26832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

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– 

2008–0098. 

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: Dr. 

Edward Jhee, Biotechnology Quality 

Management System Program Manager, 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 91, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– 

6356, edward.m.jhee@aphis.usda.gov. 

To obtain copies of the draft audit 

standard, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 

734–0667, e-mail: 

cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov. The draft 

audit standard is also available on the 

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

biotechnology/news_bqms.shtml. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the 

introduction—meaning the importation, 

interstate movement, and environmental 

release—of genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms that are, or may be, plant 

pests. Such GE organisms and products 

are considered ‘‘regulated articles.’’ 

Applicants that are issued permits or 

received acknowledgment of 

notifications to introduce GE organisms 

are required to comply with all APHIS 

regulations. 

To enhance improvements in 

compliance, APHIS initiated 

development of a voluntary, audit-based 

compliance assistance program known 

as the Biotechnology Quality 

Management System (BQMS). On 

September 20, 2007, APHIS issued a 

press release announcing plans to 

establish a BQMS Pilot Development 

Project. 

APHIS selected five volunteer 

participants for the pilot program after 

soliciting letters of interest through a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on September 2, 2008 (73 FR 51266– 

51267, Docket No. APHIS–2008–0098). 

The main component of the BQMS pilot 

project is the draft audit standard, 

which provides criteria used for the 

objective evaluation of quality 

management systems to determine if a 

system will be certified as an APHIS 

Biotechnology Quality Management 

System during the audit portion of the 

pilot program. The regulatory 

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 for 

performance standards and permit 

conditions are the foundation for the 

draft audit standard. 

The draft audit standard is used by 

pilot participants to develop sound 

management practices to enhance 

compliance with the regulatory 

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 for 

environmental releases, importations, 

and interstate movements of regulated 

articles. Participants have applied the 

draft audit standard to their 

organization’s regulated biotechnology 

program to plan, implement, document, 

and examine the efficacy of quality 

assurance and quality control measures 

related to introductions of regulated 

articles. 

APHIS is soliciting comments for a 

period of 60 days on the draft audit 

standard currently used in the BQMS 

pilot project. Within the draft audit 

standard, Requirement 7 specifies that 

participants address critical control 

points for the introduction of regulated 

articles by developing containment 

procedures for regulated articles; 

developing measures for the 

identification of regulated articles in 

storage, being moved, imported, or 

transferred, and in field locations; 

developing procedures for planning and 

monitoring environmental releases of 

regulated articles; developing methods 

for post-harvest handling activities and 

methods to maintain the identity of 

regulated material; developing 

procedures for the devitalization and 

disposition of regulated articles; as well 

as developing procedures for the 

submission of regulatory compliance 

incidents to the appropriate regulatory 

authorities. APHIS is soliciting 

comments on the draft audit standard as 

a whole, and Requirement 7 in 

particular. 

1. Do the critical control points in 

Requirement 7 of the draft audit 

standard identify all areas and elements 

that organizations should focus on in 

order to maintain compliance with the 

regulatory requirements under 7 CFR 

part 340? 

2. Is the draft audit standard 

consistent with current best practices 

used by the regulated community? 

3. Can the public identify incentives 

USDA might employ to encourage 

participation in the voluntary program 

by commercial industry as well as 

academic institutions? 

4. The BQMS is designed to be 

flexible according to the size of the 

participating organization. Is this 

flexibility apparent in the draft audit 

standard? 

Upon conclusion of the BQMS pilot 

project, APHIS will consider all 

comments received during the comment 

period to revise the draft audit standard 

to improve the efficacy of this project. 

This feedback, as well as comments 

from the participants on the pilot BQMS 

project, will be used to inform the 

development of a BQMS audit standard 

and any future BQMS initiative. The 

BQMS draft audit standard is available 

for public review as indicated under the 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this 

notice. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

May 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13053 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0016] 

Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Availability of 

Petition and Environmental 

Assessment for Determination of 

Nonregulated Status for Corn 

Genetically Engineered To Produce an 

Enzyme That Facilitates Ethanol 

Production 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for a petition submitted 

by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

corn designated as transformation event 

3272 and its associated environmental 

assessment prepared by the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service under 

our regulations found at 7 CFR part 340. 

This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments on the petition, 

environmental assessment, and the 

revised plant pest risk assessment. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 6, 

2009. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 26833 

1To view the notice, petition, draft EA, the plant 

pest risk assessment and the comments we 

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

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS–2007–0016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS– 

2007–0016 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2007–0016, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A03.8, 4700 River 

Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1238. Please state that your comment 

refers to Docket No. APHIS–2007–0016. 

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: Dr. 

Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–0485, e-mail: 

andrea.f.huberty@aphis.usda.gov. To 

obtain copies of the petition, the draft 

environmental assessment, or the plant 

pest risk assessment, contact Ms. Cindy 

Eck at (301) 734–0667, e-mail: 

cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov. The 

petition, draft environmental 

assessment, and plant pest risk 

assessment are also available on the 

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

brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p.pdf, http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/ 

05_28001p_ea.pdf, and http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/ 

05_28001p_ra.pdf. 

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 may be plant pests. 

Such genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms and products are considered 

‘‘regulated articles.’’ 

On October 7, 2005, APHIS received 

a petition seeking a determination of 

nonregulated status (APHIS Petition No. 

05–280–01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 

of Research Triangle Park, NC 

(Syngenta), for corn (Zea mays L.) 

designated as transformation event 

3272, which has been genetically 

engineered to produce a microbial 

enzyme that facilitates ethanol 

production. The petition stated that 

Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk and, therefore, should 

not be a regulated article under APHIS’ 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

In a notice 1 published in the Federal 

Register on November 19, 2008 (73 FR 

69602–69604, Docket No. APHIS–2007– 

0016), APHIS announced the 

availability of the Syngenta petition and 

a draft environmental assessment (EA) 

for public comment. APHIS solicited 

comments on the petition, whether the 

subject corn is likely to pose a plant pest 

risk, and on the draft EA. APHIS 

received over 13,000 comments on the 

petition, the draft EA, and the plant pest 

risk assessment by the close of the 60- 

day comment period, which ended on 

January 20, 2009. 

There were 40 comments from 

organizations or individuals that 

supported the deregulation of the Event 

3272 corn. Over 13,000 comments 

opposed to the deregulation were 

submitted. The vast majority of the 

approximately 13,000 comments 

opposing the deregulation were from 

letters conveying essentially identical 

points compiled by organizations 

generally opposed to any genetic 

engineering of plants. Several 

individuals and organizations also 

submitted documents, many popular 

press articles or documents published 

by those opposed to genetic engineering 

of plants in general, which they assert 

are relevant to this regulatory decision 

for Event 3272 corn. 

Most of the comments supporting 

nonregulated status for Event 3272 corn 

came from organizations representing 

corn farmers and ethanol production 

interests. These comments include statewide corn growers’ and agribusiness 

associations from at least 12 different 

States where most of the nation’s corn 

is grown. Several national organizations 

also voiced their support for the 

deregulation. The principal reasons 

given by these groups are the benefits 

anticipated for farmers and the ethanol 

production industry, as well as the 

ability to meet biofuel production 

mandates and to promote international 

trading interests. While APHIS does not 

determine nonregulated status for GE 

organisms pursuant to its biotech 

regulations (Part 340) based on 

economic or marketing factors, the 

support from farmers of corn does 

suggest that individuals with a 

substantial interest in the health of the 

national corn crop do not perceive that 

either plant pest risks or economic/ 

marketing risks will arise if Event 3272 

corn is granted nonregulated status. 

Several of the comments provided 

scientific support for the deregulation of 

Event 3272 corn. Many of these 

supportive statements were based on 

scientific studies included in the 

petition (such as evidence of decreased 

water use in ethanol production, 

reduced greenhouse gas emissions, 

other reduced inputs in ethanol 

production). There were several 

comments that also provided additional 

studies that would support deregulation 

of Event 3272 corn on the basis of 

diminished environmental impacts 

compared to current ethanol production 

practices. These studies supported the 

findings of lowered greenhouse gas 

emissions and reduced inputs, and also 

suggest that there will be no impacts on 

wet distilled grains and improved dried 

distilled grains, and that the Event 3272 

corn is equivalent to currently grown 

corn lines in other agronomic and 

nutritional qualities, demonstrated 

through field and feed studies. 

Many of the comments that opposed 

deregulation were based on general 

opposition to the development and use 

of GE plants, without citing or 

addressing any specific environmental 

issues in the EA or the pest risk 

assessment for the petition for Event 

3272 corn. Many of these comments 

simply assert that APHIS should 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement to fully address all the 

potential issues associated with a 

decision to grant nonregulated status to 

Event 3272 corn without specifically 

explaining what they perceive to be the 

inadequacies of the draft EA’s 

environmental analysis. There were 

many general comments expressing 

generic, nonspecific concerns over 

possible gene flow, disruption to 

organic farming practices, and concerns 

of food and environmental safety. 

Another common comment that 

APHIS received regarding the 

determination of nonregulated status for 

Event 3272 corn is the general ‘‘energy’’ 

concern related to the effectiveness and 

value of producing ethanol from corn. 

Many comments suggested that 

26834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

2See http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocumentDetail&d=APHIS–2007– 

0016–0175.1. 

3See http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocumentDetail&d=APHIS–2007– 

0016–0222.1. 

producing ethanol from corn is not an 

efficient method for achieving energy 

needs or meeting any alternative energy 

mandates for the United States. 

However, in determining the 

nonregulated status for a genetically 

engineered plant pursuant to its Part 

340 biotechnology regulations, APHIS 

does not have authority to consider the 

economic, marketing, or commercial 

usefulness of the plant, or issues such 

as the feasibility of meeting energy 

needs through any particular crop and 

its related harvesting and processing 

aspects. 

APHIS did receive some comments 

that raised specific issues of concern if 

Event 3272 corn was granted 

nonregulated status. These issues 

included specific food safety concerns 

such as the potential for Event 3272 

corn to be allergenic, as well as 

concerns surrounding the potential 

economic and manufacturing issues if 

Event 3272 corn were to become present 

in corn wet-milling processes. 

APHIS does believe it is appropriate 

to address in this notice certain 

comments submitted that questioned 

the conclusion that Event 3272 corn is 

not a plant pest, and that there is no 

basis for regulatory control of this GE 

plant under our statutory authorities 

and Part 340 biotechnology regulations. 

These comments argue that the alphaamylase enzyme engineered into Event 

3272 corn may cause damage 

(degradation of corn starch products) to 

manufactured or processed plant 

products if Event 3272 corn is included 

in the manufacturing and processing of 

corn starch products. The comments 

claim that this type of damage comes 

within the definition of a plant pest. 

One of these comments 2 claims that ‘‘a 

plant pest consists of any living stage of 

an article similar to or allied with a 

bacterium or any article similar to or 

allied with a bacterium that can cause 

direct damage to a processed plant 

product. The ‘article’ in this application 

[petition] is the thermo-stable alphaamylase enzyme expressed in Event 

3272, which has the potential for injury 

to plant products if misdirected to corn 

wet milling facilities. 

APHIS’ statutory authority to regulate 

genetically engineered organisms under 

the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 

7701 et seq.) and its Part 340 

biotechnology regulations is limited to 

those GE organisms that are plant pests 

as defined in Section 403, Subsection 14 

of the PPA: 

Plant Pest—The term ‘‘plant pest’’ means 

any living stage of any of the following that 

can directly or indirectly injure, cause 

damage to, or cause disease in any plant or 

plant product: 

(A) A protozoan. 

(B) A nonhuman animal. 

(C) A parasitic plant. 

(D) A bacterium. 

(E) A fungus. 

(F) A virus or viroid. 

(G) An infectious agent or other pathogen. 

(H) Any article similar to or allied with any 

of the articles specified in the preceding 

subparagraphs. 

Thus, in regulating GE organisms 

under 7 CFR part 340, APHIS takes a 

‘‘safeguarding’’ approach and examines 

the plant pest risk for genetically 

engineered plants by looking at all 

regulated genetically engineered plants 

for their potential to be plant pests (See 

plant pest risk assessment, pg. 1). 

However, under its PPA statutory 

authorities APHIS cannot regulate GE 

plants that are outside the PPA’s plant 

pest definition in 7 U.S.C. 7702(14). 

This statutory definition provides 

specifically that only a parasitic plant 

can be a plant pest. 

One of the central purposes of the 

PPA is to prevent the introduction into 

or dissemination of plant pests within 

the United States. The PPA at 7 U.S.C. 

7702(14) provides that a plant pest must 

be a living stage of one of a specific list 

of organisms (‘‘articles’’) that cause 

injury, damage, or disease in plants or 

plant products, or an article similar to 

or allied with such an organism (article). 

An ‘‘article’’ is defined in the PPA (7 

U.S.C. 7702(1) as follows: 

Article—The term ‘article’ means any 

material or tangible object that could harbor 

plant pests or noxious weeds. 

As mentioned above, there were some 

comments that questioned the 

conclusion that Event 3272 corn is not 

a plant pest. These comments argue that 

the alpha-amylase enzyme in Event 

3272 corn is a plant pest because it may 

interfere with corn starch processing 

and thus directly or indirectly damage 

plants or plant products. The developer 

of Event 3272 corn submitted a 

document after the close of the 

document 3 period that argues that 

Event 3272 corn does not meet the PPA 

statutory definition of a plant pest. In 

this document, the commenter provided 

its analysis of APHIS’ regulatory 

authority under the PPA, and among 

other things, suggests that separate 

constituent parts of an organism (in this 

case, an enzyme expressed by Event 

3272 corn) are excluded from the 

definition of plant pest in the PPA 

because the enzyme ‘‘cannot be 

regarded as ‘living’.’’ 

APHIS agrees that enzymes such as 

alpha-amylase are proteins that catalyze 

chemical reactions. Enzymes are not 

‘‘living.’’ Thus, enzymes cannot be plant 

pests because they are not living and 

cannot be a ‘‘living stage’’ of any of the 

organisms (‘‘articles’’) listed in the 

PPA’s definition of a plant pest in 

subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 7 

U.S.C. 7702(14). Likewise, the Event 

3272 corn alpha-amylase enzyme also 

cannot be a living stage of any article 

similar to or allied with any of the 

articles specified in subparagraphs (A) 

through (G), and thus does not fall 

within the statutory definition of a plant 

pest as listed in subparagraph (H) of the 

PPA’s plant pest definition (i.e., ‘‘Any 

article similar to or allied with any of 

the articles specified in the preceding 

subparagraphs’’). APHIS has determined 

that the alpha-amylase enzyme 

engineered into Event 3272 corn is not 

a plant pest because the alpha-amylase 

enzyme in Event 3272 corn is not living 

and thus cannot itself be a living stage 

of any organism listed in the PPA’s 

plant pest definition. 

Moreover, Event 3272 corn itself is 

not a plant pest since it is clearly not a 

living stage of any of the organisms 

(articles) listed in subparagraphs (A) 

through (G) of 7 U.S.C. 7702(14). Nor is 

Event 3272 corn itself the living stage of 

any article (organism) similar to or 

allied with any of the articles specified 

in subparagraphs (A) through (G) as 

required by subparagraph (H) of 7 U.S.C. 

7702(14). Thus, APHIS has likewise 

determined that Event 3272 corn itself 

is not a plant pest as defined by the 

PPA. Nevertheless, APHIS evaluated the 

ability of Event 3272 corn to harbor 

plant pests in the Plant Pest Risk 

Assessment and determined that Event 

3272 corn does not harbor any living 

stage of any of the organisms (articles) 

that are defined as potential plant pests 

in subparagraphs (A) through (G). First, 

APHIS described the genetic material 

that was inserted into Event 3272 corn, 

which included sequences from plant 

pests, and included an assessment 

analyzing the plant disease risk posed 

by the genetic sequences. Second, 

APHIS also analyzed the risk that Event 

3272 corn would disseminate plant 

pests (i.e. act as an ‘article’). APHIS 

concluded that the inserted genetic 

material in Event 3272 corn does not 

cause plant disease and Event 3272 corn 

does not increase susceptibility to plant 

disease or insect pests, and therefore 

does not harbor plant pests. (The 

comments received on the docket 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 26835 

during the initial comment period did 

not dispute or comment on these 

particular issues related to APHIS’ plant 

pest risk assessment.) 

For the reasons explained above, 

APHIS has determined that neither 

Event 3272 corn itself, nor the alphaamylase enzyme in Event 3272 corn, is 

a plant pest. To make clear APHIS’ 

above determination that neither Event 

3272 corn, nor the alpha-amylase 

enzyme in Event 3272 corn, is a ‘‘living 

stage’’ of any of the organisms (articles) 

listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) 

of the PPA’s plant pest definition, 

APHIS has revised the plant pest risk 

assessment for Event 3272 corn to 

include the PPA’s definition of a plant 

pest. The revised assessment also 

concludes that neither Event 3272 corn 

nor the alpha-amylase enzyme in Event 

3272 corn is a plant pest because neither 

Event 3272 corn nor the alpha-amylase 

enzyme meets the PPA’s definition of a 

plant pest. These revisions to the plant 

pest risk assessment are for clarity and 

further explanation, but do not change 

the overall conclusions made in the 

draft plant pest risk assessment that 

Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk. 

APHIS welcomes additional comment 

on the issues raised during this process. 

APHIS is also requesting comment on 

the revised plant pest risk assessment, 

and APHIS’ conclusion, as explained 

above, that Event 3272 corn and the 

alpha-amylase enzyme in Event 3272 

corn are not plant pests. APHIS will 

carefully evaluate all additional 

comments received during this process, 

and any other relevant information. All 

comments received regarding the 

petition, draft EA, and plant pest risk 

assessment will be available for public 

review on the Regulations.gov Web site 

(see footnote 1 for a link). After 

reviewing and evaluating the comments 

on the petition, draft EA, plant pest risk 

assessment, and other relevant 

information, APHIS will make its 

determination, either approving or 

denying the petition. APHIS will then 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the regulatory status of 

Event 3272 corn and the availability of 

APHIS’ written regulatory and 

environmental decision. 

Accordingly, we are reopening the 

comment period on Docket No. APHIS– 

2007–0016 for an additional 30 days. 

This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. We will also consider 

all comments received between January 

21, 2009 (the day after the close of the 

original comment period), and the date 

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 29th day of 

May 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13055 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

PowerSouth Energy Cooperative; 

Notice of Finding of No Significant 

Impact 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of finding of no 

significant impact. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an 

agency delivering the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Rural Development Utilities Programs, 

has made a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) with respect to a 

request from PowerSouth Electric 

Cooperative (PowerSouth) for assistance 

to finance the construction and 

operation of a new 360 megawatt peakload natural gas-fired generation facility 

at PowerSouth’s existing McIntosh 

Power Plant in Washington County, 

Alabama. 

ADDRESSES: The FONSI is available for 

public review at USDA Rural Utilities 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250– 

1571; and at PowerSouth’s headquarters 

office located at 2027 East Three Notch 

Street, Andalusia, Alabama 36420. To 

obtain copies of the FONSI or for further 

information, contact Stephanie Strength, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, 

USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, 

Washington, DC 20250–1571; 

Telephone: (202) 720–0468 or e-mail: 

stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov; or 

PowerSouth’s headquarters office 

located at 2027 East Three Notch Street, 

Andalusia, Alabama 36420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

PowerSouth is proposing to construct a 

new 360 megawatt peak-load natural 

gas-fired generation facility at 

PowerSouth’s existing McIntosh Power 

Plant with an in-service date of late 

2010. The proposed project would 

consist of two 180 megawatt combustion 

turbine units operated by natural gas. 

Burns and McDonnell Engineering 

Company, Inc., an environmental 

consulting firm, has prepared an 

Environmental Analysis (EA) for RUS. 

Rural Utilities Service has conducted an 

independent evaluation of the EA and 

believes that it accurately assesses the 

impacts of the proposal and has 

determined that no significant impacts 

would result from the construction and 

operation of the proposal. 

Any final action by RUS related to the 

proposed project will be subject to, and 

contingent upon, compliance with all 

relevant Federal environmental laws 

and regulations and completion of 

environmental review procedures as 

prescribed by the 7 CFR part 1794, 

Environmental Policies and Procedures. 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

James R. Newby, 

Acting Administrator, Electric Program, Rural 

Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13114 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lewis & Clark County Resource 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Lewis & Clark County 

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) 

will meet on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 

from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m., in Helena, 

Montana. The purpose of the meeting is 

to conduct welcomes and introductions, 

review RAC charter, discuss the 

guidelines for Title II and Title III 

funding and proposals, discuss 

operating protocols, brief RAC members 

on available funding, capture and record 

preliminary project ideas, discuss 

outreach process for project proposals, 

set a next meeting date and receive 

public comment on the meeting subjects 

and proceedings. 

DATES: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, from 

6 p.m. until 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the USDA-Helena Ranger District office 

located at 2001 Poplar, Helena, Montana 

59601 (MT 59601). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Bushnell, Committee 

Coordinator, Helena National Forest, 

2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, Montana 

59602, 406–495–3747; e-mail: 

kbushnell@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 

items to be covered include: (1) 

Welcome and Committee introductions; 

(2) Review and revise, if necessary, 

established RAC charter; (3) discussion 

of requirements related to Title II and