Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices 33389 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information 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 

0.476953 hours per response. 

Respondents: Importers of certain 

plants and plant products. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 20,352. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 21. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 427,392. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 203,846 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 31st day of 

May 2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13758 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0130] 

ArborGen, LLC; Availability of an 

Environmental Assessment for 

Controlled Release of a Genetically 

Engineered Eucalyptus Hybrid 

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 prepared an 

environmental assessment for a 

proposed controlled field release of a 

genetically engineered clone of a 

Eucalyptus hybrid. The purpose of the 

field release is to assess the 

effectiveness of gene constructs 

intended to confer cold tolerance, to test 

the efficacy of genes introduced to alter 

lignin biosynthesis, to test the efficacy 

of genes designed to alter growth, and 

to test the efficacy of genes designed to 

alter flowering. After assessing the 

application for a permit for the field 

release, reviewing pertinent scientific 

information, and considering comments 

from the public, we have concluded that 

the field release is unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk or to have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. Based on the finding of no 

significant impact, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement need not be prepared 

for this field release. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the 

documents referenced in this notice and 

the comments we received on the 

Regulations.gov Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2011–0130. 

The documents are also available on the 

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

brs/biotech_ea_permits.html. You may 

also view the documents and comments 

we received 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) 799–7039 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David S. Reinhold, Assistant Director, 

Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1236; (301) 851–3885. To obtain 

copies of the environmental assessment, 

finding of no significant impact, and 

responses to comments, contact Ms. 

Cynthia Eck at (301) 851–3892; email: 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.’’ A permit must be obtained or 

a notification acknowledged before a 

regulated article may be introduced. The 

regulations set forth the permit 

application requirements and the 

notification procedures for the 

importation, interstate movement, or 

release in the environment of a 

regulated article. 

On February 21, 2011, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

received a permit application (APHIS 

No. 11–052–101rm) from ArborGen, 

LLC, in Summerville, SC, for a 

controlled field release of genetically 

engineered Eucalyptus hybrids in six 

locations encompassing a total of 14.7 

acres in the States of Alabama, Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina. 

Permit application 11–052–101rm 

describes Eucalyptus trees derived from 

a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X 

Eucalyptus urophylla. The purpose of 

the field tests is to assess the 

effectiveness of gene constructs 

intended to confer cold tolerance; to test 

the efficacy of genes introduced to alter 

lignin biosynthesis; to test the efficacy 

of genes designed to alter growth; and 

to test the efficacy of genes designed to 

alter flowering. In addition, the trees 

have been engineered with a selectable 

marker that confers resistance to the 

antibiotic kanamycin. These DNA 

sequences were introduced into 

Eucalyptus trees using disarmed 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens. 

The subject Eucalyptus trees are 

considered regulated articles under 7 

CFR part 340 because they were created 

using donor sequences from plant pests. 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts and plant pest risks associated 

with the proposed release under permit 

of these genetically engineered 

Eucalyptus trees, APHIS prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA). APHIS 

announced the availability of the EA for 

public comment in a notice published 

in the Federal Register on February 10, 

2012 (77 FR 7123–7124, Docket No. 

APHIS–2011–0130). Comments on the 

EA were required to be received on or 

before March 12, 2012. We received 246 

comments by the close of the comment 

period. All expressed concerns about 

the permit or opposed granting the 

permit. APHIS reviewed all comments 

to identify new issues, alternatives, or 

information. 

Pursuant to the regulations 

promulgated under the Plant Protection 

Act, APHIS has determined that this 

field release is unlikely to pose a risk of 

introducing or disseminating a plant 

pest. Additionally, based upon analysis 

described in the EA, APHIS has 

determined that the action proposed in 

Alternative B of the EA—issue the 

permit with supplemental permit 

conditions—is unlikely to have a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. The EA and 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

are available as indicated in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Responses to the comments received on 

the EA are provided as an attachment to 

the FONSI. 

The EA and FONSI were 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). 

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 31st day of 

May 2012. 

Kevin Shea 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13760 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest; Montana; Supplemental EIS for 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan To Comply With 

District of Montana Court Order 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: The Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest will prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) to the 2009 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

environmental analysis in response to 

an April 2, 2012 Order, from the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Montana. The Court directed the Forest 

Service to apply the minimization 

criteria mandated by Executive Order 

(EO) 11644 ‘‘at the route-specific level 

where specific snowmobile routes are 

designated.’’ The supplement will 

evaluate the effects of specific 

snowmobile routes delineated on maps 

in the 2009 Forest Plan in order to make 

an informed decision in accordance 

with EO 11644. 

DATES: Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there 

is no formal scoping period for this 

proposed action. The Draft SEIS is 

expected June, 2012 and the Final SEIS 

is expected September, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The line officer responsible 

for the decision is Northern Region 

Regional Forester Faye Krueger. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Noelle Meier, Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest, 420 Barrett Street, 

Dillon, MT 59725, (406) 683–3900. 

Individuals who use telecommunication 

devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 

a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2009 

Forest Plan provides management 

direction for activities on the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

for the next 10 to 15 years, including 

direction on eight revision topics 

(vegetation, wildlife, aquatic resources, 

recreation and travel management, fire 

management, livestock grazing, timber 

and recommended wilderness). In 2010, 

Wildlands CPR, Inc., Friends of the 

Bitterroot Inc., and Montanans for Quiet 

Recreation filed a complaint in U.S. 

District Court for the District of Montana 

(Case 9:10–cv–00104–DWM) alleging 

inadequate analysis of the impacts of 

winter motorized travel when 

developing the Forest Plan and failure 

to analyze criteria intended to minimize 

off-road vehicle impacts. In an April 2, 

2012 Order, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Montana found the Forest 

Service had adequately applied the 

minimization criteria of EO 11644 for 

areas generally open to snowmobile use. 

However, the court found ‘‘to the extent 

that specific routes have been 

designated for snowmobile use’’, the 

Forest Service failed to show it 

adequately applied the minimization 

criteria at the route-specific level. The 

court ordered as follows: ‘‘that this case 

is remanded to the Forest Service for the 

limited purpose of applying the 

minimization criteria mandated by EO 

11644 at the route specific level where 

specific snowmobile routes are 

designated. The Forest Service shall 

perform this analysis and updated the 

Revised Forest Plan by September 30, 

2012. A failure to do so will result in the 

suspension of the winter travel 

management portion of the Revised 

Forest Plan as of October 1, 2012.’’ 

The SEIS will provide additional 

environmental analysis of three routes 

delineated in the Forest Plan as 

exceptions to winter, non-motorized 

areas. These routes are: (1) Snowmobile 

use in the vicinity of Thunderbolt Creek 

and Cottonwood Lake (Jefferson County, 

Montana) as delineated on page 94 of 

the Forest Plan, (2) snowmobile use 

through the non-motorized area on the 

Road #056 corridor in the vicinity of 

Antelope Basin (Beaverhead County, 

Montana) as delineated on page 128 of 

the Forest Plan, and (3) snowmobile use 

on the route to Antone Cabin (open to 

motorized vehicles yearlong) in the 

southwest portion of the Snowcrest 

Mountains (Beaverhead County, 

Montana) as delineated on page 152 of 

the Forest Plan. The analysis will 

evaluate the potential effects from these 

routes on soil, watershed, vegetation, 

wildlife, and recreation users. This 

analysis will be used to determine if 

snowmobile use on these routes 

complies with EO 11644 or whether a 

change is warranted. 

A Draft SEIS is expected to be 

available for public review and 

comment in late June 2012; and a Final 

SEIS in September 2012. The comment 

period for the Draft SEIS will be 45 days 

from the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the notice 

of availability in the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this early 

stage, it is important to give reviewers 

notice of several court rulings related to 

public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 45- 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement. 

Dated: May 31, 2012. 

Victoria C. Christiansen, 

Regional Forester. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13669 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES