45164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices 

1To view the notice, petition, EA, and the 

comments we received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0054. 

transformation. The marker gene is 

commonly used and enables researchers 

to select those plant tissues that have 

been successfully transformed with the 

gene of interest. The resistance to PRSV 

appears to be conferred through post 

transcriptional gene silencing. 

Transformation event X17–2 has been 

considered a regulated article under the 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it 

contains gene sequences from plant 

pathogens. X17–2 papaya has been field 

tested in the United States since 1999 

under notifications acknowledged by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). In the process of reviewing the 

notifications for field trials of the 

subject papaya plants, APHIS 

determined that the vectors and other 

elements were disarmed and that trials, 

which were conducted under conditions 

of reproductive and physical 

confinement or isolation, would not 

present a risk of plant pest introduction 

or dissemination. APHIS presented two 

alternatives in the draft environmental 

assessment (EA) based on its analyses of 

data submitted by the University of 

Florida, a review of other scientific data, 

as well as data gathered from field tests 

conducted under APHIS oversight: (1) 

Take no action (X17–2 papaya remains 

a regulated article); or (2) deregulate 

X17–2 papaya in whole (the preferred 

alternative). 

In a notice 1 published in the Federal 

Register on September 2, 2008 (73 FR 

51267–51268, Docket No. APHIS–2008– 

0054), APHIS announced the 

availability of the University of Florida’s 

petition and on APHIS’ associated draft 

EA for public comment. APHIS solicited 

comments on whether the subject 

papaya would present a plant pest risk 

and on its EA for the deregulation 

petition. APHIS received over 12,000 

comments by the close of the 60-day 

comment period, which ended on 

November 3, 2008. There were 18 

comments from scientific organizations 

or individuals that supported 

deregulation. One individual supported 

deregulation as long as the taste of 

organic papayas was not damaged. 

Approximately 175 unique comments 

opposed to the deregulation were 

submitted. The remaining 

approximately 12,000 comments were 

form letters opposing deregulation in 

principle; all of those letters raised 

essentially identical points and had 

been compiled by organizations 

generally opposed to genetic 

engineering of plants. APHIS has 

addressed the issues raised during the 

comment period and has provided 

responses to these comments as an 

attachment to the finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI). 

Determination 

Based on APHIS’ analysis of field, 

greenhouse, and laboratory data 

submitted by the University of Florida, 

references provided in the petition, 

additional scientific data, information 

described in the EA, comments 

provided by the public, and APHIS’ 

evaluation of those comments, APHIS 

has determined that X17–2 papaya will 

not pose a plant pest risk for the 

following reasons: (1) Disease 

susceptibility and compositional 

profiles of X17–2 are similar to other 

papaya varieties, therefore no direct or 

indirect effects on raw or processed 

plant commodities are expected; (2) 

X17–2 will not hybridize with any 

native papaya species, although it may 

hybridize with feral or other Carica 

papaya plants; known mitigation 

methods to exclude GE pollen are 

described and lead APHIS to conclude 

that significant effects on both organic 

and conventional growers are unlikely; 

(3) it exhibits no characteristics that 

would cause it to be more weedy than 

the non-genetically engineered papaya 

from which it was developed or other 

papayas; (4) X17–2 does not exhibit 

changes in pest or disease susceptibility 

(other than resistance to PRSV), 

therefore significant impacts on 

biodiversity of papaya or other 

organisms in the environment are 

unlikely; (5) in assessing viral 

interaction issues, APHIS considered 

the potential for recombination, 

heteroencapsidation and synergy and 

concluded that the likelihood of 

development of new viruses or viruses 

with novel/altered properties is very 

low; (6) the anti-viral activity of the 

inserted genes does not pose risks to 

non-target organisms, including 

beneficial organisms and threatened and 

endangered species; (7) compared to 

current papaya PRSV management 

practices, cultivation of X17–2 should 

not significantly impact standard 

agricultural practices or commercial 

uses of papaya; (8) multiple years of 

growing X17–2 papaya has not resulted 

in observable changes to the 

environment, therefore APHIS 

concludes that significant cumulative 

impacts resulting from granting X17–2 

nonregulated status are unlikely to 

occur. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ 

environmental review and analysis of 

any potential environmental impacts 

associated with the determination of 

nonregulated status for X17–2 papaya, 

an EA was prepared. The EA was 

prepared in accordance with (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). Based on that EA, other pertinent 

scientific data, and its analyses of public 

comments received on the EA, APHIS 

has reached a FONSI with regard to the 

determination that the University of 

Florida’s X17–2 papaya line and lines 

developed from it should not result in 

any significant impacts once they are no 

longer regulated articles under its 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Copies of 

the EA and FONSI are available as 

indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections 

of this notice. 

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 26th day of 

August 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21092 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Research Service 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

License 

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, intends 

to grant to T. A. Seeds LLC of Jersey 

Shore, Pennsylvania, an exclusive 

license to the soybean variety described 

in Plant Variety Protection Certificate 

Number 200300169, ‘‘Moon Cake,’’ 

issued on December 15, 2003. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, 

ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 

5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 

Blalock of the Office of Technology 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices 45165 

Transfer at the Beltsville address given 

above; telephone: 301–504–5989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Government’s rights in this 

plant variety are assigned to the United 

States of America, as represented by the 

Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the 

public interest to so license this variety 

as T. A. Seeds LLC of Jersey Shore, 

Pennsylvania has submitted a complete 

and sufficient application for a license. 

The prospective exclusive license will 

be royalty-bearing and will comply with 

the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 

209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective 

exclusive license may be granted unless, 

within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this published Notice, the Agricultural 

Research Service receives written 

evidence and argument which 

establishes that the grant of the license 

would not be consistent with the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 

CFR 404.7. 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–20928 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Notice of Proposed New Fee; Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 

(Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447) 

AGENCY: Dixie National Forest, USDA 

Forest Service. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed new fee. 

SUMMARY: The Dixie National Forest is 

proposing to charge a fee for overnight 

rental of the Pine Valley Guard Station 

of $75 in the summer and $40 in the 

winter. This guard station has not been 

available for recreation use prior to this 

date. Rentals of other guard stations on 

the Dixie National Forest have been very 

popular, illustrating that people 

appreciate and enjoy the availability of 

these historic buildings. 

The Pine Valley Guard Station is 

located at the edge of the Pine Valley 

Wilderness Area and within the Pine 

Valley Recreation Area, and will sleep 

up to six people. The site is located in 

Washington County, Utah. The guard 

station will have hot and cold running 

water in the summer, flush toilet, 

shower, electricity, refrigerator, and 

wood stove. Bunks and all cooking and 

eating utensils will be provided for 

renters. 

Determination of the fee price is based 

on the level of amenities and services 

provided, cost of operations and 

maintenance, market assessment, and 

public comment. The fee is proposed 

and will be determined upon further 

analysis and public comment. Funds 

from fees would be used for the 

continued operation and maintenance 

and improvements of this guard station. 

DATES: Comments will be accepted 

through October 15, 2009. New fees 

would begin May 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Pine Valley Ranger District, 

Attn: Recreation Fee Program, 196 E. 

Tabernacle, Suite 38, St. George, Utah 

84770 or http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/ 

contact/feedback.shtml (include 

‘‘Recreation Fee Program’’ in the subject 

line). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gretchen Merrill, Public Service Staff 

Officer, 435–865–3741. Information 

about proposed fee changes can also be 

found on the Intermountain Region Web 

site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/recreation/ 

rac/index.shtml. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement 

Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to publish 

a six month advance notice in the 

Federal Register whenever new 

recreation fee areas are established. 

Once public involvement is complete, 

these new fees will be reviewed by a 

Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committee prior to a final decision and 

implementation. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Robert G. MacWhorter, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–20853 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Announcement of Value-Added 

Producer Grant Application Deadlines 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of 

Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) and 

republication of Notice of Funds 

Available (NOFA) Announcement of 

Value-Added Producer Grant 

Application Deadlines. 

SUMMARY: Rural Development (RD) 

previously withdrew the May 6, 2009 

Federal Register notice (74 FR 20900), 

which was published in error, 

announcing the availability of 

approximately $18 million in 

competitive grants for fiscal year (FY) 

2009 to help independent agricultural 

producers enter into value-added 

activities. This notice announces the 

availability of approximately $18 

million in competitive grants for fiscal 

year (FY) 2009 to help independent 

agricultural producers enter into or 

expand value-added activities, with the 

following clarifications and alterations: 

(1) Highlights the inclusion of 

Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged 

farmers and ranchers, as well as 

operators of Small and Medium-sized 

farms or ranches that are structured as 

a Family Farm, and provides more 

weight in the scoring process, (2) deletes 

contradictory language related to the 

eligibility of applicants under the newly 

allowable mid-tier value chain 

provision by clarifying that the 

applicant entity must be eligible under 

the legislatively-stated categories (but 

the network they are part of can include 

virtually any type of organization), (3) 

establishes the upper limit of ‘‘mediumsized farm’’ at between $250,001 and 

$700,000 in annual gross sales of 

agricultural product, (4) revises the list 

of renewable energy technologies that 

are eligible for funding, (5) clarifies that 

different documentation standards 

apply for Planning Grants versus 

Working Capital Grants, (6) deletes 

‘‘Innovation’’ as a specific scoring 

criteria, (7) allows branding, packaging 

and other means of product 

differentiation as a component of a 

value added strategy in all product 

eligibility categories, and (8) provides a 

90-day application period. 

USDA Rural Development welcomes 

projects that highlight innovative uses 

of agricultural products. This may 

include using existing agricultural 

products in non-traditional ways and/or 

merging agricultural products with 

technology in creative ways. As with all 

value-added efforts, generating new 

products, creating expanded marketing 

opportunities and increasing producer 

income are the end goal. Applications 

proposing to develop innovative, 

sustainable products, businesses, or 

marketing opportunities that accelerate 

creation of new economic opportunities 

and commercialization in the agri-food, 

agri-science, or agriculture products 

integrated or merged with other sciences 

or technologies are invited. This may 

include alternative uses of agricultural 

products as well as, value-added 

processing of agricultural commodities 

to produce bio-materials (e.g. plastics, 

fiberboard), green chemicals, functional 

foods (e.g. lutin enhanced ‘‘power bar’’ 

snacks, soy enhanced products), 

nutraceuticals, on-farm renewable 

energy, and biofuels (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel). 

Awards may be made for planning 

activities or for working capital 

expenses, but not for both. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES