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
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Notices 28799 

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. 

received the petition and was seeking 

public comments on the petition. The 

notices for the first two petitions also 

sought comment on our plant pest risk 

assessment (PPRA) and our draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for each 

petition; we have not yet published a 

PPRA or EA for the third petition, so 

that notice sought comment on the 

petition, only. 

Under the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

(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, 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 environmental impact statement 

(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 for the three Dow 

petitions that 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 2,4-D 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 three 

requested corn and soybean 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 three 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 three petitions. We will 

be hosting a virtual meeting during the 

scoping period to discuss the 

appropriate 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 

corn and soybean events and they 

would continue to be regulated articles, 

(2) approve the three petitions for 

determinations of nonregulated status of 

the corn event and both soybean events, 

(3) approve the petition for 

determination of nonregulated status of 

the corn event and deny the two 

petitions for determination of 

nonregulated status of the soybean 

events, or (4) approve the petitions for 

determination of nonregulated status of 

the two soybean events and deny the 

petition for determination of 

nonregulated status of the corn event. 

For the purposes of alternatives 3 and 

4, APHIS will consider either approving 

both soybean petitions and denying the 

corn petition or denying both soybean 

petitions and approving the corn 

petition. Corn and soybean are often 

grown as rotation crops and these 

alternatives can compare the potential 

impacts of approving petitions for one 

rotation crop without the other. APHIS 

is grouping the two soybean petitions in 

alternatives 3 and 4 because the two 

soybean events share both 2,4-D and 

glufosinate resistance. One soybean, 

DAS 44406–6 is also resistant to 

glyphosate. However, DAS 68416–4 

(glufosinate, 2,4-D resistant) could be 

crossed with any glyphosate resistant 

soybean for which APHIS has 

previously made a determination of 

nonregulated status to create a soybean 

that is resistant to all three herbicides. 

Because APHIS does not regulate 

breeding of events for which APHIS has 

previously made a determination of 

nonregulated status, approving the 

petition for nonregulated status for DAS 

68416–4 and not DAS 44406–6 could 

still result in a soybean resistant to all 

three herbicides being marketed. Based 

on the preliminary plant pest risk 

assessments for each soybean event, 

APHIS has not identified any plant pest 

risks associated with either soybean 

event. Therefore, APHIS plans to 

consider either approving or denying 

both soybean petitions together in these 

alternatives. 

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 three 

herbicide-resistant crops? 

• In which weeds would the approval 

of the three 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 herbicides in the phenoxyaliphatic 

acid herbicide class of the auxin growth 

regulator group (e.g., 2,4-D) and what is 

their natural frequency and occurrence 

in corn and soy crops, other crops, and 

in non-crop ecosystems? 

• Would the increased use of 2,4-D 

associated with the approval of these 

three petitions cause an acceleration of 

the selection and spread of 2,4-Dresistant biotypes? Are there weeds that 

are more likely to be difficult to control 

if they become resistant to 2,4-D? 

• In which crops or non-cropland 

weeds would the selection and spread 

of 2,4-D-resistant biotypes be most 

problematic in terms of available 

alternate weed management strategies 

and agronomic production? 

• In which weeds would the approval 

of the three petitions likely contribute to 

the selection and spread of biotypes that 

are resistant to more than one herbicide 

mode of action and which would be 

most problematic for weed management 

strategies in cropland or managed noncropland? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
28800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Notices 

• 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 chould 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. 

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. 2013–11579 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ravalli County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Hamilton, MT. The committee is 

authorized under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

(the Act) and operates in compliance 

with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. The purpose of the committee is to 

improve collaborative relationships and 

to provide advice and recommendations 

to the Forest Service concerning projects 

and funding consistent with the title II 

of the Act. The meeting is open to the 

public. The purpose of the meeting is to 

provide information regarding the 

monitoring of RAC projects. 

DATES: The meeting will be held May 

28, 2013, 6:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Bitteroot National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office located at 1801 N. 

1st, Hamilton, MT. Written comments 

may be submitted as described under 

Supplementary Information. All 

comments, including names and 

addresses when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. The public may 

inspect comments received at the 

Bitteroot National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office. Please call ahead to 406–363– 

7100 to facilitate entry into the building 

and to view comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger at 

406–777–5461 or Joni Lubke, Executive 

Assistant at 406–363–7100. Individuals 

who use telecommunication devices for 

the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 

8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, 

Monday through Friday. Please make 

requests in advance for sign language 

interpreting, assistive listening devices 

or other reasonable accomodation for 

access to the facility or procedings by 

contacting the person listed for further 

information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following business will be conducted: 

Presentations will be given on the 

montioring of RAC projects. Contact 

Joni Lubke at 406–363–7100 for a full 

agenda. Anyone who would like to 

bring related matters to the attention of 

the committee may file written 

statements with the committee staff 

before the meeting. Individuals wishing 

to make an oral statement should 

request in writing by May 1, 2013 to be 

scheduled on the agenda. Written 

comments and requests for time for oral 

comments must be sent to Joni Lubke at 

1801 N. 1st, Hamilton, MT 59840 or by 

email to jmlubke@fs.fed.us or via 

facsimile to 406–363–7159. A summary 

of the meeting will be posted at 

https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/ 

secure_rural_schools.nsf/

Web_Agendas?OpenView&

Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=

Ravalli+County within 21 days of the 

meeting. 

Dated: May 8, 2013. 

Julie K. King, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11699 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[S–65–2013] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 61—San Juan, 

Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; 

Parapiezas Corporation; San Juan, 

Puerto Rico 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the Puerto Rico Trade & 

Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, 

requesting special-purpose subzone 

status for the facility of Parapiezas 

Corporation located in San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. The application was submitted 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations 

of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was 

formally docketed on May 9, 2013. 

The proposed subzone (2.44 acres) is 

located at Ave. 65th de Infanteria Km. 

5.3 Parque Escorial in San Juan. No 

authorization for production activity has 

been requested at this time. The 

proposed subzone would be subject to 

the existing activation limit of FTZ 61. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the Executive 

Secretary. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is June 

25, 2013. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

July 10, 2013. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 

21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

Web site, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Camille Evans at 

Camille.Evans@trade.gov or (202) 482– 

2350. 

Dated: May 9, 2013. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11685 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES