Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 2010 / Notices 46901 

1The PPQ Treatment Manual can be viewed on 

the Internet at (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

import_export/plants/manuals/ports/ 

treatment.shtml). 

2To view the proposed rule, the comments we 

received, and the treatment evaluation document, 

go to (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0140). 

3The treatment schedules for citrus fruit from 

Australia that we had proposed will be published 

in the PPQ Treatment Manual at a later date. When 

these schedules are published, we will publish a 

notice of these changes in the Federal Register. 

31.5 hours; local office SNAP staff, 231 

hours; vendor staff, 21 hours; 

community partner staff, 90 hours; 

SNAP participants, 200 hours; eligible 

non-participants, 200 hours. In addition, 

respondents who elect not to participate 

in the focus groups (refusers), the 

estimated total burden is 60.1 hours. 

The number of refusers is based on the 

assumption that in order to have 240 

respondents ultimately attend the focus 

groups, 480 persons will need to be 

recruited. And in order for 480 persons 

to be recruited, twice as many persons, 

or 960, will need to be contacted 

initially. 

Affected public Respondent type 

Estimated 

number 

respondents 

Responses 

annually per 

respondent 

Total annual 

responses 

Estimated avg. 

number of 

hours per 

response 

Estimated total 

hours 

State, Local and Tribal 

Agencies.

State SNAP staff ............... 33 1 33 1 .5 49.5 

District/County SNAP staff 84 1 84 1 .5 126.0 

Call Center staff or centralized operation unit staff.21 1 21 1 .5 31.5 

Local office SNAP staff ..... 154 1 154 1 .5 231.0 

Business (for and not-for- Vendor staff ....................... 14 1 14 1 .5 21.0 

profit). Community partner staff .... 60 1 60 1 .5 90.0 

Individuals & Households .. SNAP participants* ............ 120 1 120 1 .667 200.0 

SNAP eligible 

nonparticipants*.

120 1 120 1 .667 200.0 

Non-Responders (Focus 

group).

720 1 720 0 .0835 60.1 

Total ............................ ............................................ 1,326 ........................ 1,326 .......................... 1,009.1 

* Focus Group members will participate in a brief screening call or interview, participate in the focus group, and receive a reminder call and letter prior to the focus group. 

** Focus Group refusers will participate in a brief screening call or interview. 

Dated: July 23, 2010. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19074 Filed 8–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140] 

Changes to Treatments for Sweet 

Cherries from Australia and Irradiation 

Dose for Mediterranean Fruit Fly 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of changes to 

phytosanitary treatments. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we are adding new approved 

phytosanitary treatment schedules to 

the Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Treatment Manual for sweet cherries 

imported from Australia into the United 

States. We are also adding to the 

treatment manual a new approved 

irradiation dose for Mediterranean fruit 

fly of 100 gray. These new treatments 

will continue to prevent the 

introduction or interstate movement of 

quarantine pests in the United States. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager– 

Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737- 

1231; (301) 734-0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 

(referred to below as the regulations) set 

out general requirements for conducting 

treatments indicated in the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 

Treatment Manual1 for fruits, 

vegetables, and articles to prevent the 

introduction or dissemination of plant 

pests or noxious weeds into or through 

the United States. 

On October 19, 2009, we published in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 53424- 

53430, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140) a 

proposal2 to amend the regulations by 

adding new treatment schedules for 

sweet cherries and for certain species of 

citrus fruit imported from Australia into 

the United States.3 We also proposed to 

establish an approved irradiation dose 

for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) of 

100 gray. Our analysis of the efficacy of 

the proposed treatments was presented 

in a treatment evaluation document that 

was made available with the proposed 

rule. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending 

December 18, 2009, and received five 

comments by that date. They were from 

a State plant protection official, a 

research entomologist, a foreign national 

plant protection organization 

representative, and two students. We 

have carefully considered the comments 

we received. One commenter simply 

pointed out a misspelling in a footnote. 

The issues raised by the remaining 

commenters are discussed below. 

One commenter, while agreeing with 

the changes we proposed, expressed 

concern that the proposal mentioned no 

requirement for field monitoring of fruit 

flies or subsequent field treatment when 

fruit fly populations exceed a defined 

limit. The commenter added that even 

if the treatments we propose achieve a 

probit-9 level of efficacy, the possibility 

remains that heavy infestations of fruit 

flies could overwhelm the treatments. 

The national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Australia is a 

signatory to the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC) and 

therefore observes IPPC guidelines for 

pest surveillance, monitoring, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

46902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 2010 / Notices 

4 75 FR 4228-4253, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0022, 

published January 26, 2010, and effective February 

25, 2010. 

information collection in its production 

areas. Should fruit fly populations 

increase in these areas, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

would have the information and 

resources readily at hand to respond 

effectively. 

Another commenter who agreed with 

our proposed treatment changes asked 

whether the reduced irradiation dose of 

100 gray we proposed as a treatment for 

Medfly would result in improved fruit 

quality and longer shelf life for sweet 

cherries. 

We have no evidence to suggest that 

a 100 gray dose would result in 

improved fruit quality or shelf life. In 

fact, our experience indicates that an 

irradiation dose of 150 gray has no 

discernible positive or negative effect on 

fruit quality, making it less likely that a 

dose of 100 gray will have any such 

effect. 

The same commenter also wanted to 

know if the reduced irradiation dose we 

proposed for Medfly would be effective 

for other types of fruit flies. 

We have established that the 100 gray 

dose is effective against certain species 

of Anastrepha and Bactrocera fruit flies 

and the approved irradiation doses 

listed for these species in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual are already 100 gray 

or lower. For all other fruit flies of the 

family Tephritidae, the approved dose is 

150 gray. Additional testing would be 

necessary to confirm whether a 100 gray 

dose would serve as an efficacious 

treatment for other species of fruit fly. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed treatment changes would 

allow the Australian cherry industry to 

benefit unfairly from lower treatment 

costs, thereby putting emerging cherryproducing countries in the Middle East 

such as Turkey and Iran at an economic 

disadvantage in the world cherry 

market. 

The treatments discussed in the 

proposed rule with respect to Australia 

are specific to the pests present there, 

Medfly and Queensland fruit fly, and 

were evaluated with respect to their 

efficacy, not their costs. Cherries from 

another region with the same pest 

complex could be treated in the same 

manner, so we disagree that Australian 

cherry producers are receiving any sort 

of unfair benefit. 

Another commenter, a representative 

of the Australian NPPO, observed that 

the State of Tasmania is not included in 

the areas of Australia listed by APHIS as 

free of fruit flies. The commenter noted 

that the APHIS Fruits and Vegetables 

Import Requirements database 

specifically lists cherries, apples, and 

pears from Tasmania as being permitted 

access to the United States without the 

requirement for a phytosanitary 

treatment for fruit flies. The commenter 

asked that Tasmania be added to APHIS’ 

list of approved pest-free areas. 

For a given plant pest, APHIS makes 

a distinction between pest-free areas 

and areas that have never been known 

to support that pest in sufficient 

numbers to be a threat to agriculture; 

Tasmania is an example of the latter 

with regard to fruit flies. If a particular 

quarantine pest has never been known 

to be associated with the regulated 

article in the country or region of origin, 

we do not usually include that country 

or region on the list of pest-free areas for 

that pest. Because the cooler climate 

and geographical isolation of Tasmania 

inhibit a resident fruit fly population 

from establishing itself there, we do not 

consider it necessary to include 

Tasmania on the list of approved pestfree areas. 

Revision of Treatments Regulations 

Following the publication of our 

October 2009 proposed rule, we 

published a final rule that amended the 

regulations by removing all 

phytosanitary treatments and treatment 

schedules from 7 CFR part 305, while 

retaining general treatment 

requirements.4 The sections in part 305 

we had proposed to amend no longer 

exist, so the modified treatments will 

instead be added to the appropriate 

sections of the PPQ Treatment Manual. 

The regulations now indicate that all 

approved treatments and treatment 

schedules are contained in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual. 

Accordingly, the PPQ Treatment 

Manual has been amended to include 

the new treatments for sweet cherries 

from Australia and a specific irradiation 

dose of 100 gray for Medfly. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day 

of July 2010. 

Kevin Shea 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19135 Filed 8–3–10; 10:12 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ketchikan Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Ketchikan, Alaska, August 18, 2010. The 

purpose of this meeting is to discuss 

potential projects under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2008. 

DATES: The meeting will be held August 

18, 2010 at 6 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger 

District, 3031 Tongass Avenue, 

Ketchikan, Alaska. Send written 

comments to Ketchikan Resource 

Advisory Committee, c/o District 

Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 3031 

Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901, or 

electronically to Diane Daniels, RAC 

Coordinator at ddaniels@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Daniels, RAC Coordinator 

Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest, (907) 228– 

4105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. 

Committee discussion is limited to 

Forest Service staff and Committee 

members. However, public input 

opportunity will be provided and 

individuals will have the opportunity to 

address the Committee at that time. 

Dated: July 26, 2010. 

Jeff DeFreest, 

District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19042 Filed 8–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

West Virginia Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The West Virginia Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is 

meeting as authorized under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

is to hold the first meeting of the newly 

formed committee. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

August 27, 2010, and will begin at 10 

a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Monongahela National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, 200 Sycamore 

Street, Elkins, WV 26241. Written 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES