88712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

1To view the notice, supporting documents, and 

comments we received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2024-0014- 

0001. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 

1622 and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3716, 3717, 3719, 

and 3720A; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

November 2024. 

Michael Watson, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25826 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2024–0014] 

Decision To Authorize the Importation 

of Fresh Hass Avocado From 

Guatemala Into the United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our decision to authorize the 

importation of fresh Hass avocado 

(Persea americana var. Hass) fruit from 

Guatemala into the United States. Based 

on the findings of a pest risk analysis, 

which we made available to the public 

for review and comment, we have 

determined 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 Hass avocado fruit 

from Guatemala. 

DATES: The commodity covered by this 

notice may be authorized for 

importation after November 8, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Esther Serrano, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(954) 699–4504. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart L— 

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56– 

1 through 319.56–12, referred to below 

as the regulations), the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or 

restricts the importation of fruits and 

vegetables into the United States from 

certain parts of the world to prevent the 

introduction and dissemination of plant 

pests. 

Section 319.56–4 contains a 

performance-based process for 

approving the importation of fruits and 

vegetables that, based on the findings of 

a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

five designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

Under that process, APHIS proposes to 

authorize the importation of a fruit or 

vegetable into the United States if, based 

on findings of a PRA, we determine that 

the measures can mitigate the plant pest 

risk associated with the importation of 

that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then 

publishes a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the availability of 

the PRA that evaluates the risks 

associated with the importation of a 

particular fruit or vegetable. Following 

the close of the 60-day comment period, 

APHIS will issue a subsequent Federal 

Register notice announcing whether or 

not we will authorize the importation of 

the fruit or vegetable subject to the 

phytosanitary measures specified in the 

notice. 

In accordance with that process, on 

March 27, 2024, APHIS published a 

notice 1 in the Federal Register (89 FR 

21233–21234, Docket No. APHIS–2024– 

0014) in which we announced the 

availability, for review and comment, of 

a PRA that evaluated the risks 

associated with the importation of fresh 

Hass avocado (Persea americana var. 

Hass) fruit from Guatemala into the 

United States. We also made available 

an economic effects assessment, or EEA, 

which contextualized the possible 

economic impacts associated with the 

notice. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 60 days, ending on May 28, 2024. 

We received 50 comments by that date. 

The comments were from growers, 

domestic and Guatemalan grower 

associations, importers, exporters, a 

business in the restaurant industry, a 

restaurant industry association, the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Guatemala, and private 

individuals. 

The issues raised by the commenters 

are addressed below. 

Multiple comments expressed general 

concern about pest risk. Commenters 

were particularly concerned about the 

risk of introducing Heilipus lauri and 

Stenoma catenifer. 

Our PRA evaluated the risks 

associated with the importation of fresh 

Hass avocado fruit from Guatemala into 

the United States. We determined that 

the phytosanitary measures of the 

systems approach outlined in the risk 

management document (RMD) are 

sufficient to mitigate the associated pest 

risks, including Heilipus lauri and 

Stenoma catenifer. These measures 

include pest-free places of production, 

orchard sanitation, packinghouse 

measures, and commercial 

consignments, in conjunction with 

inspection and the issuance of a 

phytosanitary certificate by the NPPO of 

Guatemala. The commenters provided 

no scientific evidence contradicting the 

conclusions of our pest risk analysis. 

Several commenters requested that we 

conduct an updated physical survey of 

potential pests in Guatemala. 

A physical, biological census (a 

survey whose intent is to discover a 

diverse range of taxa in a given 

geographic area) is not part of our 

methodology of writing pest risk 

assessments. The pest risk assessment is 

based on port-of-entry pest interception 

data, information from the government 

of Guatemala, and current scientific 

literature relevant to pests that are 

known to feed on Hass avocado and that 

occur in Guatemala. APHIS is unaware 

of, and the commenter does not 

mention, any scientific literature 

documenting any new pests in 

Guatemala since the pest risk 

assessment was developed in 2022. We 

therefore believe that the pest risk 

assessment accounts for all known pests 

relevant to the pathway of avocados 

from Guatemala. 

Multiple comments suggested that we 

require mandatory quarantine or 

fumigation for avocados from Guatemala 

imported into the United States. 

APHIS has determined that the 

systems approach outlined in the RMD, 

which is based on pest-free places of 

production, orchard sanitation, 

packinghouse measures, and 

commercial consignments, in 

conjunction with inspection and the 

issuance of a phytosanitary certificate 

by the NPPO of Guatemala, will 

effectively mitigate the pests associated 

with fresh Hass avocado fruit imports 

from Guatemala into the United States. 

The commenters provided no 

scientifically based evidence 

contradicting our determinations of the 

efficacy of the systems approach. 

Therefore, we disagree that mandatory 

quarantine or fumigation are necessary 

for avocados from Guatemala imported 

under the systems approach. 

Multiple comments questioned the 

efficacy of a systems approach by 

claiming that, in the past, pests, 

including those unknown at the time, 

such as persea mite and avocado thrips, 

have come to California from Mexico 

and South America despite the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88713 

mitigation measures of similar systems 

approaches being in place. 

APHIS has found no evidence to 

support the contention that persea mite 

and avocado thrips were introduced to 

California via the commercial fruit 

pathway. APHIS has had no recorded 

interceptions of these pests in 

commercial shipments at U.S. ports of 

entry from Central and South America 

in the past 30 years. We are not aware 

of any scientific evidence linking persea 

mite, avocado thrips, or other 

established avocado pests entering the 

United States via the commercial 

avocado pathway from Mexico or other 

trading partners. The commenters 

provided no scientifically based 

evidence to the contrary. 

As a signatory to the World Trade 

Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary 

and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 

Agreement), the United States has 

agreed that any prohibitions it places on 

the importation of fruits and vegetables 

will be based on scientific evidence. 

The purpose of the pest risk assessment 

is to identify, based on scientific 

evidence, those pests that are known to 

feed on Hass avocado and that occur in 

Guatemala; we cannot address unknown 

pest risk in the pest risk assessment. 

That being said, all consignments of 

avocado fruit from Guatemala will be 

subject to inspection by U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) at the 

United States port of entry. If 

consignments are determined to be 

infested by quarantine pests, even if the 

quarantine pest was previously 

unknown, the consignments will be 

subject to appropriate remedial 

measures to address the plant pest risk, 

and APHIS will evaluate whether 

remedial measures are warranted for the 

export program itself. APHIS also 

continuously monitors foreign countries 

for quarantine pests. If a previously 

unknown quarantine pest relevant to the 

importation of avocados from 

Guatemala arises in the future, APHIS 

will reassess the associated pest risk 

and, if we determine that phytosanitary 

measures outlined in the RMD would 

not provide an adequate level of 

phytosanitary protection, revise the 

import restrictions accordingly. 

One commenter requested that we 

limit the importation of avocados from 

Guatemala to the east coast and 

Midwest regions of the United States. 

The pest risk assessment analyzed the 

pest risk associated with the 

importation of avocados from 

Guatemala into the entire United States. 

We have determined that the systems 

approach outlined in the RMD will 

effectively mitigate the quarantine pests 

associated with fresh Hass avocado fruit 

imports from Guatemala to the entire 

United States. Due to this 

determination, we do not believe that 

restricting imports to certain parts of the 

United States is warranted. 

Multiple comments expressed 

concern regarding the ability to trust the 

NPPO of Guatemala to fulfil its 

obligations under the RMD. Many of 

these comments suggested that APHIS 

provide inspection oversight. 

Like the United States, Guatemala is 

a signatory to the SPS Agreement. As 

such, it has agreed to respect the 

phytosanitary measures the United 

States imposes on the importation of 

plants and plant products from 

Guatemala when the United States 

demonstrates the need to impose these 

measures in order to protect plant 

health within the United States. APHIS 

and the NPPO of Guatemala have 

previously developed and executed 

successful bilateral programs for the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States, such as programs for 

the importation of mango and tomato 

fruits. The success of these programs 

indicates that the NPPO of Guatemala is 

capable of fulfilling its obligations 

under such programs. 

The systems approach outlined in the 

RMD will, however, use a ‘‘trust but 

verify’’ approach to ensure compliance. 

While the NPPO of Guatemala will be 

principally responsible for providing 

oversight, APHIS may monitor activities 

at critical control points, such as places 

of production, packinghouses, as well as 

recordkeeping, as needed. Additionally, 

all consignments of avocado fruit from 

Guatemala will be subject to inspection 

by CBP at the United States port of 

entry. 

If APHIS or the NPPO identify 

evidence of failure to adhere to the 

systems approach, corrective action will 

immediately occur, which includes the 

possibility of suspending the 

importation of further avocados under 

the systems approach until remedial 

measures acceptable to APHIS are taken. 

We consider this potential consequence 

sufficient incentive for the NPPO to 

monitor the systems approach program 

in Guatemala. 

A commenter stated that the NPPO of 

Guatemala should explain how it will 

monitor and audit avocado groves. 

The commenter appeared to assume 

that the NPPO of Guatemala would be 

solely responsible for establishing the 

monitoring and auditing protocols for 

registered avocado groves under the 

terms of the systems approach. This is 

incorrect. The RMD requires APHIS and 

the NPPO of Guatemala to jointly 

develop an operational workplan (OWP) 

that further details the activities and 

responsibilities that the NPPO of 

Guatemala will carry out to meet the 

requirements of the systems approach. 

This OWP will include details of the 

NPPO’s responsibilities regarding 

monitoring and auditing groves. 

Moreover, as stated in the RMD, APHIS 

will also be involved in the 

implementation, monitoring, and 

supervising of the systems approach, 

and may monitor places of production 

if we deem it necessary. 

Several commenters asked for more 

details about what will be required of 

pest-free places of production, such as 

the nature of the surveys required. The 

commenters noted that our initial RMD 

indicated that contiguous orchards and 

properties around registered places of 

production must be surveyed 

semiannually for a period of at least 5 

years and found to be free of certain 

listed moth and weevil avocado pests. 

The commenters stated that ‘‘survey 

semiannually’’ should be more defined 

as no less than every 6 months, and that 

at least one survey should be required 

within a specified time relative to 

harvest, such as 1 month prior to 

harvest, to help understand the pest 

presence. 

While the semiannual surveys will, by 

definition, be conducted twice yearly, 

the interval between surveys, as well as 

the details regarding the surveys, will be 

contained in the OWP. Reserving such 

details for the OWP allows APHIS to 

adapt to operational realities by, e.g., 

lengthening or shortening the duration 

between surveys, within the parameters 

and strictures set forth by the RMD. 

Thus, APHIS determined that a change 

to the initial RMD was not warranted to 

address these comments. 

Several commenters asked us to add 

more detail in the packinghouse 

inspection requirements in the RMD. 

The commenters stated that we should 

define the portion of avocados to be 

inspected as a specific number of fruit 

or a percentage of fruit per a clearly 

defined unit. 

The commenters appear to assume an 

inspection protocol in which a set 

number per unit is inspected. APHIS 

will, instead, require biometric 

sampling of the lots at the 

packinghouse. Biometric sampling is a 

statistically validated approach that 

allows varying rates per unit to be 

inspected from unit to unit, provided 

that the overall rate of inspection is 

sufficient to support pest freedom of the 

entire lot with a specified confidence 

level. APHIS frequently uses biometric 

sampling for inspection protocols 

within systems approaches. 

Packinghouse inspection details will be 

contained in the OWP. Reserving such 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
88714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

details for the OWP allows APHIS to 

adapt to operational realities within the 

parameters and strictures set forth by 

the RMD. Thus, APHIS determined that 

a change to the initial RMD was not 

warranted to address these comments. 

In the initial RMD, we stated that, if 

the NPPO of Guatemala finds that a 

place of production or packinghouse is 

not complying with the requirements of 

the systems approach, no avocado fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse will be eligible for export 

into the United States until APHIS and 

the NPPO of Guatemala investigate and 

implement remedial measures. Several 

commenters asked us to specifically 

define these ‘‘remedial measures.’’ 

Remedial measures can include 

cultural, chemical, and mechanical 

means, such as preharvest application of 

pesticide or additional sanitation 

requirements. The measures will 

depend on the pest in question and the 

specific instance of noncompliance. 

More details about possible remedial 

measures will be included in the OWP, 

thus, APHIS determined that a change 

to the initial RMD was not warranted to 

address this comment. 

Our initial RMD proposed that all 

Hass avocado fruit must be dry-brushed 

and/or washed and waxed at 

packinghouse, as this measure was 

taken into consideration as part of the 

pathway to determine the pest list and 

pest ratings described in the pest risk 

assessment. 

One commenter stated that the RMD 

was unclear as to whether waxing was 

a mandatory or optional postharvest 

treatment. Another commenter stated 

that waxing should not be mandatory, as 

washing and brushing should be 

sufficient to mitigate risk. 

We agree that waxing should not be 

mandatory. As noted in the RMD, our 

intent was to require production 

practices that were considered in the 

pest risk assessment as part of the 

pathway to determine the pest list and 

pest ratings. However, while the pest 

risk assessment considered the pathway 

to include the condition that fresh fruit 

will be culled and brushed or washed 

during post-harvest processing, it did 

not consider the pathway to include the 

condition of waxing. Because waxing 

was not considered as part of the 

pathway in the pest risk assessment, it 

does not need to be required within the 

RMD. The revised RMD, which we are 

publishing alongside this notice, states 

that all Hass avocado fruit must be drybrushed and/or washed at the 

packinghouse. 

One commenter asked us whether 

flowers and leaves were considered 

‘‘plant debris’’ that must be removed 

from places of production, as per 

requirement #10 in the RMD. The 

commenter stated that, in a previous 

OWP, plant debris was limited to fallen 

fruits and branches eliminated during 

the pruning process. 

The RMD states that all plant litter 

and fallen Hass avocado fruit must be 

removed from all places of production 

to remove potential pest host material. 

The definition of plant litter and debris 

in 7 CFR 319.56–2 is ‘‘discarded or 

decaying organic matter; detached 

leaves, twigs, or stems that do not add 

commercial value to the product.’’ 

APHIS is unsure of what country’s OWP 

the commenter is referencing, but, for 

the Guatemala Hass avocado program, 

the intent of requirement #10 is the 

removal of any discarded or decaying 

plant material that could harbor target 

pests, which may include flowers and 

leaves. 

A commenter stated that we should 

not require culling of fruit with 

aesthetic defects caused by nutritional 

and environmental conditions or by 

physical means. 

In the initial RMD, requirement #12 

stated that all damaged or blemished 

Hass avocado fruit must be culled. We 

agree with the commenter that aesthetic 

defects do not necessarily constitute a 

phytosanitary risk. We have therefore 

revised the RMD to remove the phrase 

‘‘or blemished’’ from requirement #12. 

The revised RMD states that all 

damaged Hass avocado fruit must be 

culled. Culling damaged avocado fruit is 

a mainstay of commercial crop 

production, and helps ensure pest-free 

avocado fruit. The RMD uses the word 

‘‘damage’’ to describe damage to the 

fruit caused by the pest species 

referenced in the pest risk assessment. 

Several comments expressed concern 

about and requested that we address the 

prospect of illegal deforestation 

connected with imports of avocados 

from Guatemala. One of these comments 

cited a letter signed by several Senators 

regarding purported problems with 

avocado production in Mexico. Two 

comments suggested that the RMD 

include provisions for Guatemalan 

orchards to follow Guatemalan 

environmental and labor law. 

As a signatory to the SPS Agreement, 

the United States has agreed that any 

prohibitions it places on the importation 

of fruits and vegetables will be based on 

scientific evidence. The provisions of 

the RMD are therefore limited to 

restrictions based on the pest risks 

identified in the pest risk assessment. 

The letter cited by a commenter 

discusses concerns with avocados 

produced on illegally deforested land in 

Mexico. The commenter does not 

provide evidence indicating that 

avocados are produced on illegally 

deforested land in Guatemala. 

Two comments expressed discontent 

with the Hass Avocado Board, with one 

of these comments suggesting specific 

reforms. 

The Hass Avocado Board is under the 

oversight of the USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service; APHIS is not 

involved in this oversight role. We are 

unable to respond to the commenter’s 

concerns regarding the Hass Avocado 

Board, as they are not within APHIS’ 

purview and outside of the scope of this 

notice. 

One commenter stated that APHIS did 

not review the economic ramifications 

of allowing imports of avocados from 

Guatemala. 

The commenter is incorrect that 

APHIS did not assess the potential 

economic impacts on domestic 

producers and consumers of allowing 

imports from Guatemala into the United 

States. The initial notice included an 

EEA, which explained that this action is 

not expected to significantly impact the 

U.S. avocado market or U.S. entities, as 

the importation of avocado from 

Guatemala will be in relatively small 

quantities. APHIS received no 

comments that warranted a change to 

the EEA. 

Multiple comments expressed 

concern that increased foreign imports 

will force domestic growers out of 

business. 

We disagree with the commenters. 

Assuming that Guatemala imports the 

entire anticipated 15,552.8 metric tons 

of avocados into the United States 

(which is not anticipated until 2030), 

this would represent only 1.1 percent of 

the domestic supply of avocados in the 

United States in 2021/2022. Both the 

results of our economic models, as well 

as the fact that this would be a small 

portion of total domestic avocado 

supply, suggest that this action would 

not have a major effect on domestic 

producers. 

One commenter asked us to cap 

foreign imports of avocados at current 

levels to mitigate oversupply. 

Conversely, two commenters stated they 

supported our proposal because 

domestic producers alone are unable to 

meet increasing consumer demand for 

avocado. 

APHIS only has authority to deny 

market access on the basis of pest and 

disease risk and not on the basis of 

competition for domestic suppliers. 

However, we did do an economic 

analysis of the likely price effects and 

found that this action will likely not 

have a major impact on avocado prices. 

The quantity is anticipated to account 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88715 

for 1.1 percent of domestic supply, some 

of which may offset other imports. 

While the impacts will likely be small 

in both directions, we agree that this 

notice will have an impact on 

consumers by increasing the supply of 

avocados. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 319.56–4(c), we are 

announcing our decision to authorize 

the importation into the United States of 

Hass avocados from Guatemala subject 

to the conditions listed in the revised 

RMD that accompanies this final notice. 

These conditions will be listed in the 

ACIR database (available at https://

acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/). In addition to 

these specific measures, Hass avocados 

from Guatemala will be subject to the 

general requirements listed in § 319.56– 

3 that are applicable to the importation 

of all fruits and vegetables. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the recordkeeping and burden 

requirements associated with this action 

are included under the Office of 

Management and Budget control 

number 0579–0049. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E- Government Act 

to promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph 

Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction 

Act Coordinator, at (301) 851–2533. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 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 30th day of 

October 2024. 

Michael Watson, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25667 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture 

(USDA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Olympic Peninsula 

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) 

will hold a public meeting according to 

the details shown below. The committee 

is authorized under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (the Act) and 

operates in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

of the committee is to improve 

collaborative relationships and to 

provide advice and recommendations to 

the Forest Service concerning projects 

and funding consistent with Title II of 

the Act, as well as make 

recommendations on recreation fee 

proposals for sites on the Olympic 

National Forest within Mason, Jefferson, 

Clallam, and Grays Harbor Counties, 

consistent with the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act. 

DATES: An in-person and virtual meeting 

will be held on November 25, 2024, 8:30 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. 

Written and Oral Comments: Anyone 

wishing to provide in-person or virtual 

oral comments must pre-register by 

11:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on 

November 20, 2024. Written public 

comments will be accepted by 11:59 

p.m. Pacific Standard Time on 

November 20, 2024. Comments 

submitted after this date will be 

provided by the Forest Service to the 

committee, but the committee may not 

have adequate time to consider those 

comments prior to the meeting. 

All committee meetings are subject to 

cancellation. For status of the meeting 

prior to attendance, please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

in-person at the Olympic Forest Service 

HQ located 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW, 

Olympia, WA 98512. The public may 

also join the meeting virtually via 

webcast, teleconference, 

videoconference, or Homeland Security 

Information Network virtual meeting 

online at: Teams Meeting, Meeting ID: 

211 449 578 067, Passcode: ZL4BLG. 

Dial in by phone +1 202–650–0123/ 

127880262# United States, Washington. 

RAC information and meeting details 

can be found at the following website: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/olympic/ 

workingtogether/advisorycommittees or 

by contacting the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Written Comments: Written comments 

must be sent by email to 

jennifer.garciasantiago@usda.gov or via 

mail (postmarked) to Jennifer Garcia 

Santiago, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. South 

West, Olympia, Washington 98512. The 

Forest Service strongly prefers 

comments be submitted electronically. 

Oral Comments: Persons or 

organizations wishing to make oral 

comments must pre-register by 11:59 

p.m. Pacific Standard Time, November 

20, 2024, and speakers can only register 

for one speaking slot. Oral comments 

must be sent by email to 

jennifer.garciasantiago@usda.gov or via 

mail (postmarked) to Jennifer Garcia 

Santiago, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. South 

West, Olympia, Washington 98512. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Lawrence, Designated Federal 

Officer, by phone at 360–956–2301 or 

email at kelly.lawrence2@usda.gov; or 

Jennifer Garcia Santiago, RAC 

Coordinator, by phone at 564–669–9623 

or email at Jennifer.garciasantiago@

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the meeting is to: 

1. Review meeting agenda and FACA 

requirements; 

2. Elect a Chairperson; 

3. Hear from Title II project 

proponents and discuss Title II project 

proposals; 

4. Provide opportunity for public 

comment; 

5. Discussion, prioritization, and 

recommendations on Title II projects by 

the RAC; 

6. Approve meeting minutes; 

7. Close out the meeting 

The agenda will include time for 

individuals to make oral statements of 

three minutes or less. Individuals 

wishing to make an oral statement 

should make a request in writing at least 

three days prior to the meeting date to 

be scheduled on the agenda. Written 

comments may be submitted to the 

Forest Service up to 10 days after the 

meeting date listed under DATES. 

Please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, by 

or before the deadline, for all questions 

related to the meeting. All comments, 

including names and addresses when 

provided, are placed in the record and 

are available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received upon request. 

Meeting Accommodations: The 

meeting location is compliant with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 

USDA provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you are 

a person requiring reasonable 

accommodation, please make requests 

in advance for sign language 

interpretation, assistive listening 

devices, or other reasonable 

accommodation to the person listed 

under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section or contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at 202–720–2600 (voice 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1