

allowing forest visitors to experience the 

historic mining history of the area. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action would establish 

a motorized ATV trail from Morgan 

Meadows to Caribou City. The proposed 

action comes from planning efforts that 

have occurred since 2007. This 

alternative includes constructing 

approximately 2.2 miles of new trail and 

managing the new trail as a motorized 

ATV trail. Further, the proposed action 

calls for reconstructing approximately 

4.85 miles of existing trails, exploratory 

mining roads and abandoned roads (see 

Alternative 2 Map) to implement the 

Winschell Dugway Motorized Trail 

project. 

The proposed action addresses the 

trail corridor in the following specific 

segments: 

1. Use .75 mile of ATV Trail #449, 

from Morgan Meadows to Tincup Creek. 

2. Reconstruction of 1.5 miles of trail 

from Tincup Creek to the saddle west of 

Jackknife Basin. 

3. Construct 1.5 miles along the 

ridgeline west of Jackknife Basin to an 

old reclaimed gold exploratory road. 

4. Use of old reclaimed gold 

exploratory road for approximately .6 

mile. 

5. Construction of .1 mile down into 

the Bilk Creek drainage. 

6. Use of abandoned mining road that 

crosses Bilk Creek and continues to 

ridgeline between Anderson and Bilk 

Creeks. 

7. Construction of .5 mile on ridgeline 

in the Anderson Creek drainage back 

into Bilk Creek. 

8. Use of old roadbed for .2 mile in 

Bilk Creek. 

9. Construction of .1 mile of route that 

would tie into a well-used road that 

takes the trail to Caribou City. 

The route would require the 

installation of ATV bridges at four 

stream crossings; on Bilk Creek (2), 

Tincup Creek (1) and on an unnamed 

tributary to Tincup Creek (1). A 

cooperative agreement with Bonneville 

County Parks and Recreation and Idaho 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

would be created, specifying 

management and maintenance 

responsibilities of all parties. 

Possible Alternatives 

Alternatives currently being 

considered for the Winschell Dugway 

Motorized Trail project include: (a) No 

action, and (b) proposed action as 

outlined above. 

Responsible Official 

Forest Supervisor, Garth Smelser, is 

the responsible official. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision to be made is whether to 

implement the proposed action as 

described above, or to meet the purpose 

and need for action through some other 

combination of activities as a result of 

the scoping process, or to take no action 

at this time. 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process, which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

The purpose of this comment period 

is to provide an opportunity for the 

public to provide early and meaningful 

participation on a proposed action prior 

to a decision being made by the 

Responsible Official. Per 36 CFR 218, 

only those who provide specific, written 

comments regarding the proposed 

project or activity will be eligible to file 

an objection. 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the public record for this 

proposed action. Comments submitted 

anonymously will be accepted and 

considered, however. 

Dated: February 10, 2016. 

Garth Smelser, 

Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03250 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

Request for Extension and Revision of 

a Currently Approved Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards 

Administration’s (GIPSA) intention to 

request that the Office of Management 

and Budget approve a 3-year extension 

and revision of a currently approved 

information collection in support of the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the Swine Contract 

Library program. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before April 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit 

comments on this notice. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• Internet: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail, hand deliver, or courier to R. 

Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 

2530–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604. 

• Fax to (202) 690–2173. 

Instructions: All comments should 

refer to the date and page number of this 

issue of the Federal Register. The 

information collection package, public 

comments, and other documents 

relating to this action will be available 

for public inspection in the above office 

during regular business hours. Please 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Notices 8039 

call GIPSA’s Management and Budget 

Services at (202) 720–7486 to arrange a 

viewing of these documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine M. Grasso, Program Analyst, 

Litigation and Economic Analysis 

Division at (202) 720–7201 or 

catherine.m.grasso@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Grain 

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration is responsible for 

maintaining the Swine Contract Library, 

which is authorized by the Livestock 

Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act of 

1999, and requires that certain packers 

submit hog procurement contracts and 

delivery estimates to GIPSA. The LMR 

was reauthorized on October 5, 2006, 

September 27, 2010, and September 30, 

2015, for an additional 5 years each 

time. 

Title: Swine Contract Library. 

OMB Number: 0580–0021. 

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 

2016. 

Type of Request: Extension and 

revision of a currently approved 

information collection. 

Abstract: The information collection 

and recordkeeping requirements for the 

Swine Contract Library are essential to 

maintaining the mandatory library of 

swine marketing contracts and reporting 

the number of swine contracted for 

delivery. Currently 32 packers are 

required to file contracts and report 

certain information on hog deliveries for 

a total of 54 plants that they either 

operate or at which they have swine 

slaughtered. We expect the overall 

number of plants and packers to remain 

relatively constant, but the specific 

packers required to report will vary with 

consolidation and construction in the 

industry. 

Packers are required to report 

information for individual plants. The 

information collection burden estimate 

provided below is based on time and 

cost requirements at the plant level. 

Consequently, packers that report for 

more than one plant would bear a cost 

that would be a multiple of the perplant estimates. 

We understand from discussions with 

packers complying with current 

reporting requirements that reporting 

packers have adapted pre-existing data 

and information systems to provide the 

required information. 

There are two types of information 

collections required for the Swine 

Contract Library. 

The first information collection 

requirement consists of submitting 

example contracts. Initially, a packer 

submits example contracts currently in 

effect or available for each swine 

processing plant that is subject to the 

regulations. Subsequently, a packer 

submits example contracts for any 

offered, new, or amended contracts that 

vary from previously submitted 

contracts in regard to the base price 

determination, the application of a 

ledger or accrual account, carcass merit 

premium and discount schedules 

(including the determination of the lean 

percent or other merit of the carcass that 

is used to determine the amount of the 

premiums and discounts and how those 

premiums and discounts are applied), or 

the use and amount of noncarcass merit 

premiums or discounts. The initial 

submission of example contracts 

requires more time than subsequent 

filings of new contracts or changes, as 

packers initially need to review all their 

contracts to identify the unique types 

that need to be represented by an 

example contract submitted to GIPSA. 

Thereafter, subsequent filings require 

a minimal amount of effort on the part 

of packers, as only example contracts 

that represent a new or different type 

need to be filed with GIPSA. Form 

P&SP–342 ‘‘Contract Submission Cover 

Sheet,’’ must accompany each contract 

submission to identify the contract, the 

plan for which the contract is valid, and 

the contact person. 

Packers are required to submit both 

written and verbal contracts. Packers 

must document verbal contracts which 

adds to their existing recordkeeping 

systems in order to comply with this 

requirement. Optional form P&SP–343 

‘‘Verbal Contract Optional 

Documentation Sheet,’’ provides a 

format to document the verbal 

agreement. 

The second information collection 

requirement is a monthly filing of 

summary information on form P&SP 

341, Monthly Report: Estimates of 

Swine To Be Delivered Under Contract. 

The form for the monthly filing is 

simple and brief. For new packers 

required to start reporting, this data 

should be available in the packers’ 

existing record system. We encourage 

electronic submission and provide the 

necessary information on procedures to 

submit data to GIPSA electronically. 

The estimates of time requirements 

used for the burden estimates below 

were developed in consultation with 

GIPSA personnel knowledgeable in the 

industry’s recordkeeping practices. The 

estimates also reflect our experience in 

assembling large amount of data during 

the course of numerous investigations 

involving use of data collected from the 

industry. Estimates of time requirements 

and hourly wage costs for developing 

electronic recordkeeping and reporting 

systems are based on our experience in 

developing similar systems in 

consultation with our automated 

information systems staff. 

(1) Contract Submission Cover Sheet 

(Form P&SP–342) 

Estimate of Burden: Reporting burden 

for submission of contracts is estimated 

to include 4 hours per plant for an 

initial review of all contracts to 

categorize them into types and identify 

unique examples, plus an additional 

0.25 hours per unique contract 

identified during the initial review to 

submit an example of that contract. 

After the initial filing, the reporting 

burden is estimated to include 0.25 

hours per plant to submit an example of 

each new or amended contract. 

Respondents: Packers required to 

report information for the Swine 

Contract Library. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 32 

packers (total of 54 plants). 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Plant: Number of responses per plant 

varies. Some plants could have no 

contracts, while others could have up to 

80 contracts. We receive an average of 

six example contracts per plant per year 

for offered contracts and for amended 

existing or available contracts. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: Initial filing: 5.5 total 

hours for the initial filing of examples 

of existing contracts by all plants newly 

subject to the regulations combined. 

Based on changes in the industry, we 

anticipate one new plant to become 

subject to the regulations each year. 

Calculated as follows: 4 hours per plant 

for initial review × 1 new plant = 4 

hours for initial review; 0.25 hours per 

contract × 6 

example contracts per plant × 1 new 

plant = 1.5 hours; 4 hours + 1.5 hours 

= 5.5 total hours. 

Thereafter, 81 total hours annually for 

all subsequent filing of example 

contracts by all plants combined, based 

on an average of 6 newly offered or 

amended contracts annually. 

Calculated as follows: 0.25 hours per 

contract × 6 example contracts per 

plant × 54 plants = 81 hours. 

