Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices 27715

and other hazards. FSIS is committed to

fostering such innovation.

In the past few years, innovative

technologies and procedures have been

developed by the meat and poultry

industry and allied enterprises to

enhance industry productivity and

profitability. FSIS believes that industry

innovation should also be directed to

improving food safety. FSIS intends as

part of its comprehensive long-term

food safety strategy to increase the

incentives for such innovation by

establishing public health-driven

targets, guidelines, and standards that

establishments will be held accountable

for meeting. Also, FSIS is redoubling its

efforts to facilitate experimentation in

the meat and poultry industries.

Specifically, FSIS is encouraging inplant experimentation, which both aids

in the development of new production

and processing techniques and provides

the requisite confirmation that new

technologies and procedures are

efficacious, practical, and manageable in

commercial plant environments. FSIS

has reviewed its policies and

procedures governing review and

approval of in-plant experimentation

with the intention of simplifying them

to the maximum extent possible, while

ensuring that important safety and

efficacy issues are considered. As a

result, on April 11, 1995, FSIS issued

Directive 10,700.1, ‘‘Guidelines for

Preparing and Submitting Experimental

Protocols for In-Plant Trials of New

Technologies and Procedures.’’

Directive 10,700.1 explains that a

written proposal and protocol must be

submitted to FSIS, reviewed, and

approved prior to any in-plant research

or demonstration of technologies and

procedures that could affect product

safety, worker safety, environmental

safety, or inspection procedures. The

written proposal and protocol must

contain a statement of purpose, a

scientific literature review, including

data from laboratory studies supporting

further in-plant trials, a detailed

description of the research methodology

to be used, and other administrative

information. Also, proposals for

research on technologies or procedures

that could alter inspection procedures,

affect food safety, or are to be approved

for general use must include a detailed

study design and a commitment to

submit final research results. Applicants

must submit proposals and protocols at

least 60 days before any experiments

begin, so that FSIS may have adequate

time to both review the proposal and

notify, if necessary, the local FSIS

inspection staff who would observe the

approved experiment.

FSIS will not approve any proposal or

protocol for in-plant experimentation

that could result in an increased risk for

the public and accordingly has placed

certain restrictions on experiments

involving the artificial contamination of

food products. For example, in

experiments where researchers

artificially contaminate carcasses with

fecal material that may contain human

pathogens, any products from these

carcasses must be removed from

commercial channels or reconditioned

to be wholesome and fit for sale. Also,

in tests where researchers artificially

contaminate carcasses with surrogate

organisms that approximate the growth

or spread of human pathogens,

trimming of treated areas followed by an

antimicrobial wash is required before

product can be moved into commerce.

Furthermore, while FSIS will not

approve experiments that unreasonably

interfere with our inspection

responsibilities, requests for modest

changes in inspection during an

experiment will be considered on a

case-by-case basis.

FSIS requires that certain proposal

and protocol submissions include

approvals from other agencies. If any

chemical reagents or other such

materials are to be used in an

experiment, those materials must have

been approved by Food and Drug

Administration. Also, certain proposals

for experiments that may affect worker

safety must be accompanied by

appropriate regulatory citations or by

written approval from the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and/or the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration. And, some

proposals for experiments that may

impact environmental safety must be

accompanied by approvals from EPA.

During approved in-plant

experimentation, FSIS reserves the right

to have on-site observers present and to

review interim data. Should unexpected

safety concerns arise at any time, for

example, if food products affected by

the experiment are in violation of food

safety statutes or present an increased

risk to the public, FSIS will require

termination of the experiment. FSIS also

reserves the right to have an approved

proposal, as well as experimental

results, reviewed by outside parties, as

long as proprietary rights are

safeguarded. Further, FSIS reserves the

right to request the ‘‘raw’’ data initially

collected from the experiment when

evaluating the results of in-plant

experiments.

FSIS has established a new unit, the

Technology Assessment and Research

Coordination Division (TARCD), which

will function as the single point of entry

for in-plant research protocols and

experimental results. TARCD will

perform the initial review of proposals

for acceptability and completeness and

then forward the proposals to teams

within FSIS for technical review.

TARCD also will be responsible for

conveying results from FSIS technical

reviews to the researchers requesting

approval for in-plant experiments.

TARCD will similarly coordinate the

review of results and facilitate the

policy decision process.

Proposals and protocols that are

unapproved or in the approval process

will be unavailable to the public.

Approved proposals and protocols will

be available and on file in the FSIS

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

reading room. FSIS will ensure FOIA

protection for proprietary information

contained in proposals and protocols

available to the public.

Development and dissemination of

these guidelines, as well as the

establishment within FSIS of a single

office for receiving proposed protocols

for in-plant research, is intended to

encourage the technological and

procedural innovation necessary to

enhance food safety within the meat and

poultry industries.

Done at Washington, DC on May 19, 1995.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–12883 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

Forest Service

Notice of Intent

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revision of notice of intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement.

SUMMARY: On May 13, 1992, the Forest

Service filed a notice of intent in the

Federal Register to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS) to

analyze revision of management

guidelines for the Desolation Wilderness

on the Pacific and Placerville Ranger

Districts of the Eldorado National Forest

and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management

Unit, El Dorado County, California. A

subsequent notice was filed on May 2,

1994, because the draft EIS was delayed

more than 6 months. This notice is

being filed because the EIS has been

delayed more than 6 months and

because the responsible official has been

changed.

ADDRESSES: John Phipps, Forest

Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest,

ATTN: Desolation Wilderness EIS, 100
27716 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices

Forni Rd. Placerville, CA 95667, phone

916–622–5061.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed

action and EIS to Karen Leyse,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Eldorado

National Forest, 100 Forni Rd.

Placerville, CA 95667, phone 916–622–

5061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Eldorado National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (1989), the

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Land and Resource Management Plan

(1988), and the 1964 Wilderness Act

have provided general management

direction for Desolation Wilderness. The

current Desolation Wilderness

Management Plan was completed in

1978; both Forest Plans indicate the

need to review the existing Desolation

Wilderness Plan and to revise it as

needed. The decision may result in

amendment to the Forest Plans.

A great deal of scoping has been

completed since the original notice of

intent was filed. Through scoping, the

following issues have been identified:

1. Fire. Fire suppression has affected

the development and maintenance of

natural plant communities and the

resulting ecosystems. Current fire

management policy and suppression

techniques are not consistent with

maintaining natural processes and

wilderness characteristics.

2. Fisheries. Stocking of fish in

wilderness lakes provides recreational

opportunities for the public, but this

practice affects naturally occurring

biodiversity and ecosystems, which are

protected by wilderness designation.

3. Range. Current grazing practices

may impact water quality, vegetation,

meadow and riparian areas, wildlife,

and archaeological sites. Grazing is a

historical use; however, the presence of

cattle disturbs some visitors.

4. Water quality. Current use and

management practices may be creating

unacceptable water quality conditions

in the wilderness.

5. Wood fires. Many wilderness users

value campfires as part of the

wilderness experience; however,

collection of firewood and presence of

firerings, ashes, and other campfire

debris degrades campsites and

eliminates down, woody debris, an

important part of the ecosystem.

6. Visitor impacts. Some areas of the

wilderness, especially lakeshores and

easily accessed sites, are being damaged

by visitor use. Users, including

recreational stock users, may impact the

vegetation, soils, wildlife, and cultural

sites.

7. Quotas and group size. The number

and distribution of users and the size of

groups (including stock) affect the

values and character of the wilderness

and the quality of the wilderness

experience.

8. Aircraft overflights. Overflights are

common and intrude on the wilderness

experience.

9. Dogs. The presence of dogs disturbs

some visitors, adds to sanitation

problems, and may harass wildlife.

10. Recreational shooting. Some

visitors feel that the responsible use of

guns should be allowed. Others are

disturbed by the noise and the

harassment of wildlife and have

expressed concern for their own safety.

11. Trails. Management and

development of trailheads and trails

may affect the amounts and patterns of

use and the quality of the wilderness

experience.

In preparing the EIS, the Forest

Service will be considering a range of

alternatives for future management of

the wilderness. The Forest Service is in

the process of developing these

alternatives, which range from

maximum recreational use of the

wilderness to maximum wilderness

protection. These preliminary

alternatives may be revised before the

draft EIS is issued as new information

is developed or new comments are

received:

Maximum Opportunity. This

alternative would increase the use of the

wilderness by expanding the trail

system and signing, maintaining all

trails, and upgrading unimproved trails.

Camping would be allowed in all zones.

Fisheries opportunities would be

increased. Campfires would be

permitted in designated firings, back

country toilets would be installed,

group sizes of 25 would be permitted,

and quotas for overnight camping would

be raised. There would be no limits on

recreational shooting. There would be

no group size limits for recreational

stock. No fees would be charged.

No Action. The current situation

would continue unchanged. There

would continue to be unlimited day use

with quotas on overnight use in the 3-

month summer period. Camping would

be permitted in all zones. Maintenance

and reconstruction of existing trails

would continue. Fish stocking of lakes

and operation of stream flow

management dams would continue.

Wood fires would continue to be

prohibited. All fires, including

lightening caused fires, would be

suppressed. Sanitation

recommendations would continue to

include a 100-foot setback from water.

There would be no limits on

recreational shooting or recreational

stock. The forests would continue to

pursue charging a permit reservation

fee.

Enhanced Wilderness Experience. The

quality of the wilderness experience

would be improved by restricting the

number of day users in heavily used

areas and by slightly reducing the

number of overnight users permitted

over a 5-month summer period. Group

sizes would be reduced in remote areas.

The number of stock permitted per

group would be limited, and

recreational shooting would be limited

during the heavy use season. There

would be a leash requirement for dogs.

Fish stocking would continue at

reduced levels. Overnight wilderness

permits would be issued by zone or by

destination, with no camping in

heaviest use areas. ‘‘No trace’’ wood

fires would be allowed in designated

areas. Several trails could be removed.

Other trails would be made more

primitive. Directional signing would be

found only at major trail intersections.

Prescribed natural fire would be

allowed in areas of the wilderness

where fire hazard is low.

Physical Restoration. The number of

day and overnight users would be

further reduced from the Enhanced

Wilderness Experience alternative

during a 5-month summer quota period.

Group sizes for users and stock would

be reduced. Grazing would be permitted

only where appropriate based on

wilderness resource conditions.

Recreational shooting would be

prohibited. Camping and outfitter/guide

use would be regulated by zone. Dogs

would be required to be on a leash. Fish

stocking would be reduced, and riparian

areas would be revegetated. Some trails

could be removed and others would be

re-routed in sensitive areas. Planned

and natural prescribed fire would be

used to return areas of the wilderness to

pre-historical conditions. Reservation

and permit fees (if legal) would be

collected.

Enhanced Ecosystem. Group sizes for

users and stock would be further

reduced from the other alternatives, and

the numbers of overall visitors would be

reduced. Grazing would be permitted

only where appropriate based on

wilderness resources conditions.

Stocking of non-indigenous fish species

would be allowed only if the fish

populations were adversely influenced

by humans. Dogs would be required to

be on a leash. Recreational shooting and

campfires would be prohibited. The

number of signs, stream maintenance

dams, and trails would be reduced.

Trails would be re-routed away from

sensitive areas; stream crossings would

be repaired; riparian areas would be

revegetated. Planned and natural
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices 27717

prescribed fire would be used

throughout the wilderness. Reservation

and permit fees (if legal) would be

collected.

Maximum Wilderness Preservation.

The wilderness would be managed for

very primitive to pristine conditions.

Stock and human use levels would be

reduced. Dogs, shooting, and campfires

would be prohibited. Signing,

streamflow maintenance dams, some

campsites, and many trails would be

removed. Fish stocking would cease.

Reservation and permit fees (if legal)

would be collected.

John Phipps, Forest Supervisor,

Eldorado National Forest, and Robert E.

Harris, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe

Basin Management Unit, are the

responsible officials.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review by August 1995. At that

time the EPA will publish a notice of

availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register.

The comment period on the draft EIS

will be 45 days from the date EPA’s

notice of availability appears in the

Federal Register. It is very important

that reviewers participate at that time.

To be the most helpful, comments on

the draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and may address the adequacy

of the statement or the merits of the

alternatives discussed (see The Council

on Environmental Quality Regulations

for implementing the procedural

provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR

1503.3). In addition, Federal court

decisions have established that

reviewers of draft EIS’s must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewers’ position and contentions,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978), and

that environmental objections that could

have been raised at the draft stage may

be waived if not raised until after

completion of the final EIS. Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason

for this is to ensure that substantive

comments and objectives are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final EIS.

After the comment period ends on the

draft EIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered by the Forest

Service in preparing the final EIS. The

final EIS is scheduled to be completed

by January 1996. The Forest Service is

required to respond in the final EIS to

the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4).

The responsible officials will consider

the comments, responses, disclosure of

environmental consequences, and

applicable laws, regulations, and

policies in making a decision regarding

this proposal. The responsible officials

will document the decision and

rationale in the Record of Decision. That

decision will be subject to appeal.

Dated: May 15, 1995.

Robert E. Harris,

Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin

Management Unit.

Dated: May 15, 1995.

John Phipps,

Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest.

[FR Doc. 95–12857 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Inland Native Fish Strategy;

Environmental Assessment for Public

Review

ACTION: Notice of publication of the

Inland Native Fish Strategy

Environmental Assessment for public

review.

SUMMARY: In the March 14, 1995,

Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 49, pp.

13697–13698), notice was given that the

Forest Service, in cooperation with the

Bureau of Land Management and US

Fish and Wildlife Service, is gathering

information in order to prepare an

Environmental Assessment (EA) for a

proposal to protect habitat and

populations of native inland fish.

This EA will address National Forest

System lands on the Bitterroot, Boise,

Caribou, Challis, Clearwater, Colville,

Deerlodge, Deschutes, Flathead,

Fremont, Helena, Humboldt, Idaho

Panhandle, Kootenai, Lolo, Malheur,

Ochoco, Payette, Sawtooth, WallowaWhitman, and Winema National Forests

in the Northern, Intermountain, and

Pacific Northwest Regions.

The public scoping period began

March 14 and ended April 26, 1995. As

of May 1, approximately 235 letters

have been received from the public.

Many people commented that they

should have an opportunity to review

the alternatives and effects analysis that

will be documented in the

Environmental Assessment. The agency

agrees that the public should have this

opportunity. The Environmental

Assessment will be completed on or

about May 31, and will be sent to the

public for a 30-day review and comment

period. These comments will be

considered in reaching a decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the environmental

assessment should be directed to David

Wright, Team Leader, USDA Forest

Service, 3815 Schrieber Way, Coeur

d’Alene, Idaho, 83814. Phone: (208)

765–7223.

The responsible officials for this

Environmental Assessment are the

Regional Foresters for the

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific

Northwest Regions. They will make a

decision regarding this proposal

considering the comments and

responses, environmental consequences

discussed in the Environmental

Assessment, and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies. The decision

and reasons for the decision will be

documented in a Decision Notice. The

Decision Notice is expected to be

available in late July, 1995.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

David J. Wright,

Inland Native Fish Team Leader, USDA,

Forest Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12858 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Willamette Provincial Interagency

Executive Committee (PIEC), Advisory

Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Willamette PIEC

Advisory Committee will meet on

Thursday, June 15, 1995, at the Salem

District Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) Office, 1717 Fabry Road SE,

Salem, Oregon. The meeting will being

at 9:00 a.m. and continue until

approximately 3:00 p.m. Agenda items

to be covered include: (1) Followup on

procedural issues, (2) Information on

watershed analysis and schedule for FY

95–97, (3) Key issues, concerns, and

opportunities of Federal Agencies for

implementing the Northwest Forest

Plan, (4) Identifying Advisory

Committee tasks, (5) Open public forum.

All Willamette PIEC meetings are open

to the public, and interested citizens are

encouraged to attend. Written comments

concerning the Advisory Committee’s

affairs can be submitted at the meeting.

Oral comment can also be made during

the public forum. Length of oral

comments will be limited to the time

allotted on the agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Neal Forrester, Designated Federal

Official, Willamette National Forest, 211

East Seventh Avenue, Eugene, Oregon;

503–465–6924.