25194 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices

contains information for USDA to

ascertain proper ownership of the

samples submitted, distribute

classification results, and bill for

services. Information about the origin

and handling of the cotton is necessary

in order to properly evaluate and

classify the samples.

Form CN–246 is submitted by cotton

gins and warehouses seeking to serve as

licensed samplers. The license period is

five years. Licenses issued by the

USDA–AMS Cotton Division authorize

the warehouse/gin to draw and submit

samples to insure the proper application

of standards in the classification of

cotton and to prevent deception in their

use.

Form CN–383 is submitted to cotton

producers, ginners, warehousemen,

cooperatives, manufacturers, merchants,

and crushers interested in acquiring a

set of cotton grade and staple standards

for Upland and Pima cotton.

Description of Respondents: Business

or other for-profit; Individuals or

households.

Number of Respondents: 307.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

Annually; Other (every 5 yrs).

Total Burden Hours: 100.

Farm Service Agency

Title: Standards for Approval of

Warehouses-7 CFR 1421, 1423 and 1427

OMB Control Number: 0560–0052

Summary of Collection: The Farm

Service Agency (FSA), under Public

Law 80–806, the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) Charter Act, is

authorized to enter into storage

contracts with commercial warehouse

operators. Specifically, the Act permits

FSA to enter into various types of

contracts as are necessary in the

conduct of its business and directs FSA

to utilize the usual and customary

channels, facilities and arrangements of

trade and commerce in its functions of

purchasing, warehousing, transporting,

processing, or handling of agricultural

commodities. FSA must collect

information in order to develop and

maintain a List of Approved

Warehouses (Approved List) to store

CCC-owned or loan commodities. The

use of warehouses on the Approved List

reduces the risk of loss faced by CCC by

using only those facilities which meet

the financial, physical, and managerial

requirements of CCC. The information

will be collected by mail which is

necessary because these agreements

must be legal and binding.

Need and Use of the Information: The

information collected on various forms

is necessary to establish and maintain

the Approved List, follow accepted

warehousing practices, and represent

the minimum burden to carry out

various mandatory price support

programs. The forms will be reviewed

by FSA contracting officers at the

Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO)

in order to maintain an Approved List

for the storage of CCC-owned or CCCloan commodities.

Description of Respondents: Business

or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 3,380.

Frequency of Responses:

Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion;

Annually.

Total Burden Hours: 423,864.

Farm Service Agency

Title: End-Use Certificate Program—7

CFR Part 782.

OMB Control Number: 0560–0151.

Summary of Collection: Public Law

103–182, Section 321 (f) of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act mandates that the

Secretary of Agriculture shall

implement, in coordination with the

Commissioner of Customs, a program

requiring that end-use certificates be

included in the documentation covering

the entry into the United States of any

wheat originating from Canada.

Need and Use of the Information: The

end-use certificate program was

designed to ensure that Canadian wheat

does not benefit from USDA or CCCassisted export programs. The

information collected on the end-use

certificate is used in conjunction with

USDA’s domestic origin compliance

review process doing quarterly audits of

contractors involved in foreign food

assistance programs. The form FSA–750

‘‘End-Use Certificate for Wheat’’ is used

by approximately 200 importers of

Canadian wheat to report entry into the

United States. The FSA–751 ‘‘Wheat

Consumption and Resale Report’’ is

used by approximately 225 millers,

exporters, and other users of Canadian

wheat to report final disposition of

Canadian wheat in the United States.

Description of Respondents: Business

or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 430.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion; Quarterly.

Total Burden Hours: 5,971.

Nancy Sternberg,

Departmental Information Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–12141 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 97–130–2]

AgrEvo USA Co.; Availability of

Determination of Nonregulated Status

for Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered

for Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of

our determination that AgrEvo USA

Company’s sugar beet designated as

Transformation Event T120–7, which

has been genetically engineered for

tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate, 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 AgrEvo

USA Company in its petition for a

determination of nonregulated status

and an analysis of other scientific data.

This notice also announces the

availability of our written determination

document and its associated

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The determination, an

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact, and the

petition may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect those documents are asked to

call in advance of visiting at (202) 690–

2817 to facilitate entry into the reading

room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Ved Malik, Biotechnology and

Biological Analysis, PPQ, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD

20737–1236; (301) 734–6774. To obtain

a copy of the determination or the

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact, contact Ms.

Kay Peterson at (301) 734–4885; e-mail:

mkpeterson@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 2, 1997, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

received a petition (APHIS Petition No.

97–336–01p) from AgrEvo USA

Company (AgrEvo) of Wilmington, DE,

seeking a determination that sugar beet
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices 25195

(Beta vulgaris L.) designated as

Transformation Event T120–7 (event

T120–7), which has been genetically

engineered for tolerance to the herbicide

glufosinate, does not present a plant

pest risk and, therefore, is not a

regulated article under APHIS’

regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

On February 6, 1998, APHIS

published a notice in the Federal

Register (63 FR 6148–6149, Docket No.

97–130–1) announcing that the AgrEvo

petition had been received and was

available for public review. The notice

also discussed the role of APHIS, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Food and Drug Administration in

regulating the subject sugar beet and

food products derived from it. In the

notice, APHIS solicited written

comments from the public as to whether

this sugar beet posed a plant pest risk.

The comments were to have been

received by APHIS on or before April 7,

1998. APHIS received no comments on

the subject petition during the

designated 60-day comment period.

Analysis

Event T120–7 sugar beet has been

genetically engineered to contain a

synthetic version of the pat gene

derived from Streptomyces

viridochromogenes. The pat gene

encodes the enzyme phosphinothricinN-acetyltransferase (PAT), which

confers tolerance to the herbicide

glufosinate. Expression of the pat gene

is controlled by 35S promoter and

terminator sequences derived from the

plant pathogen cauliflower mosaic

virus. Event T120–7 sugar beet also

contains the aph(3′)II or nptII marker

gene used in plant transformation.

Expression of the nptII gene is

controlled by gene sequences derived

from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and

analysis indicates that the NPTII protein

is expressed in certain parts of the

subject sugar beet plants. The A.

tumefaciens method was used to

transfer the added genes into the

parental sugar beet line.

The subject sugar beet has been

considered a regulated article under

APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340

because it contains gene sequences

derived from plant pathogens. However,

evaluation of field data reports from

field tests of this sugar beet conducted

under APHIS permits since 1994

indicates that there were no deleterious

effects on plants, nontarget organisms,

or the environment as a result of the

environmental release of event T120–7

sugar beet.

Determination

Based on its analysis of the data

submitted by AgrEvo, and a review of

other scientific data and field tests of

the subject sugar beet, APHIS has

determined that event T120–7: (1)

Exhibits no plant pathogenic properties;

(2) is no more likely to become a weed

than sugar beet developed by traditional

breeding techniques; (3) is unlikely to

increase the weediness potential for any

other cultivated or wild species with

which it can interbreed; (4) will not

cause damage to raw or processed

agricultural commodities; and (5) will

not harm threatened or endangered

species or other organisms, such as bees,

that are beneficial to agriculture.

Therefore, APHIS has concluded that

the subject sugar beet and any progeny

derived from crosses with other sugar

beet varieties will be as safe to grow as

sugar beet in traditional breeding

programs that are not subject to

regulation under 7 CFR part 340.

The effect of this determination is that

AgrEvo’s event T120–7 sugar beet 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 sugar beet or its progeny.

However, importation of event T120–7

sugar beet or seeds capable of

propagation are still subject to the

restrictions found in APHIS’ foreign

quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 319.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment (EA)

has been prepared to examine the

potential environmental impacts

associated with this determination. 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 finding of no significant

impact (FONSI) with regard to its

determination that AgrEvo’s event

T120–7 sugar beet and lines developed

from it are no longer regulated articles

under its regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Copies of the EA and the FONSI are

available upon request from the

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of

April, 1998.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12125 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 98–032–1]

AgrEvo USA Co.; Extension of

Determination of Nonregulated Status

to Soybean Genetically Engineered for

Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of

our decision to extend to one additional

soybean line our determination that

certain soybean lines developed by

AgrEvo USA Company, which have

been genetically engineered for

glufosinate herbicide tolerance, are no

longer considered regulated articles

under our regulations governing the

introduction of certain genetically

engineered organisms. Our decision is

based on our evaluation of data

submitted by AgrEvo USA Company in

its request for an extension of a

determination of nonregulated status

and an analysis of other scientific data.

This notice also announces the

availability of an environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The extension request and

an environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact may be

inspected at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect those documents are

asked to call in advance of visiting at

(202) 690–2817.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Sivramiah Shantharam, Biotechnology

and Biological Analysis, PPQ, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–4882. To

obtain a copy of the extension request

or the environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact, contact

Ms. Kay Peterson at (301) 734–4885; email: mkpeterson@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