Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Notices 6347 

1 To view the notice, the commodity import 

evaluation document, and the comments we 

received, go to (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2009-0037). 

2 ‘‘Pest risk assessment and additional evidence 

provided by South Africa on Guignardia citricarpa 

Kiely, citrus black spot fungus-CBS.’’ EFSA Journal 

(2008) 925: 1-4. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0037] 

Notice of Determination of Pest-Free 

Areas in the Republic of South Africa 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we are recognizing 16 additional 

magisterial districts in 3 provinces in 

the Republic of South Africa as pest-free 

areas for citrus black spot. Based on our 

site visit to the area and our review of 

the documentation submitted by South 

Africa’s national plant protection 

organization, which we made available 

to the public for review and comment 

through a previous notice, the 

Administrator has determined that those 

districts meet the criteria in our 

regulations for recognition as pest-free 

areas for citrus black spot. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phillip B. Grove, Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, 

MD 20737; (301) 734-6280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

regulations in ‘‘Subpart-Fruits and 

Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 

319.56-50, referred to below as the 

regulations), the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

prohibits or restricts the importation of 

fruits and vegetables into the United 

States from certain parts of the world to 

prevent plant pests from being 

introduced into and spread within the 

United States. 

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations 

contains a performance-based process 

for approving the importation of 

commodities that, based on the findings 

of a pest risk analysis, can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

One of the designated phytosanitary 

measures is that the fruits or vegetables 

are imported from a pest-free area in the 

country of origin that meets the 

requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom 

from that pest and are accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate stating that 

the fruits or vegetables originated in a 

pest-free area in the country of origin. 

Under the regulations in § 319.56-5, 

APHIS requires that determinations of 

pest-free areas be made in accordance 

with the criteria for establishing 

freedom from pests found in 

International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4, 

‘‘Requirements for the Establishment of 

Pest-Free Areas.’’ The international 

standard was established by the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization and is incorporated by 

reference in our regulations in 7 CFR 

300.5. In addition, APHIS must also 

approve the survey protocol used to 

determine and maintain pest-free status, 

as well as protocols for actions to be 

performed upon detection of a pest. 

Pest-free areas are subject to audit by 

APHIS to verify their status. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice1 in the Federal 

Register on July 27, 2009 (74 FR 36999- 

37000, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0037), 

in which we announced the availability, 

for review and comment, of a 

commodity import evaluation document 

titled ‘‘Recognition of Additional 

Magisterial Districts as Citrus Black 

Spot Pest-Free Areas for the Republic of 

South Africa.’’ In this document, we 

examined the survey protocols and 

other information provided by South 

Africa’s national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) relative to its 

system to establish freedom, 

phytosanitary measures to maintain 

freedom, and system for the verification 

of the maintenance of freedom from 

citrus black spot (Guignardia 

citricarpa). 

We initially solicited comments on 

the notice for 60 days ending on 

September 25, 2009. However, we 

extended the comment period to 

October 13, 2009, to give interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. We received 12 

comments by that date, all but 1 of 

which supported the recognition of the 

16 additional magisterial districts in 3 

provinces in South Africa as pest-free 

areas. Commenters included members of 

Congress, a diplomatic official, 

fumigators, importers, distributors, 

packers, growers, and a citrus marketing 

association. 

The commenter who disagreed with 

our action to recognize the pest-free 

areas cited two issues. 

The first issue concerns the reliability 

of the data used by APHIS to support its 

recognition of pest-free areas for citrus 

black spot. The commenter stated that 

the survey data used by APHIS was 

largely derived from a sampling of 

noncommercial production blocks of 

citrus in the areas recognized as being 

pest-free, when most of the citrus 

destined for export to the United States 

would originate from commercial 

production blocks. The commenter 

suggested that APHIS obtain survey data 

specific to the commercial production 

blocks that will be exporting to the 

United States before recognizing these 

areas as being free of citrus black spot. 

The South African NPPO collected 

data from both commercial and 

noncommercial production blocks to 

ensure uniform coverage of the survey 

region, and examined the data from both 

types of blocks to determine the pest 

status of the areas of concern. Because 

relatively few citrus orchards are 

currently established in these areas, 

many of the trees surveyed for citrus 

black spot are located in home gardens 

and backyards. None of the samples 

taken in these areas indicated the 

presence of citrus black spot. 

The second issue raised by the 

commenter focused on the effectiveness 

of ongoing pest risk assessment and 

monitoring efforts in those areas 

recognized by APHIS as being pest-free. 

As support, the commenter cited a 

document produced by a European 

Union panel of plant health experts that 

assessed pest risk data provided by the 

South African NPPO.2 The panel noted 

in its assessment that IPPC standards 

require that an intensive continuous 

monitoring program be in place to 

maintain a pest-free area, but that the 

NPPO of South Africa did not provide 

sufficient data for an accurate 

assessment of their monitoring program. 

The NPPO of South Africa is a 

signatory to the IPPC and therefore 

observes phytosanitary treatment 

standards that are recognized by other 

signatories, including the United States. 

