Notices. Notice

4,596 words·~21 min read·/register/2008/01/30/08-389

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 73 20 Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-CN-08-0003; CN-07-009] Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Determination of Whether To Conduct a Referendum Regarding the 1990 Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

(USDA)determination not to conduct a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order) provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act

(Act)amendments of 1990. This determination is based on the results of a sign-up period conducted September 3 through November 30, 2007, during which eligible cotton producers and importers were provided an opportunity to request a continuance referendum. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shethir Riva, Chief, Cotton Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224, Telephone

(202)720-2259, Facsimile

(202)690-1718 or e-mail *Shethir.Riva@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the period of September 3 through November 30, 2007, pursuant to section 8(c)(1) of the Act, USDA provided an opportunity for eligible cotton producers and importers to request a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order provided for in the Act. Sign-up period results showed that USDA received 107 valid requests from eligible producers and importers. The following table depicts the number of requests for a continuance referendum. FSA State office Sign-up request Alabama 8 Arizona 0 Arkansas 11 California 0 Florida 1 Georgia 0 Illinois 0 Kansas 0 Kentucky 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 0 Mississippi 2 Missouri 0 Nevada 0 New Mexico 0 North Carolina 3 Oklahoma 0 South Carolina 0 Tennessee 55 Texas 8 Virginia 0 Importers 19 Total 107 Section 8(c)(2) of the Act, provides that following a sign-up period, USDA shall conduct a referendum upon the request of 10 percent or more of the number of cotton producers and importers voting in the most recent referendum (1991). This would require 10 percent or 4,622 (46,220X.10 = 4,622) of the 46,220 valid ballots cast by cotton producers and importers in the July 1991 referendum. It is further provided that, in counting such request not more than 20 percent or 924 may be from producers from any one state or importers of cotton. USDA finds that the results of the sign-up period did not meet the criteria requiring a continuance referendum by the Act. USDA bases this determination on the fact that the 107 requests received during the sign-up period is less than the 4,622 required. Background The 1991 amendments to the Order (7 CFR part 1205 *et seq.* ) were implemented following the July 1991 referendum. The 1990 amendments were provided for in the Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118). These amendments provided for:

(1)Importer representation on the Cotton Board by an appropriate number of persons, to be determined by USDA, who import cotton or cotton products into the U.S. and whom USDA selects from nominations submitted by importer organization certified by USDA;

(2)assessments levied on imported cotton and cotton products at a rate determined in the same manner as for U.S. cotton;

(3)increasing the amount USDA can be reimbursed for the conduct of a referendum from $200,000 to $300,000;

(4)reimbursing government agencies that assist in administering the collection of assessments on imported cotton and cotton products; and

(5)terminating the right of producers to demand a refund of assessments. On July 9, 1991, (56 FR 31289) AMS issued a proposal to amend the Order to determine if a majority, 50 percent or more, of producers and importers favored implementation of the proposed amendments to the Order. USDA conducted a referendum (July 1991) among persons who had been cotton producers or cotton importers during a representative period. Results of the July 1991 referendum showed that of the 46,220 valid ballots received; 27,879 or 60 percent of the persons voting favored the amendments to the Order and 18,341 or 40 percent opposed the amendments. Following the July 1991 referendum, AMS implemented the amendments. In addition to the previously discussed amendments to the Act and Order, USDA is required by section 8(c)(1) to:

(1)Conduct a review once every 5 years after the anniversary date of the referendum implementing the 1990 Act amendments to determine whether a referendum is necessary and

(2)make public the results of such a review within 60 days after each fifth anniversary date of the 1991 implementing referendum. Should the review indicate that a referendum is needed USDA is directed to conduct the referendum within 12 months after a public announcement of review results. Should the review indicate that a referendum is not warranted, section 8(c)(2) includes provisions for producers and importers to request a continuance referendum through a sign-up period. In 1996 and 2001, pursuant to the Act, USDA issued the results of its 5-year reviews of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. In both reviews, the Department prepared reports that described the impact of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program on the cotton industry and the views of those receiving its benefits, and in both instances, USDA announced its view not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order (61 FR 52772 & 67 FR 1714) and subsequently held sign-up periods for all eligible persons to request a continuance referendum on the 1990 Act amendments. The results of both respective sign-up periods did not meet the criteria as established by the Act for a continuance referendum and, therefore, referenda were not conducted. In 2006, the Department again prepared a 5-year report that described the impact of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program on the cotton industry. The review report is available upon written request to the Chief of the Cotton Research and Promotion Staff at the address provided above. Comments were solicited from all interested parties including from persons who pay the assessments as well as from organizations representing cotton producers and importers (71 FR 13808; March 17, 2006). Economic data was also reviewed in order to report on the general climate of the cotton industry. Finally, a number of independent sources of information were reviewed to help identify perspectives from outside the program including the results of independent program evaluations assessing the effects of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program activities on demand for Upland cotton, return-on-investment to cotton producers, the benefit-cost ratio to companies who import cotton products and raw cotton, and the overall rate-of-return and qualitative benefits and returns associated with the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. The review report cited that the 1990 amendments to the Act were successfully implemented and are operating as intended. The report also noted that there is a consensus within the cotton industry that the Cotton Research and Promotion Program and the 1990 amendments to the Act are operating as intended. Written comments, economic data, and results from independent evaluations support this conclusion. Industry comments cited examples of how the additional funding has yielded benefits by increasing the demand and consumption for cotton. Of the 15 comments received, only one commenter, who represents cotton importers, argued for a referendum on the 1990 Act amendments. USDA found no compelling reason to conduct a referendum regarding the 1990 Act amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order although some program participants support a referendum. Therefore, USDA allowed all eligible persons to request the conduct of a continuance referendum on the 1990 amendments through a sign-up period. With this announcement of the results of the sign-up period, USDA has completed all requirements set forth in section 8(c)

(1)and

(2)of the Act regarding the review of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program to determine if a continuance referendum is warranted. A referendum will not be conducted, and no further actions are planned in connection with this review. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2101-2118. Dated: January 24, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-1660 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0128] Notice of Decision to Issue Permits for the Importation of Sweet Cherries From Australia Into the Continental United States and Hawaii AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States and Hawaii of sweet cherries from Australia. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we believe 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 sweet cherries from Australia. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph

(b)of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if:

(1)No comments were received on the pest risk analysis;

(2)the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or

(3)changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk. In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58047-58048, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0128), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States and Hawaii of sweet cherries from Australia. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on December 11, 2007. We received one comment by that date, from a representative of Australia's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 1 To view the notice, the pest risk analysis, and the comment we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0128.* The commenter supported the findings of the pest risk analysis, but noted that her agency has concerns regarding the commercial viability of one of the treatment options we spelled out for Australian cherries. The commenter stated that the methyl bromide fumigation followed by cold treatment is considered by the Australian industry to damage the fruit and could thus reduce its commercial appeal. Based on those concerns, the commenter urged APHIS to complete its review of the data supporting a cold treatment-only option for treating cherries. The commenter did not, however, question the efficacy of the combination treatment or otherwise suggest that the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk should be changed. Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States and Hawaii of sweet cherries from Australia subject to the following conditions: • The fruit must be part of a commercial consignment as defined in 7 CFR 319.56-2. • The fruit must either originate from an APHIS-approved fruit fly free area or be treated in accordance with the phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305. This may entail treatment with T108-a-1/2/3 [fumigation with methyl bromide followed by cold treatment as provided in 7 CFR 305.10(a)] or irradiation using 150 Gy as the minimum absorbed dose and meeting all other relevant requirements in 7 CFR 305.31. • Each consignment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Australian National Plant Protection Organization

(NPPO)certifying that the fruit either received the required treatment or originated from a fruit fly free area. The NPPO must also include an additional declaration in the phytosanitary certificate that states: “The fruit in this shipment was inspected and found free of *Epiphyas postvittana.* ” • The fruit will also be subject to inspection at the port of entry should inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. These conditions will be listed in the fruits and vegetables manual (available at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf)* . In addition to these specific measures, the sweet cherries will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of January 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-1682 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Summer Food Service Program for Children; Program Reimbursement for 2008 AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program for Children (SFSP). These adjustments reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index and are required by the statute governing the Program. In addition, further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in the States of Alaska and Hawaii, as authorized by the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Churchill, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302,

(703)305-2590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Definitions The terms used in this Notice shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the regulations governing the Summer Food Service Program for Children (7 CFR Part 225). Background In accordance with Section 13 of the National School Lunch Act

(NSLA)(42 U.S.C. 1761), section 12 of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1760(f)), and the regulations governing the SFSP (7 CFR part 225), notice is hereby given of adjustments in Program payments for meals served to children participating in the SFSP in 2008. Adjustments are based on changes in the food away from home series of the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)for All Urban Consumers for the period November 2006 through November 2007. The 2008 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for all States excluding Alaska and Hawaii: Maximum Per Meal Reimbursement Rates for All States (Not AK or HI) Operating costs Administrative costs Rural or self-preparation sites Other types of sites Breakfast $1.57 $.1575 $.1225 Lunch or Supper 2.75 .2875 .2375 Snacks .64 .0775 .0625 The 2008 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for Alaska: Maximum Per Meal Reimbursement Rates for Alaska Only Operating costs Administrative costs Rural or self-preparation sites Other types of sites Breakfast $2.55 $.2525 $.2000 Lunch or Supper 4.45 .4650 .3875 Snacks 1.04 .1275 .1000 The 2008 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for Hawaii: Maximum Per Meal Reimbursement Rates for Hawaii Only Operating costs Administrative costs Rural or self-preparation sites Other types of sites Breakfast $1.84 $.1825 $.1450 Lunch or Supper 3.22 .3375 .2800 Snacks .75 .0925 .0725 The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to Program sponsors will be based upon these Program reimbursement rates and the number of meals of each type served. The above reimbursement rates, for both operating and administrative reimbursement rates, represent a 4.1 percent increase during 2007 (from 201.6 in November 2006 to 209.854 in November 2007) in the food away from home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. The Department would like to point out that the SFSP administrative reimbursement rates continue to be adjusted up or down to the nearest quarter-cent, as has previously been the case. Additionally, operating reimbursement rates have been rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by Section 11(a)(3)(B) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1759 (a)(3)(B)). Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a). Dated: January 25, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-1656 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Hiawatha National Forest; Michigan; Niagara EIS AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The East Administrative Unit of the Hiawatha National Forest intends to prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)to disclose the environmental consequences of a vegetation and transportation management project. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for the purpose of and need for the action. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by February 17, 2008. The draft environmental impact statement is expected October 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected March 2009. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Lyn Hyslop, Niagara Team Leader; St. Ignace Ranger District; W1900 W US-2; St. Ignace, Michigan 49781. Send electronic comments to *comments-eastern-hiawatha-st-ignace@fs.fed.us.* For further information, mail correspondence to Lyn Hyslop, Niagara Team Leader; St. Ignace Ranger District; W1900 W US-2; St. Ignace, Michigan 49781. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on how to send electronic comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Hyslop, Niagara Team Leader; St. Ignace Ranger District;

(906)643-7900. See address above under ADDRESSES . Copies of documents may be requested at the same address. Another means of obtaining information is to visit the Hiawatha National Forest webpage at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/planning.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of and Need for Action The purpose of and need for the project is to: • Ensure fully stocked stands of desired forest cover types identified in the vegetation composition and size goals for management areas 2.3 and 8.3, and provide commercial wood products (Forest Plan, pp. 3-10 and 3-42). • Provide a safe and efficient transportation system for managing the National Forest and providing appropriate access to non-federal land. • Provide within-stand diversity by increasing white pine and hemlock in stands missing this component. • Reduce the susceptibility of the Niagara area to insect and disease outbreaks. Proposed Action To move the project area toward the desired conditions shown in the Hiawatha National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the Hiawatha National Forest would during this decade:

(1)Clearcut on 189 acres,

(2)clearcut—salvage mortality on 416 acres,

(3)shelterwood cut with reserves on 650 acres,

(4)seed-tree cut with reserves on 62 acres,

(5)overstory removal cut with reserves on 219 acres,

(6)single-tree selection cut on 4,154 acres,

(7)commercial thin on 879 acres,

(8)site preparation for natural regeneration on 4,487 acres,

(9)mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration on 409 acres,

(10)full planting on 219 acres,

(11)construct 4 miles of new system roads,

(12)construct 6 miles of temporary roads,

(13)add 2 miles of unclassified roads to the National Forest System,

(14)close 2 miles of existing roads,

(15)decommission 18 miles of roads,

(16)construct 19 permanent log landings, and

(17)construct 20 temporary log landings. The total treatment area is 6,569 acres. Responsible Official Stevan J. Christiansen, District Ranger; St. Ignace Ranger District; W1900 W US-2; St. Ignace, Michigan 49781. Nature of Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is whether or not to manage the vegetation on any or all of the 6,569 acres by harvesting, and; whether or not to manage the transportation system through construction of temporary and permanent roads and log landings, addition of unclassified roads, and road closures and decommissioning. Scoping Process The St. Ignace Ranger District proposes to scope for information by contacting persons and organizations on the Hiawatha's mailing list and landowners within or adjacent to the project area. In addition a legal notice will be posted in the local newspapers. An open house is also scheduled for January 30, 2008 at the St. Ignace District office at the address listed above, from 5-8 p.m. This present solicitation is for comments on this Notice of Intent and the scoping materials available elsewhere, such as on the Hiawatha National Forest webpage. Preliminary Issues Preliminary or potential issues have been identified from experience with similar projects.

(1)Timber harvesting may adversely impact wildlife species requiring early succession habitat.

(2)Timber harvesting may adversely impact wildlife species requiring late succession habitat.

(3)Closing and decommissioning roads could reduce the amount of legal motorized vehicle activity and could increase the amount of illegal motorized vehicle activity.

(4)Closing and decommissioning roads could result in adverse effects to soils, riparian areas and wetlands, wildlife, and plants.

(5)Timber harvesting and road building may adversely impact Canada lynx or Hart's tongue fern.

(6)The karst topography and its dependent above-ground and below-ground resources may be impacted by the area's ability to produce valuable timber products. Addresses Information is available electronically on the Hiawatha National Forest webpage: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/planning.htm* —click on “Niagara”. Send electronic comments to: *comments-eastern-hiawatha-st-ignace@fs.fed.us.* When submitting electronic comments, please reference the Niagara Project on the subject line. In addition, include your name, mailing address, and whether you would like a CD or paper copy of the draft EIS. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments are most valuable if they are within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for consideration in the environmental impact statement and any subsequent decisions. Comments will be used to identify relevant issues, display environmental effects, or develop a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Any referenced scientific literature should be accompanied by a complete copy of the literature, and rationale as to its pertinence to the Niagara Project. *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, 553 (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,* 490 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 statement. 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: January 23, 2008. Stevan J. Christiansen, District Ranger. [FR Doc. E8-1607 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Meeting; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will hold its third meeting via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to receive recommendations concerning recreation fee proposals on areas managed by the Forest Service in Michigan and to discuss other items of interest related to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004. A final detailed agenda, with any additions/corrections to agenda topics and meeting time, will be sent to regional media sources at least 14 days before the meeting, and hard copies can also be mailed or sent via FAX. Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish a hard copy of the agenda, should contact Marcia Heymen at 626 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 no later than 10 days prior to the meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held February 26, 2008. Send written comments to Cheryl Chatham, Designated Federal Official for the Eastern Recreation RAC, US Forest Service, PO Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Chatham, Designated Federal Official US Forest Service, PO Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals who made written requests by February 20, 2008, will have the opportunity to address the Committee at the meeting. The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004. Dated: January 23, 2008. Cheryl G. Chatham, Designated Federal Officer. [FR Doc. 08-389 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

U.S. Code

17 references not yet in our index