23988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

1To view the notice, petition, EA, and the 

comments we received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0017. 

must take and the information that must 

be included in the petition. 

On November 28, 2006, APHIS 

received a petition seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status 

(APHIS No. 06–332–01p) from Bayer 

CropScience (BCS) of Research Triangle 

Park, NC, for cotton (Gossypium 

hirsutum) designated as transformation 

event GHB614, which has been 

genetically engineered for tolerance to 

the herbicide glyphosate, stating that 

cotton line GHB614 does not present a 

plant pest risk. BCS responded to 

APHIS’ subsequent request for 

additional information and clarification 

on May 11, 2007. 

Analysis 

As described in the petition, cotton 

transformation event GHB614 utilizes 

the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3- 

phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene 

isolated from a previously deregulated 

cotton event (Event GA21; APHIS 

petition number 97–099–01) and 

introduces two amino acid substitutions 

within the EPSPS gene (designated 

2mEPSPS). These modifications 

decrease the binding affinity to 

glyphosate, thus producing tolerance to 

the herbicide. The 2mEPSPS protein 

allows the plant to tolerate applications 

of the broad spectrum herbicide 

glyphosate. Regulatory elements for the 

transgenes were obtained from 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens and were 

introduced into cotton cells using 

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation 

methodology. These regulatory 

sequences are not transcribed and do 

not encode proteins. 

Transformation event GHB614 has 

been considered a regulated article 

under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 

because it contains gene sequences from 

a plant pathogen. GHB614 cotton has 

been field tested in the United States 

since 2002 under notifications 

authorized by the APHIS. In the process 

of reviewing the permits for field trials 

of the subject cotton plants, APHIS 

determined that the vectors and other 

elements were disarmed and that trials, 

which were conducted under conditions 

of reproductive and physical 

confinement or isolation, would not 

present a risk of plant pest introduction 

or dissemination. APHIS has presented 

two alternatives in the draft 

environmental assessment (EA) based 

on its analyses of data submitted by 

BCS, a review of other scientific data, as 

well as data gathered from field tests 

conducted under APHIS oversight. 

In a notice 1 published in the Federal 

Register on June 18, 2008 (73 FR 34968– 

34700, Docket No. APHIS–2007–0017), 

APHIS announced the availability of 

BCS’ petition and a draft EA for public 

comment. APHIS solicited comments on 

whether the subject cotton event would 

present a plant pest risk and on the EA. 

APHIS received nine comments by the 

close of the 60-day comment period, 

which ended on August 18, 2008. There 

were six comments that supported 

deregulation, two from cotton industry 

groups and four from individuals. There 

were three comments that opposed 

deregulation, one comment from a nongovernment organization and two 

comments from individuals. APHIS has 

addressed the issues raised during the 

comment period and has provided 

responses to these comments as an 

attachment to the finding of no 

significant impact. 

Determination 

Based on APHIS’ analysis of field, 

greenhouse and laboratory data 

submitted by BCS, references provided 

in the petition, information described in 

the final EA and in the finding of no 

significant impact, and a careful 

evaluation of the comments provided by 

the public, APHIS has determined that 

GHB614 cotton will not pose a plant 

pest risk for the following reasons: (1) 

Gene introgression from GlyTolTM

cotton (event GHB614) into wild 

relatives in the United States and its 

territories is extremely unlikely and is 

not likely to increase the weediness 

potential of any resulting progeny or 

adversely affect genetic diversity of 

related plants any more than would 

introgression from traditional cotton 

varieties; (2) it exhibits no 

characteristics that would cause it to be 

weedier than the non-genetically 

engineered parent cotton line or any 

other cultivated cotton; (3) it does not 

pose a risk to non-target organisms, 

including organisms beneficial to 

agriculture and Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, and 

species proposed for listing; (4) it does 

not pose a threat to biodiversity as it 

does not exhibit traits that increase its 

weediness, and its unconfined 

cultivation should not lead to increased 

weediness of other cultivated cotton, it 

exhibits no changes in disease 

susceptibility, and it is unlikely to harm 

non-target organisms common to the 

agricultural ecosystem or Federally 

listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species; (5) compared to 

current cotton pest and weed 

management practices, cultivation of 

GlyTolTM cotton should not impact 

standard agricultural practices in cotton 

cultivation including those for organic 

farmers; and (6) disease susceptibility 

and compositional profiles of GlyTolTM

cotton are similar to those of its parent 

line and other cotton cultivars grown in 

the United States; therefore no direct or 

indirect plant pest effects on raw or 

processed plant commodities are 

expected. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the 

determination of nonregulated status for 

GHB614 cotton, an EA was prepared. 

The 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). Based on 

the final EA, the pest risk assessment, 

other pertinent scientific data, and our 

evaluation of the comments provided by 

the public, APHIS has reached a finding 

of no significant impact (FONSI) with 

regard to the determination that BCS’ 

GHB614 cotton line and lines developed 

from it are no longer regulated articles 

under its regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

Copies of the final EA and FONSI are 

available as indicated in the ADDRESSES

and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

sections of this notice. 

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 18th day of 

May 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–11972 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Crescent Ranger District; Deschutes 

National Forest; Oregon; Rim-Paunina 

Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 23989 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, 

will prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for a project called RimPaunina in the Walker Mountain area on 

the southern end of the Crescent Ranger 

District. The project focus is on 

developing and maintaining a diversity 

of wildlife habitats that are appropriate 

for an eastside dry forest environment. 

Potential actions include thinning of 

trees in variable densities and 

prescribed burning. This project also 

provides an additional opportunity for 

participation in a collaborative planning 

process with a diverse group of other 

interested stakeholders. The RimPaunina area is approximately a 45,000- 

acre watershed bordered by private 

industrial forest to the north and the 

Fremont/Winema National Forests to 

the south and east. It is mostly 

comprised of ponderosa and lodgepole 

pine forests with some mixed conifer on 

Walker Rim. It is located in T. 25–26 S, 

R. 8 E., Willamette Meridian. The 

alternatives will include the proposed 

action, no action, and additional 

alternatives that respond to issues 

generated through the scoping process. 

The agency will give notice of the full 

environmental analysis and decision 

making process so interested and 

affected people may participate and 

contribute to the final decision. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 30 

days following the date that this notice 

appears in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Chris Mickle, Team Leader, Crescent 

Ranger District, P.O. Box 208, Crescent, 

Oregon 97733, or submit to commentspacificnorthwest-deschutescrescent@fs.fed.us. Please put ‘‘RimPaunina Scoping’’ in the subject line of 

your e-mail. You will have another 

opportunity for comment when 

alternatives have been developed and 

the Environmental Impact Statement is 

made available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Mickle, Team Leader, Crescent 

Ranger District, P.O. Box 208, Crescent, 

Oregon 97733, phone (541) 433–3200. 

Responsible Official: The responsible 

official will be John Allen, Deschutes 

National Forest Supervisor, 1001 SW 

Emkay Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need. The Forest Plan 

supports proactive management and 

enhancing the vigor of the forest, rather 

than reacting to an event (page 4–36). 

Therefore, the goal of this project is to 

utilize forestry techniques that disturb 

the forest at appropriate levels to create 

and maintain a diversity of habitats 

closer to what historically occurred. 

There is a need to decrease the density 

of trees to provide a variety of stand 

structures and compositions appropriate 

to the Rim-Paunina biophysical 

environment in order to increase 

resilience and provide habitat for a 

variety of species (flora and fauna) 

across the landscape. Also, given that 

the Forest Service should place equal 

consideration to all resources and nonconsumptive values to ensure they are 

weighted equally, then there is a need 

to contribute to the local and regional 

economies by providing timber and 

other wood fiber products now and in 

the future. 

Proposed Action: The proposed action 

is to use silvicultural treatments, such 

as thinning of trees, to provide a 

diversity of habitats for Management 

Indicator Species more in line with 

historical conditions to maintain and 

enhance existing late and old structured 

stand characteristics, and encourage the 

development of such characteristics. 

This would occur on approximately 

14,620 acres. Also, apply prescribed fire 

to fire dependent ecosystems to create 

habitat conditions that allow fire to 

perform its natural ecological function 

and more closely mimic natural 

processes that maintain white-headed 

woodpecker habitat on approximately 

8,553 acres. Some of the prescribed 

burning acres are a subset of the tree 

thinning acres. These activities would 

apply scientifically sound Strategic 

Placement of Treatments (or SPOTS) on 

the landscape and maintain them 

through time to optimize diversity and 

juxtaposition of habitats. Opportunities 

resulting from vegetation management 

activities would offset costs and provide 

products to stimulate the economy. 

Comment: Public comments about 

this proposal are requested in order to 

assist in identifying issues, determine 

how to best manage the resources, and 

to focus the analysis. Comments 

received to this notice, including names 

and addresses of those who comment, 

will be considered part of the public 

record on this proposed action and will 

be available for public inspection. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

those who submit anonymous 

comments will not have standing to 

appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant 

to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 

request the agency to withhold a 

submission from the public record by 

showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. Persons requesting such 

confidentiality should be aware that, 

under FOIA, confidentiality may be 

granted in only very limited 

circumstances, such as to protect trade 

secrets. The Forest Service will inform 

the requester of the agency’s decision 

regarding the request for confidentiality, 

and where the request is denied the 

agency will return the submission and 

notify the requester that the comments 

may be resubmitted with or without 

name and address within a specified 

number of days. A draft EIS will be filed 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and available for public 

review by Winter 2009/2010. The EPA 

will publish a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal 

Register. The final EIS is scheduled to 

be available early spring 2010. The 

comment period on the draft EIS will be 

45 days from the date the EPA 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 a draft EIS 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 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. 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 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 statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft EIS of 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. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
23990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

In the final EIS, the Forest Service is 

required to respond to comments 

received during the comment period for 

the draft EIS. The Forest Service is the 

lead agency and the responsible official 

is the Crescent District Ranger, 

Deschutes National Forest. The 

responsible official will decide where, 

and whether or not to designate a trail 

system, staging areas, and close roads. 

The responsible official will also decide 

how to mitigate impacts of these actions 

and will determine when and how 

monitoring of effects will take place. 

The Ranger District is trying 

additional outreach with this project, 

seeking input from a group of interested 

citizens that are participating in an 

effort to work more closely together. The 

District and participants will try to 

develop a stronger shared 

understanding of what is needed to 

successfully maintain and improve 

wildlife habitat in the planning area. If 

you are interested in joining or have 

more questions about the process, 

please notify the District, or Phil Chang, 

Program Administrator, Central Oregon 

Intergovernmental Council, 2363 SW 

Glacier Place, Redmond, OR 97756; or 

phone (541) 548–9534. 

The Rim-Paunina Project decision and 

rationale will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. This project will be 

subject to Forest Service Appeal 

Regulations (35 CFR Part 215). 

Holly Jewkes, 

Crescent District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. E9–11888 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas County Resource Advisory 

Committee (RAC) 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Plumas County Resource 

Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a 

meeting on June 5, 2009, in Quincy, CA. 

The purpose of the meeting is to review 

applications for Cycle 9 funding and 

select projects to be recommended to 

the Plumas National Forest Supervisor 

for calendar year 2010 funding 

consideration. The funding is available 

under Title II provisions of the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self 

Determination Act of 2000. 

DATES AND ADDRESS: The meeting will 

take place from 9–3 at the Mineral 

Building Plumas/Sierra County 

Fairgrounds, 208 Fairgrounds Road, 

Quincy, CA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (or 

for special needs): Lee Anne Schramel 

Taylor, Forest Coordinator, USDA, 

Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 

11500/159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, 

CA, 95971; (530) 283–7850; or by E-mail 

eataylor@fs.fd.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 

items for the June 5 meeting include: (1) 

Forest Service Update; (2) Committee 

Review of Applications; and, (3) 

Recommendations for Cycle 9 funding 

distribution. The meetings are open to 

the public and individuals may address 

the Committee after being recognized by 

the Chair. Other RAC information may 

be obtained at http://www.fs.fed.us/srs. 

Dated: May 14, 2009. 

Terri Simon Jackson, 

Land Management Planning Staff Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–11887 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0027] 

National Animal Identification System; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice to inform the 

public of six upcoming meetings to 

discuss stakeholder concerns related to 

the implementation of the National 

Animal Identification System. The 

meetings are being organized by the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. 

DATES: The meetings will be held on 

June 9, 11, 16, 18, 25, and 27, 2009, 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. 

ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be 

held in Jefferson City, MO (June 9), 

Rapid City, SD (June 11), Albuquerque, 

NM (June 16), Riverside, CA (June 18), 

Raleigh, NC (June 25), and Jasper, FL 

(June 27). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Adam Grow, Director, Surveillance and 

Identification Programs, National Center 

for Animal Health Programs, VS, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–3752. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of 

its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal 

health, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) initiated 

implementation of a National Animal 

Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. 

The NAIS is a cooperative State-Federalindustry program administered by 

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS). The 

purpose of the NAIS is to provide a 

streamlined information system that 

will help producers and animal health 

officials respond quickly and effectively 

to animal disease events in the United 

States. 

The ultimate long-term goal of the 

NAIS is to provide State and Federal 

officials with the capability to identify 

all animals and premises that have had 

direct contact with a disease of concern 

within 48 hours after discovery. Meeting 

that goal requires a comprehensive 

animal-disease traceability 

infrastructure. An NAIS User Guide and 

a Business Plan, both available on our 

Web site at http:// 

animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/ 

animal_id/index.shtml, provide detailed 

information about our plans for 

implementing the system. 

Despite concerted efforts, APHIS has 

not been able to fully implement the 

NAIS. Many of the same issues that 

producers originally had with the 

system, such as the cost and impact on 

small farmers, privacy and 

confidentiality, and liability, continue 

to cause concern. 

In order to provide individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to discuss 

their concerns regarding the NAIS and 

offer potential solutions, we plan to 

hold several public meetings and to 

solicit comments via our Web site. Our 

goal is to gather feedback and input 

from a wide range of stakeholders to 

assist us in making an informed 

decision regarding both the future of the 

NAIS and the objectives and direction 

for animal identification and 

traceability. We would particularly 

welcome feedback on the following 

topics: 

• Cost. What are your concerns about 

the cost of the NAIS? What steps would 

you suggest APHIS use to address cost? 

• Impact on small farmers. What are 

your concerns about the effect of the 

NAIS on small farmers? What 

approaches would you suggest APHIS 

take to address the potential impact on 

small farmers? 

• Privacy and confidentiality. What 

are your concerns regarding how the 

NAIS will affect your operation’s 

privacy and/or the confidentiality of 

your operation? What steps or tactics 

would you suggest APHIS use to 

address privacy and confidentiality 

issues? 

• Liability. What are your concerns 

about your operation’s liability under 

the NAIS? What would you suggest 

APHIS consider to address liability 

concerns? 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES