72342 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Notices 

been delegated the authority to exercise 

the functions of the Secretary as 

provided in the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 

Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) 

(21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.), and the Egg 

Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 1031). These statues mandate 

that FSIS protect the public by ensuring 

that meat, poultry, and egg products are 

not adulterated, wholesome, and 

properly labeled and packaged. FSIS 

requires meat, poultry, and import 

establishments to apply for a grant of 

inspection before they can receive 

Federal inspection. FSIS requires FSIS 

accredited non-Federal analytical 

laboratories to maintain certain 

paperwork and records. FSIS will 

collect information using several FSIS 

forms. 

Need and Use of the Information: 

FSIS will collect information to ensure 

that all meat and poultry establishments 

produce safe, wholesome, and 

unadulterated product, and that nonfederal laboratories accord with FSIS 

regulations. In addition, FSIS also 

collects information to ensure that meat 

and poultry establishments exempted 

from FSIS’s inspection do not 

commingle inspected and non-inspected 

meat and poultry products, and to 

ensure that retail firms qualifying for a 

retail store exemption and who have 

violated the provision of the exemption 

are no longer in violation. 

Description of Respondents: Business 

or other for-profit. 

Number of Respondents: 16,755. 

Frequency of Responses: 

Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. 

Total Burden Hours: 114,300. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Title: Marking, Labeling, and 

Packaging of Meat, Poultry, and Egg 

Products. 

OMB Control Number: 0583–0092. 

Summary of Collection: The Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has 

been delegated the authority to exercise 

the functions of the Secretary as 

provided in the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 

Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) 

(21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg 

Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). These statues 

mandate that FSIS protect the public by 

ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg 

products are safe, wholesome, 

unadulterated, and properly labeled and 

packaged. To control the manufacture of 

marking devices bearing official marks, 

FSIS requires that official meat and 

poultry establishments and the 

manufacturers of such marking devices 

complete FSIS form 5200–7, 

Authorization Certificate and FSIS form 

7234–1, Application for Approval of 

Labels, Marking or Device. 

Need and Use of the Information: 

FSIS will collect information to ensure 

that meat, poultry, and egg products are 

accurately labeled. FSIS will also collect 

the following information: 

establishment number, company name 

and address, name of product, action 

requested of FSIS, size of label, product 

formulation, special processing 

procedures, and a signature on the form. 

Description of Respondents: Business 

or other for-profit. 

Number of Respondents: 7,536. 

Frequency of Responses: 

Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. 

Total Burden Hours: 85,508. 

Ruth Brown, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–24677 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Bitterroot National Forest, West Fork 

Ranger District; Montana; Lower West 

Fork Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, 

Bitterroot National Forest, will prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) to document the analysis and 

disclose the environmental impacts of 

the proposed Lower West Fork project. 

The project area is located in Ravalli 

County, about 15 miles southwest of 

Darby, Montana. The project area 

encompasses about 38,400 acres 

between the Pierce and Wheeler Creek 

drainages on the west side of the West 

Fork Bitterroot River, and the Piquett, 

Violet, Pine, Applebury, Steep Creek 

drainages on the east side of the river. 

The proposed Lower West Fork project 

would manage vegetation to reduce fuel 

loads and crown fire hazard in the 

wildland urban interface, improve forest 

health and resilience to disturbances, 

and maintain or increase shade 

intolerant species such as ponderosa 

pine and aspen. Roads will be evaluated 

for opportunities to reduce 

sedimentation and restore aquatic 

passage. Terraced lands will be 

evaluated for opportunities to restore 

soils. Site-specific Bitterroot Forest Plan 

amendments may be proposed for 

downed wood, snags, soils, or elk 

habitat effectiveness. Approximately 

5,100 acres of the project area are 

proposed for vegetation treatments. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

January 22, 2008. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in June, 2008, and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in December, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send written, oral, or e-mail 

comments to Lower West Fork Project; 

Dave Campbell, District Ranger; West 

Fork Ranger Station; 6735 West Fork 

Road; Darby, Montana 59829; phone 

(406) 821–3269; e-mail commentsnorthern-bitterroot-west-fork@fs.fed.us. 

For further information, mail 

correspondence or contact Mike Jakober, 

Acting South Zone Interdisciplinary 

Team Leader; West Fork Ranger Station; 

6735 West Fork Road; Darby, Montana 

59829; phone (406) 821–3269; e-mail 

mjakober@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Jakober, Acting South Zone 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader; West 

Fork Ranger Station; 6735 West Fork 

Road; Darby, Montana 59829; phone 

(406) 821–3269; e-mail 

mjakober@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Lower West Fork project is 

proposed to respond to the goals and 

objectives of the Bitterroot Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan and the 

Bitterroot National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. The 

purpose and need objectives of the 

Lower West Fork project are to: (1) 

Reduce fuel loads and crown fire risk in 

lower elevation ponderosa pine/Douglas 

fir forests; (2) improve forest health and 

resilience to natural disturbances, 

particularly the health and resilience of 

large ponderosa pine trees; (3) maintain 

or increase shade intolerant species 

such as ponderosa pine and aspen; and 

(4) improve soil, watershed, and 

fisheries conditions. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is designed to 

accomplish the project objectives with 

minimal environmental impacts. The 

types of vegetation treatments that may 

be implemented on the landscape to 

meet the objectives include, but are not 

limited to: Green tree removals such as 

commercial and non-commercial 

thinning; removal of individual dead, 

dying, and diseased trees; creating small 

openings to regenerate aspen; slashing 

of small, non-commercial understory 

trees; hand piling; and prescribed 

burning. The total proposed vegetation 

treatment acres are approximately 5,100. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Notices 72343 

The types of soil, watershed, and 

fisheries improvement treatments that 

may be implemented to meet objectives 

include, but are not limited to: 

Realignment, storage, and 

decommissioning of existing roads; 

culvert removal and replacement for 

fish passage; installing fish screens on 

irrigation ditches; spot application of 

gravel at road stream crossings; and 

restoration of soils in terraced units. 

Approximately 10 miles of road are 

proposed for decommissioning 

(obliteration), and 19 miles are proposed 

to be put into long-term storage. Nine 

culverts are proposed for replacement or 

removal to improve fish passage. 

Possible Alternatives 

Preliminary alternatives which have 

been identified include the proposed 

action and the no action alternative. 

Responsible Official 

David T. Bull, Forest Supervisor; 

Bitterroot National Forest; 1801 N. First; 

Hamilton, Montana 59840–3114. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Responsible Official will 

determine whether or not to proceed 

with the proposed project activities. 

Scoping Process 

Comments will be accepted during 

the 30 day scoping period as described 

in this notice of intent. To assist in 

commenting, a scoping letter providing 

more detailed information on the project 

proposal has been prepared and will be 

mailed out to interested parties. The 

Lower West Fork project was previously 

scoped in March, 2007. If you 

responded at that time and wish to use 

the same comments, there is no need to 

comment again. Comments received in 

spring, 2007 are included in the project 

file and will be considered in this 

analysis. If you did not receive a 

scoping letter in spring, 2007, but wish 

to receive one now, contact Dave 

Campbell, West Fork Ranger District, at 

the mailing address, phone number, or 

e-mail address previously listed in this 

notice of intent. At this time, there are 

no plans to schedule a public meeting. 

If needed, a meeting will be scheduled 

between the release of the draft and 

final environmental impact statements. 

The time and location of the meeting 

will be announced at that time. 

Preliminary Issues 

The scoping that was conducted in 

March, 2007 disclosed the following 

preliminary issues: (1) Impacts to air 

quality; (2) economic impacts; (3) 

funding realities; (4) utilization of small 

diameter trees; (5) impacts and costs of 

obliterating roads; (6) methods and 

science used in the analysis; and (7) 

appropriate distances needed to treat 

fuels around homes. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

A draft environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

The comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. The Forest Service 

believes, at this early stage, it is 

important to give reviewers notice of 

several court rulings related to public 

participation in the environmental 

review process. First, reviewers of draft 

environmental impact statements must 

structure their participation in the 

environmental review of the proposal so 

that it is meaningful and alerts an 

agency to the reviewer’s position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,533 

(1978). Also, environmental objections 

that could be raised at the draft 

environmental impact statement stage 

but that are not raised until after 

completion of the final environmental 

impact statement may be waived or 

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon 

v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 

1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. 

Harris, 409 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Because of these court 

rulings, it is very important that those 

interested in this proposed action 

participate by the close of the 45 day 

comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statements. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: December 11, 2007. 

Amber Lewis, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–6088 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal 

Advisory Committee will hold a 

meeting on January 11, 2008 at the 

Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 

Boulevard, Incline Village, NV, 89451. 

This Committee, established by the 

Secretary of Agriculture on December 

15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to 

provide advice to the Secretary on 

implementing the terms of the Federal 

Interagency Partnership on the Lake 

Tahoe Region and other matters raised 

by the Secretary. 

DATES: The meeting will be held January 

11, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. and 

ending at 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 

Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla 

Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 

543–2773. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to 

be covered on the agenda include: (1) 

Monitoring/Science Funding Outside 

the Lake Tahoe Basin; (2) Review of the 

Hazardous Fuels Projects; and (3) Public 

Comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal 

Advisory Committee meetings are open 

to the public. Interested citizens are 

encouraged to attend at the above 

address. Issues may be brought to the 

attention of the Committee during the 

open public comment period at the 

meeting or by filing written statements 

with the secretary for the Committee 

before or after the meeting. Please refer 

any written comments to the Lake 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES