Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19905

nonregulated status under 7 CFR part

340 for papaya lines designated as 55–

1 and 63–1 that have been genetically

engineered to contain genes that confer

virus resistance. The Cornell/Hawaii

petition states that papaya lines 55–1

and 63–1 should not be regulated by

APHIS because they do not present a

plant pest risk.

As described in the petition, papaya

(Carica papaya) lines 55–1 and 63–1

have been genetically engineered to

express the coat protein gene of papaya

ringspot virus (PRV), strain HA5–1,

which confers resistance to PRV. Both

the subject papaya lines also contain the

selectable marker gene nptII, and line

55–1 contains the gus selectable marker

gene, in addition. Expression of the

added genes is controlled by the

untranslated 3′ region of the nopaline

synthase gene from Agrobacterium

tumefaciens and the 35S promoter and

35S terminator from the plant pathogen

cauliflower mosaic virus (CAMV). In

developing lines 55–1 and 63–1, the

microprojectile process was used to

transfer the introduced gene sequences

into the gynodioecious cultivar Sunset.

The Sunset cultivar is of commercial

importance in Hawaii, where PRV is a

serious plant pest of papaya.

The subject papaya lines have been

considered regulated articles under the

regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because

they contain gene sequences from the

plant pathogens mentioned above. The

subject papaya lines have been

evaluated in field trials conducted

under APHIS permits. In the process of

reviewing the applications for field

trials of lines 55–1 and 63–1, APHIS

determined that the vectors and other

elements were disarmed and that the

trials, which were conducted under

conditions of reproductive and physical

containment or isolation, would not

present a risk of plant pest introduction

or dissemination.

In the Federal Plant Pest Act, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.), ‘‘plant

pest’’ is defined as ‘‘any living stage of:

Any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs,

snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate

animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic

plants or reproductive parts thereof,

viruses, or any organisms similar to or

allied with any of the foregoing, or any

infectious substances, which can

directly or indirectly injure or cause

disease or damage in any plants or parts

thereof, or any processed, manufactured

or other products of plants.’’ APHIS

views this definition very broadly. The

definition covers direct or indirect

injury, disease, or damage not just to

agricultural crops, but also to plants in

general, for example, native species, as

well as to organisms that may be

beneficial to plants, for example,

honeybees, rhizobia, etc.

The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) published a statement of policy

on foods derived from new plant

varieties in the Federal Register on May

29, 1992 (57 FR 22984–23005). The FDA

statement of policy includes a

discussion of FDA’s authority for

ensuring food safety under the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and

provides guidance to industry on the

scientific considerations associated with

the development of foods derived from

new plant varieties, including those

plants developed through the

techniques of genetic engineering.

In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the

regulations, we are publishing this

notice to inform the public that APHIS

will accept written comments regarding

the Petition for Determination of

Nonregulated Status from any interested

person for a period of 60 days from the

date of this notice. The petition and any

comments received are available for

public review, and copies of the petition

may be ordered (see the ADDRESSES

section of this notice).

After the comment period closes,

APHIS will review the data submitted

by the petitioner, all written comments

received during the comment period,

and any other relevant information.

Based on the available information,

APHIS will furnish a response to the

petitioner, either approving the petition

in whole or in part, or denying the

petition. APHIS will then publish a

notice in the Federal Register

announcing the regulatory status of the

Cornell/Hawaii papaya lines 55–1 and

63–1 and the availability of APHIS’

written decision.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj, 151–167,

and 1622n; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,

and 371.2(c).

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of

April 1996.

Lonnie J. King,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11016 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Forest Service

Little River—Demonstration of

Ecosystem Management Options

(DEMO)—Timber Sale, Umpqua

National Forest, Douglas County, OR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA,

will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) for a proposal to harvest

timber in the Little River DEMO

Planning Area. This proposal will

implement the Demonstration of

Ecosystem Management Options Study

Plan. The EIS will document the

environmental analyses and effects of a

range of alternatives, including a noaction alternative. This proposal is in

accordance with direction set forth in

the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan, as

amended, which provides for timber

management within applicable

standards, guidelines, and management

prescriptions and the 1988 Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Managing Competing and Unwanted

Vegetation. The agency invites written

comments on the scope of this project.

In addition, the agency gives notice of

this analysis so that interested and

affected parties are aware of how they

may participate and contribute to the

final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

and analysis of this proposal must be

received by June 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions concerning the scope of

the analysis to Ned Davis, District

Ranger, North Umpqua Ranger District,

18782 North Umpqua Highway, Glide,

Oregon 97443.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions and comments about this EIS

should be directed to Barbara Fontaine,

Resource Planning Assistant, North

Umpqua Ranger District, 18782 North

Umpqua Highway, Glide, Oregon 97443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed timber sale will partial harvest

an estimated 160 acres producing 5.0

million board feet of timber and will

construct several helicopter landing

sites. Logging systems will be helicopter

based. Silvicultural prescriptions will

follow those prescribed in the DEMO

Study Plan and will consist of several

levels of green tree retention (15

percent, 40 percent, and 75 percent),

with green trees left in aggregates or

dispersed across the landscape.

The Little River DEMO Planning Area

encompasses portions of the Emile

Creek and the Upper Little River area

located in the Little River Watershed,

approximately 30 air-miles East of

Roseburg, Oregon. The Emile area

encompasses 8,718 acres north of Little

River Road and the main-stem Little

River. The Upper Little River area

encompasses 10,408 acres and includes

the main-stem and headwaters of Little

River.

To date, the preliminary issues

identified relate to the effects on the

following: old-growth structure in terms
19906 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

of its value to society; interior forest

habitat; late-seral species; Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive species, and

survey and manage species; water

quality; aquatic habitat; current and

future recreational opportunities;

archaeological sites from landing

construction and road reconstruction;

and introduction and dispersal of

noxious weeds and aggressive nonnative species.

The 1990 Umpqua National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan,

as amended, allocates the Little River

Watershed into an Adaptive

Management Area (AMA). The Forest

Plan’s overall objective for AMA’s is to

learn how to manage on an ecosystem

basis in terms of both technical and

social challenges, and in a manner

consistent with applicable laws. For

Little River specifically, the emphasis is

placed on ‘‘development and testing of

approaches to integration of intensive

timber production with restoration and

maintenance of high quality riparian

habitat ’’.

Public participation has consisted of

open houses, field trips, and scoping

conducted during the environmental

assessment process. Numerous

comments have been received and have

been incorporated and reflect in the

issues described above. Additional

public comments will be received until

June 1, 1996. The information collected

will be used in preparation of the draft

EIS. The scoping process includes the

following:

1. Identification of issues.

2. Identification of key issues.

3. Elimination of insignificant issues,

issues which have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental

process, and issues that could be

successfully mitigated.

4. Exploration of additional

alternatives based on the key issues

identified during the scoping process.

5. Identification of potential

environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives (i.e. direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects and

connected actions).

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review by November, 1996. At

that time, copies of the draft EIS will be

distributed to interested and affected

agencies, organizations, and members of

the public for their review and

comment. EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register.

The comment period on the draft EIS

will be 45 days from the date the EPA

notice appears in the Federal Register.

It is very important that those interested

in the management of the Umpqua

National Forest participate at that time.

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of the draft EIS’s must

structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so

that it is meaningful and alerts the

agency to the reviewers 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 EIS

stage but that are not raised until after

completion of the final EIS 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

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 EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft EIS. Comments

may also address the adequacy of the

draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives

formulated and discussed in the

statement.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by February, 1997. In the

final EIS, the Forest Service is required

to respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS,

as well as applicable laws, regulations,

and policies considered in making the

decision regarding this proposal. The

lead agency is the Forest Service. Don

Ostby, Forest Supervisor, Umpqua

National Forest, is the responsible

official. As the responsible official, he

will document the decision and reasons

for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service appeal regulations (36

CFR Part 217).

Dated: April 25, 1996.

Don Ostby,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 96–11029 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Rural Utilities Service

Information Collection Activity;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites

comments on this information

collection for which RUS intends to

request approval from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dawn D. Wolfgang, Program Support

and Regulatory Analysis Group, Rural

Utilities Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 14th & Independence Ave.,

SW., AG Box 1522, Washington, DC

20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 720–

0812. FAX: (202) 720–4120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Request for Approval to Sell

Capital Assets.

OMB Control Number: 0572–0020.

Type of Request: Revision of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection.

Abstract: A borrower’s assets provide

the security for a Government loan. The

selling of assets reduces the security and

increases the risk to the Government.

RUS Form 369 allows the borrower to

seek agency permission to sell some of

its assets. The form collects detailed

information regarding the proposed sale

of a portion of the borrower’s systems.

RUS electric utility borrowers complete

this form to request RUS approval in

order to sell capital assets with a fair

market value is 10 percent of the

borrower’s net utility plant.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 3 hours per

response.

Respondents: Small business or

organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 15.

Copies of this information collection,

and related form and instructions, can

be obtained from Dawn Wolfgang,

Program Support and Regulatory

Analysis Group, at (202) 720–0812.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

this proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including