10662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

1The Treatment Manual is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_

export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/

treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine, Manuals Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson 

Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702. 

2To view the notice and the comments we 

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

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0097. 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1

Section 305.3 sets out a process for 

adding, revising, or removing treatment 

schedules in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual. In that section, paragraph (b) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is an immediate need to make a 

change. The circumstances in which an 

immediate need exists are described in 

§ 305.3(b)(1). They are: 

• PPQ has determined that an 

approved treatment schedule is 

ineffective at neutralizing the targeted 

plant pest(s). 

• PPQ has determined that, in order 

to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), 

the treatment schedule must be 

administered using a different process 

than was previously used. 

• PPQ has determined that a new 

treatment schedule is effective, based on 

efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in 

a commodity or commodities may be 

adversely impacted unless the new 

treatment schedule is approved for use. 

• The use of a treatment schedule is 

no longer authorized by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or by 

any other Federal entity. 

A treatment schedule currently listed 

in the PPQ Treatment Manual (T101–i– 

2–1) requires baby kiwi (Actinidia 

arguta), fig (Ficus carica), grape (Vitis 

spp.), and pomegranate (Punica 

granatum) to be treated with methyl 

bromide (MB) to prevent the 

introduction into the United States of 

external pests, including Chilean false 

red mite (Brevipalpus chilensis). The 

treatment as originally approved 

required the use of 1.5 lb b 4.0 lb of MB 

gas per 1,000 ft3 for 2 hours at 

temperatures of 40 °F or above. 

However, in 2006, APHIS determined 

that this treatment was insufficient to 

mitigate the risk from the mite on 

grapes. Therefore, as an emergency 

measure, the treatment was amended to 

require a longer exposure time of up to 

3 hours under tarpaulin or 2.5 hours in 

chamber. As an emergency measure, 

this action was done administratively 

and was not meant to be permanent. 

On April 4, 2011, APHIS published a 

notice 2 in the Federal Register (76 FR 

18511–18512, Docket No. APHIS–2009– 

0097) that approved the use of this 

revised treatment to treat figs from Chile 

in order to meet U.S. entry 

requirements. Since publication of that 

notice, we have determined that figs 

have a higher sorption rate of the MB 

gas than other commodities. Therefore, 

in order to achieve 100 percent 

mortality of Chilean false red mite on 

figs, the figs must be exposed to a higher 

dose of MB. 

In accordance with § 305.3(b)(2), we 

are providing notice that we have 

determined that it is necessary to add 

new treatment schedule T101–i–2–22, 

which provides for a MB treatment 

schedule for figs during an exposure 

period of 3 hours in a chamber at a 

dosage rate of 3.5 lbs gas/1,000 ft3 at a 

temperature between 50 °F and 59 °F, 3 

lbs gas/1,000 ft3 at a temperature 

between 60 °F and 69 °F, and 2.5 lbs 

gas/1,000 ft3 at a temperature of 70 °F or 

above. Since the efficacy of new 

schedule T101–i–2–2 was not verified 

under tarpaulin, the new treatment 

schedule is applicable only in 

chambers. This action also amends 

treatment schedule T101–i–2–1 by 

removing figs from the schedule and 

making the revised treatment schedule 

permanent. Revised treatment schedule 

T101–i–2–1 will continue to be 

applicable both in chambers and under 

tarpaulin for grapes, baby kiwis, and 

pomegranates. APHIS’ experience with 

successful importation of these 

commodities using the existing 

treatment schedule has provided 

sufficient evidence to prove the 

effectiveness of the treatment. In order 

to have minimum adverse impact on the 

ongoing trade of figs and using the 

immediate process as provided in 

§ 305.3(b), these changes are effective 

immediately upon publication of this 

notice. The new treatment schedule will 

be listed in a separate section of the PPQ 

Treatment Manual, which will indicate 

that T101–i–2–22 was added through 

the immediate process described in 

paragraph (b) of § 305.3 and that it is 

subject to change or removal based on 

public comment. 

The reasons for the addition of this 

treatment schedule are described in 

detail in a treatment evaluation 

document we have prepared to support 

this action. The treatment evaluation 

document 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 

treatment evaluation document by 

calling or writing to the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Please refer to the subject of 

the treatment evaluation document 

when requesting copies. 

After reviewing the comments we 

receive, we will announce our decision 

regarding the new treatment schedule 

that is described in the treatment 

evaluation document in a subsequent 

notice, in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(3) of § 305.3. If we do not receive any 

comments, or the comments we receive 

do not change our determination that 

the treatment is effective, we will affirm 

the treatment schedule’s addition to the 

PPQ Treatment Manual and make 

available a new version of the PPQ 

Treatment Manual in which T101–i–2– 

2 is listed in the main body of the PPQ 

Treatment Manual. If we receive 

comments that cause us to determine 

that T101–i–2–2 needs to be changed or 

removed, we will make available a new 

version of the PPQ Treatment Manual 

that reflects changes to or the removal 

of T101–i–2–2. 

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 23rd day of 

February 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04172 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

[EIS No. 2011–13640] 

Retraction of Salt River Allotments 

Vegetative Management EIS 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Retraction of NOI. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service has 

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) on 

May 25, 2011 for Salt River Allotments 

Vegetative Management EIS. This 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

first designed due to complexities 

encountered with a variety of current 

activities and environmental conditions 

that interconnect along Salt River. These 

activities include: White water rafting, 

wilderness values, critical habitat of 

aquatic and terrestrial species. Planned 

livestock grazing project included a 

desire by term-grazing permittees to 

graze livestock (i.e., cattle) along river. 

DATES: Not Applicable. 

ADDRESSES: No further comments will 

be received on this project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Jamie Wages 7680 South Sixshooter 

Canyon Road Globe, Arizona 85501, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10663 

ajwages@fs.fed.us or 928–402–6222. 

Individuals who use telecommunication 

devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service at 

(800) 877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 

8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, 

Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Selecting 

to do an EIS upfront was a shortcut for 

doing an EA and then not being able to 

certify proposed action did not have a 

significant impact in a FONSI. However, 

through discussions with term-grazing 

permittees, it was determined that if 

livestock were allowed to graze along 

river that neither Forest Service nor 

term-grazing permittees had time or 

money to conduct monitoring necessary 

to determine appropriateness of this 

proposed action along river corridor. By 

withdrawing complexity inherent in 

proposed action to graze along river, 

need for an EIS evaporated. Therefore, 

project planning will continue through 

an EA process. Environmental Impact 

Statement will be retracted on February 

18, 2015. 

Dated: February 17, 2015. 

Richard Reitz, 

Globe Ranger District, Tonto National Forest. 

Dated: February 18, 2015. 

Kelly Jardine, 

Tonto Basin Ranger District, Tonto National 

Forest. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04073 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Stanislaus National Forest, CA; Notice 

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for Rim Fire 

Reforestation 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Stanislaus National 

Forest proposes about 42,000 acres of 

reforestation, plantation thinning, 

additional deer habitat and noxious 

weed treatments on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands within the 2013 

Rim Fire in order to: Return mixed 

conifer forest to the landscape; restore 

old forest for wildlife; reduce fuels; 

enhance deer habitat; and, eradicate 

noxious weeds. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

action should be submitted within 45 

days of the date of publication of this 

Notice of Intent. Completion of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is expected in November 2015 followed 

by the Final EIS and Draft Record of 

Decision (ROD) in May 2016. A final 

decision is expected in August 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be: mailed 

to the Stanislaus National Forest; Attn: 

Rim Reforestation; 19777 Greenley 

Road; Sonora, CA 95370; delivered to 

the address shown during business 

hours (M–F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm); or, 

submitted by FAX (209) 533–1890. 

Submit electronic comments, in 

common (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt) formats, to: 

comments-pacificsouthwest-stanislaus@

fs.fed.us with Subject: Rim 

Reforestation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Benech, Stanislaus National 

Forest; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, 

CA 95370; phone (209) 532–3671; or 

email: mbenech@fs.fed.us. A scoping 

package, maps and other information 

are online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/

project/?project=45612. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

The Rim Fire started on August 17, 

2013 in a remote area of the Stanislaus 

National Forest near the confluence of 

the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers about 

20 miles east of Sonora, California. Over 

the next several weeks it burned 

257,314 acres, including 154,430 acres 

of NFS lands, becoming the third largest 

wildfire in California history. The Rim 

Fire Reforestation project is located 

within the Rim Fire perimeter in the 

Stanislaus National Forest on portions 

of the Mi-Wok and Groveland Ranger 

Districts. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The primary purposes of the project 

are to: (1) Return Mixed Conifer Forest 

to the Landscape; (2) Restore Old Forest 

for Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity; 

(3) Reduce Fuels for Future Fire 

Resiliency; (4) Enhance Deer Habitat; 

and, (5) Eradicate Noxious Weeds. 

Proposed Action 

The Forest Service proposed action 

includes about 42,000 acres of 

reforestation, plantation thinning, 

additional deer habitat and noxious 

weed eradication treatments on NFS 

lands within the 2013 Rim Fire. 

Reforestation treatments (30,065 

acres) include: Hand, mechanical and 

manual herbicide site preparation 

(Glyphosate); prescribed burning; 

planting a diversity of conifer tree 

species using various patterns and 

densities (trees per acre) across the 

landscape (up and down slopes with 

fewer on ridges and more in drainage 

bottoms) to develop resilient mixed 

conifer forest and enhance wildlife 

(including deer) habitat; manual 

herbicide release (Glyphosate) when 

vegetation competition begins to inhibit 

survival and growth; and, noxious weed 

eradication as described below. The 

reforestation treatment (30,065 acres) 

includes thinning and planting on 7,307 

acres of existing plantations currently 

under-stocked due to high burn severity 

from the 2013 Rim Fire. 

Plantation Thinning treatments 

(11,359 acres) include: Hand and 

mechanical site preparation; prescribed 

burning and thinning to achieve an 

Individual, Clumpy, Open (ICO) pattern 

to maximize heterogeneity and wildlife 

(including deer) habitat while creating 

more fire resilient stands; and, noxious 

weed eradication as described below. 

Additional Deer Habitat treatments 

(407 acres) include: Prescribed burning; 

and, noxious weed eradication as 

described below. 

Noxious Weed Eradication treatments 

(4,160 acres) include: Weed treatments 

with a variety of EPA approved 

herbicides (such as Glyphosate, 

Clopyralid, Aminopyralid, Clethodim 

and Fluazifop-P-butyl). These noxious 

weed treatments overlap (within and up 

to 100 feet adjacent to) the reforestation, 

plantation thinning and additional deer 

habitat treaments described above. 

No treatments are proposed within 

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

or the wild classification segments of 

Wild and Scenic Rivers or Proposed 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Project design 

will incorporate Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) according to regional 

and national guidance. Implementation 

is expected to begin in fall 2016 and 

continue for up to 10 years. 

Possible Alternatives 

In addition to the Proposed Action, 

the EIS will evaluate the required No 

Action alternative and likely consider 

other alternatives identified through the 

inderdisciplinary process and public 

participation. 

Responsible Official 

Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor; 

Stanislaus National Forest; 19777 

Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The responsible official will decide 

whether to adopt and implement the 

proposed action, an alternative to the 

proposed action, or take no action with 

respect to the Rim Fire Reforestation 

project. 

Scoping Process 

Public participation is important at 

numerous points during the analysis. 

The Forest Service seeks information, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES