25196 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices

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.

Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2)

provide that a person may request that

APHIS extend a determination of

nonregulated status to other organisms.

Such a request shall include

information to establish the similarity of

the antecedent organism and the

regulated article in question.

Background

On January 14, 1998, APHIS received

a request for an extension of a

determination of nonregulated status

(APHIS No. 98–014–01p) from AgrEvo

USA Company (AgrEvo) of Wilmington,

DE, for a soybean line designated as

transformation event A5547–127 (event

A5547–127), which has been genetically

engineered for resistance, or tolerance,

to the herbicide glufosinate. The AgrEvo

request seeks an extension of a

determination of nonregulated status

that was issued for certain lines of

glufosinate tolerant soybean (antecedent

organisms) in response to APHIS

petition number 96–068–01p (61 FR

42581–42582, August 16, 1996, Docket

No. 96–019–2). Based on the similarity

of event A5547–127 to the antecedent

organisms, AgrEvo requests a

determination that glufosinate tolerant

soybean event A5547–127 does not

present a plant pest risk and, therefore,

is not a regulated article under APHIS’

regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Analysis

Event A5547–127 soybean contains a

synthetic version of the pat gene

derived from Streptomyces

viridochromogenes, which encodes the

PAT enzyme and confers tolerance to

glufosinate. Expression of the synthetic

pat gene is controlled by a 35S promoter

and terminator derived from the plant

pathogen cauliflower mosaic virus.

While the subject soybean event

contains fragments of the bla marker

gene, tests indicate this gene is not

expressed in the plant. The particle

acceleration method was used to

transfer the added genes into the

parental Glycine max A5547 cultivar.

Event A5547–127 soybean was

transformed with the same plasmid

vector and in the same manner as

certain antecedent organisms described

in APHIS petition number 96–068–01p,

and differs from them only in the copy

number and extent of integrated DNA.

The subject soybean line has been

considered a regulated article under

APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340

because it contains gene sequences

derived from a plant pathogen.

However, evaluation of field data

reports from field tests of this soybean

conducted under APHIS notifications

since 1996 indicates that there were no

deleterious effects on plants, nontarget

organisms, or the environment as a

result of its environmental release.

Determination

Based on an analysis of the data

submitted by AgrEvo and a review of

other scientific data and field tests of

the subject soybean line, APHIS has

determined that event A5547–127

soybean: (1) Exhibits no plant

pathogenic properties; (2) is no more

likely to become a weed than soybean

lines 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

soybean line and any progeny derived

from crosses with other soybean

varieties will be as safe to grow as

soybeans 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 A5547–127 soybean 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

field testing, importation, or interstate

movement of the subject soybean line or

its progeny. However, importation of the

subject soybean line 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, as amended (NEPA) (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

A5547–127 soybean 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 1st day of

May 1998.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12126 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Anchor Hill Project, Gilt Edge Mine,

Environmental Impact Statement

Supplement, Black Hills National

Forest, SD

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

draft supplement to a final

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: J. Thomas Millard, Spearfish/

Nemo District Ranger, of the Black Hills

National Forest gives notice of the

agency’s intent to prepare a Draft

Supplement to the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Anchor Hill

Project of the Gilt Edge Mine. The

responsible official for this project is

John C. Twiss, Forest Supervisor, Black

Hills National Forest.

DATES: The Draft Supplement should be

available for public comment by the end

of April 1998. The Final Supplement

should be ready for public review in

July of 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

District Ranger, Spearfish/Nemo

District, P.O. Box 407, Deadwood, SD

57732.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Don Murray Lands and Minerals Staff

on the Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District,

(605) 578–2744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft

Supplement will provide additional

information and clarification of items in

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement for the Anchor Hill Project

published in November 1997. The

Anchor Hill Project is the proposed

expansion of an existing open pit gold
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices 25197

mine on to 37 acres of land in the Black

Hills National Forest, which is located

four miles southeast of Deadwood,

South Dakota.

The comment period on the draft

supplement to the final environmental

impact statement will be a minimum of

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 supplements to the

final 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

supplement to the final environmental

impact statement stage but that are not

raised until after completion of the final

supplement to 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 objectives are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft supplement to

the final environmental impact

statement should be as specific as

possible. It is also helpful if comments

refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft supplement. Comments may also

address the adequacy of the draft

supplement to the final environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: April 3, 1998.

J. Thomas Millard,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 98–12089 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region; Telluride Ski

Area Expansion—Supplemental

Analysis, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre

and Gunnison National Forests, San

Miguel County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

a Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SFEIS) to the Final

Environmental Impact Statement

Telluride Ski Area Expansion (FEIS) to

address the adequacy of the FEIS and to

disclose new information. The Final

Record of Decision (ROD) on the

Telluride Ski Area Expansion released

in July 1996 was subsequently

withdrawn pending further analysis

required by the Appeal Deciding Officer

and a civil complaint. The SFEIS will

address the points raised by the Appeal

Deciding Officer and the civil complaint

as well as any applicable new

information. The FEIS disclosed

potential impacts on a proposal to

develop six new ski lifts with associated

runs and five new restaurants at the

Telluride Ski Area on the Norwood

District of the Grand Mesa,

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National

Forests within San Miguel County,

Colorado.

DATES: The draft SFEIS is scheduled for

publication in June 1998 and the final

in September 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Dick Cook, Norwood Ranger District,

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and

Gunnison National Forests, P.O. Box

388, Norwood, Colorado 81423. Robert

L. Storch, Forest Supervisor, Grand

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison

National Forests, is the Responsible

Official for this EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur Bauer, Project Coordinator,

Norwood Ranger District—(970) 728–

9351 or (970) 327–4261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EIS

process for the Telluride Ski Area

Expansion began with a Notice of Intent

in the Federal Register on June 18,

1993. The proposal includes the

construction of six new lifts and

associated trails, five new restaurants,

and the expansion of additional offseason recreational activities. A draft

EIS was published in March 1994 and

a supplement to the draft EIS was

published in December 1994. The FEIS

for the Telluride Ski Area Expansion

was prepared and released in February

1996 and the ROD was released in July

1996.

The ROD was the subject of an appeal

to the Rocky Mountain Regional

Forester on September 6, 1996. The

ruling made on October 22, 1996 by the

Appeal Deciding Officer directed the

Forest Supervisor to: (1) Disclose the

socio-economic impacts, including

community infrastructure and services,

to communities outside of San Miguel

County but within the employee

commuting area of Telluride; (2) specify

the required best management practices

for erosion and sedimentation control;

(3) disclose the instream flows of the

San Miguel River resulting from the

proposed action with the existing flows,

the associated effects including

cumulative effects of water depletions,

and specify required mitigation; and (4)

analyze and disclose the environmental

effects of off-season operation and use of

any chairlift, other than Lift #10.

Subsequent to the ruling by the

Appeal Deciding Officer, a civil

complaint was filed against the USFS in

March 1997 and was subsequently

amended on April 22, 1997. The claims

made by the plaintiffs included four

counts which dealt with potential

inadequacies in the FEIS, the exclusion

of two transportation exhibits in the

Appeal Record, concerns that potential

bias in the analysis may have tainted the

process, and the possible violation of

the Clean Air Act by the issuance of the

conformity Determination.

On June 30, 1997, the Forest

Supervisor of the GMUG National

Forests withdrew the decision on the

Telluride Ski Area expansion pending

further analysis required by the Appeal

Deciding Officer and the points raised

in the civil complaint. The ROD

released in July 1996 is no longer

considered valid. Once the Supplement

has been finalized, a new decision will

be issued by the Forest Supervisor. The

new decision will consider all the

findings of the Supplement as well as

those released in the FEIS. All elements

and alternatives displayed in the FEIS

will be reconsidered in the Record of

Decision associated with the

supplement.

The Deciding Official will be Robert

L. Storch, Forest Supervisor, Grand

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison