13736 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

March 2007. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5344 Filed 3–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0157] 

Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Availability of 

Determination of Nonregulated Status 

for Corn Genetically Engineered for 

Insect Resistance 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our determination that a corn line 

developed by Syngenta, designated as 

transformation event MIR604, which 

has been genetically engineered for 

resistance to corn rootworm, 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 

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 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: March 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the petition, 

the environmental assessment, the 

determination, the finding of no 

significant impact, the comments we 

received on our previous notice, and our 

responses to those comments 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. To view those documents on 

the Internet, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab, and select 

‘‘Docket Search.’’ In the Docket ID field, 

enter APHIS–2006–0157, then click 

‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the Docket ID 

link in the search results page will 

produce a list of all documents in the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Catherine Preston, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236; (301) 734–5874. To obtain copies 

of the petition or the environmental 

assessment (EA) and finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI), contact Ms. 

Cynthia Eck at (301) 734–0667, e-mail: 

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

petition, EA, and FONSI are also 

available on the Internet at: http:// 

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

04_36201p.pdf and http:// 

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

04_36201p_ea.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 December 24, 2004, APHIS 

received a petition (APHIS No. 04–362–

01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc. 

(Syngenta) of Research Triangle Park, 

NC, requesting a determination of 

nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 

340 for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as 

transformation event MIR604, which 

has been genetically engineered for 

resistance to corn rootworm (CRW). In 

response to APHIS’ subsequent requests 

for additional information and 

clarification, Syngenta submitted a 

revised final petition on August 2, 2006. 

The Syngenta petition states that the 

subject corn should not be regulated by 

APHIS because it does not present a 

plant pest risk. 

Analysis 

As described in the petition, corn 

transformation event MIR604 has been 

genetically engineered to express two 

transgenes: (1) The modified cry3A 

(mcry3A) gene derived from a wellcharacterized gene sequence from 

Bacillus thuringiensis, encoding the 

mCRY3A insect control protein and (2) 

the pmi (manA) gene from Escherichia 

coli, which encodes the enzyme 

phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) for 

use as a selectable marker. Expression of 

the mcry3A gene by corn plants renders 

the corn line resistant to CRW. 

Regulatory elements for the mcry3A and 

pmi genes were derived from maize and 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens. These 

regulatory sequences are not transcribed 

and do not encode proteins. The DNA 

was introduced into corn cells using 

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation 

methodology with the T–DNA 

transformation vector designated 

pZM26. In addition to transgenes 

necessary for insertion into the plant 

genome, the T–DNA vector also 

contained two additional genetic 

elements: (1) A gene conferring bacterial 

resistance to the antibiotics 

erythromycin, streptomycin, and 

spectinomycin and (2) the bacterial 

origin of replication. Plant cells 

containing the introduced DNA were 

then selected by culturing in the 

presence of mannose. After the initial 

incubation with Agrobacterium, the 

broad-spectrum antibiotic cefotaxime 

was included in the culture medium to 

kill any remaining Agrobacterium. 

In a notice published in the Federal 

Register on January 10, 2007 (72 FR 

1212–1214, Docket No. APHIS–2006–

0157), APHIS announced the 

availability of the Syngenta petition and 

an environmental assessment (EA). 

APHIS solicited comments on whether 

the subject corn would present a plant 

pest risk for 60 days ending on March 

12, 2007, and on the EA for 30 days 

ending on February 9, 2007. In order to 

provide interested persons additional 

time to prepare and submit comments 

on the draft EA, APHIS extended the 

comment period for the EA until March 

9, 2007, i.e., the date 15 days after the 

publication of our notice of extension. 

APHIS received 14 comments on the EA 

and 27 comments on the petition by the 

close of their respective comment 

periods. There were 20 comments 

submitted in support of the petition to 

grant nonregulated status to MIR604 

corn and 7 that were opposed. With 

regard to the EA prepared by APHIS to 

examine the potential environmental 

impacts of granting nonregulated status 

to MIR604 corn, there were seven 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 13737 

comments submitted in support of the 

conclusions drawn in the EA and seven 

comments opposed to the conclusions 

drawn in the EA. APHIS’ responses to 

these comments can be found in an 

attachment to the finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI). 

Determination 

Based on APHIS’ analysis of field, 

greenhouse, and laboratory data 

submitted by Syngenta, references 

provided in the petition, other relevant 

information described in the EA, and 

comments provided by the public, 

APHIS has determined that MIR604 will 

not pose a plant pest risk for the 

following reasons: (1) Gene 

introgression from MIR604 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; (2) it exhibits no characteristics 

that would cause it to be weedier than 

the non-genetically engineered parent 

corn line or other cultivated corn; (3) it 

does not pose a risk to non-target 

organisms, including beneficial 

organisms and threatened or endangered 

species, because the insecticidal activity 

of the mCry3A protein is limited to 

target pest species, namely corn 

rootworm; (4) it does not pose a threat 

to biodiversity as it does not exhibit 

traits that increase its weediness and its 

unconfined cultivation should not lead 

to increased weediness of other 

cultivated corn, it exhibits no changes 

in disease susceptibility, and it is 

unlikely to harm non-target organisms 

common to the agricultural ecosystem 

or threatened or endangered species 

recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; (5) compared to current corn 

pest and weed management practices, 

cultivation of MIR604 corn should not 

impact standard agricultural practices in 

corn cultivation and controlling 

volunteer corn, including those for 

organic farmers; and (6) disease 

susceptibility and compositional 

profiles of MIR604 corn are similar to 

those of its parent variety and other corn 

cultivars grown in the United States, 

therefore no direct or indirect plant pest 

effects on raw or processed plant 

commodities are expected. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the 

determination of nonregulated status for 

MIR604, 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, APHIS has 

reached a FONSI with regard to the 

determination that Syngenta corn line 

MIR604 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 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 20th day of 

March 2007. 

W. Ron DeHaven, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5345 Filed 3–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Food Stamp 

Program Regulations, Part 275—

Quality Control 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, this notice 

invites the general public and other 

public agencies to comment on the 

proposed information collection for 

Food Stamp Program Regulations, Part 

275—Quality Control. Specifically, this 

is the burden associated with the 

collection of information for the 

sampling plan, the arbitration process, 

and the good cause process. This 

proposed collection is a revision of a 

collection currently approved under 

OMB No. 0584–0303. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 22, 2007. 

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. 

Send comments and requests for 

copies of this information collection to: 

Daniel Wilusz, Chief, Quality Control 

Branch, Program Accountability 

Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 

Park Center Drive, Room 822, 

Alexandria, VA 22302. You may FAX 

comments on this notice to (703) 305–

0928. You may also download an 

electronic version of this notice at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/ 

Regulations/default.htm and comment 

via e-mail at 

Daniel.Wilusz@fns.usda.gov. 

All responses to this notice will be 

included in the request for OMB 

approval. 

All comments will also become a 

matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

should be directed to Daniel Wilusz at 

(703) 305–2460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Food Stamp Program 

Regulations, Part 275—Quality Control. 

OMB Number: 0584–0303. 

Expiration Date: August 31, 2007. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection of 

information. 

Abstract: There are three components 

of the Quality Control (QC) system that 

are covered in this proposed 

information collection. They are: (1) The 

sampling plan; (2) the arbitration 

process; and (3) the good cause process. 

Each State is required to develop a 

sampling plan that demonstrates the 

integrity of its case selection 

procedures. The QC system is designed 

to measure each State agency’s payment 

error rate based on a statistically valid 

sample of food stamp cases. A State 

agency’s payment error rate represents 

the proportion of cases that were 

reported through a QC review as being 

ineligible, overissued and underissued 

food stamp benefits. 

The QC system contains procedures 

for resolving differences in review 

findings between State agencies and 

FNS. This is referred to as the 

arbitration process. The QC system also 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES