66686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Notices 

Would this new program be subject to 

referendum? 

Yes. Within 3 years following USDA’s 

issuance of a final order, a referendum 

would be conducted among eligible beef 

industry entities to determine whether 

they favor continuation, termination, or 

suspension of the program. If the 

referendum passes, the new program 

would continue, with a second 

referendum held within 7 years of the 

start of the program. If the initial 

referendum fails, the program would be 

terminated. 

What happens to the Beef Checkoff 

Program that was established under the 

1985 Act? 

Nothing; the current Beef Checkoff 

Program would continue. This action is 

separate from the Beef Promotion and 

Research Order (7 CFR Part 1260) 

established under the 1985 Act. The 

1985 Act program would continue to 

run until beef producers and importers 

vote in a referendum to terminate the 

program. As provided by the 1985 Act, 

USDA would conduct a referendum on 

the request of a representative group 

comprising 10 per cent or more of cattle 

producers to determine whether cattle 

producers favor the termination or 

suspension of the program. More 

information regarding the referendum 

process authorized by the Act of 1985 is 

available here: http://

www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5108482. 

The proposed program to be 

implemented under the 1996 Act would 

run in addition to the current Beef 

Checkoff Program, and assessments 

collected under the new program would 

be handled under separate authority. 

Projects and funding would be 

determined by provisions established 

under the new order. 

Comment Procedures 

In your comments, please reference 

the heading(s) under which you are 

contributing information. USDA is 

specifically seeking comments 

addressing the questions listed below. 

1. Who should be assessed? 

2. What should be the board 

structure? 

• Who is eligible to serve? 

• Should there be a relatively large 

delegate body appointed by the 

Secretary that would elect and 

recommend from within itself a smaller 

board? 

• What should be the size of the 

board? 

• What should be the term of office? 

3. How should the board be selected? 

• Who may nominate eligible 

candidates to serve? 

• What should be the nomination and 

selection process? 

4. What should be the powers and 

duties of the board? 

5. Who has decision-making 

authority? 

• Should funding decisions be made 

by the full board or a smaller body 

elected from within this board? 

• Should funding decisions be made 

in conjunction with other organizations 

such as the Federation of State Beef 

Councils or the current Cattlemen’s Beef 

Promotion and Research Board? 

6. How should the assessment rate be 

determined? 

• Should the assessment be a 

specified amount, a percent of value, or 

an amount determined by board? 

• If a specified amount or a percent 

of value, should there be provisions for 

adjustments to the rate by the board, 

and without subsequent producer 

referendum? 

• Should there be a de minimis 

exemption for certain size operations or 

classes of cattle or beef? 

• Should there be temporary or 

permanent provisions for refunds of 

assessments? 

7. How should assessments be 

collected? 

• Should the States or the national 

board collect the assessment? 

• Should the assessment be levied at 

all points of sale, at slaughter, or at 

some other time? 

8. When should the referenda be 

conducted? 

Comments that do not address these 

topics or topics closely associated with 

the structure of a new beef research and 

promotion order under the authority of 

the 1996 Act may be deemed 

unresponsive or beyond the scope of 

this notice. 

USDA will consider written 

comments in developing a Beef 

Promotion, Research and Information 

Order that provides for a promotion, 

research, and information program for 

beef and beef products under the 1996 

Act. The new program would operate 

concurrently with the Beef Checkoff 

Program authorized under the authority 

of the 1985 Act. 

Dated: November 4, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26552 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0013] 

Monsanto Company and Forage 

Genetics International; Determination 

of Nonregulatory Status of Genetically 

Engineered Alfalfa 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our determination that an alfalfa event 

developed by the Monsanto Company 

and Forage Genetics International, 

designated as event KK179, which has 

been genetically engineered to express 

reduced levels of guaiacyl lignin, 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 the 

Monsanto Company and Forage 

Genetics International in its petition for 

a determination of nonregulatory status, 

our analysis of available scientific data, 

and comments received from the public 

in response to our previous notices 

announcing the availability of the 

petition for nonregulated status and its 

associated environmental assessment 

and plant pest risk assessment. This 

notice also announces the availability of 

our written determination and finding 

of no significant impact. 

DATES: Effective November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the 

documents referenced in this notice and 

the comments we received at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0013 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. 

Supporting documents are also 

available on the APHIS Web site at 

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

biotechnology/petitions_table_

pending.shtml under APHIS Petition 

Number 12–321–01p. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John Turner, Director, Environmental 

Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–3954, email: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Notices 66687 

1On March 6, 2012, APHIS published in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 13258–13260, Docket No. 

APHIS–2011–0129) a notice describing our public 

review process for soliciting public comments and 

information when considering petitions for 

determinations of nonregulated status for GE 

organisms. To view the notice, go to http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2011-0129. 

2To view the notice, the petition, the comments 

we received, and other supporting documents, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0013. 

john.t.turner@aphis.usda.gov. To obtain 

copies of the supporting documents for 

this petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at 

(301) 851–3892, email: cynthia.a.eck@

aphis.usda.gov. 

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 (GE) 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. 

APHIS received a petition (APHIS 

Petition Number 12–321–01p) from the 

Monsanto Company and Forage 

Genetics International (Monsanto and 

FGI), seeking a determination of 

nonregulated status of alfalfa designated 

as event KK179, which has been 

genetically engineered to express 

reduced levels of guaiacyl lignin, a 

major subunit component of total lignin 

that slows the digestion of cellulose in 

livestock, as compared to conventional 

alfalfa at the same stage of growth. The 

petition states that this alfalfa is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, 

therefore, should not be a regulated 

article under APHIS’ regulations in 7 

CFR part 340. 

According to our process 1 for 

soliciting public comment when 

considering petitions for determinations 

of nonregulated status of GE organisms, 

APHIS accepts written comments 

regarding a petition once APHIS deems 

it complete. In a notice 2 published in 

the Federal Register on April 22, 2013, 

(78 FR 23738–23740, Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0013), APHIS announced 

the availability of the Monsanto and FGI 

petition for public comment. APHIS 

solicited comments on the petition for 

60 days ending on June 21, 2013, in 

order to help identify potential 

environmental and interrelated 

economic issues and impacts that 

APHIS may determine should be 

considered in our evaluation of the 

petition. 

APHIS received 55 comments on the 

petition. APHIS decided, based on its 

review of the petition and its evaluation 

and analysis of comments received 

during the 60-day public comment 

period on the petition, that the petition 

involves a GE organism that raises 

substantive new issues. According to 

our public review process for such 

petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS first 

solicits written comments from the 

public on a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) and a plant pest risk 

assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day 

comment period through the 

publication of a Federal Register notice. 

Then, after reviewing and evaluating the 

comments on the draft EA and the PPRA 

and other information, APHIS revises 

the PPRA as necessary and prepares a 

final EA and, based on the final EA, a 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) decision document (either a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

or a notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement). If a 

FONSI is reached, APHIS furnishes a 

response to the petitioner, either 

approving or denying the petition. 

APHIS also publishes a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

regulatory status of the GE organism and 

the availability of APHIS’ final EA, 

PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory 

determination. 

In a notice (see footnote 2) published 

in the Federal Register on May 30, 

2014, (79 FR 31082–31083, Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0013), APHIS announced 

the availability of a draft EA and a PPRA 

for public comment. APHIS solicited 

comments on the draft EA, the PPRA, 

and whether the subject alfalfa is likely 

to pose a plant pest risk for 30 days 

ending on June 30, 2014. During the 

comment period, APHIS received a total 

of 177 comments, of which, 13 were 

opposed to a determination of 

nonregulated status and 164 were 

supportive of a determination of 

nonregulated status. Issues raised 

include potential effects on human 

health, effects from gene flow and 

effects on pollinators. APHIS has 

addressed the issues raised during the 

comment period and has provided 

responses to the comments as an 

attachment to the FONSI. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

After reviewing and evaluating the 

comments received during the comment 

period on the draft EA and the PPRA 

and other information, APHIS has 

prepared a final EA. The EA has been 

prepared to provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the 

determination of nonregulated status of 

Monsanto and FGI’s KK179 alfalfa. The 

EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) 

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 our EA, the response to 

public comments, and other pertinent 

scientific data, APHIS has reached a 

FONSI with regard to the preferred 

alternative identified in the EA (to make 

a determination of nonregulated status 

of KK179 alfalfa). 

Determination 

Based on APHIS’ analysis of field and 

laboratory data submitted by Monsanto 

and FGI, references provided in the 

petition, peer-reviewed publications, 

information analyzed in the EA, the 

PPRA, comments provided by the 

public, and information provided in 

APHIS’ response to those public 

comments, APHIS has determined that 

Monsanto and FGI’s KK179 alfalfa is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and 

therefore is no longer subject to our 

regulations governing the introduction 

of certain GE organisms. 

Copies of the signed determination 

document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and 

response to comments, as well as the 

previously published petition and 

supporting documents, 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 3rd day of 

November 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26597 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES