52712 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 

1To view the notice, the pest risk analysis, the 

risk management analysis, and the comments we 

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

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0065. 

We are asking the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

approve our use of these information 

collection activities for 3 years. 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

comments from the public (as well as 

agencies) concerning our information 

collection. These comments will help 

us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond, through use, as appropriate, 

of automated, electronic, mechanical, 

and other collection technologies, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Estimate of burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 

0.8840854 hours per response. 

Respondents: Sheep producers in 22 

States. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 5,500. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1.7285454. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 9,507. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 8,405 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd

day of August 2010. 

Gregory Parham 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21455 Filed 8–26–10: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0065] 

Notice of Decision To Issue Permits for 

the Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit 

From Pakistan Into the Continental 

United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our decision to begin issuing permits for 

the importation into the continental 

United States of fresh mango fruit from 

Pakistan. Based on the findings of a pest 

risk analysis, which we made available 

to the public for review and comment 

through a previous notice, we believe 

that the application of one or more 

designated phytosanitary measures will 

be sufficient to mitigate the risks of 

introducing or disseminating plant pests 

or noxious weeds via the importation of 

fresh mango fruit from Pakistan. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Donna L. West, Senior Import 

Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 734–0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 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. 

Under that process, APHIS publishes a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the availability of the pest 

risk analysis that evaluates the risks 

associated with the importation of a 

particular fruit or vegetable. Following 

the close of the 60-day comment period, 

APHIS may begin issuing permits for 

importation of the fruit or vegetable 

subject to the identified designated 

measures if: (1) No comments were 

received on the pest risk analysis; (2) 

the comments on the pest risk analysis 

revealed that no changes to the pest risk 

analysis were necessary; or (3) changes 

to the pest risk analysis were made in 

response to public comments, but the 

changes did not affect the overall 

conclusions of the analysis and the 

Administrator’s determination of risk. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice 1 in the Federal 

Register on June 17, 2010 (75 FR 34422, 

Docket No. APHIS–2010–0065), in 

which we announced the availability, 

for review and comment, of a pest risk 

analysis that evaluates the risks 

associated with the importation into the 

continental United States of fresh 

mango fruit from Pakistan. We solicited 

comments on the notice for 60 days 

ending on August 16, 2010. We received 

19 comments by that date, from 

nurseries, exporters, private citizens, a 

marketing agency, and a State 

department of agriculture. All of the 

commenters supported the importation 

of fresh mango fruit from Pakistan under 

the conditions described in the risk 

management document. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 319.56–4(c)(2)(ii), we 

are announcing our decision to begin 

issuing permits for the importation into 

the continental United States of fresh 

mango fruit from Pakistan subject to the 

following phytosanitary measures: 

• The mangoes must be irradiated 

with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 

gray. 

• If irradiation is applied outside of 

the United States, each consignment of 

mangoes must be inspected jointly by 

the national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Pakistan and 

APHIS inspectors and accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of Pakistan. The phytosanitary 

certificate must document that the 

consignment received the required 

irradiation treatment. The phytosanitary 

certificate must also contain an 

additional declaration that states: ‘‘This 

consignment was inspected jointly by 

APHIS and Government of Pakistan 

inspectors, and found free of 

Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae.’’ To be consistent 

with International Plant Protection 

Convention standards, treatment 

specifics, including the application of 

400 Gy dose, will be located in the 

treatment section of the phytosanitary 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 52713 

certificate, rather than in the additional 

declaration. 

If irradiation is to be applied upon 

arrival in the United States, each 

consignment of mangoes must be 

inspected by inspectors from the NPPO 

of Pakistan prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Pakistan. The phytosanitary certificate 

must contain an additional declaration 

that states: ‘‘This consignment was 

inspected by the Government of 

Pakistan inspectors and found free of 

Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae.’’ 

• The mangoes may be imported into 

the United States in commercial 

consignments only. 

These conditions will be listed in the 

Fruits and Vegetables Import 

Requirements Database (available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In 

addition to those specific measures, 

mangoes from Pakistan will be subject 

to the general requirements listed in 

§ 319.56–3 that are applicable to the 

importation of all fruits and vegetables. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 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 25th day of 

August 2010. 

Gregory Parham, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21568 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Nationwide Aerial Application of Fire 

Retardant on National Forest System 

Lands 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will 

prepare a programmatic environmental 

impact statement for the continued 

nationwide aerial application of fire 

retardant on National Forest System 

lands. The responsible official for this 

action is the Chief of the Forest Service. 

The Forest Service invites comments at 

this time on the proposed action. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 26667, Salt 

Lake City, UT 84126–0667. Comments 

may also be sent via e-mail to 

FireRetardantEIS@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Carbone, Assistant Director for 

Ecosystem Management Coordination, 

Forest Service, 202–205–0884, or e-mail: 

jcarbone@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 

Standard Time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest 

Service is working to restore fireadapted ecosystems through prescribed 

fire, other fuel treatments, and effective 

management of wildfire to achieve both 

protection and resource benefit 

objectives. However, in some 

circumstances, fire must be suppressed. 

For example, it might be necessary to 

suppress a fire to protect life or property 

or to preserve natural resources and 

critical habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. Fire retardant is 

one of the tools used to suppress fires. 

Aerially applied fire retardant reduces 

the spread and intensity of fires and 

slows larger, more damaging, and thus, 

more costly fires. In many situations, 

using retardant to fight fires is the most 

effective and efficient method of 

protecting people, resources, private 

property, and facilities; sometimes it is 

the only tool that will allow fire fighters 

to accomplish the job in a safe manner. 

In October 2007, the Forest Service 

issued an environmental assessment 

(EA) and decision notice and finding of 

no significant impact (DN/FONSI) 

entitled ‘‘Aerial Application of Fire 

Retardant’’. In February 2008, the Forest 

Service amended the DN/FONSI by 

incorporating the reasonable and 

prudent alternatives proposed by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries during the Section 7 

consultation process prescribed by the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

On July 27, 2010, the United States 

District Court for the District of Montana 

issued a decision in Forest Service 

Employees for Environmental Ethics v. 

United States Forest Service, 08–43 (D. 

Mont.) that invalidated the Forest 

Service’s decision to adopt the 2000 

Guidelines based on violations of NEPA. 

The Court also held that the USFWS 

and NOAA Fisheries’ Section 7 

consultation with the Forest Service 

violated the ESA. The Court directed the 

Forest Service, USFWS, and NOAA 

Fisheries to cure these NEPA and ESA 

violations and for the Forest Service to 

issue a new decision no later than 

December 31, 2011. 

Estimated Dates 

The draft environmental impact 

statement is expected to be available for 

public comment early in 2011 and the 

final EIS is expected to be completed by 

the fall of 2011. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Adopting the proposed action would 

give the Forest Service the ability to 

reduce wildfire intensities and rates of 

spread under certain circumstances 

until ground forces can safely take 

suppression action over the duration of 

an incident. High fire intensities and 

rates of spread greatly reduce the ability 

of ground-based firefighters to safely 

fight wildland fires. In addition, the 

remote locations and rugged topography 

associated with many wildland fires can 

delay the deployment of ground forces 

for suppression. In some situations, 

firefighters need the ability to quickly 

reduce rates of spread and intensities of 

wildland fires, often in remote 

locations, and to do so until ground 

forces can safely take suppression action 

or until a wildfire is contained or 

controlled. 

Proposed Action 

The Forest Service proposes to 

continue the aerial application of fire 

retardant to fight fires on National 

Forest System Lands. Aerial application 

would be conducted, as it is now, under 

‘‘Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of 

Retardant or Foam Near Waterways’’ 

(2000 Guidelines) adopted by the Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Park Service, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service in April 2000. The 

2000 Guidelines are a means to 

minimize the impact of aeriallydelivered fire retardant on aquatic life 

and habitat. The 2000 Guidelines, 

available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/

fire/retardants/current/gen/appguide.

htm are as follows: 

Definition: WATERWAY—Any body of 

water including lakes, rivers, streams 

and ponds whether or not they contain 

aquatic life. 

Avoid aerial application of retardant or 

foam within 300 feet of waterways. 

These guidelines do not require the 

helicopter or airtanker pilot-incommand to fly in such a way as to 

endanger his or her aircraft, other 

aircraft, or structures or compromise 

ground personnel safety. 

Guidance for pilots: To meet the 300- 

foot buffer zone guideline, implement 

the following: 

Medium/Heavy Airtankers: When 

approaching a waterway visible to the 

pilot, the pilot shall terminate the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES