Department of Agriculture March 18, 2014 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

BASF Plant Sciences, LP; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Soybean Genetically Engineered for Resistance to the Herbicide Imidazolinone
Document Number: 2014-06016
Type: Notice
Date: 2014-03-18
Agency: Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
We are advising the public of our determination that a soybean event developed by BASF Plant Sciences, LP designated as BPS-CV127-9, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to treatment with imidazolinone herbicides, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by BASF Plant Sciences, LP in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.
Dow AgroSciences LLC; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Cotton Genetically Engineered for Resistance to 2,4-D and Glufosinate
Document Number: 2014-06013
Type: Notice
Date: 2014-03-18
Agency: Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton designated as DAS-8191[Oslash]-7, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides 2,4-D and glufosinate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the DAS petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Modification of Aflatoxin Regulations
Document Number: 2014-05834
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2014-03-18
Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture
This proposed rule invites comments on revisions to the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and is administered locally by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee). This action would allow the use of mechanical samplers (auto-samplers) for in-line sampling as a method to obtain samples for aflatoxin analysis. The use of auto-samplers is expected to reduce handler costs by providing a more efficient and cost-effective process.
Methodology and Formulas for Allocation of Loan and Grant Program Funds
Document Number: 2014-05491
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2014-03-18
Agency: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) is proposing to amend its regulations found in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L for allocating program funds to its State Offices. RBS is proposing to amend 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to add three programsthe Rural Energy for America Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and the Intermediary Relending Program. In addition, RBS is proposing revisions to its state allocation formulae for existing programs within 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to account for changes in data reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census' decennial Census. RBS is also proposing to make various other changes including: revising the weight percentages associated with each of the allocation criteria; providing flexibility in determining when not to make state allocations for a program; restricting the use of the transition formula and changing the limitations on how much program funds can change when the transition formula is used; adding provisions for making state allocation for other RBS programs, including new ones; and providing consistency, where necessary, in the allocation of RBS program funds to State Offices.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.