48712 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 

H5N1 that occurred in these two 

counties in 2006 and 2007. 

Our evaluation concluded that both 

counties (Ba ́cs-Kiskun and Csongra ́d) 

had adequate detection and control 

measures in place at the time of the 

outbreaks, that they have been able to 

effectively control and eradicate HPAI 

H5N1 in their domestic poultry 

populations since that time, and that 

Hungary’s DFCSAH has control 

measures in place to rapidly identify, 

control, and eradicate the disease 

should it be reintroduced into Hungary 

in either wild birds or domestic poultry. 

In our June 2009 notice we stated that 

if, after the end of the comment period, 

we could identify no additional risk 

factors that would indicate that 

domestic poultry in Ba ́cs-Kiskun and 

Csongra ́d Counties continue to be 

affected with HPAI H5N1, we would 

conclude that the importation of live 

birds, poultry carcasses, parts of 

carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching 

eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other 

birds from Hungary presents a low risk 

of introducing HPAI H5N1 into the 

United States. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 30 days ending on July 15, 2009. We 

received no comments during the 

comment period. 

Therefore, we are removing our 

prohibition on the importation of these 

products from Hungary into the United 

States. Specifically: 

• We are no longer requiring that 

processed poultry products from 

Hungary be accompanied by a 

Veterinary Services import permit and 

government certification confirming that 

the products have been treated 

according to APHIS requirements; 

• We are allowing unprocessed 

poultry products from Hungary to enter 

the United States in passenger luggage; 

and 

• We are removing restrictions 

regarding the counties (Ba ́cs-Kiskun and 

Csongra ́d) in Hungary from which 

processed poultry products may 

originate in order to be allowed entry 

into the United States in passenger 

luggage. 

However, live birds from Ba ́cs-Kiskun 

and Csongra ́d Counties in Hungary are 

still subject to the port-of-entry 

inspections and post-importation 

quarantines set forth in 9 CFR part 93, 

unless granted an exemption by the 

Administrator or destined for diagnostic 

purposes and accompanied by a limited 

permit. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

September 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–23129 Filed 9–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; California; 

Flea Project (Renamed Concow 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project) 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Corrected notice of intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: With the decline of forestland 

density reduction treatments, 

overcrowded conditions have increased, 

forestland diversity has declined, 

California’s wildfires have gotten larger, 

firefighting costs have skyrocketed, and 

resource and property damage have 

increased. In 2008, the Butte Lightning 

Complex burned about 6,190 acres 

within the 8,170 acre Concow Project 

Area. 

In response, the USDA Forest Service, 

Feather River District Ranger of the 

Plumas National Forest, 875 Mitchell 

Avenue, Oroville, CA 95965, and the 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Northern California Redding Field 

Office Manager, 355 Hemsted Drive, 

Redding, CA 96002, are cooperating to 

prepare the Concow Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Project Environmental 

impact Statement. The USDA, Forest 

Service. Feather River Ranger District of 

the Plumas National Forest is the lead 

agency preparing a draft EIS on a 

proposal to establish, develop and 

maintain an irregularly shaped network 

of up to 1⁄2 mile wide Defensible Fuels 

Profile Zones (DFPZs) on USDA Forest 

Service (1,478 acres) and USDI Bureau 

of Land Management (32 acres) 

administered land, within the Wildiand 

Urban Interface. The Concow Project 

aims to establish Defensible Fuels 

Profile Zones (DFPZs), implement 

forestland density reduction treatments 

and post-fire dead and dying hazardous 

tree removal, while simultaneously 

improving local economic health by 

employing area workers. The DFPZs 

would be located within and west of the 

2008 Butte Lightning Complex Fire 

perimeter, designed to improve the 

capacity of effective, traditional 

approaches to fire suppression and firefighting readiness, along with 

facilitating private land efforts. DFPZs 

would connect existing and proposed 

Federal and private land fuel breaks and 

parallel residential evacuation routes 

and primary fire suppression access 

routes. Additionally, treatments would 

integrate the enhancement of degraded 

oak woodlands and reforestation of firedamaged plantations. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received within 

45 days from the date of publication in 

the Federal Register. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected November 2009 and the fmal 

environmental impact statement is 

expected January 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

the USDA Forest Service, Feather River 

Ranger District, 875 Mitchell Avenue, 

Oroville, CA 95965. Comments may also 

be sent via e-mail to cspinos@fs.fed.us, 

electronically mailed to commentspacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us or 

via facsimile to (530) 532–1210. 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such a way that they are useful to the 

Agency’s preparation of the EIS. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Spinos, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader at (530) 534–6500 or (530) 532– 

8932. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of intent to prepare an EIS for the Flea 

Project, designed to fulfill the Herger 

Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest 

Recovery Act of 1988, was published in 

the Federal Register on Thursday, 

August 30, 2007 (Vol. 72, No.168, pp. 

50096–50098). In June, 2008, a series of 

lightning strikes ignited numerous forest 

fires, which over several months 

merged, burning through the central and 

eastern portions of the Flea Project Area. 

This complex of fires, subsequently 

referred to as the Butte Lightning 

Complex, dramatically changed the 

landscape for the long-term. In 

September 2008, the Feather River 

Ranger District, of the Plumas National 

Forest, began the process to determine 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 48713 

the scope (the depth and breadth) of the 

2008 wildfire disturbance on the 

environment. At that time, the draft Flea 

Project EIS was being prepared. In 

December 2008, after field 

reconnaissance was completed, the 

Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, 

determined to divide the Flea Project 

Area into two individual management 

units and projects. The westerly, 

unburned portion and the fire damaged, 

central portion of the Flea Project Area, 

located alongside communities in the 

Wildland Urban Interface, to be 

documented in one EIS. A draft EIS will 

be prepared with a modified purpose 

and need; renamed the Concow 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. The 

easterly portion of the Flea Project Area, 

affected by predominantly low severity 

wildfire, is to be deferred. 

The portion of the proposed action 

located on USDA Forest Service 

administered land is designed to meet 

the standards and guidelines for land 

management activities in the Plumas 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (1988), as amended 

by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 

Group (FIFQLG) Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) 

(1999, 2003), legislatively extended 

from 2009 to 2012, per the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (HR 2754), as 

amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD 

(2004). Additionally, in December 2007, 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008 (H.R. 2764), stated that the 2003- 

adopted Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA: Public Law 108–148) applies to 

HFQLG projects. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA) of 2003 (16 U.S.C. at 1611– 

6591) emphasizes public collaboration 

processes for developing and 

implementing hazardous fuel reduction 

projects on certain types of ‘‘at-risk’’ 

National Forest System Land, and also 

provides other authorities and direction 

to help restore healthy forests. 

The portion of the proposed action 

located on USDI Bureau of Land 

Management administered land is 

designed to meet the standards and 

guidelines for land management 

activities in the Redding Resource 

Management Plan (1993). Purpose and 

Need for Action The USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management propose to: (1) Reduce risk 

to rural communities from high 

intensity wildfires; (2) establish and 

maintain Defensive Fuel Profile Zones 

(DFPZs), linking Federal and private 

land, to further collaborative fire 

prevention and suppression efforts to 

improve the capability to control and 

contain wildfire; (3) restore recent firedamaged forests to promote forest health 

and wildlife habitat diversity; and (4) 

contribute to the stability and economic 

health of local communities. 

The presence of overcrowded forests 

and fire-damaged vegetation would 

sustain high intensity fire behavior, in 

the event of ignition. High 

concentrations of forest, woody, 

standing and ground hazardous fuels, 

particularly adjacent to homes, 

challenge fire suppression tactics aimed 

at controlling and containing wildfire. 

Hazardous fuels need to be removed 

and/or rearranged to reduce threats to 

communities at a high risk to 

destructive wildfire. Additionally, 

wildfire disturbance has functioned to 

shift species composition, simplify 

vegetative structure and reduce ageclass diversity. Post-fire re-growth in 

oak dominated ecosystems have become 

overcrowded, choking migratory routes 

for various wildlife species. Wildfire 

also destroyed plantations, which are 

now under-stocked. 

The project would reduce tree 

densities in overcrowded forests, 

remove dead and dying scorched trees, 

and reduce surface hazardous fuels to 

establish DFPZs up to 1⁄2 mile wide 

within the Wildland Urban Interface, 

beginning in 2010. Roadside danger 

trees that pose a safety hazard to the 

public along access routes would also be 

removed. Fire-damaged plantations 

would be re-planted during the initial 

entry. Two maintenance treatments 

would occur over a 10 year period. The 

project is located in all or portions of 

sections 2, 12, 24, T23N, R3E; 6, 18, 30, 

32. 34, 36, T23N, R4E; 2, 12, 14, 22, 

T22N, R4E; in Butte County, California. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action would initially 

establish DFPZs by reducing hazardous 

ladder and canopy fuels by applying a 

combination of thinning-from-below 

and radial release on 217 acres in the 

unburned areas. Dead and dying tree 

removal would occur on 320 acres in 

areas burned in 2008. Surface fuels in 

burned and unburned areas would be 

treated by applying mastication on 671 

acres, chipping on 385 acres, lopping 

and scattering on 118 acres, hand 

cutting, hand-piling and pile burning on 

666 acres, and prescribed under burning 

treatments on 117 acres. Defensible 

Fuels Profile Zones would be 

maintained by applying mastication on 

671 acres, lopping and scattering on 118 

acres, hand-cutting, hand-piling and 

pile burning on 666 acres, and 

prescribed under burning of surface 

fuels treatments on 468 acres, from 2 to 

5 years after the initial treatments, 

depending on site conditions. Similar 

secondary maintenance treatments 

would be applied from 7 to 9 years after 

the initial treatments, depending on site 

conditions. Within unburned areas 

canopy cover would be reduced to 

approximately 40 to 50 percent in the 

California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships (CWHR) system Size Class 

4 stands (trees 11–24 inches diameter at 

breast height [dbh]) and Size Class 5 

stands (greater than 24 inches dbh), 

where it presently exceeds that amount. 

Conifers ranging from 9.0 to 29.9 inches 

dbh would be removed as necessary and 

processed as sawlogs. Harvested 

hardwoods less than 6 inches dbh, and 

conifers 3.0 to 8.9 inches dbh are 

considered biomass and would be piled 

and burned or removed from units and 

processed at appropriate facilities. All 

trees 30 inches dbh or larger would be 

retained, unless removal is required for 

operability (e.g., new skid trails, 

landings, or temporary roads). Residual 

spacing of conifers would be a mosaic 

of even and clumpy spacing depending 

on the characteristics of each stand prior 

to implementation. CWHR Size Class 3 

stands (averaging 6–11 inches dbh) and 

plantations would not have any canopy 

cover restrictions and would be thinned 

to residual spacing of approximately 18 

to 22 feet (±25 percent), depending on 

average residual tree size and forest 

health conditions, to allow retention of 

the healthiest, largest, and tallest 6 

conifers and black oaks. Radial thinning 

or release will occur around large 

diameter black oak and the healthiest 

growing sugar pine, or ponderosa pine 

>24 inches in diameter on a per acre 

basis. Radial thinning would correlate to 

tree DBH. All mechanized thinning and 

biomass removal in DFPZ units would 

be conducted with feller buncher 

equipment. Shrubs would be 

masticated, as would trees less than 9 

inches dbh unless needed for proper 

canopy cover and spacing. Equipment 

restriction zone widths within Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

would range from 25–150 feet, 

depending on environmental 

conditions. Hand cutting and pile 

burning would be used to reduce fuels 

in RHCAs and other areas where 

mechanical equipment is not allowed. 

In burned areas, dead trees with 

commercial value greater than 20 inches 

in diameter in excess of wildlife needs 

will be removed utilizing helicopter 

and/or ground based logging systems. 

Dead non-merchantable trees 12 to 19.9 

inches will be removed and disposed of 

by one of the following ways; chipped, 

incinerated or as firewood. Shrubs 

would be masticated, as would trees up 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
48714 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 

to 12 inches in diameter. In units with 

limited accessibility, trees up to 19.9 

inches will be masticated. Black oak 

stump sprouts will be left untreated at 

an approximate spacing of 18–25 feet, 

with mastication in between. Fireinjured trees may be removed in order 

to meet post-fire fuels and operational 

objectives. Snags would be retained in 

snag retention areas, and in treatment 

areas at a minimum of 2 snags per acre 

and up to 4 snags per acre (exception is 

along the Rim Road, where either all 

snags would be removed or up to 2 

snags per acre would be retained). 

Approximately 30 acres would be 

required for log and biomass landing 

activities. No new road construction 

would be required. Approximately 56 

acres of fire-damaged plantations would 

be reforested and 40 acres of ‘‘spot 

planting’’ with conifer seedlings would 

occur in widely spaced clusters to 

emulate a naturally established forest. 

The areas would be reforested with a 

mixture of native species. In both 

burned and unburned areas, manual 

cutting of shrubs, trees 1 to 9 inches 

dbh, and/or thinning aggregations of 1 

to 9 inches dbh conifers or plantation 

trees would occur. 

Possible Alternatives 

In addition to the proposed action, 

two other alternatives would be 

analyzed, a no action alternative 

(alternative A), and an action alternative 

consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD 

(alternative C). 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The USDA, Forest Service is the lead 

agency for this proposal. The USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management is a 

cooperating agency for the purpose of 

this EIS. 

Responsible Official 

USDA Forest Service, Feather River 

District Ranger of the Plumas National 

Forest and the USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Northern California 

Redding Field Manager are the 

Responsible Officials. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision to be made is whether 

to: (1) Implement the proposed action; 

(2) meet the purpose and need for action 

through some other combination of 

activities; or, (3) take no action at this 

time. 

Preliminary Issues 

The proposed action may increase 

adverse effects to water and other 

aquatic dependent resources in 

municipal watersheds, already 

considered highly disturbed. 

Specifically, implementing grounddisturbing activities in watersheds that 

are already over the threshold of 

concern may increase the risk of adverse 

and cumulative watershed effects. The 

proposed action may increase adverse 

cumulative loss of snag (post-fire dead 

tree) habitat, already depleted over 

roughly 8,000 acres in surrounding 

areas, along with the species that are 

dependent on them for nesting and 

roosting. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke 

Management Plan are required by local 

agencies. 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process, which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. A public field trip 

will be held on October 10, 2009, 

starting at 9 a.m, leaving from the Pines 

Yankee Hill Hardware Store, 11 300A 

Highway 70, Oroville, CA 95965. 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such a manner that they are useful to 

the agency’s preparation of the 

environmental impact statement. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely 

and specific comments can affect a 

reviewer’s ability to participate in 

subsequent administrative appeal or 

judicial review. 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

Karen L. Hayden, 

Feather River District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. E9–22952 Filed 9–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Limitations of Duty- and Quota-Free 

Imports of Apparel Articles Assembled 

in Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African 

Countries From Regional and ThirdCountry Fabric 

September 21, 2009. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Publishing the New 12-Month 

Cap on Duty- and Quota-Free Benefits. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Niewiaroski, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-4058. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Title I, Section 112(b)(3) of the 

Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA 

2000), P.L. 106-200, as amended by Division 

B, Title XXI, section 3108 of the Trade Act 

of 2002, P.L. 107-210; Section 7(b)(2) of the 

AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004, P.L. 108- 

274; Division D, Title VI, section 6002 of the 

Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 

(TRHCA 2006), P.L. 109-432; Presidential 

Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000 (65 FR 

59321); Presidential Proclamation 7626 of 

November 13, 2002 (67 FR 69459). 

Title I of TDA 2000 provides for dutyand quota-free treatment for certain 

textile and apparel articles imported 

from designated beneficiary subSaharan African countries. Section 

112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides dutyand quota-free treatment for apparel 

articles wholly assembled in one or 

more beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries from fabric wholly formed in 

one or more beneficiary countries from 

yarn originating in the U.S. or one or 

more beneficiary countries. This 

preferential treatment is also available 

for apparel articles assembled in one or 

more lesser-developed beneficiary subSaharan African countries, regardless of 

the country of origin of the fabric used 

to make such articles, subject to 

quantitative limitation. Title VI of the 

TRHCA 2006 extended this special rule 

for lesser-developed countries through 

September 30, 2012. 

The AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 

provides that the quantitative limitation 

for the twelve-month period beginning 

October 1, 2009 will be an amount not 

to exceed 7 percent of the aggregate 

square meter equivalents of all apparel 

articles imported into the United States 

in the preceding 12-month period for 

which data are available. See Section 

112(b)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by Section 7(b)(2)(B) of the 

AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004. Of this 

overall amount, apparel imported under 

the special rule for lesser-developed 

countries is limited to an amount not to 

exceed 3.5 percent of all apparel articles 

imported into the United States in the 

preceding 12-month period. See Section 

112(b)(3)(B)(ii)(II) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by Section 6002(a) of TRHCA 

2006. Presidential Proclamation 7350 of 

October 2, 2000 directed CITA to 

publish the aggregate quantity of 

imports allowed during each 12-month 

period in the Federal Register. 

For the one-year period, beginning on 

October 1, 2009, and extending through 

September 30, 2010, the aggregate 

quantity of imports eligible for 

preferential treatment under these 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES