906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2006 / Notices 

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) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on regulations for 

recognizing the animal health status of 

foreign regions, contact Dr. Gary 

Colgrove, Director, National Center for 

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–4356. For copies 

of more detailed information on the 

information collection, contact Mrs. 

Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information 

Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734–

7477. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Requirements for Recognizing 

the Animal Health Status of Foreign 

Regions. 

OMB Number: 0579–0219. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

approval of an information collection. 

Abstract: The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture is 

responsible for, among other things, 

protecting the health of our Nation’s 

livestock and poultry populations by 

preventing the introduction and spread 

of serious diseases and pests of livestock 

and poultry and for eradicating such 

diseases and pests from the United 

States when feasible. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, 

Importation of Animals and Animal 

Products: Procedures for Requesting 

Recognition of Regions, set out the 

process by which a foreign government 

may request recognition of the animal 

health status of a region or approval to 

export animals or animal products to 

the United States based on the risk 

associated with animals or animal 

products from that region. Each request 

must include information about the 

region, including information on the 

veterinary services organization of the 

region; the extent to which movement of 

animals and animal products is 

controlled from regions of higher risk, 

and the level of biosecurity for such 

movements; livestock demographics and 

marketing practices in the region; 

diagnostic laboratory capabilities in the 

region; and the region’s policies and 

infrastructure for animal disease 

control. Specifically, in § 92.2, we 

require regions that have been granted 

status under the regulations to provide 

information, or allow us to access 

information, to confirm the regions’

animal health status when we request it. 

The types of information collected will 

vary based on the information required 

to adequately assess a region’s animal 

health status. 

We are asking the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

approve our use of this information 

collection activity for an additional 3 

years. 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

comments from the public (as well as 

affected agencies) concerning our 

information collection. These comments 

will help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond, through use, as appropriate, 

of automated, electronic, mechanical, 

and other collection technologies, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Estimate of burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 40 

hours per response. 

Respondents: Veterinary authorities 

in regions that have been granted a 

particular animal health status for a 

specified animal disease. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 3. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 3. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 120 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

December, 2005. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–89 Filed 1–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. 04–114–2] 

Monsanto Company; Availability of 

Determination of Nonregulated Status 

for Corn Genetically Engineered for 

Insect Resistance and Glyphosate 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our determination that the Monsanto 

corn line designated as transformation 

event MON 88017, which has been 

genetically engineered for resistance to 

a corn rootworm complex and for 

tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is 

no longer considered a regulated article 

under our regulations governing the 

introduction of certain genetically 

engineered organisms. Our 

determination is based on our 

evaluation of data submitted by 

Monsanto in their petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status, 

our analysis of other scientific data, and 

comments received from the public in 

response to a previous notice 

announcing the availability of the 

petition for nonregulated status and an 

environmental assessment. This notice 

also announces the availability of our 

written determination and our finding 

of no significant impact. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the petition, 

the environmental assessment, the 

determination, the finding of no 

significant impact, and the comments 

that we received on Docket No. 04–114–

1 in our reading room. The reading 

room 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) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory 

Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 

147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 

734–0489. To obtain copies of the 

petition, EA, determination, FONSI, or 

response to comments, contact Ms. 

Ingrid Berlanger at (301) 734–4885; email: 

Ingrid.E.Berlanger@aphis.usda.gov. The 

petition and the draft environmental 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2006 / Notices 907 

assessment (EA) and the final EA with 

the determination, finding of no 

significant impact, and response to 

comments are also available on the 

Internet at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

brs/aphisdocs/04_12501p.pdf, http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/ 

04_12501p_pea.pdf, and http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/ 

04_12501p_com.pdf. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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. 

On May 4, 2004, APHIS received a 

petition (APHIS Petition Number 04–

125–01p) from Monsanto Company 

(Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, requesting 

a determination of nonregulated status 

under 7 CFR part 340 for corn (Zea 

mays L.) designated as transformation 

event MON 88017 which has been 

genetically engineered for resistance to 

corn rootworm and for tolerance to the 

herbicide glyphosate. The Monsanto 

petition states that the subject corn 

should not be regulated by APHIS 

because it does not present a plant pest 

risk. 

In a notice published in the Federal 

Register on August 12, 2005 (70 FR 

47168–47169, Docket No. 04–114–1), 

APHIS announced the availability of the 

Monsanto petition and an 

environmental assessment (EA). APHIS 

solicited comments on whether the 

subject corn would present a plant pest 

risk and on the EA. The August 2005 

notice also discussed the role of APHIS, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) in regulating the 

subject corn and products developed 

from it. 

APHIS received 19 comments by the 

close of the 60-day comment period, 

which ended on October 11, 2005. 

Comments were submitted by university 

professionals, growers associations, and 

private individuals. Eight comments 

supported granting nonregulated status 

to corn line MON 88017. These 

comments cited corn rootworm as a 

significant problem and supported the 

use of technologies to help combat the 

problem. One commenter submitted a 

request to ‘‘treat MON 88017 with 

suspicion until proven otherwise 

[safe],’’ but provided no basis for the 

concern and neither requested the 

petition be approved nor denied. Ten 

comments were opposed to the action. 

Several of those comments reflected a 

general disapproval of genetically 

engineered crops. Several other 

comments cited the similarity of MON 

88017 to MON 863 and cited an article 

that reviewed the acute toxicology 

studies commissioned by European 

Food Safety Agency and did not address 

a plant-pest risk. APHIS conferred with 

both FDA and EPA about the results of 

that study. The response to these 

comments can be found in an 

attachment to the finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI). 

APHIS has amended the EA. A list of 

changes is included as an attachment to 

the EA. The changes correct 

typographical errors and provide clarity 

to the reader; these changes are not 

substantive and do not change the 

analysis described in the EA. 

As described in the petition, event 

MON 88017 corn has been genetically 

engineered to express a Cry3Bb1 

insecticidal protein derived from 

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subspecies 

kumamotoensis strain EG4691. This 

gene has been modified to encode six 

specific amino acid substitutions when 

compared to strain EG4691. Cry3Bb1 

expression is regulated by the enhanced 

35S promoter (e35S) from cauliflower 

mosaic virus, the rice actin intron (ract1 

intron), 5′ leader sequence from wheat 

chlorophyll a/b-binding protein (wt 

CAB), and the 3′ nontranslated region of 

the 17.3 kDa heat shock protein from 

wheat. Event MON 88017 has also been 

genetically engineered to express a 5- 

enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate 

synthase protein from Agrobacterium 

sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which 

confers tolerance to the herbicide 

glyphosate. Expression of cp4 epsps is 

regulated by the rice actin 1 (ract1) 5′ 

untranslated region containing the 

promoter and first intron and nopaline 

synthase 3′ polyadenylation signal (NOS 

3′) from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. A 

construct containing both genes was 

delivered to the recipient corn variety, 

A xHi-II, through Agrobacteriummediated gene transfer. The petitioner 

states that the Cry3Bb1 protein 

expressed in MON 88017 is 99.8 percent 

identical to the Cry3Bb1 protein 

expressed in nonregulated corn line 

MON 863. The CP4 EPSPS protein is 

identical to corn line NK603. 

Determination 

Based on its analysis of the data 

submitted by Monsanto, a review of 

other scientific data, field tests of the 

subject corn, and the comments 

submitted by the public, APHIS has 

determined that corn line MON 88017 is 

no longer a regulated article under 

APHIS’ regulations at 7 CFR part 340 for 

the following reasons: (1) It exhibits no 

plant pathogenic properties (although a 

plant pathogen was used in the 

development of this corn, these plants 

are not infected by this organism, nor do 

they contain genetic material from this 

pathogen that can cause plant disease); 

(2) it exhibits no characteristics that 

would cause it to be weedier than the 

nontransgenic parent corn line or other 

cultivated corn; (3) gene introgression 

from MON 88017 corn into wild 

relatives in the United States and its 

territories is extremely unlikely and is 

not likely to increase the weediness 

potential of any resulting progeny nor 

adversely affect genetic diversity of 

related plants any more than would 

introgression from traditional corn 

hybrids; (4) disease and susceptibility 

and compositional profiles of the plants 

of MON 88017 are similar to those of its 

parent variety and other corn cultivars 

grown in the United States; therefore, no 

direct or indirect plant pest effect on 

raw or processed plant commodities is 

expected; (5) field observations, 

compositional analyses, and data on the 

safety of the engineered EPSPS and 

Cry3Bb1 proteins all indicate that MON 

88017 should not have greater potential 

than other cultivated corn to damage or 

harm organisms beneficial to 

agriculture; (6) compared to current 

corn pest and weed management 

practices, cultivation of MON 88017 

should not reduce the ability to control 

pests and weeds in corn or other crops. 

In addition to our finding of no plant 

pest risk, there will be no effect on the 

threatened or endangered species 

resulting from a determination of 

nonregulated status for MON 88017 and 

its progeny. 

Therefore, APHIS has concluded that 

the subject corn and any progeny 

derived from hybrid crosses with other 

nontransformed corn varieties will be as 

safe to grow as corn varieties in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2006 / Notices 

traditional breeding programs that are 

not subject to regulation under 7 CFR 

part 340. The effect of this 

determination is that Monsanto corn 

line MON 88017 is no longer considered 

a regulated article under APHIS’

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

Therefore, the requirements 

pertaining to regulated articles under 

those regulations no longer apply to the 

subject corn or its progeny. However, 

the importation of corn line MON 88017 

and seeds capable of propagation is still 

subject to the restrictions found in 

APHIS’ foreign quarantine notices in 7 

CFR part 319 and imported seed 

regulations in 7 CFR part 361. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An EA was prepared to examine any 

potential environmental impacts and 

plant pest risk associated with the 

determination of nonregulated status for 

the Monsanto corn line MON 88017. 

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, APHIS has reached 

a FONSI with regard to the 

determination that Monsanto corn line 

MON 88017 and lines developed from it 

are no longer regulated articles under its 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Copies of 

the EA and FONSI are available from 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 29th day of 

December, 2005. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–88 Filed 1–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collections; 

Comment Request—A Case Study: 

Modernization of the Food Stamp 

Program in Florida 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice invites the general public and 

other public agencies to comment on 

proposed information collections. 

This notice announces the Food and 

Nutrition Service’s (FNS) intent to 

request approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for new 

information collection in the state of 

Florida. The Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) plans to systematically examine 

Florida’s modernization model in order 

to understand better the relationship 

between Food Stamp Program structure, 

operations, costs, and performance. This 

review will consist of both a 

quantitative study using extant data and 

a qualitative study relying on the 

responses of state and local food stamp 

staff, community partners, food stamp 

applicants and participants and eligible 

non-participants. Project results will 

inform FNS policy discussion, provide 

technical information to States, and 

offer Florida’s Department of Children 

and Family Services a tool for 

responding efficiently to the variety of 

stakeholder queries received. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 7, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments may be sent to Erika Jones, 

Project Officer, Food and Nutrition 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 

22302. Comments may also be 

submitted via fax to the attention of 

Erika Jones at 703–305–2576 or via email to erika.jones@fns.usda.gov. 

All written comments will be open for 

public inspection at the office of the 

Food and Nutrition Service, through 

prior arrangement with the project 

officer, during regular business hours 

(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 1014. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

be a matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of this information collection 

should be directed to Erika Jones on 

703–305–2124. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: A Case Study: Modernization of 

the Food Stamp Program in Florida. 

OMB Number: Not Yet Assigned. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Expiration Date: To be determined. 

Type of Request: New collection of 

information. 

Abstract: The Florida Department of 

Family and Children’s Services (DCFS) 

is implementing organizational changes, 

simplifying policies, streamlining 

procedures and introducing a variety of 

technology improvements to improve 

access and customer service while 

improving administrative efficiency. 

DCFS is in the process of modernizing 

its program districts which are at 

different stages of implementation. Key 

features of the State’s organizational 

changes include toll-free phone access 

to regional call centers, an interactive 

voice response system, an Internetbased application, document scanning, 

and automated support for some 

verification procedures. DCFS also is 

developing partnerships with 

community-based service providers to 

engage them in client application 

support and other customer assistance 

activities. 

In an effort to understand outcomes 

associated with program modernization, 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

plans to systematically examine 

Florida’s modernization model in order 

to understand better the relationship 

between Food Stamp Program structure, 

operations, costs and performance. 

Project results will inform FNS policy 

discussions, provide technical and 

procedurally relevant information to 

States, and offer Florida DCFS a tool for 

assessing potential model enhancements 

and responding efficiently to the variety 

of stakeholder queries received. 

Specifically, the project will be 

guided by following objectives: (1) 

Developing a description of changes to 

food stamp policies and procedures that 

have been made in support of 

Automated Community Connection to 

Economic Self-Sufficiency Florida 

(ACCESS Florida), (2) Identifying how 

technology is used to support the range 

of food stamp eligibility determination 

and case management functions; (3) 

Describing the roles and experiences of 

State food stamp staff, vendors, and 

community partners working at 

different levels; (4) Understanding the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES