This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

28796 

Vol. 78, No. 95 

Thursday, May 16, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–13–0002] 

Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) 

Inviting Applications for the Specialty 

Crop Block Grant Program–Farm Bill 

(SCBGP–FB) 

Correction 

In notice document 2013–11048, 

appearing on pages 27178–27181 in the 

issue of Thursday, May 9, 2013, make 

the following correction: 

In the table appearing on page 27181, 

in the second column, the second line 

‘‘85,231.03’’ should read, ‘‘185,231.03’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–11048 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0043] 

Monsanto Co.; Notice of Intent To 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for Determination of 

Nonregulated Status of Herbicide 

Resistant Soybeans and Cotton, and 

Notice of Virtual Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing to the 

public that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) intends to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on environmental 

impacts that may result from the 

potential approval of two petitions from 

the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) 

seeking a determination of nonregulated 

status of herbicide resistant soybeans 

and cotton. Issues to be addressed in the 

EIS include the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the increased 

use of certain herbicides and possible 

selection for and spread of weeds 

resistant to the herbicide dicamba 

combined with resistance to other 

herbicides (multiple resistance). We are 

also requesting public comments to 

further delineate the scope of the 

alternatives and environmental impacts 

and issues to be included in this EIS. 

We are also announcing that APHIS will 

be hosting a virtual public meeting 

during the scoping period. The purpose 

of the scoping meeting will be to allow 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on the range of alternatives and 

environmental impacts and issues 

discussed in the EIS. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before June 17, 

2013. We will also consider comments 

made at a virtual public meeting that 

will be held during the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0043- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0043, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0043 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

Other Information: Details regarding 

the virtual scoping meeting, including 

times, dates, and how to participate, 

will be available at http:// 

www.aphisvirtualmeetings.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Branch 

Chief, Biotechnology Environmental 

Analysis Branch, Environmental Risk 

Analysis Programs, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1238; (301) 851–3954. To obtain copies 

of the petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at 

(301) 851–3882, email: 

cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the authority of the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act 

(PPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 7701 et 

seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, 

‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 

Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 

Pests or Which There Is Reason to 

Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, 

among other things, the introduction 

(importation, interstate movement, or 

release into the environment) of 

organisms and products altered or 

produced through genetic engineering 

that are plant pests or that there is 

reason to believe are plant pests. Such 

genetically engineered organisms and 

products are considered ‘‘regulated 

articles.’’ 

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide 

that any person may submit a petition 

to the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a 

determination that an article should not 

be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 

describe the form that a petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status 

must take and the information that must 

be included in the petition. 

APHIS has received two petitions 

(referred to below as ‘‘the petitions’’) 

from the Monsanto Company 

(Monsanto) seeking a determination of 

nonregulated status for soybean and 

cotton cultivars genetically engineered 

to be resistant to herbicides. The first 

petition, APHIS Petition Number 10– 

188–01p, seeks a determination of 

nonregulated status of soybean (Glycine 

max) designated as event MON 87708, 

which has been genetically engineered 

for tolerance to the herbicide dicamba. 

The second petition, APHIS Petition 

Number 12–185–01p, seeks a 

determination of nonregulated status of 

cotton (Gossypium spp.) designated as 

event MON 88701, which has been 

genetically engineered for tolerance to 

the herbicides dicamba and glufosinate. 

The petitions state that these articles are 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, 

therefore, should not be regulated 

articles under APHIS’ regulations in 7 

CFR part 340. These part 340 

regulations are authorized by the PPA to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Notices 28797 

1 Docket No. APHIS–2012–0047 published on 

July 13, 2012, 77 FR 41356–41357; Docket No. 

APHIS–2012–0097 published on February 27, 2013, 

78 FR 13308–13309. The Federal Register notices 

for the petitions and supporting and related 

materials, including public comments, are available 

at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0047 and http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2012-0097. 

2 Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and 

J163: Request for Nonregulated Status, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement-December 2010; 

Glyphosate-Tolerant H7–1 Sugar Beet: Request for 

Nonregulated Status, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement-May 2012. 

prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests, and the 

decision on whether or not to approve 

the petitions will be based on this 

standard. 

Notices were published 1 in the 

Federal Register for each petition 

advising the public that APHIS had 

received the petition and was seeking 

public comments on the petitions. The 

notices also announced that APHIS 

would prepare either an environmental 

assessment (EA) or an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.) (NEPA) to provide the Agency 

with a review and analysis of any 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the petition request. 

Under the provisions of NEPA, 

Federal agencies must examine the 

potential environmental impacts of 

proposed major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment before those 

actions can be taken. In accordance with 

NEPA, the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR 

part 1b), and APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372), APHIS has considered how to 

properly examine the potential 

environmental impacts of decisions for 

petitions for determinations of 

nonregulated status. For each petition 

for a determination of nonregulated 

status under consideration in the past, 

APHIS prepared an EA to provide the 

APHIS decisionmaker with a review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts. In two cases,2 APHIS prepared 

an EIS. 

In reviewing petitions for 

determinations of nonregulated status of 

crop cultivars genetically engineered to 

be resistant to various herbicides, 

APHIS has identified the potential 

selection of herbicide resistant weeds as 

a potential environmental impact. We 

have concluded that for the two 

Monsanto petitions it is appropriate to 

complete an EIS for the potential 

determinations of nonregulated status 

requested by the petitions in order to 

perform a comprehensive 

environmental analysis of the potential 

selection of dicamba resistant weeds 

and other potential environmental 

impacts that may occur as a result of 

making determinations of nonregulated 

status of these events. An EIS can 

examine the broad and cumulative 

environmental impacts of making 

determinations of nonregulated status of 

the two requested soybean and cotton 

cultivars, including potential impacts of 

the proposed action on the human 

environment, alternative courses of 

action, and possible mitigation 

measures for reducing potential 

impacts. 

Alternatives 

The Federal action being considered 

is whether to approve the two petitions 

for nonregulated status. This notice 

identifies reasonable alternatives and 

potential issues that may be studied in 

the EIS. We are requesting public 

comments to further delineate the range 

of alternatives and environmental 

impacts and issues to be evaluated in 

the EIS for the two petitions. We will be 

hosting a virtual meeting during the 

scoping period to discuss the scope of 

the EIS (see ADDRESSES above). We are 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments regarding biological, cultural, 

or ecological issues, and we encourage 

the submission of scientific data, 

studies, or research to support your 

comments. 

The EIS will consider a range of 

reasonable alternatives. APHIS is 

currently considering four alternatives: 

(1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would 

not change the regulatory status of the 

soybean and cotton events and they 

would continue to be regulated articles, 

(2) approve both the petitions for 

determinations of nonregulated status of 

the soybean event and the cotton event, 

(3) approve the petition for 

determination of nonregulated status of 

the soybean event and deny the petition 

for determination of nonregulated status 

of the cotton event, or (4) approve the 

petition for determination of 

nonregulated status of the cotton event 

and deny the petition for determination 

of nonregulated status of the soybean 

event. 

Environmental Issues for Consideration 

We have also identified the following 

potential environmental issues for 

consideration in the EIS. We are 

requesting that the public provide 

information on the following questions 

during the comment period on this 

Notice of Intent (NOI): 

• What are the impacts of weeds, 

herbicide-resistant weeds, weed 

management practices, and unmet weed 

management needs for crop cultivation, 

and how may these change with the 

approval of these petitions for 

nonregulated status of these herbicideresistant crops? 

• In which weeds would the approval 

of the two petitions likely contribute to 

controlling the spread of biotypes that 

are resistant to more than one herbicide 

mode of action and how will that 

control influence weed management 

strategies in cropland or managed noncropland? 

• What weeds are currently resistant 

to dicamba herbicide and what is their 

natural frequency and occurrence in soy 

and cotton crops, other crops, and in 

non-crop ecosystems? 

• Would the increased use of dicamba 

associated with the approval of these 

two petitions cause an acceleration of 

the selection and spread of dicambaresistant biotypes? Are there weeds that 

are more likely to be difficult to control 

if they become resistant to dicamba? 

• In which crops or non-cropland 

weeds would the selection and spread 

of dicamba-resistant biotypes be most 

problematic in terms of available 

alternate weed management strategies 

and agronomic production? 

• In which weeds would the approval 

of the two petitions likely contribute to 

the selection and spread of biotypes that 

are resistant to more the one herbicide 

mode of action and which would be 

most problematic for weed management 

strategies in cropland or managed noncropland? 

• What are the potential changes in 

agronomic practices, including crop 

rotation and weed management 

practices (e.g., herbicide use, tillage), for 

control of weeds in rotational crops that 

may occur with the use of these 

herbicide-resistant crops? What are the 

current and potentially effective 

strategies for management of herbicideresistant weeds in crops? What are the 

costs associated with these practices 

and strategies? 

Comments that identify other issues 

or alternatives that could be considered 

for examination in the EIS would be 

especially helpful. All comments 

received during the scoping period will 

be carefully considered in developing 

the final scope of the EIS. Upon 

completion of the draft EIS, a notice 

announcing its availability and an 

opportunity to comment on it will be 

published in the Federal Register. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
28798 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Notices 

1 Docket No. APHIS–2010–0103 published on 

December 27, 2011, 76 FR 80872–80873; Docket No. 

APHIS–2012–0019 published on July 13, 2012, 77 

FR 41367–41368; and Docket No. APHIS–2012– 

0032 published on July 13, 2012, 77 FR 41361– 

41362. The Federal Register notices for the 

petitions and supporting and related materials, 

including public comments, are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103; http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2012-0019; and http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0032. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of 

May 2013. 

Michael Gregoire, 

Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11580 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0042] 

Dow AgroSciences LLC; Notice of 

Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for Determination of 

Nonregulated Status of Herbicide 

Resistant Corn and Soybeans, and 

Notice of Virtual Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing to the 

public that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) intends to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on environmental 

impacts that may result from the 

potential approval of three petitions 

from Dow AgroSciences LLC seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status of 

herbicide resistant corn and soybeans. 

Issues to be addressed in the EIS 

include the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the increased 

use of certain herbicides and possible 

selection for and spread of weeds 

resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D 

combined with resistance to other 

herbicides (multiple resistance). We are 

also requesting public comments to 

further delineate the scope of the 

alternatives and environmental impacts 

and issues to be included in this EIS. 

We are also announcing that APHIS will 

be hosting a virtual public meeting 

during the scoping period. The purpose 

of the scoping meeting will be to allow 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on the range of alternatives and 

environmental impacts and issues 

discussed in the EIS. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before June 17, 

2013. We will also consider comments 

made at the virtual public meeting that 

will be held during the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0042- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0042, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0042 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

Other Information: Details regarding 

the virtual scoping meeting, including 

the time, date, and how to participate, 

will be available at http:// 

www.aphisvirtualmeetings.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Branch 

Chief, Biotechnology Environmental 

Analysis Branch, Environmental Risk 

Analysis Programs, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1238; (301) 851–3954. To obtain copies 

of the petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at 

(301) 851–3882, email: 

cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the authority of the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act 

(PPA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 7701 et 

seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, 

‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 

Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 

Pests or Which There Is Reason to 

Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, 

among other things, the introduction 

(importation, interstate movement, or 

release into the environment) of 

organisms and products altered or 

produced through genetic engineering 

that are plant pests or that there is 

reason to believe are plant pests. Such 

genetically engineered organisms and 

products are considered ‘‘regulated 

articles.’’ 

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide 

that any person may submit a petition 

to the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a 

determination that an article should not 

be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 

describe the form that a petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status 

must take and the information that must 

be included in the petition. 

APHIS has received three petitions 

(referred to below as ‘‘the petitions’’) 

from Dow AgroSciences LLC (Dow) 

seeking determinations of nonregulated 

status for corn and soybean cultivars 

genetically engineered to be resistant to 

herbicides. The first petition, APHIS 

Petition Number 09–233–01p, seeks a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

corn (Zea mays) designated as event 

DAS–40278–9, which has been 

genetically engineered for increased 

resistance to certain broadleaf 

herbicides in the phenoxy auxin group 

(particularly the herbicide 2,4-D) and 

resistance to grass herbicides in the 

aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) 

acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase 

(ACCase) inhibitor group (i.e., ‘‘fop’’ 

herbicides, such as quizalofop-p-ethyl). 

The second petition, APHIS Petition 

Number 09–349–01p, seeks a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

soybean (Glycine max) designated as 

DAS–68416–4, which has been 

genetically engineered for resistance to 

certain broadleaf herbicides in the 

phenoxy auxin growth regulator group 

(particularly the herbicide 2,4-D) and 

the nonselective herbicide glufosinate. 

The third petition (APHIS Petition 

Number 11–234–01p) seeks a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

soybean designated as event DAS– 

44406–6, which has been genetically 

engineered for resistance to certain 

broadleaf herbicides in the auxin growth 

regulator group (particularly the 

herbicide 2,4-D) and the nonselective 

herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate. 

The petitions state that these articles are 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, 

therefore, should not be regulated 

articles under APHIS’ regulations in 7 

CFR part 340. These part 340 

regulations are authorized by the PPA to 

prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests, and the 

decision on whether or not to approve 

the petitions will be based on this 

standard. 

Notices were published 1 in the 

Federal Register for each petition 

advising the public that APHIS had 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES