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

24755

Vol. 61, No. 96

Thursday, May 16, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 96–028–1]

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service’s intention to

request an extension of a currently

approved information collection in

support of regulations under the Horse

Protection Act.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by July 15, 1996, to be assured

of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding

the accuracy of burden estimate, ways to

minimize the burden (such as the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology),

or any other aspect of this collection of

information to: Docket No. 96–028–1,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238. Please send an original and three

copies, and state that your comments

refer to Docket 96–028–1. Comments

received 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 comments and notices are

requested to call ahead on (202) 690–

2817 to facilitate entry into the

comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For

information on the Horse Protection Act

and regulations, contact Dr. John V.

Zisk, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Regulatory Enforcement and Animal

Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234, (301) 734–

7833; or e-mail: JZisk@aphis.usda.gov.

For copies of the proposed collection of

information, contact Ms. Cheryl Jenkins,

APHIS’ Information Collection

Coordinator, at (301) 734–5360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: The Horse Protection

Regulations.

OMB Number: 0579–0056.

Expiration Date of Approval: October

31, 1996.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved information

collection.

Abstract: The Horse Protection Act

(the Act) and regulations have been

promulgated to eliminate the inhumane

practice of soring horses. Horses which

are shown, offered for sale, auction,

exhibition, or transported cannot be

sored for these purposes. Enforcement

of the Act and regulations as written

require the inspection of horses by

industry representatives (referred to as

Designated Qualified Person’s) as well

as agency veterinarians. Documentation

of specific enforcement information

concerning the prevalence of soring

practices is required under the

regulations.

The Horse Protection Act and

regulations in title 9, part 11, are

applicable to all breeds of horses.

However, enforcement emphasis has

been directed to specific gaited breeds

due to the prevalence of soring in this

branch of the equine industry. Sections

11.7 and 11.21 specify minimum

qualification requirements for industry

inspectors and their responsibilities.

Reporting and recording requirements

are necessary for the enforcement of the

Horse Protection Act and regulations by

certified horse industry organizations

and by the management of a show or

sale in order to assure the humane

treatment of these animals.

The above reporting and

recordkeeping requirements do not

mandate the use of any official

government form.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit

comments from the public (as well as

affected agencies) concerning our

information collection. We need this

outside input to help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the proposed

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(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: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average .177 hours per

response.

Respondents: Horse industry

organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

650.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 11.07.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 7,195 hours.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for Office of Management and Budget

approval of the information collection.

Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of

May 1996.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12334 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

[Docket No. 95–090–2]

Monsanto Company; Availability of

Determination of Nonregulated Status

for Potato Lines Genetically

Engineered for Insect Resistance

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of

our determination that certain potato

lines developed by the Monsanto

Company that have been genetically

engineered for resistance to the

Colorado potato beetle are no longer

considered regulated articles under our

regulations governing the introduction
24756 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

of certain genetically engineered

organisms. Our determination is based

on our evaluation of data submitted by

the Monsanto Company in its petition

for a determination of nonregulated

status, an analysis of other scientific

data, and our review of comments

received from the public in response to

a previous notice announcing our

receipt of the Monsanto Company’s

petition. This notice also announces the

availability of our written determination

document and its associated

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The determination, an

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact, the petition,

and all written comments received

regarding 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

James Lackey, Biotechnology Permits,

BBEP, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit

147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1237; (301)

734–7612. To obtain a copy of the

determination or the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact, contact Ms. Kay Peterson at

(301) 734–7612; e-mail:

mkpeterson@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 4, 1995, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

received a petition (APHIS Petition No.

95–338–01p) from the Monsanto

Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO,

seeking a determination that two

Superior potato lines (SPBT02–5 and

SPBT02–7) that have been genetically

engineered for resistance to the

Colorado potato beetle (CPB) do not

present a plant pest risk and, therefore,

are not regulated articles under APHIS’

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. On

December 15, 1995, APHIS received

Monsanto’s amendment to APHIS

Petition No. 95–338–01p to include five

additional genetically engineered, CPBresistant Atlantic potato lines (ATBT04–

6, ATBT04–27, ATBT04–30, ATBT04–

31, and ATBT04–36).

On January 22, 1996, APHIS

published a notice in the Federal

Register (61 FR 1557–1558, Docket No.

95–090–1) announcing that the

Monsanto 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 potato lines

and food products derived from them.

In the notice, APHIS solicited written

comments from the public as to whether

these potato lines posed a plant pest

risk. The comments were to have been

received by APHIS on or before March

22, 1996. During the designated 60-day

comment period, APHIS received three

comments on the subject petition, all of

which were from potato growers, and all

of which were favorable to the petition.

Analysis

Monsanto’s two Superior potato lines

and five Atlantic potato lines have been

genetically engineered to contain the

cryIIIA gene from the common soil

bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.

tenebrionis (Btt), which encodes a deltaendotoxin insect control protein that is

effective against CPB. The subject potato

lines also contain the nptII gene from

the prokaryotic transposon Tn5, which

encodes the enzyme neomycin

phosphotransferase II and is used as a

selectable marker for transformation.

Expression of the added genes is

controlled in part by 35S promoters

from the plant pathogen cauliflower

mosaic virus and the 3′ region of the

nopaline synthase gene from the plant

pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

The genes used to develop the subject

potato lines were stably transferred into

the genome of potato plants through the

use of the A. tumefaciens transformation

system. The parental Superior and

Atlantic potato varieties are male fertile,

as are the subject potato lines.

The subject Superior and Atlantic

potato lines have been considered

regulated articles under APHIS’

regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because

they contain regulatory gene sequences

derived from plant pathogens. However,

evaluation of field data reports from

field tests of the subject potato lines

conducted under APHIS permits or

notifications since 1992 indicates that

there were no deleterious effects on

plants, nontarget organisms, or the

environment as a result of the release of

these potato lines into the environment.

Determination

Based on its analysis of the data

submitted by Monsanto and a review of

other scientific data, comments

received, and field tests of the subject

potato lines, APHIS has determined that

these potato lines: (1) Exhibit no plant

pathogenic properties; (2) are no more

likely to become weeds than potatoes

developed by traditional breeding

techniques; (3) are unlikely to increase

the weediness potential for any other

cultivated or wild species with which

they 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

Superior and Atlantic potato lines and

any progeny derived from hybrid

crosses with other nontransformed

potato varieties will be as safe to grow

as potatoes in traditional breeding

programs that are not subject to

regulation under 7 CFR part 340.

The effect of this determination is that

Monsanto’s Superior potato lines

SPBT02–5 and SPBT02–7 and Atlantic

potato lines ATBT04–6, ATBT04–27,

ATBT04–30, ATBT04–31, and ATBT04–

36 are no longer considered regulated

articles 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 potato lines or their progeny.

However, importation of the subject

potato lines 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) (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 Monsanto’s Superior

potato lines SPBT02–5 and SPBT02–7

and Atlantic potato lines ATBT04–6,

ATBT04–27, ATBT04–30, ATBT04–31,

and ATBT04–36, and lines developed

from them 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24757

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of

May 1996.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12332 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

[Docket No. 96–023–1]

General Conference Committee of the

National Poultry Improvement Plan

(NPIP) and the NPIP Biennial

Conference; Meeting

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a

meeting of the General Conference

Committee of the National Poultry

Improvement Plan (NPIP) and of the

NPIP Biennial Conference.

PLACE, DATES, AND TIME OF MEETING: The

meeting and conference will be held at

the Nashville Airport Marriott, 600

Marriott Drive, Nashville, Tennessee;

(615) 889–9300. The General Conference

Committee will meet on June 30, from

8 a.m to 5 p.m. The Biennial Conference

will meet on July 1, from 8 a.m. to 5

p.m. and on July 2, from 8 a.m. to noon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Andrew Rhorer, Senior Coordinator,

National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS,

APHIS, 1500 Klondike Road, Suite A

102, Conyers, GA, 30207, (770) 922–

3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

General Conference Committee (the

Committee) of the National Poultry

Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing

cooperating State agencies and poultry

industry members, serves an essential

function by acting as liaison between

the poultry industry and the Department

in matters pertaining to poultry health.

In addition, this Committee assists the

Department in planning, organizing, and

conducting the NPIP Conference.

Tentative topics for discussion at the

upcoming meeting include:

1. Creation of a U.S. Salmonella

Control classification for primary

breeding chickens.

2. Creation of a U.S. Mycoplasma

Synoviae Clean classification for

waterfowl, exhibition poultry and game

birds.

3. Creation of a U.S. Salmonella

Enteritidis Clean classification for

waterfowl, exhibition poultry and game

birds.

4. Creation of a U.S. Mycoplasma

Gallisepticum Monitored program for

multiplier meat-type chicken breeding

flocks.

5. Creation of a new subpart F for the

Ostrich within the NPIP.

6. Creation of a U.S. Salmonella

Enteritidis Monitored, Started Poultry,

program for the commercial egg-type

pullet industry.

The meetings will be open to the

public. The sessions held on July 1 and

2, 1996, will include the delegates to the

Biennial NPIP Conference, representing

State officials and poultry industry

personnel from the 48 cooperating

States. However, due to time

constraints, the public will not be

allowed to participate in the

Committee’s discussions. Written

statements on meeting topics may be

filed with the Committee before or after

the meeting by sending them to the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Written

statements may also be filed at the

meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 96–

023–1 when submitting your statements.

This notice of meeting is given

pursuant to section 10 of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act.

Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of

May 1996.

Lonnie J. King,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12333 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region: Colorado,

Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,

Eastern Wyoming; Legal Notice of the

Opportunity to Comment on Certain

Proposed Actions and of Decisions

Subject to Notice and Comment

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; newspapers for legal

notices.

SUMMARY: This is a list of those

newspapers that will be used to publish

notice of all decisions which are subject

to appeal under 36 CFR 217, notice of

the opportunity to comment on certain

proposed actions pursuant to 36 CFR

215.5, and notice of decisions subject to

appeal under the general provisions of

36 CFR part 215. As required at 36 CFR

215.5 and 215.9, such notice shall

constitute legal evidence that the agency

has given timely and constructive notice

of decisions that are subject to public

notice and comment and administrative

appeal. Newspaper publication of

notices of decisions is in addition to

direct notice to those who have

requested notice in writing and to those

known to be interested in or affected by

a specific decision.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Use of these

newspapers for purposes of publishing

the notices required under the

provisions of 36 CFR 215 shall begin

May 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. Halligan, Regional Appeals and

Litigation Coordinator, Rocky Mountain

Region, Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado

80225, Area Code 303–275–5148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Responsible Officials in the Rocky

Mountain Region shall give notice of the

opportunity to comment on certain

proposed actions and of decisions

subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR

Part 215 in the following newspapers

which are listed by Forest Service unit.

Where more than one newspaper is

listed for any unit, the first newspaper

listed is the primary newspaper which

shall be used to constitute legal

evidence that the agency has given

timely and constructive notice of

decisions that are subject to

administrative appeal. The day after the

publication of the public notice in the

primary newspaper shall be the first day

of the appeal filing period.

Decisions by the Regional Forester:

The Denver Post, published daily in

Denver, Denver County, Colorado, for

decisions affecting National Forest

System lands in the States of Colorado,

Nebraska, Kansas, and Eastern Wyoming

and for any decision of Region-wide

impact. In addition, notice of decisions

made by the Regional Foresters will also

be published in the Rocky Mountain

News, Published daily in Denver,

Denver County, Colorado. Notice of

decisions affecting National Forest

System lands in the State of South

Dakota will also be published in the The

Rapid City Journal, published daily in

Rapid City, Pennington County, South

Dakota. For those decisions affecting a

particular unit, the newspaper specific

to that unit will be used.

Arapaho and Roosevelt National

Forests, Colorado

Forest Supervisor Decisions

The Denver Post, published daily in

Denver, Denver County, Colorado.

District Ranger Decisions

Redfeather and Estes-Poudre Districts:

Coloradoan, published daily in Fort

Collins, Larimer County, Colorado.

Pawnee District: Greeley Tribune,

published daily in Greeley, Weld

County, Colorado.

Boulder District: Boulder Daily

Camera, published daily in Boulder,

Boulder County, Colorado.