Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19015

Date: May 10–11, 1995.

Time: 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

Place: Governor’s House Hotel, 17th Street

and Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC, 20036.

Type of Meeting: Open to the public.

Persons may participate in the meeting if

time and space permit.

Comments: The public may file written

comments before or after the meeting by

contacting the person below.

Purpose: The council agenda will include:

the Forestry Research and Education

Initiative; 1995 Farm Bill; National Science

and Technology Council strategy;

performance measures for research; science

planning as it relates to forestry and natural

resources; review of the Cooperative Forestry

Research Program (McIntire-Stennis); and

other current research issues.

Contact Person for Agenda and More

Information: Jerry A. Sesco, Forest Service,

14th & Independence SW, P.O. Box 96090,

Washington, DC, 20090–6090; telephone

(202) 205–1665.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

William D. Carlson,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9292 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–M

Data Collection Guidelines To Be Used

in Formulating New Crop Insurance

Policies

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation, Office of Risk

Management, Consolidated Farm

Service Agency.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of guidelines

for data collection to assist the Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation in

researching the feasibility of formulating

crop insurance policies for new crops.

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation (‘‘FCIC’’) publishes this

notice to advise all interested parties of

FCIC’s guidelines for data collection to

assist the Corporation in researching the

feasibility of formulating crop insurance

policies for new crops.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Research and Evaluation

Branch, FCIC, P.O. Box 419293, Kansas

City, Missouri 64141.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vondie W. O’Conner, Jr., Acting Chief,

or Floyd Niernberger, Specialty Crop

Coordinator, Research and Evaluation

Branch, FCIC, P.O. Box 419293, Kansas

City, Missouri 64141. Telephone (816)

926–6343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of this notice is to outline the

data required by FCIC to develop new

crop insurance programs. Proposals for

new insured crops, along with any of

the following supporting data, can be

forwarded to FCIC at the address listed

above. The person or organization

initiating the new crop program request

can facilitate the request by submitting

as much of the supporting data as

possible. For data not readily available,

or for questions or assistance, please

contact FCIC at the respective

Consolidated Farm Service Agency

(CFSA) office or the FCIC Research and

Evaluation Branch at the address listed

above. Submissions in electronic

formats such as ASCII, WordPerfect, or

Lotus are encouraged but not required.

This is a summary of the content of

the New Crop Program Development

Handbook (FCIC 23010). A copy of the

Handbook is available by request from

the address listed above. This summary

of data requirements is organized into

five areas and describes the typical

information evaluated by FCIC.

I. New Crop Program Request Criteria

A. All new crop program requests

should include:

(1) A petition or similar request, or

recommendation by an FCIC Regional

Service Office requesting coverage of a

new crop and indicating how a

minimum 10% level of participation by

growers of the crop in the area of the

request will be achieved.

(2) An estimate of the number of acres

of the crop grown in the area, and the

percentage that crop comprises of all

crop acres in the area.

(3) An estimate of the value of the

crop grown in the area, and the

percentage that crop value comprises of

the total crop value of all crops grown

in the area.

(4) An estimate of the average percent

contribution to individual farm income

of the crop for those producers growing

the crop in the area.

(5) An estimate of the economic

significance of the crop to the area for

the next five years, and the reasons for

any significant expected changes.

B. In addition, priority will be given

to requests that meet at least one of the

following criteria:

(1) The annual value of the crop

produced exceeds $3,000,000 in the

National Agricultural Statistics Service

defined crop reporting district for which

coverage is requested.

(2) The annual value of the crop

produced exceeds $9,000,000 within the

state for which coverage is requested.

(3) The annual value of the crop

produced exceeds $15,000,000 in all

states covered by the affected FCIC

Regional Service Office.

(4) At the national level, the annual

value of the crop produced exceeds

$30,000,000.

II. Risk Profile and Analysis

These data should provide historical

information for the crop.

A. Perils affecting the crop:

(1) Natural perils (e.g. fire, drought,

hail, etc.);

(2) Economic perils—such as market

perils, changes in consumer taste, or

marketing orders; and

(3) Human perils—such as risk

associated with failure to follow good

farming practices, theft, etc.

B. Loss valuation:

(1) How is damage to the crop

evaluated?

C. Market requirements and

characteristics:

(1) Where is the crop marketed?

(2) How is the crop marketed?

D. Available loss control techniques:

(1) Production risks—For example,

can losses be prevented or mitigated by

use of irrigation, avoiding varieties

susceptible to loss, preventative pest

and disease control measures; by use of

frost protection methods, site selection,

cultivar selection, cultural practices, or

pest, weed, and disease control

measures; by reconditioning or salvage.

(2) Market risk—Identify forward

contracting tools available, or futures or

options market tools available.

(3) Problems associated with storage

of the crop—Are there geographic price

differences?

III. Actuarial Sufficiency and Data

Availability

Provide data indicating:

A. What producer production records

are available to identify yields;

B. As much historical yield data as

possible;

C. What production records are

available to identify production costs;

D. Farm budgets or other production

cost analysis;

E. Marketing data; and

F. Extension farm evaluation

information.

IV. Agronomic and Horticultural

Suitability

These data include written

recommendations and supporting

documentation from the Extension

Service, independent field research

facilities, or other experts on acceptable

plant varieties for the area. This

documentation should cover the

following areas:

A. Acceptable plant varieties for the

area;

B. Cultural conditions;

C. Grower and industry association

records and recommendations;

D. Soil Conservation Service land use

capabilities and recommendations; and
19016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

E. Other test results or studies.

V. Marketing Dynamics

Describe where and how the market

operates for the proposed crop.

Specifically, provide the following:

A. Market characteristics:

(1) Use—fresh or processed;

(2) If processed, how;

(3) Market size;

(4) Market location; and

(5) Market age;

B. Marketing services:

(1) Pricing—contract or open market;

(2) Grading;

(3) Marketing Orders;

(4) Storage facilities;

(5) Processing facilities; and

(6) Fresh market packing facilities.

B. Market competition:

(1) Domestic market; and

(2) International market.

Notice

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority contained in the Federal Crop

Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.

1501, et seq.), the FCIC herewith gives

notice of the availability of the ‘‘New

Crop Program Development Handbook’’

containing the data collection

guidelines for use in developing new

crop insurance programs.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l).

Done in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1995.

Suzy Dittrich,

Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–9196 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

Forest Service

Cleanup and Rehabilitation of the

White King and Lucky Lass Uranium

Mines, Fremont National Forest, Lake

County, OR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: On August 10, 1989, a Notice

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

for the Cleanup and Rehabilitation of

the White King and Lucky Lass

Uranium Mines on the Lakeview Ranger

District of the Fremont National Forest

was published in the Federal Register

(54 FR 32837). A revised NOI was

published in the Federal Register on

February 12, 1991 (56 FR 5676). The

draft EIS was released in August 1991,

with a Notice of Availability date of

August 23, 1991 (56 FR 41842). The

Forest Service has decided not to

prepare the final EIS on this proposal

because an RI/FS will be prepared;

therefore, this Notice of Intent is

rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this

cancellation to Janine Cannon,

Environmental Coordinator, Lakeview

Ranger District, Lakeview, Oregon

97630; phone (503) 947–6333.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Charles R. Graham,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–9235 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

South Manti Timber Salvage; Manti-La

Sal National Forest, Sanpete and

Sevier Counties, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to

prepare an environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,

Manti-La Sal National Forest is

preparing an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the

environmental effects of timber salvage

on the Ferron and Sanpete Ranger

Districts. The Notice of Intent to prepare

an environmental impact statement

published February 28, 1994 (Vol. 59,

No. 39, page 9462) indicated the draft

EIS would be available for public review

June, 1994 and the final EIS released

September 16, 1994.

Completion has been delayed and

revised dates for filing the draft and

final EIS have been developed. The

Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

and available for public review May,

1995. The final EIS is expected to be

released September, 1995. All other

information published in the February

28, 1994 Federal Notice remains

relevant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the proposed action

and EIS should be directed to David

Hatfield, Interdisciplinary Team Leader,

Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West

Price River Drive, Price, Utah, 84501.

Phone (801) 637–2817.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Aaron L. Howe,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–9240 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Buffalo River Tributaries Watershed,

Searcy, Marion, Newton, Pope and Van

Buren Counties, AR

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No

Significant Impact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969; the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations (40

CFR Part 1500); and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives

notice that an environmental impact

statement is not being prepared for the

Buffalo River Tributaries Watershed,

Searcy, Marion, Newton, Pope, and Van

Buren Counties, Arkansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas H. Wehri, State Conservationist,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Room 5404, Federal Office Building,

700 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock,

AR, 72201, (501) 324–5445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

environmental assessment of action

indicates that the project will not cause

significant local, regional, or national

impacts on the environment. As a result

of these findings, Thomas H. Wehri,

State Conservationist, has determined

that the preparation and review of an

environmental impact statement are not

needed for this project.

The project purpose is watershed

protection, (water quality

improvement). The planned words of

improvement include conservation

plans which will provide for land

treatment and nonstructural

(conservation easements) measures.

Land treatment measures include 33,000

acres of pasture improvement, three

miles of streambank stabilization, 500

acres of critical area treatment,

installation of 25 animal waste

management facilities. Nonstructural

measures include 820 acres of

conservation easements needed to

establish filter strips, preserve and

reestablish riparian zones.

The Notice of a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) has been

forwarded to the Environmental

Protection Agency and to various

Federal, State, and local agencies and

interested parties. A limited number of

copies of the FONSI are available to fill

single copy requests at the above

address. Basic data developed during

the environmental assessment are on