Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 51935 

importation into the United States, our 

review of the information presented by 

Argentina in support of its subsequent 

request to recognize the Mendoza 

province of Argentina as free of A. 

fraterculus is examined in a CIED titled 

‘‘Recognition of additional Provinces as 

Anastrepha fraterculus Pest-Free Areas 

(PFA) for Argentina.’’ 

The CIED may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room). 

You may request paper copies of the 

CIED by calling or writing to the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 319.56–5(c), we are announcing the 

Administrator’s determination that the 

Southern and Central Oases in the 

southern half of Mendoza Province meet 

the criteria of § 319.56–5(a) and (b) with 

respect to freedom from the South 

American fruit fly and all other 

economically important species of 

Anastrepha. After reviewing the 

comments we receive on this notice and 

taking into consideration the comments 

we received on our June 2010 notice 

regarding the areas’ Medfly status, we 

will announce our decision regarding 

the status of these areas with respect to 

their freedom from Medfly and South 

American fruit fly. If the 

Administrator’s determination remains 

unchanged, we will amend the list of 

pest-free areas to list Southern and 

Central Oases of the Mendoza Province 

of Argentina as free of Medfly and South 

American fruit fly. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

August 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21213 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Availability to School Food Authorities 

of Nutrition Information and Ingredient 

Lists for Foods Used in School Food 

Service: Request for Information 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Request for information from 

the public. 

SUMMARY: Schools participating in the 

National School Lunch Program and the 

School Breakfast Program (‘‘SMPs’’) 

need nutrition information and 

ingredient lists for menu planning and 

to assess foods to be used in meeting 

meal pattern requirements of the SMPs. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 

interested in examining what nutrition 

information and ingredient lists are 

made available to schools, the manner 

and scope of the information’s 

accessibility, and how that information 

and accessibility compare with the 

information schools may be seeking. 

FNS would like to better understand 

what information sources, such as the 

Child Nutrition Database, USDA Foods 

nutrition fact sheets, and information 

directly from the manufacturer, are used 

by schools to both procure foods and 

plan menus for the SMPs. FNS has 

received numerous inquiries from 

schools seeking assistance in locating 

and assessing nutrition information and 

ingredient lists for USDA Foods as well 

as commercially selected foods. A better 

understanding of what nutrition 

information and ingredients lists are 

provided, the source of the information 

and the medium in which the 

information is received are all necessary 

components to fully understand what 

resources schools need to successfully 

plan SMPs meals. In addition, we 

anticipate this information will provide 

FNS with key insights in our 

implementation of Section 9(a)(4)(C) of 

the Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4)(C) as 

amended by Section 242 of the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Public 

Law 111–296. 

DATES: Information must be received on 

or before November 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Information may be 

submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Information may also be submitted by 

mail to: Alexandra Lewin, Nutritionist, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 500, 

Alexandria, VA 22302. Respondents are 

strongly encouraged to submit 

comments through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as it will simplify 

the review of their input and help to 

ensure that it receives full 

consideration. All information 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the substance of the 

information and the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

information will be subject to public 

disclosure. All information will be made 

available publicly on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexandra Lewin, Nutritionist, at 

Alexandra.lewin@fns.usda.gov or 703– 

305–2705. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background 

Schools that participate in the SMPs 

must meet Federal meal pattern 

requirements and compliance 

assessments. Selecting and ordering 

foods commercially and through the 

USDA Foods program involves a 

number of factors that include an 

understanding of both the nutritional 

content of and ingredients contained in 

food offered to schools and ultimately 

served to students. In addition, as 

schools look to increase the nutritional 

quality of the meals served, meet 

revised meal pattern requirements, 

apply for HealthierUS School Challenge 

certification, and/or detect allergens that 

may affect their students, access to 

relevant, timely and comprehensive 

nutrition information and ingredient 

lists is essential. 

FNS would like to better understand 

what, where, and how nutrition 

information and ingredient lists are 

provided to schools—and what 

information schools are seeking—when 

ordering and receiving products to 

prepare as part of a school meal. 

2. Key Issues on Which Public Input is 

Requested 

This document requests the public to 

inform FNS on the following statements 

as they relate to foods served in school 

meal programs: 

a. How schools obtain nutrition 

information and ingredient lists about 

foods used in school food service, 

including commercially selected foods 

and USDA Foods, when ordering food 

for a school (e.g., computerized ordering 

system, contacting the manufacturer 

directly, searching the manufacturer’s 

Web site, etc.). 

b. How schools obtain nutrition 

information and ingredient lists about 

commercially selected foods and USDA 

Foods when food gets delivered to a 

school (e.g., fact sheet, label on 

institutional pack, vendor Web site, 

etc.). 

c. Whether nutrition information and 

ingredient lists are easily accessible 

prior to ordering food. 

d. Whether nutrition information and 

ingredient lists are easily accessible 

when food gets delivered to a school. 

e. Whether nutrition information and 

ingredient lists available to schools 

prior to ordering food are adequate. 

f. Whether nutrition information and 

ingredient lists provided upon delivery 

to schools are adequate. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

g. Challenges food manufacturers, 

processors, distributors, brokers and 

others in food service may face when 

providing nutrition information and 

ingredient lists to schools. 

h. Most desirable method to obtain 

nutrition information and ingredient 

lists when ordering food for a school. 

i. Most desirable method to obtain 

nutrition information and ingredient 

lists when food gets delivered to a 

school. 

j. Whether a school food authority’s 

solicitation for food items contains clear 

statements regarding the need for 

nutrition information and/or ingredient 

lists. 

k. Schools’ whole-grain ordering 

needs, including: 

(1) Whether schools receive adequate 

ingredient information to determine 

whether foods are whole-grain. 

(2) What specific documentation, if 

any, a school is looking for when 

purchasing whole-grain products. 

l. Whether schools tend to use 

previously developed specifications or 

develop new specifications to reflect 

nutritional and ingredient needs of the 

program/students. 

m. The frequency with which schools 

write specifications using ingredient 

lists or nutrition information from 

previously ordered products. 

Dated: August 12, 2011. 

Audrey Rowe, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21148 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, 

Arizona, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement; 

Correction. 

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2011, the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

was published in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 4279–4281). From January, 2011 

to June, 2011, six public meetings and 

workshops were held for the purposes 

of receiving comments and 

recommendations that would inform the 

development of a refined proposed 

action. As a result, the Forest Service 

revised the NOI document, Federal 

Register of January 25, 2011 (76 FR 

4279–4281) to incorporate the changes 

to the proposed action. On August 12, 

2011, a corrected NOI was published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 50168– 

50170). 

Due to a need to incorporate an edit 

in the proposed action and reschedule 

the public open houses, the Forest 

Service has revised the NOI document 

to read: 

Revision: The Forest Service is 

preparing an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) that proposes to conduct 

restoration activities on approximately 

600,000 acres on the Coconino NF and 

Kaibab NF. Of this total, approximately 

361,379 acres would be treated on the 

Coconino NF and 233,991 acres would 

be treated on the Kaibab NF. Restoration 

actions would be focused on the 

Flagstaff district with fewer acres 

included on the Mogollon Rim and Red 

Rock districts of the Coconino NF. On 

the Kaibab NF, activities would occur 

on the Williams and Tusayan districts. 

The objective of the project is to reestablish forest structure, pattern and 

composition, which will lead to 

increased forest resiliency and function. 

Resiliency increases the ability of the 

ponderosa pine forest to survive natural 

disturbances such as insect and disease, 

fire and climate change (FSM 2020.5). 

This project is expected to put the 

project area on a trajectory towards 

comprehensive, landscape-scale 

restoration with benefits that include 

improved vegetation biodiversity, 

wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and 

watershed function. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

September 2, 2011. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected by January of 2012 and the 

final environmental impact statement is 

expected in the summer of 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Coconino National Forest, Attention: 

4FRI, 1824 S. Thompson Street, 

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001. Comments 

may also be sent via e-mail to 

4FRI_comments@fs.fed.us, or via 

facsimile to (928) 527–3620. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Provencio, 4 FRI Team Leader at 

(928) 226–4684 or via e-mail at 

hprovencio@fs.fed.us. 

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: 

Background 

Extensive research has demonstrated 

that current ponderosa pine forests of 

the Southwest are greatly altered in 

terms of forest structure, density, and 

ecological function. Most pine forests in 

the Southwest are at much higher risk 

of high intensity and severe fire than 

they were prior to European settlement 

(Covington 1993, Moore et al. 1999). A 

century ago the pine forests had widelyspaced large trees with a more open, 

herbaceous forest floor (Cooper 1960). 

These conditions were maintained by 

fairly frequent low-severity surface fires 

that did not kill the large trees (Fiedler 

et al. 1996). These fires occurred every 

2 to 21 years and maintained an open 

canopy structure (Moir et al. 1997). Fire 

suppression, cattle grazing, timber 

production, and general human 

habitation in and near the forests over 

the last 100 years interrupted fire’s 

natural role in these fire-adapted 

ponderosa pine forests. As a result, the 

forests have shifted from naturally open 

conditions to high densities of small 

diameter trees (Covington and Moore 

1994) dramatically increasing the size 

and severity of wildland fires (Swetnam 

and Betancourt 1998). The forests have 

become less resilient to natural 

disturbances and are vulnerable to largescale disturbances such as changing 

climatic conditions (drought), fire, 

insect, and disease. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

In contrast to having a ponderosa pine 

ecosystem consisting of groups of trees 

with an open tree canopy density mixed 

with interspaces, approximately 75 

percent of the ponderosa pine forest 

type within the project area has a 

moderately closed to closed tree canopy 

density. An open tree canopy mixed 

with interspaces which mimic historical 

spatial patterns and provide for tree 

regeneration and the development of 

grass and forbs are lacking. There is a 

need to use management strategies that 

promote tree regeneration and 

understory vegetation. There is a need 

to move towards the historic range of 

variability for tree canopy density and 

patterns of tree groups and interspaces. 

Forest resiliency and diversity is 

dependent on the distribution of age 

and size classes. 

Currently, over 50 percent of the 

project area lacks age and size class 

diversity and is in an even-aged 

structure. The desired condition is to 

have a forest structure that represents all 

age classes necessary for a sustainable 

balance of regeneration, growth, 

mortality and decomposition. There is a 

need to implement un-even aged 

management strategies where 

appropriate. In goshawk habitat, habitat 

components such as an intermix of 

vegetation structural stages are lacking 

or limited in most stands. There is a 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES