ArborGen, LLC; Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Controlled Release of a Genetically Engineered Eucalyptus, 33389-33390 [2012-13760]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of
May 2012.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
to test the efficacy of genes designed to
alter flowering. After assessing the
application for a permit for the field
release, reviewing pertinent scientific
information, and considering comments
from the public, we have concluded that
the field release is unlikely to pose a
plant pest risk or to have a significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment. Based on the finding of no
significant impact, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that an environmental
impact statement need not be prepared
for this field release.
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may read the
documents referenced in this notice and
the comments we received on the
Regulations.gov Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2011–0130.
The documents are also available on the
Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
brs/biotech_ea_permits.html. You may
also view the documents and comments
we received 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) 799–7039 before
coming.
[FR Doc. 2012–13758 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, through use, as
appropriate, of automated, electronic,
mechanical, and other collection
technologies; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Estimate of burden: The public
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average
0.476953 hours per response.
Respondents: Importers of certain
plants and plant products.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 20,352.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 21.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 427,392.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 203,846 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours
may not equal the product of the annual
number of responses multiplied by the
reporting burden per response.)
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Mr.
David S. Reinhold, Assistant Director,
Environmental Risk Analysis Programs,
Biotechnology Regulatory Services,
APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD
20737–1236; (301) 851–3885. To obtain
copies of the environmental assessment,
finding of no significant impact, and
responses to comments, contact Ms.
Cynthia Eck at (301) 851–3892; email:
cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0130]
ArborGen, LLC; Availability of an
Environmental Assessment for
Controlled Release of a Genetically
Engineered Eucalyptus Hybrid
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are advising the public
that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has prepared an
environmental assessment for a
proposed controlled field release of a
genetically engineered clone of a
Eucalyptus hybrid. The purpose of the
field release is to assess the
effectiveness of gene constructs
intended to confer cold tolerance, to test
the efficacy of genes introduced to alter
lignin biosynthesis, to test the efficacy
of genes designed to alter growth, and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.’’ A permit must be obtained or
a notification acknowledged before a
regulated article may be introduced. The
regulations set forth the permit
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33389
application requirements and the
notification procedures for the
importation, interstate movement, or
release in the environment of a
regulated article.
On February 21, 2011, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
received a permit application (APHIS
No. 11–052–101rm) from ArborGen,
LLC, in Summerville, SC, for a
controlled field release of genetically
engineered Eucalyptus hybrids in six
locations encompassing a total of 14.7
acres in the States of Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina.
Permit application 11–052–101rm
describes Eucalyptus trees derived from
a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X
Eucalyptus urophylla. The purpose of
the field tests is to assess the
effectiveness of gene constructs
intended to confer cold tolerance; to test
the efficacy of genes introduced to alter
lignin biosynthesis; to test the efficacy
of genes designed to alter growth; and
to test the efficacy of genes designed to
alter flowering. In addition, the trees
have been engineered with a selectable
marker that confers resistance to the
antibiotic kanamycin. These DNA
sequences were introduced into
Eucalyptus trees using disarmed
Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
The subject Eucalyptus trees are
considered regulated articles under 7
CFR part 340 because they were created
using donor sequences from plant pests.
To provide the public with
documentation of APHIS’ review and
analysis of any potential environmental
impacts and plant pest risks associated
with the proposed release under permit
of these genetically engineered
Eucalyptus trees, APHIS prepared an
environmental assessment (EA). APHIS
announced the availability of the EA for
public comment in a notice published
in the Federal Register on February 10,
2012 (77 FR 7123–7124, Docket No.
APHIS–2011–0130). Comments on the
EA were required to be received on or
before March 12, 2012. We received 246
comments by the close of the comment
period. All expressed concerns about
the permit or opposed granting the
permit. APHIS reviewed all comments
to identify new issues, alternatives, or
information.
Pursuant to the regulations
promulgated under the Plant Protection
Act, APHIS has determined that this
field release is unlikely to pose a risk of
introducing or disseminating a plant
pest. Additionally, based upon analysis
described in the EA, APHIS has
determined that the action proposed in
Alternative B of the EA—issue the
permit with supplemental permit
conditions—is unlikely to have a
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
33390
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. The EA and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
are available as indicated in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Responses to the comments received on
the EA are provided as an attachment to
the FONSI.
The EA and FONSI were 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).
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 31st day of
May 2012.
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–13760 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest; Montana; Supplemental EIS for
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan To Comply With
District of Montana Court Order
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest will prepare a
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) to the 2009
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan)
environmental analysis in response to
an April 2, 2012 Order, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Montana. The Court directed the Forest
Service to apply the minimization
criteria mandated by Executive Order
(EO) 11644 ‘‘at the route-specific level
where specific snowmobile routes are
designated.’’ The supplement will
evaluate the effects of specific
snowmobile routes delineated on maps
in the 2009 Forest Plan in order to make
an informed decision in accordance
with EO 11644.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there
is no formal scoping period for this
proposed action. The Draft SEIS is
expected June, 2012 and the Final SEIS
is expected September, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The line officer responsible
for the decision is Northern Region
Regional Forester Faye Krueger.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Noelle Meier, Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest, 420 Barrett Street,
Dillon, MT 59725, (406) 683–3900.
Individuals who use telecommunication
devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8
a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2009
Forest Plan provides management
direction for activities on the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
for the next 10 to 15 years, including
direction on eight revision topics
(vegetation, wildlife, aquatic resources,
recreation and travel management, fire
management, livestock grazing, timber
and recommended wilderness). In 2010,
Wildlands CPR, Inc., Friends of the
Bitterroot Inc., and Montanans for Quiet
Recreation filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana
(Case 9:10–cv–00104–DWM) alleging
inadequate analysis of the impacts of
winter motorized travel when
developing the Forest Plan and failure
to analyze criteria intended to minimize
off-road vehicle impacts. In an April 2,
2012 Order, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana found the Forest
Service had adequately applied the
minimization criteria of EO 11644 for
areas generally open to snowmobile use.
However, the court found ‘‘to the extent
that specific routes have been
designated for snowmobile use’’, the
Forest Service failed to show it
adequately applied the minimization
criteria at the route-specific level. The
court ordered as follows: ‘‘that this case
is remanded to the Forest Service for the
limited purpose of applying the
minimization criteria mandated by EO
11644 at the route specific level where
specific snowmobile routes are
designated. The Forest Service shall
perform this analysis and updated the
Revised Forest Plan by September 30,
2012. A failure to do so will result in the
suspension of the winter travel
management portion of the Revised
Forest Plan as of October 1, 2012.’’
The SEIS will provide additional
environmental analysis of three routes
delineated in the Forest Plan as
exceptions to winter, non-motorized
areas. These routes are: (1) Snowmobile
use in the vicinity of Thunderbolt Creek
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
and Cottonwood Lake (Jefferson County,
Montana) as delineated on page 94 of
the Forest Plan, (2) snowmobile use
through the non-motorized area on the
Road #056 corridor in the vicinity of
Antelope Basin (Beaverhead County,
Montana) as delineated on page 128 of
the Forest Plan, and (3) snowmobile use
on the route to Antone Cabin (open to
motorized vehicles yearlong) in the
southwest portion of the Snowcrest
Mountains (Beaverhead County,
Montana) as delineated on page 152 of
the Forest Plan. The analysis will
evaluate the potential effects from these
routes on soil, watershed, vegetation,
wildlife, and recreation users. This
analysis will be used to determine if
snowmobile use on these routes
complies with EO 11644 or whether a
change is warranted.
A Draft SEIS is expected to be
available for public review and
comment in late June 2012; and a Final
SEIS in September 2012. The comment
period for the Draft SEIS will be 45 days
from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency 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 draft environmental impact
statements 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 environmental impact
statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final
environmental impact statement may be
waived or dismissed by the courts. City
of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,
1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin
Heritages, Inc. 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 45day comment period so that substantive
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
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
Dated: May 31, 2012.
Victoria C. Christiansen,
Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 2012–13669 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33389-33390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13760]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0130]
ArborGen, LLC; Availability of an Environmental Assessment for
Controlled Release of a Genetically Engineered Eucalyptus Hybrid
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment for a
proposed controlled field release of a genetically engineered clone of
a Eucalyptus hybrid. The purpose of the field release is to assess the
effectiveness of gene constructs intended to confer cold tolerance, to
test the efficacy of genes introduced to alter lignin biosynthesis, to
test the efficacy of genes designed to alter growth, and to test the
efficacy of genes designed to alter flowering. After assessing the
application for a permit for the field release, reviewing pertinent
scientific information, and considering comments from the public, we
have concluded that the field release is unlikely to pose a plant pest
risk or to have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this field
release.
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the
comments we received on the Regulations.gov Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0130. The documents are
also available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/biotech_ea_permits.html. You may also view the documents and comments
we received 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) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David S. Reinhold, Assistant
Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology
Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301) 851-3885. To obtain copies of the environmental assessment,
finding of no significant impact, and responses to comments, contact
Ms. Cynthia Eck at (301) 851-3892; email: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340,
``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through
Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to
Believe Are Plant Pests,'' regulate, among other things, the
introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the
environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through
genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and
products are considered ``regulated articles.'' A permit must be
obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may
be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application
requirements and the notification procedures for the importation,
interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated
article.
On February 21, 2011, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 11-052-101rm)
from ArborGen, LLC, in Summerville, SC, for a controlled field release
of genetically engineered Eucalyptus hybrids in six locations
encompassing a total of 14.7 acres in the States of Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina.
Permit application 11-052-101rm describes Eucalyptus trees derived
from a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla. The purpose
of the field tests is to assess the effectiveness of gene constructs
intended to confer cold tolerance; to test the efficacy of genes
introduced to alter lignin biosynthesis; to test the efficacy of genes
designed to alter growth; and to test the efficacy of genes designed to
alter flowering. In addition, the trees have been engineered with a
selectable marker that confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin.
These DNA sequences were introduced into Eucalyptus trees using
disarmed Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
The subject Eucalyptus trees are considered regulated articles
under 7 CFR part 340 because they were created using donor sequences
from plant pests.
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and
analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risks
associated with the proposed release under permit of these genetically
engineered Eucalyptus trees, APHIS prepared an environmental assessment
(EA). APHIS announced the availability of the EA for public comment in
a notice published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2012 (77 FR
7123-7124, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0130). Comments on the EA were
required to be received on or before March 12, 2012. We received 246
comments by the close of the comment period. All expressed concerns
about the permit or opposed granting the permit. APHIS reviewed all
comments to identify new issues, alternatives, or information.
Pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the Plant Protection
Act, APHIS has determined that this field release is unlikely to pose a
risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest. Additionally, based
upon analysis described in the EA, APHIS has determined that the action
proposed in Alternative B of the EA--issue the permit with supplemental
permit conditions--is unlikely to have a
[[Page 33390]]
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The EA and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI) are available as indicated in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Responses to the comments
received on the EA are provided as an attachment to the FONSI.
The EA and FONSI were 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).
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 31st day of May 2012.
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-13760 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P