Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Notices 61413 

1All notices mentioned in this docket, as well as 

comments received and supporting and related 

materials, can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS–2008–0098. 

the state agency or the individual fire 

department. 

A cooperative agreement collects 

information from the participating state 

agency and outlines the requirements 

and rules for the cooperation. Each state 

forestry agency shall provide an 

Accountable Officer who will be 

responsible for the integrity of the 

program within their respective state. 

For this reason, FEPP and FFP collect 

the state forestry agency contact 

information, the information of the 

Accountable Officer, and the 

requirements of participation in the 

FEPP and FFP programs. 

A cooperative agreement will be 

prepared by each state forestry agency 

that desires to participate in one or both 

of the programs. Participating state 

agencies must submit separate 

agreements if they desire to be 

participants in both programs. 

Agreements will be processed and 

maintained at the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Fire and Aviation Management, 

Partnerships, Cooperative Programs 

branch in each Forest Service Regional 

Office. 

The authority to provide surplus 

supplies to state agencies comes from 

Federal Property and Administration 

Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C., Sec 202. 

Authority to loan excess supplies comes 

from 10 U.S.C., Subtitle A, Part IV, 

Chapter 153, 2576b grants the authority 

for the FFP program. 

Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 hour. 

Type of Respondents: State Foresters. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 10. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Responses per Respondent: 2. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 20 hours. 

Comment is Invited: 

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether 

this collection of information is 

necessary for the stated purposes and 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical or 

scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

Agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

All comments received in response to 

this notice, including names and 

addresses when provided, will be a 

matter of public record. Comments will 

be summarized and included in the 

submission request toward Office of 

Management and Budget approval. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

John Phipps, 

Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private 

Forestry. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24879 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0098] 

Notice of Availability of Biotechnology 

Quality Management System Audit 

Standard and Evaluation of Comments 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service has developed an 

audit standard for its biotechnology 

compliance assistance program. The 

audit standard, which was made 

available in draft form for comment in 

an earlier notice, will be used by 

participating regulated entities to 

develop and implement sound 

management practices, thus enhancing 

compliance with the regulatory 

requirements for field trials and 

movement of genetically engineered 

organisms in 7 CFR part 340. We are 

also making available a document 

containing our evaluation of the 

comments we received on the draft 

audit standard. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Edward Jhee, Chief, Compliance 

Assistance Branch, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 91, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–6356, e-mail: 

edward.m.jhee@aphis.usda.gov. To 

obtain copies of the audit standard or 

our evaluation of comments submitted 

on the draft audit standard, contact Ms. 

Cindy Eck at (301) 734–0667, e-mail: 

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

documents may also be viewed on the 

APHIS Web site at the address provided 

at the end of this document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the 

introduction—the importation, 

interstate movement, and environmental 

release—of genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms that are, or may be, plant 

pests. In September 2007, APHIS’ 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services 

announced it was developing a 

voluntary, audit-based compliance 

assistance program known as the 

Biotechnology Quality Management 

System Program (BQMS Program) to 

assist regulated entities in achieving and 

maintaining compliance with the 

regulatory requirements for field trials 

and movements of GE organisms in 7 

CFR part 340. 

Under the BQMS Program, APHIS 

provides support for an entity’s 

voluntary adoption of a customized 

biotechnology quality management 

system (BQMS) to improve their 

management of domestic research and 

development of regulated GE organisms. 

The BQMS audit standard provides 

criteria for the development, 

implementation, and objective 

evaluation of the entity’s BQMS. 

On June 4, 2009, APHIS published a 

notice 1 in the Federal Register (74 FR 

26831–26832, Docket No. APHIS–2008– 

0098) announcing the availability of the 

BQMS draft audit standard. Comments 

on the BQMS draft audit standard were 

to have been received on or before 

August 3, 2009. APHIS subsequently 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on August 24, 2009 (74 FR 

42644, Docket No. APHIS–2008–0098), 

reopening the comment period on the 

draft audit standard for an additional 60 

days ending October 23, 2009. APHIS 

solicited comments on the draft audit 

standard in general and sought specific 

input on the following four questions: 

1. Do the critical control points in 

Requirement 7 of the draft audit 

standard identify all areas and elements 

that organizations should focus on in 

order to maintain compliance with the 

regulatory requirements under 7 CFR 

part 340? 

2. Is the draft audit standard 

consistent with current best practices 

used by the regulated community? 

3. Can the public identify incentives 

USDA might employ to encourage 

participation in the voluntary program 

by commercial industry as well as 

academic institutions? 

4. The BQMS is designed to be 

flexible according to the size of the 

participating organization. Is this 

flexibility apparent in the draft audit 

standard? 

APHIS also received input on the 

draft audit standard from organizations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

61414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Notices 

that participated in a BQMS pilot 

development project conducted during 

2009. Five organizations participated in 

the pilot development project and 

assisted APHIS in evaluating the draft 

audit standard, program training 

sessions, and audit procedures 

established for the BQMS Program. 

Following the pilot development 

project and after evaluating the 

comments submitted on the BQMS draft 

audit standard, APHIS made 

adjustments to the BQMS audit 

standard. You may view the public 

comments submitted on the draft audit 

standard, APHIS’ evaluation of the 

comments received, and the revised 

BQMS audit standard on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

for a link). 

The revised audit standard and the 

comment evaluation document, as well 

as additional information about the 

BQMS Program, may be found on the 

APHIS Web site at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/ 

news_bqms.shtml. Copies of those 

documents may also be obtained from 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

September 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24995 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative: 

South Dakota PrairieWinds Project 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record 

of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, 

hereinafter referred to as RUS and/or the 

Agency, has issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed South 

Dakota PrairieWind Project (Project) in 

Aurora, Bule and Jerauld Counties, 

South Dakota. The Administrator of 

RUS has signed the ROD, which is 

effective upon signing. The EIS was 

prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) and in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

Parts 1500–1508), RUS’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (7 CFR Part 

1794), and the Western Area Power 

Administration’s (Western) NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR Part 

1021). RUS and Western are serving as 

co-lead agencies in preparation of the 

EIS as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5. Each 

agency is issuing a separate ROD for the 

project. The purpose of the EIS was to 

evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts of and alternatives to Basin 

Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin 

Electric) application for a RUS loan and 

a Western interconnection agreement to 

construct the proposed Project. The 

proposed Project’s facility would 

include a new 151.5-megawatt windpowered generation facility. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the 

ROD, or for further information, contact: 

Mr. Dennis Rankin, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural 

Utilities Service, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Room 2239–S, 

Washington, DC 20250–1571, telephone: 

(202) 720–1453, fax: (202) 690–0649, or 

e-mail: dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov. A 

copy of the ROD can be viewed online 

at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ 

eis.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Basin 

Electric’s proposed Project is to 

construct, own, operate, and maintain 

the Project. The proposed Project 

includes a 151.5-megawatt (MW) 

nameplate capacity wind-powered 

energy generation facility that would 

feature 101 wind turbine generators; 

6,000-square-foot operations and 

maintenance building and fence 

perimeter; 64 miles of underground 

communication system and electrical 

collector lines (within the same trench); 

34.5-kilovolt (kV) to 230-kV collector 

substation and microwave tower; 11- 

mile-long overhead 230-kV transmission 

line; temporary equipment/material 

storage or lay-down areas; temporary 

crane walks; and 81 miles of new and/ 

or upgraded service roads to access the 

facilities in Aurora, Brule and Jerauld 

Counties in eastern South Dakota. The 

purpose for the proposed Project is to 

meet Basin Electric’s load growth 

responsibilities, State mandated 

Renewable Portfolio Standards and 

Renewable Energy Objectives and 

renewable energy goals. In accordance 

with NEPA, the CEQ regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA, and applicable agency NEPA 

implementing regulations, RUS and 

Western prepared an EIS to assess the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Project. 

The decision being documented in 

RUS’s ROD is that the Agency agrees to 

consider, subject to loan approval, 

funding the proposed Project at the 

Crow Lake location. More details 

regarding RUS’s regulatory authority, 

rationale for the decision, and 

compliance with applicable regulations 

are included in the ROD. Because two 

distinct federal actions are being 

proposed, RUS and Western decided to 

issue separate RODs. 

On April 7, 2009, RUS and Western 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the 

proposed Project. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

acknowledged receipt of the Draft EIS 

on January 15, 2010. The 45-day 

comment period ended on March 1, 

2010. A public hearing to receive 

comments on the Draft EIS was held in 

Chamberlain, South Dakota, on 

February 11, 2010. All comments 

received were addressed in the Final 

EIS, The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency acknowledged receipt of the 

Final EIS on July 30, 2010. The 30-day 

review period ended on August 28, 

2010. Two comment letters were 

received; they were addressed in RUS’s 

ROD. 

After considering various ways to 

meet its purpose and need, Basin 

Electric identified construction of the 

proposed Project as its best course of 

action. This EIS considered four 

alternative methods to provide 

renewable energy and six alternative 

site locations. These alternatives were 

evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness, 

technical feasibility, and environmental 

factors (e.g., soils, topography and 

geology, water resources, air quality, 

biological resources, the acoustic 

environment, recreation, cultural and 

historic resources, visual resources, 

transportation, farmland, land use, 

human health and safety, the 

socioeconomic environment, 

environmental justice, and cumulative 

effects). 

The EIS analyzes in detail the No 

Action Alternative and the Action 

Alternative (construction of the Project) 

at two separate locations: The Crow 

Lake site (approximately 36,000 acres 15 

miles north of the City of White Lake 

within Brule, Aurora and Jerald 

Counties, South Dakota), and the 

Winner site (approximately 83,000 acres 

eight miles south of the City of Winner 

in Tripp County, South Dakota). The No 

Action Alternative would not meet the 

state’s and Basin Electric’s renewable 

energy goals. The resources or 

environmental factors that could be 

affected by the proposed Project were 

evaluated in detail in the EIS. These 

issues are summarized in Table ES–1: 

‘‘Summary of Potential Impacts of South 

Dakota PrairieWinds Project,’’ of the EIS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES