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

19904

Vol. 61, No. 87

Friday, May 3, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[DA–96–06]

Request for Comments on a

Compelling Public Interest for the

Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The 1996 Federal Agricultural

Improvement Reform Act provides that

the Secretary of Agriculture may grant

authority to implement the Northeast

Interstate Dairy Compact (the Compact)

based upon a finding of a compelling

public interest in the Compact region.

The Secretary is asking all interested

parties to submit written comments

regarding the Compact and the existence

of a compelling public interest in the

Compact region.

DATES: Comments are due no later than

June 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies)

should be sent to USDA/AMS/Dairy

Division, Order Formulation Branch,

Room 2971, South Building, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

F. Borovies, Branch Chief, USDA/AMS/

Dairy Division, Order Formulation

Branch, Room 2971, South Building,

P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456 (202) 720–6274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

147 of the 1996 Federal Agricultural

Improvement Reform (FAIR) Act (Pub.

L. 104–127) establishes Congressional

consent for the Northeast Interstate

Dairy Compact (the Compact) entered

into by the States of Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Vermont subject to several

conditions. The Act provides that

‘‘Based upon a finding by the Secretary

of a compelling public interest in the

Compact region, the Secretary may grant

the States that have ratified the

Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, as

of the date of enactment of this title, the

authority to implement the Northeast

Interstate Dairy Compact.’’ The

Secretary is requesting that all

interested parties submit written

comments regarding the existence of a

compelling public interest in the

Compact region.

All persons who desire to submit

written data, views or arguments

regarding whether a compelling public

interest exists in the Compact region

should send two copies of their views

to USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, by the 30th day after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. All written submissions made

pursuant to this notice will be made

available for public inspection in the

Dairy Division during regular business

hours.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11169 Filed 5–02–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 96–024–1]

Cornell University and University of

Hawaii; Receipt of Petition for

Determination of Nonregulated Status

for Papaya Lines Genetically

Engineered for Virus Resistance

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are advising the public

that the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service has received a

petition from Cornell University and the

University of Hawaii seeking a

determination of nonregulated status for

papaya lines designated as 55–1 and 63–

1 that have been genetically engineered

for virus resistance. The petition has

been submitted in accordance with our

regulations concerning the introduction

of certain genetically engineered

organisms and products. In accordance

with those regulations, we are soliciting

public comments on whether these

papaya lines present a plant pest risk.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96–024–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 96–024–1. A copy of the

petition and any 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 access

to that room to inspect the petition or

comments are asked to call in advance

of visiting at (202) 690–2817.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Keith Reding, Biotechnology Permits,

BBEP, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 River

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1237; (301) 734–7612. To obtain a copy

of the petition, contact Ms. Kay Peterson

at (301) 734–7612; e-mail:

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

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.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6

describe the form that a petition for

determination of nonregulated status

must take and the information that must

be included in the petition.

On February 20, 1996, APHIS

received a petition (APHIS Petition No.

96–051–01p) from Cornell University,

Geneva, NY, and the University of

Hawaii, Honolulu, HI (Cornell/Hawaii),

requesting a determination of
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