Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate, 29969-29972 [2010-12997]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices
resources agencies to manage agency
volunteer programs. Information is
collected from potential and selected
volunteers of all ages. Those under the
age of 18 years must have written
consent from a parent or guardian.
for OMB approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522.
Dated: May 24, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–12833 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Information Collection; Volunteer
Application for Natural Resources
Agencies
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Forest Service is seeking comments
from all interested individuals and
organizations on the extension with
revision of a currently approved
information collection entitled,
Volunteer Application for Natural
Resources Agencies.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing on or before July 27, 2010 to be
assured of consideration. Comments
received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this
notice should be addressed to Merlene
Mazyck, Youth & Volunteer Programs,
Forest Service, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop
1136, Washington, DC 20250–1136.
Comments also may be submitted via
e-mail to: mmazyck@fs.fed.us.
The public may inspect comments
received at Forest Service, USDA, 1621
N. Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza East,
Room 1010, Arlington, VA during
normal business hours. Visitors are
encouraged to call ahead to 703–605–
4831 to facilitate entry to the building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Merlene Mazyck, Youth & Volunteer
Programs, 202–205–0650. Individuals
who use telecommunication devices for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339,
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Standard time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Volunteer Application for
Natural Resources Agencies.
OMB Number: 0596–0080.
Expiration Date of Approval:
10/31/2010.
Type of Request: Extension with
Revision.
Abstract: The collected information is
needed by participating natural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 May 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Participating Agencies
The volunteer programs of the
following natural resource agencies are
included:
Department of Agriculture: U.S.
Forest Service and Natural Resources
Conservation Service;
Department of the Interior: National
Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, and U.S. Geological
Survey;
Department of Defense: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers;
Department of Commerce: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Forms
OF–301 Volunteer Application:
Individuals interested in volunteering
may access the National Federal
volunteer opportunities Web site
(https://www.volunteer.gov/gov/
index.cfm), individual agency Web
sites, and/or contact agencies to request
a Volunteer Application (OF–301).
Applicants provide name, address,
telephone number, age, preferred work
categories, available dates, preferred
location, description of physical
limitations, and lodging preferences.
Information collected using this form
assists agency volunteer coordinators
and other personnel in matching
volunteers with agency opportunities
appropriate for an applicant’s skills and
physical condition and availability.
Signature of a parent or guardian is
mandatory for applicants under 18 years
of age.
OF–301A Volunteer Agreement: This
form is used by participating resource
agencies to document agreements for
volunteer services between a Federal
agency and individual or group
volunteers, including international
volunteers. Signature of parent or
guardian is mandatory for applicants
under 18 years of age.
Forms unique to participating
agencies: The forms listed below gather
information necessary to reimburse
volunteers for approved, miscellaneous
expenses associated with volunteer
assignments and record service time of
volunteers.
U.S. Forest Service: FS–6500–299,
Volunteers Request for Reimbursement.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Volunteer Time Sheet; SF–1164, Claim
for Miscellaneous Expenses.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29969
U.S. Geological Survey: Form 9–2080,
USGS Individual Volunteer Agreement.
National Park Service: Form 10–67,
Volunteer Claim for Reimbursement.
Estimate of Annual Burden: 15
minutes.
Type of Respondents: Individuals.
Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 400,000.
Estimated Annual Number of
Responses per Respondent: 5.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 500,000 hours.
Comment is invited:
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether
this collection of information is
necessary for the stated purposes and
the proper performance of the functions
of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical or
scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
All comments received in response to
this notice, including names and
addresses when provided, will be a
matter of public record. Comments will
be summarized and included in the
submission request toward Office of
Management and Budget approval.
Dated: May 24, 2010.
William E. Timko,
Acting Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2010–12945 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047]
Environmental Impact Statement;
Determination of Nonregulated Status
of Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered
for Tolerance to the Herbicide
Glyphosate
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement and
proposed scope of study.
SUMMARY: We are advising the public
that the Animal and Plant Health
E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM
28MYN1
29970
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices
Inspection Service plans to prepare an
environmental impact statement in
connection with a court-mandated
evaluation of the potential impacts on
the human environment associated with
the Agency’s determination of
nonregulated status for a Monsanto/
KWS SAAT AG sugar beet line,
designated as event H7–1. This notice
identifies the environmental and
interrelated economic issues raised by
the Court and other potential issues that
we may include in the environmental
impact statement and requests public
comment to further delineate the scope
of the issues and reasonable
alternatives.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before June 28,
2010.
You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS–
2010–0047 to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send one copy of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047,
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–
2010–0047.
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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology
Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1236; (301) 734–0485.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 May 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 a
determination of nonregulated status
must take and the information that must
be included in the petition.
On October 19, 2004, APHIS
published a notice in the Federal
Register (69 FR 61466–61467, Docket
No. 04–075–1) announcing receipt of a
petition from Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG
requesting a determination of
nonregulated status under 7 CFR part
340 for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp.
vulgaris) designated as event H7–1,
which has been genetically engineered
for tolerance to the herbicide
glyphosate. The petition stated that this
article should not be regulated by
APHIS because it does not present a
plant pest risk. APHIS also announced
in that notice the availability of a draft
environmental assessment (EA) for the
proposed determination of nonregulated
status. Following review of public
comments and completion of the EA, we
published another notice in the Federal
Register on March 17, 2005 (70 FR
13007–13008, Docket No. 04–075–2),
advising the public of our
determination, effective March 4, 2005,
that the Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG sugar
beet event H7–1 was no longer
considered a regulated article under
APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District
of California issued a ruling in a lawsuit
filed by two organic seed groups and
two nonprofit organizations challenging
our decision to deregulate sugar beet
event H7–1 (referred to in the lawsuit as
Roundup Ready® sugar beet), pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Administrative
Procedure Act, and the Plant Protection
Act. Under the provisions of NEPA,
agencies must examine the potential
environmental impacts of proposed
Federal actions. The Court ruled that
APHIS’ EA failed to consider certain
environmental and interrelated
economic impacts. As a result, the Court
stated that APHIS is required to prepare
an environmental impact statement
(EIS). Accordingly, APHIS plans to
prepare an EIS. In doing so, APHIS will
utilize as appropriate any
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
environmental analysis provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and other data or analysis prepared by
other agencies. APHIS has requested
that EPA serve as a cooperating agency.
This notice identifies potential issues
and reasonable alternatives that we are
considering addressing, and requests
public comment on the inclusion of
these or related issues and alternatives
in the EIS.
Management practices for organic
sugar beet, conventional sugar beet, and
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are
the management practices and
associated costs of establishing,
growing, harvesting, and marketing
sugar beet, including selling prices and
premiums for the various types of sugar
beet? What crop rotation regimes are
used with sugar beet?
Production levels of organic and
conventional sugar beet, Swiss chard,
and table beet by region, State, and
county. What is the acreage of
cultivated, volunteer, or feral sugar
beet? What is the acreage of Swiss chard
and table beet? Which regions of the
country may be affected as a result of a
determination of nonregulated status for
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are
the potential impacts on adjacent,
nonagricultural lands such as natural
areas, forested lands, or transportation
routes that may result from the use of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Potential impacts of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet cultivation on
livestock production systems. What are
the potential impacts of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet cultivation on
conventional and organic livestock
production systems?
Potential impacts on food and feed.
Does glyphosate affect the
socioeconomic value of food or feed or
its nutritional quality? What are the
impacts, if any, on food or feed
socioeconomic value or its nutritional
quality from the use of glyphosate?
Differences in weediness traits of
conventional sugar beet versus
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are
the differences, if any, in weediness
traits of conventional sugar beet versus
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet under
managed crop production systems, as
well as in unmanaged ecosystems?
Occurrence of common and serious
weeds found in organic sugar beet
systems, in conventional sugar beet
systems, and in glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet systems. What are the
impacts of weeds, herbicide-tolerant
weeds, weed management practices, and
unmet weed management needs for
organic and conventional sugar beet
cultivation? How may the weed impacts
E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM
28MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices
change with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet?
Management practices for controlling
weeds in organic sugar beet systems, in
conventional sugar beet systems, and in
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet systems.
What are the potential changes in crop
rotation practices and weed
management practices for control of
volunteer sugar beet or herbicidetolerant weeds in rotational crops that
may occur with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet? What are the
potential effects on sugar beet stand
termination and renovation practices
that may occur with the use of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Cumulative impact on the
development of glyphosate-resistant
weeds. What glyphosate-resistant weeds
have been identified and what is their
occurrence in crops and in non-crop
ecosystems? How would the addition of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet impact
the occurrence of glyphosate-resistant
weeds in sugar beet, in other crops, and
in the environment? Which are the most
likely weeds, if any, to gain glyphosate
resistance and why would they gain
such resistance with the use of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are
the current and potentially effective
strategies for management of glyphosatetolerant or other herbicide-tolerant
weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet
stands or in subsequent crops? What are
the potential changes that may occur in
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet as to
susceptibility or tolerance to other
herbicides?
Current or prospective herbicidetolerant weed mitigation options. What
are the potential impacts of current or
prospective herbicide-tolerant weed
mitigation options, including those
addressed by the EPA-approved label
for glyphosate herbicides?
Potential for gene flow from
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet to other
Beta species, including gene flow
between seed fields, root crops, and
feral plants. To what extent will
deregulation change hybridization
between cultivated and feral sugar beet,
sugar beet introgression or
establishment outside of cultivated
lands, and sugar beet persistence or
weediness in situations where it is
unwanted, unintended, or unexpected?
What are the potential impacts
associated with feral glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet plants? Will the removal of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet, in
situations where it is unwanted,
unintended, or unexpected, result in
adverse impacts? In such situations,
how will glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet
be controlled or managed differently
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 May 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
from other unwanted, unintended, or
unexpected sugar beet?
Economic and social impacts on
organic and conventional sugar beet,
Swiss chard, and table beet farmers.
What are the economics of growing
organic sugar beet, conventional sugar
beet, or glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet as
well as the economics of growing
organic or conventional Swiss chard
and table beet? What are the potential
impacts of the presence of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet caused by pollen
movement or seed admixtures? What are
the potential impacts of commingling
sugar beet seed with glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet seed? What are the potential
changes in the economics of growing
and marketing organic and conventional
sugar beet that may occur with the
growing of glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beet? What are the potential changes in
production levels of other crops that
may occur with the growing of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? Will the
cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beet result in more or fewer acres of
other crops? What are the potential
changes in growing practices,
management practices, and crop
rotational practices in the production of
sugar beet seed for planting purposes
that may occur with the use of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are
the potential changes in the choice of
seeds available for organic and
conventional sugar beet farmers that
may occur with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet?
Cumulative impact of potential
increased glyphosate usage with the
cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant crops.
What are the past, present, and future
impacts of glyphosate usage on soil
quality, water quality, air quality, weed
populations, crop rotations, soil
microorganisms, diseases, insects, soil
fertility, food or feed quality, crop
acreages, and crop yields as a result of
the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant
crops? Does the level of glyphosate
tolerance within glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet plants have an impact on the
amount of glyphosate applied on the
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet crop on a
routine basis?
Impacts on threatened or endangered
species. What are the potential impacts
of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet
cultivation on listed threatened or
endangered species, or on species
proposed for listing? What are the
potential impacts of glyphosate use on
listed threatened or endangered species
or species proposed for listing,
including glyphosate used on
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What
impacts does the addition of glyphosate
tolerance in sugar beet cultivation have
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29971
on threatened and endangered species
as a result of displacing other
herbicides?
Potential health impacts. What are the
potential health impacts to farmers or
others who would be exposed to
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Can any potential negative
environmental impacts of the action be
mitigated and what is the likelihood
that such mitigation measures will be
successfully implemented and effective?
What is the likely effectiveness of the
stewardship measures, outlined in the
petition, which are designed to reduce
inadvertent gene flow to negligible
levels as well as to monitor and
minimize the potential development of
glyphosate-tolerant weeds? Are there
reasonable alternative stewardship or
monitoring measures that may avoid or
minimize reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts of a deregulation
decision?
Impacts of the mitigation measures on
coexistence with organic and
conventional sugar beet production and
on export markets. What are the
potential impacts of mitigation
measures on coexistence with organic
and conventional sugar beet production
and on export markets? Are there
reasonable alternative measures that
may avoid or minimize reasonably
foreseeable impacts on organic and
conventional sugar beet production and
on export markets that may be
associated with a deregulation decision?
Consideration of reasonable
alternatives. The EIS will consider a
range of reasonable alternatives. These
could include continued regulation of
Roundup Ready® sugar beets,
deregulating Roundup Ready® sugar
beets, deregulating Roundup Ready®
sugar beets in part with geographic
restrictions, or deregulating Roundup
Ready® sugar beets in part with
required separation distances from
sexually compatible crops. Comments
that identify other reasonable
alternatives that should be examined in
the EIS would be especially helpful.
Sugar beet growth, crop management,
and crop utilization may vary
considerably by geographic region, and
therefore, when providing comments on
a topic or issue, please provide relevant
information on the specific locality or
region in question. Additionally, we
invite the participation of any affected
Federal, State, or local agencies or
Tribes.
All comments on this notice will be
carefully considered in developing the
final scope of the EIS. Upon completion
of the draft EIS, a notice announcing its
availability and an invitation to
E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM
28MYN1
29972
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices
comment on it will be published in the
Federal Register.
Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
May 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
Notice of Meeting
May 10, 2010.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage Borough
Resource Advisory Committee
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2010–12714 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am]
ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2010–12997 Filed 5–26–10; 11:15 am]
AGENCY:
Dated: May 13, 2010.
Travis Moseley,
District Ranger.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: The Kenai PeninsulaAnchorage Borough Resource Advisory
Committee will convene for their first
formal meeting in Portage Valley,
Alaska, for the purpose of establishing
the Committee through the development
of bylaws, a chairperson, and a future
meeting schedule, under the provisions
of Title II of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act
of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–343).
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Saturday, June 12, 2010.
The meeting will take place
at the Begich Boggs Visitor’s Center, 800
Portage Lake Loop, Portage, AK 99587.
Send written comments to Kenai
Peninsula-Anchorage Borough Resource
Advisory Committee, c/o USDA Forest
Service, P.O. Box 390, Seward, AK
99664 or electronically to
slatimer@fs.fed.us.
ADDRESSES:
Notice is hereby given that the U.S.
Arctic Research Commission will hold
its 93rd meeting in Washington, DC, on
June 2–3, 2010. The business session,
open to the public, will convene June 3
at 8:30 a.m.
The Agenda items include:
(1) Call to order and approval of the
agenda.
(2) Approval of the minutes from the
92nd meeting.
(3) Commissioners and staff reports.
(4) Discussion and presentations
concerning Arctic research activities.
The focus of the meeting will be
reports and updates on programs and
research projects affecting the Arctic.
If you plan to attend this meeting,
please notify us via the contact
information below. Any person
planning to attend who requires special
accessibility features and/or auxiliary
aids, such as sign language interpreters,
must inform the Commission of those
needs in advance of the meeting.
Contact person for further
information: John Farrell, Executive
Director, U.S. Arctic Research
Commission, 703–525–0111 or TDD
703–306–0090.
John Farrell,
Executive Director.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Travis Moseley, Designated Federal
Official, c/o USDA Forest Service, P.O.
Box 390, Seward, AK 99664, telephone
(907) 288–7730.
[FR Doc. 2010–12712 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am]
The
agenda will include background on the
provisions of Title II of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–
343) and an overview of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In
addition, the agenda will include time
for the Committee to develop and adopt
bylaws, a chairperson, and a future
meeting schedule to discuss project
proposals.
All Resource Advisory Committee
Meetings are open to the public. The
public input and comment forum will
take place in the afternoon of June 12,
2010. Interested citizens are encouraged
to attend.
International Trade Administration
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 May 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A–570–956]
Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy
Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure
Pipe from the People’s Republic of
China: Amended Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that it
made certain significant ministerial
errors in the preliminary determination
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of sales at less than fair value in the
antidumping duty investigation of
certain seamless carbon and alloy steel
standard, line, and pressure pipe
(‘‘seamless pipe’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). As a result,
we are amending our preliminary
determination to correct certain
significant ministerial errors with
respect to the antidumping duty
margins for a mandatory respondent and
for exporters eligible for a separate rate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Magd Zalok, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
28, 2010, the Department published its
affirmative preliminary determination
in this proceeding. See Certain Seamless
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line,
and Pressure Pipe From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, in Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination,
75 FR 22372 (April 28, 2010)
(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). On May
3, 2010, Tianjin Pipe (Group)
Corporation and Tianjin Pipe
International Economic and Trading
Corporation (collectively ‘‘TPCO’’)
submitted ministerial error allegations
with respect to the margin calculations
for TPCO in the Preliminary
Determination, alleging certain errors in
conversion, arithmetic, and surrogate
value calculations. No other interested
party submitted ministerial error
allegations. After reviewing TPCO’s
allegations, we have determined that the
Preliminary Determination contains
ministerial errors. We agree that the
ministerial errors are ‘‘significant’’ as
that term is defined in 19 CFR
351.224(g). Therefore, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.224(e), we have made changes
to the Preliminary Determination.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is certain seamless carbon
and alloy steel (other than stainless
steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less
than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm)
in outside diameter, regardless of wall–
thickness, manufacturing process (e.g.,
hot–finished or cold–drawn), end finish
(e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or
coated). Redraw hollows are any
unfinished carbon or alloy steel (other
E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM
28MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29969-29972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12997]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0047]
Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Nonregulated
Status of Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the
Herbicide Glyphosate
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
and proposed scope of study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
[[Page 29970]]
Inspection Service plans to prepare an environmental impact statement
in connection with a court-mandated evaluation of the potential impacts
on the human environment associated with the Agency's determination of
nonregulated status for a Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG sugar beet line,
designated as event H7-1. This notice identifies the environmental and
interrelated economic issues raised by the Court and other potential
issues that we may include in the environmental impact statement and
requests public comment to further delineate the scope of the issues
and reasonable alternatives.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June
28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0047 to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and related materials available
electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send one copy of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0047, 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-2010-0047.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology
Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236; (301) 734-0485.
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
Sec. 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 Sec. 340.6 describe the form that a
petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the
information that must be included in the petition.
On October 19, 2004, APHIS published a notice in the Federal
Register (69 FR 61466-61467, Docket No. 04-075-1) announcing receipt of
a petition from Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG requesting a determination of
nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris
ssp. vulgaris) designated as event H7-1, which has been genetically
engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The petition
stated that this article should not be regulated by APHIS because it
does not present a plant pest risk. APHIS also announced in that notice
the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) for the
proposed determination of nonregulated status. Following review of
public comments and completion of the EA, we published another notice
in the Federal Register on March 17, 2005 (70 FR 13007-13008, Docket
No. 04-075-2), advising the public of our determination, effective
March 4, 2005, that the Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG sugar beet event H7-1 was
no longer considered a regulated article under APHIS regulations in 7
CFR part 340.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a ruling in a lawsuit filed by two
organic seed groups and two nonprofit organizations challenging our
decision to deregulate sugar beet event H7-1 (referred to in the
lawsuit as Roundup Ready[reg] sugar beet), pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Plant Protection Act.
Under the provisions of NEPA, agencies must examine the potential
environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions. The Court ruled that
APHIS' EA failed to consider certain environmental and interrelated
economic impacts. As a result, the Court stated that APHIS is required
to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Accordingly, APHIS
plans to prepare an EIS. In doing so, APHIS will utilize as appropriate
any environmental analysis provided by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and other data or analysis prepared by other agencies.
APHIS has requested that EPA serve as a cooperating agency. This notice
identifies potential issues and reasonable alternatives that we are
considering addressing, and requests public comment on the inclusion of
these or related issues and alternatives in the EIS.
Management practices for organic sugar beet, conventional sugar
beet, and glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are the management
practices and associated costs of establishing, growing, harvesting,
and marketing sugar beet, including selling prices and premiums for the
various types of sugar beet? What crop rotation regimes are used with
sugar beet?
Production levels of organic and conventional sugar beet, Swiss
chard, and table beet by region, State, and county. What is the acreage
of cultivated, volunteer, or feral sugar beet? What is the acreage of
Swiss chard and table beet? Which regions of the country may be
affected as a result of a determination of nonregulated status for
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are the potential impacts on
adjacent, nonagricultural lands such as natural areas, forested lands,
or transportation routes that may result from the use of glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beet?
Potential impacts of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet cultivation on
livestock production systems. What are the potential impacts of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet cultivation on conventional and organic
livestock production systems?
Potential impacts on food and feed. Does glyphosate affect the
socioeconomic value of food or feed or its nutritional quality? What
are the impacts, if any, on food or feed socioeconomic value or its
nutritional quality from the use of glyphosate?
Differences in weediness traits of conventional sugar beet versus
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are the differences, if any, in
weediness traits of conventional sugar beet versus glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet under managed crop production systems, as well as in
unmanaged ecosystems?
Occurrence of common and serious weeds found in organic sugar beet
systems, in conventional sugar beet systems, and in glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet systems. What are the impacts of weeds, herbicide-tolerant
weeds, weed management practices, and unmet weed management needs for
organic and conventional sugar beet cultivation? How may the weed
impacts
[[Page 29971]]
change with the use of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Management practices for controlling weeds in organic sugar beet
systems, in conventional sugar beet systems, and in glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet systems. What are the potential changes in crop rotation
practices and weed management practices for control of volunteer sugar
beet or herbicide-tolerant weeds in rotational crops that may occur
with the use of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are the potential
effects on sugar beet stand termination and renovation practices that
may occur with the use of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Cumulative impact on the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
What glyphosate-resistant weeds have been identified and what is their
occurrence in crops and in non-crop ecosystems? How would the addition
of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet impact the occurrence of glyphosate-
resistant weeds in sugar beet, in other crops, and in the environment?
Which are the most likely weeds, if any, to gain glyphosate resistance
and why would they gain such resistance with the use of glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beet? What are the current and potentially effective
strategies for management of glyphosate-tolerant or other herbicide-
tolerant weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet stands or in
subsequent crops? What are the potential changes that may occur in
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet as to susceptibility or tolerance to
other herbicides?
Current or prospective herbicide-tolerant weed mitigation options.
What are the potential impacts of current or prospective herbicide-
tolerant weed mitigation options, including those addressed by the EPA-
approved label for glyphosate herbicides?
Potential for gene flow from glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet to
other Beta species, including gene flow between seed fields, root
crops, and feral plants. To what extent will deregulation change
hybridization between cultivated and feral sugar beet, sugar beet
introgression or establishment outside of cultivated lands, and sugar
beet persistence or weediness in situations where it is unwanted,
unintended, or unexpected? What are the potential impacts associated
with feral glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet plants? Will the removal of
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet, in situations where it is unwanted,
unintended, or unexpected, result in adverse impacts? In such
situations, how will glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet be controlled or
managed differently from other unwanted, unintended, or unexpected
sugar beet?
Economic and social impacts on organic and conventional sugar beet,
Swiss chard, and table beet farmers. What are the economics of growing
organic sugar beet, conventional sugar beet, or glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet as well as the economics of growing organic or conventional
Swiss chard and table beet? What are the potential impacts of the
presence of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet caused by pollen movement or
seed admixtures? What are the potential impacts of commingling sugar
beet seed with glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet seed? What are the
potential changes in the economics of growing and marketing organic and
conventional sugar beet that may occur with the growing of glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beet? What are the potential changes in production
levels of other crops that may occur with the growing of glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beet? Will the cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beet result in more or fewer acres of other crops? What are the
potential changes in growing practices, management practices, and crop
rotational practices in the production of sugar beet seed for planting
purposes that may occur with the use of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
What are the potential changes in the choice of seeds available for
organic and conventional sugar beet farmers that may occur with the use
of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet?
Cumulative impact of potential increased glyphosate usage with the
cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant crops. What are the past, present,
and future impacts of glyphosate usage on soil quality, water quality,
air quality, weed populations, crop rotations, soil microorganisms,
diseases, insects, soil fertility, food or feed quality, crop acreages,
and crop yields as a result of the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant
crops? Does the level of glyphosate tolerance within glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beet plants have an impact on the amount of glyphosate
applied on the glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet crop on a routine basis?
Impacts on threatened or endangered species. What are the potential
impacts of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet cultivation on listed
threatened or endangered species, or on species proposed for listing?
What are the potential impacts of glyphosate use on listed threatened
or endangered species or species proposed for listing, including
glyphosate used on glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What impacts does
the addition of glyphosate tolerance in sugar beet cultivation have on
threatened and endangered species as a result of displacing other
herbicides?
Potential health impacts. What are the potential health impacts to
farmers or others who would be exposed to glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beet?
Can any potential negative environmental impacts of the action be
mitigated and what is the likelihood that such mitigation measures will
be successfully implemented and effective? What is the likely
effectiveness of the stewardship measures, outlined in the petition,
which are designed to reduce inadvertent gene flow to negligible levels
as well as to monitor and minimize the potential development of
glyphosate-tolerant weeds? Are there reasonable alternative stewardship
or monitoring measures that may avoid or minimize reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts of a deregulation decision?
Impacts of the mitigation measures on coexistence with organic and
conventional sugar beet production and on export markets. What are the
potential impacts of mitigation measures on coexistence with organic
and conventional sugar beet production and on export markets? Are there
reasonable alternative measures that may avoid or minimize reasonably
foreseeable impacts on organic and conventional sugar beet production
and on export markets that may be associated with a deregulation
decision?
Consideration of reasonable alternatives. The EIS will consider a
range of reasonable alternatives. These could include continued
regulation of Roundup Ready[reg] sugar beets, deregulating Roundup
Ready[reg] sugar beets, deregulating Roundup Ready[reg] sugar beets in
part with geographic restrictions, or deregulating Roundup Ready[reg]
sugar beets in part with required separation distances from sexually
compatible crops. Comments that identify other reasonable alternatives
that should be examined in the EIS would be especially helpful.
Sugar beet growth, crop management, and crop utilization may vary
considerably by geographic region, and therefore, when providing
comments on a topic or issue, please provide relevant information on
the specific locality or region in question. Additionally, we invite
the participation of any affected Federal, State, or local agencies or
Tribes.
All comments on this notice will be carefully considered in
developing the final scope of the EIS. Upon completion of the draft
EIS, a notice announcing its availability and an invitation to
[[Page 29972]]
comment on it will be published in the Federal Register.
Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-12997 Filed 5-26-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