Total Cost: Initial filing $138 for one 

expected new plant. Calculated as 

follows: 5.5 hours × $25 per hour = $138 

Thereafter: $2025 annually for all 

plants combined for submission of 

subsequent filings. Calculated as 

follows: 81 hours × $25 per hour = 

$2,025 

(2) Monthly Report: Estimate of Swine 

To Be Delivered Under Contract (Form 

P&SP–341) 

Estimate of Burden: The reporting 

burden for compiling data, completing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8040 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Notices 

and submitting the form is estimated to 

average 2 hours per manually prepared 

and submitted (by mail or facsimile) 

report and 1 hour per electronically 

prepared and submitted report. There 

would be an estimated additional onetime set up burden of 1 hour at a cost 

of $60 per plant for a packer that chose 

to create a spreadsheet or database for 

recordkeeping and preparation of 

monthly estimates. There would be an 

estimated additional 2 hour burden at a 

cost of $60 per hour or $120 per plant 

for a packer to develop procedures to 

extract and format the required 

information and to develop an interface 

between the packer’s electronic 

recordkeeping system and GIPSA’s 

system. The hourly rate for the 

development of electronic tools is 

assumed to be high due to the need to 

use personnel with specialized 

computer skills. 

Respondents: Packers required to 

report information for the Swine 

Contract Library. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 32 

packers (total of 54 plants). 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Plant: 12 (1 per month for 12 months). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 1,296 hours for all plants 

combined provided all plants used 

manual compiling, preparation, and 

submission. 

Calculated as follows: 2 hours per 

response × 54 plants × 12 responses per 

plant = 1,296 

648 hours for all plants combined 

provided all plants use electronic 

compiling, preparation, and submission. 

Calculated as follows: 1 hour per 

response × 54 plants × 12 responses per 

plant = 648 hours. 

Total Cost: $32,400 annually for all 

plants combined provided all use 

manual submission. Calculated as 

follows: 1,296 × $25 per hour = $32,400 

$16,200 annually for all plants 

combined provided all were to 

completely utilize electronic 

preparation and submission. Calculated 

as follows: 648 hours × $25 per hour = 

$16,200 

Additional $180 one-time set-up cost 

provided all plants newly subject to the 

Regulations were to completely utilize 

electronic systems for preparation and 

submission. Calculated as follows: 1 

hour build spreadsheet/database + 2 

hours develop electronic interface = 3 

hours. 3 hours total development × $60 

per hour × 1 new plant = $180 

The Paperwork Reduction Act also 

requires GIPSA to measure the 

recordkeeping burden. Under the 

Packers and Stockyards Act and its 

existing regulations, each packer is 

required to maintain and make available 

upon request any records necessary to 

verify information on all transactions 

between the packer and producers from 

whom the packer obtains swine for 

slaughter. Records that packers are 

required to maintain under existing 

regulations would meet the 

requirements for verifying the accuracy 

of information required to be reported 

for the Swine Contract Library. These 

records include original contracts, 

agreements, receipts, schedules, and 

other records associated with any 

transaction related to the purchase, 

pricing, and delivery of swine for 

slaughter under the terms of marketing 

contracts. Additional annual costs of 

maintaining records would be nominal 

since packers are required to store and 

maintain such records as a matter of 

normal business practice and in 

conformity with existing regulations. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) 

and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1)), GIPSA specifically 

requests comment to: 

(a) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(b) 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; 

(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(d) Minimize the burden on 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. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for the Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506 and 5 CFR 

1320.8. 

Larry Mitchell, 

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03195 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Title: Construction Progress Reporting 

Surveys. 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0153. 

Form Number(s): C–700, C–700(SL), 

C–700(R), and C–700 (F). 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Number of Respondents: 24,000. 

Average Hours per Response: 30 

minutes for initial response; 10 minutes 

in succeeding months. 

Burden Hours: 56,000. 

Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census 

Bureau is requesting an extension with 

minor revisions of a currently approved 

collection for forms C–700, Private 

Construction Projects; C–700(R), 

Multifamily Residential Projects, C– 

700(SL), State and Local Governments 

Projects and C–700(F), Federal 

Government Projects. 

These forms are used to conduct the 

Construction Progress Reporting 

Surveys (CPRS) to collect information 

on the dollar value of construction put 

in place on non-residential building 

projects under construction by private 

companies or individuals, private 

multifamily residential buildings, and 

building projects under construction by 

federal and state and local governments. 

The Census Bureau uses the 

information collected on these forms to 

publish estimates of the monthly dollar 

value of construction put in place. 

Statistics from the CPRS become part of 

the monthly ‘‘Value of Construction Put 

in Place’’ or ‘‘Construction Spending’’ 

series, a Principal Economic Indicator 

that is used extensively by the federal 

government in making policy decisions 

and used to estimate the gross domestic 

product (GDP). The private sector uses 

the statistics for market analysis and 

other research. Construction now 

accounts for approximately five percent 

of GDP. 

There are two changes planned to the 

content of these questionnaires. The 

first is the elimination of the data item 

for square footage of the construction 

project. This information was used for 

editing but is no longer needed. The 

second change is the addition of a data 

item to collect the projected completion 

date to assist with imputation if a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES