This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

67945 

Vol. 75, No. 213 

Thursday, November 4, 2010 

1To review the notice and the supplemental 

petition, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0047. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047] 

Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT 

AG; Availability of an Environmental 

Assessment for Supplemental Request 

for Partial Deregulation of Sugar Beets 

Genetically Engineered To Be Tolerant 

to the Herbicide Glyphosate 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) has 

prepared a draft environmental 

assessment as part of its decisionmaking 

process to address a supplemental 

request for partial deregulation of sugar 

beets genetically engineered (GE) for 

tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, or 

for similar administrative action to 

authorize the continued cultivation of 

the GE sugar beets subject to carefully 

tailored interim measures proposed by 

APHIS. This environmental assessment 

will be available for public comment for 

30 days. Comments received by the end 

of the 30-day period will be analyzed 

and used to inform APHIS’ decision on 

whether to grant the supplemental 

request for ‘‘partial deregulation’’ of the 

GE sugar beets or to grant some similar 

administrative action to authorize the 

continued cultivation of the GE sugar 

beets subject to carefully tailored 

interim measures proposed by APHIS. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before December 

6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2010-0047 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0047, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2010–0047. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket 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. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rick Coker, Biotechnology Regulatory 

Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 

147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 

734–5720. To obtain copies of the 

environmental assessment, contact Ms. 

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

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.’’ 

On October 8, 2010, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

published a notice 1 in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 62365–62366, Docket 

No. APHIS–2010–0047) announcing 

receipt of a supplemental petition from 

the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and 

KWS SAAT AG (KWS) requesting 

‘‘partial deregulation’’ or some similar 

administrative action under 7 CFR part 

340 for sugar beets (Beta vulgaris ssp. 

vulgaris) designated as event H7–1 to 

authorize its continued cultivation 

subject to carefully tailored interim 

measures proposed by APHIS. APHIS 

has prepared a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) for event H7–1 sugar 

beets, which have been genetically 

engineered for tolerance to the herbicide 

glyphosate and are considered regulated 

articles under the regulations in 7 CFR 

part 340. 

The supplemental petition is related 

to a petition submitted by Monsanto and 

KWS on November 19, 2003, seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

event H7–1 sugar beets (Petition 03– 

323–01). On October 19, 2004, APHIS 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 61466–61467, Docket 

No. 04–075–1) announcing that the 

Monsanto/KWS petition and an EA 

were available for public review. On 

March 17, 2005, we published a notice 

in the Federal Register (70 FR 13007– 

13008, Docket No. 04–075–2) advising 

the public of our determination, 

effective March 4, 2005, that event 

H7–1 sugar beets were no longer 

considered a regulated article under 

APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of 

California issued a ruling in a lawsuit 

challenging APHIS’ decision to 

deregulate event H7–1 sugar beets. The 

Court’s September 21, 2009, ruling 

invalidated APHIS’ decision to grant 

nonregulated status to event H7–1 sugar 

beets until APHIS prepares a full 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

supporting its decision. Accordingly, 

event H7–1 sugar beets are once again 

a regulated article and subject to APHIS’ 

regulatory oversight under 7 CFR part 

340. 

The draft EA analyzes the alternatives 

available to APHIS for its decision 

regarding this supplemental request for 

‘‘partial deregulation’’ or for similar 

administrative action to authorize the 

cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets 

subject to carefully tailored interim 

measures proposed by APHIS. Based on 

the scope of the draft EA, the specific 

decisions to be made are: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

• Should APHIS grant the 

supplemental request for ‘‘partial 

deregulation’’ or similar administrative 

action to authorize the continued 

cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets 

subject to the interim measures 

proposed by APHIS in Federal District 

Court? 

• Should APHIS continue to regulate 

the environmental release and 

movement of event H7–1 sugar beets 

under 7 CFR part 340? 

• What conditions (interim regulatory 

measures) should be imposed to prevent 

any potential plant pest risk from 

planted event H7–1 sugar beets that 

remain under regulation, to minimize 

disruptions to U.S. sugar beet 

production, and to minimize the 

likelihood of impacts of concern to the 

Court until APHIS can complete an EIS 

before making a determination on 

whether or not to grant nonregulated 

status to event H7–1 sugar beets? 

• Would the preferred alternative, if 

selected (see alternative 2 below), have 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment requiring 

preparation of an EIS? 

The draft EA has been prepared to 

analyze the alternatives available to 

APHIS for responding to this 

supplemental request and to provide the 

public with documentation of APHIS’ 

review and analysis of any potential 

individual and cumulative 

environmental impacts associated with 

the ‘‘partial deregulation’’ or for similar 

administrative action to authorize the 

cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets 

subject to carefully tailored interim 

measures proposed by APHIS. 

The draft EA considers and evaluates 

three reasonable alternatives. The 

alternatives analyzed in the draft EA 

include: 

• Alternative 1—APHIS Denies 

Petition Request for Partial 

Deregulation/No Further Actions To 

Authorize Cultivation of Event H7–1 

Sugar Beets (No Action). This 

alternative would deny the request for 

‘‘partial deregulation’’ or any similar 

administrative action under 7 CFR part 

340 for the cultivation of event H7–1 

sugar beets, thereby halting any 

consideration of authorizing commercial 

production until the completion of the 

EIS. 

• Alternative 2—Event H7–1 Sugar 

Beet Production (Seed/Root) Under 

APHIS 7 CFR Part 340 (Preferred 

Alternative). APHIS’ preferred 

alternative is to authorize the 

commercial production of event H7–1 

sugar beets under APHIS permits, in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 340, subject 

to mandatory conditions to prevent any 

potential plant pest risks from such 

cultivation. These conditions are 

intended both to minimize any potential 

for the escape and dissemination of 

plant pests and the likelihood of 

impacts of concern raised by the Court 

in the lawsuit challenging APHIS’ 

decision to deregulate event H7–1 sugar 

beets. 

• Alternative 3—Partial Deregulation 

of Event H7–1 Sugar Beets (Seed/Root). 

This alternative would grant the petition 

request for partial deregulation to allow 

the commercial production of event H7– 

1 sugar beets. The supplemental request 

that APHIS received from Monsanto/ 

KWS did not clearly explain what the 

petitioners mean or envision by a 

‘‘partial deregulation.’’ The petitioner 

did not identify any specific 

mechanism(s) that would be used to 

impose the conditions to prevent any 

potential plant pest risks, which parties 

would be subject to the conditions, or 

how compliance with the conditions 

would be ensured. APHIS has 

interpreted this petition to mean that 

Monsanto/KWS is requesting that event 

H7–1 sugar beets would no longer be 

regulated under 7 CFR part 340 

provided that they are cultivated under 

the conditions and interim measures 

that APHIS proposed to the Court. 

APHIS further interprets the request to 

mean that Monsanto/KWS would be the 

responsible party for overseeing 

implementation and monitoring of 

conditions for cultivation of event H7– 

1 sugar beets. Under this alternative, 

APHIS would grant the petition for 

partial deregulation; APHIS would no 

longer regulate event H7–1sugar beets 

under 7CFR Part 340; and the 

cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets 

would be allowed under conditions 

imposed by Monsanto/KWS through 

technology stewardship agreements, 

contracts, or other legal instruments. 

Alternatives considered but rejected 

in the draft EA include: (1) Deregulating 

root production under conditions 

imposed by APHIS while prohibiting 

seed production, (2) deregulating root 

production under conditions imposed 

by APHIS while authorizing continued 

seed production under APHIS permits 

or notification, (3) deregulating seed 

production under conditions imposed 

by APHIS while prohibiting root 

production, and (4) deregulating seed 

production under conditions imposed 

by APHIS while authorizing continued 

root production under APHIS permits or 

notification. 

The draft 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). 

The draft EA may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room. (Instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

notice.) In addition, copies may be 

obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 1st day of 

November 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27970 Filed 11–2–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Gallatin County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gallatin National Forest’s 

Gallatin County Resource Advisory 

Committee will meet in Bozeman, 

Montana. The committee is meeting as 

authorized under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

is of the meeting is to determine 

parameters and timeframes for the first 

round of projects and Public Comments. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 17, 2010, and will begin at 

12:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Bozeman Public Library, Large 

Meeting Room, 626 East Main, 

Bozeman, MT. Written comments 

should be sent to Babete Anderson, 

Custer National Forest, 1310 Main 

Street, Billings, MT 59105. Comments 

may also be sent via e-mail to 

branderson@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 

406–657–6222. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. The public may 

inspect comments received at Custer 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES