Department of Agriculture October 15, 2010 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice is announcing the re-chartering of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 24, 2010. The Committee is being renewed in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The establishment of the Committee was recommended by a 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Food Protection, Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, ``An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' The current charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the NACMCF homepage at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/NACMCF/index.asp. At this time the charter is being changed to add one individual affiliated with a consumer group to be appointed to the NACMCF as a representative member. This member will provide a consumer viewpoint to Committee work and will not be required to have a scientific background. The balance of the Committee membership will be scientists, and those who are not regular government employees will be appointed as special government employees.

The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approve Minutes, (3) RAC Admin Updates, (4) Public Comment, (5) Project Updates FY 08, 09, 10, (6) General Discussion, (9) Meeting Schedule, (8) Adjourn.

The Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Auburn, California. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss projects submitted for funding and the expenditure of Title II funds benefiting National Forest System lands in Nevada and Placer Counties.

The Kootenai National Forest will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Grizzly Vegetation and Transportation Management Project (Grizzly Project). The Grizzly Project includes vegetation management, fuels reduction, watershed rehabilitation activities, wildlife habitat improvement, and access management changes, including road decommissioning. The project is located in the Grizzly planning subunit on the Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana, and northeast of Troy, Montana. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS for this project was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 31821) on June 8, 2007, and the notice of the Final EIS (74 FR 24006) on May 22, 2009. The Record of Decision was issued concurrently with the Final EIS. On June 29, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a sixty-nine page decision granting in part and denying in part cross motions for summary judgment in this case which alleged that the Forest Service's authorization of the Grizzly, Miller, and Little Beaver Projects on the Kootenai National Forest violated NEPA, NFMA, and the ESA. Plaintiffs generally alleged that in authorizing these Projects for vegetation management, fuels reduction, watershed restoration, timber harvest, and other purposes, the Forest Service failed to adequately evaluate their impact on the threatened Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bears which inhabit the area. Regarding the Grizzly Vegetation and Transportation Management Project the court found that (1) the agency's conclusion that the Project was consistent with the Kootenai Forest Plan violated NFMA because there was insufficient information in the record to determine whether the Projects complied with the standard for Management Situation 1 lands which require the agency to ``favor the needs of the grizzly bear when grizzly habitat and other land use values compete''; and (2) the agency's failure to explain why it used the bear management unit instead of the Forest as the proper level for analysis of cumulative effects and its failure to disclose and discuss the problems with the ``Wakkinen Study'' regarding grizzly habitat standards violated NEPA's ``hard look'' requirement. The Court enjoined all three Projects and remanded them to the agency to address the defects identified in its decision. (09-160, D. Mont.). A Supplemental EIS is being prepared for the Grizzly Vegetation and Transportation Management Project to address these disclosures in the grizzly bear analysis.