Under the regulations in § 319.56-5(a), 

APHIS requires that determinations of 

pest-free areas be made in accordance 

with standards established by the IPPC. 

In addition, § 319.56-5(b) requires that 

the survey protocol used by a foreign 

NPPO to determine and maintain pestfree status be approved by APHIS. 

South Africa participates in an APHIS 

preclearance program for citrus 

intended for export to the United States. 

We only allow citrus from APHISapproved pest-free areas to participate 

in the program. In the many years of 

import history with the preclearance 

program, which began in the mid-1990s, 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
6348 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Notices 

we have not detected citrus black spot. 

However, if it were detected, export of 

the host material to the United States 

would be suspended from the 

production area and APHIS would 

request South Africa to conduct an 

investigation. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 319.56-5(c), we are announcing the 

Administrator’s determination that the 

magisterial districts of Boshof, 

Fauresmith, Jacobsdal, Koffiefontein, 

and Philippolis in the Free State 

Province; Christiania and Taung in the 

North West Province; and Barkly-wes/ 

west, Gordonia, Hay, Herbert, 

Hopetown, Kenhardt, Kimberely, 

Namakwaland, and Prieska in the 

Northern Cape Province meet the 

criteria of § 319.56-5(a) and (b) with 

respect to freedom from citrus black 

spot. Accordingly, we are recognizing 

those magisterial districts as pest-free 

areas for citrus black spot and have 

added them to the list of pest-free areas, 

which may be viewed on the Internet at 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

import_export/plants/manuals/ports/ 

downloads/ 

DesignatedPestFreeAreas.pdf). The list 

of pest-free areas may also be obtained 

from the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day 

of February 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2846 Filed 2–8–10: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal 

Advisory Committee (LTFAC) will hold 

a meeting on February 23, 2010 at Sierra 

Nevada College, 999 Tahoe Boulevard, 

Incline Village, Nevada 89451–9500. 

This Committee, established by the 

Secretary of Agriculture on December 

15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to 

provide advice to the Secretary on 

implementing the terms of the Federal 

Interagency Partnership on the Lake 

Tahoe Region and other matters raised 

by the Secretary. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

February 23, 2010 beginning at 9 a.m. 

and ending at 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 

Boulevard, Incline Village, Nevada 

89451–9500. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla 

Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit (LTBMU), Forest Service, 35 

College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 

96150, (530) 543–2773. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to 

be covered on the agenda include: 

• The Tahoe Working Group (TWG) 

will present their Lake Tahoe Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act 

(SNPLMA) Round 11 recommendation 

for capital projects and science themes. 

The LTFAC will discuss and with 

possible consensus, put forward a 

preliminary recommendation for public 

comment. 

• Discuss the status of re-chartering 

and member nominations for the next 

LTFAC two year term. 

• Public Comment. 

Issues may be brought to the attention 

of the Committee during the open 

public comment period at the meeting 

or by filing written statements for the 

Committee before or after the meeting. 

Please refer any written comments 

attention Arla Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit at the contact address 

stated above. 

If you have questions concerning 

special needs for this public meeting, or 

to request sign language interpretation, 

contact Linda Lind at (530) 543–2787 or 

TTY (530) 543–0956, or via e-mail at 

LLind@fs.fed.us. 

If another LTFAC meeting is needed 

to put forth the Round 11 preliminary 

recommendation for capital projects and 

science themes; due to time restraints 

the Federal Register notice will be 

published less than 15 calendar days 

prior to the meeting. There will be 

timely meeting notification through the 

LTBMU Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

r5/ltbmu/local/ltfac). 

Dated: February 2, 2010. 

Terri Marceron, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2671 Filed 2–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Deposit of Biological Materials 

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on this continuing 

information collection, as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before April 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov. 

Include ‘‘0651–0022 Deposit of 

Biological Materials comment’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 571–273–0112, marked to the 

attention of Susan K. Fawcett. 

• Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, Records 

Officer, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to the attention of 

Brian Hanlon, Director, Office of Patent 

Legal Administration, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by 

telephone at 571–272–5047; or by e-mail 

at Brian.Hanlon@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The deposit of biological materials as 

part of a patent application is required 

by 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) and outlined in 37 

CFR Ch. 1, Subpart G, 1.801–1.809. 

Every patent must contain a description 

of the invention sufficient to enable a 

person (knowledgeable in the relevant 

science), to make and use the invention 

as specified by 35 U.S.C. 112. The term 

biological includes material that is 

capable of self-replication either directly 

or indirectly. When the invention 

involves a biological material, 

sometimes words alone cannot 

sufficiently describe how to make and 

use the invention in a reproducible or 

repeatable manner. In such cases, the 

required biological material must be 

both known and readily available 

(neither condition alone is sufficient) or 

be deposited in a suitable depository 

that has been recognized as an 

International Depository Authority 

(IDA) established under the Budapest 

Treaty, or a depository recognized by 

the USPTO to meet the requirements of 

35 U.S.C. 112. 

In cases where a deposit is necessary, 

it must be made under conditions that 

assure access to those entitled thereto 

under 37 CFR 1.14 and 35 U.S.C. § 122 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES