[Federal Register: September 24, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 57257-57260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24se04-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. 03-101-2]
Environmental Impact Statement; Petition for Deregulation of
Genetically Engineered Glyphosate-Tolerant Creeping Bentgrass
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
Inspection Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
relative to its consideration of a petition received from Monsanto
Company and The Scotts Company for a determination of nonregulated
status for a glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis
stolonifera). This notice identifies potentially significant issues, as
well as alternatives, that the Agency proposes to examine in the
environmental impact statement and requests public comment.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
October 25, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-101-2,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. 03-101-2.
E-mail: Address your comment to
regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your comment must be contained in the body
of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your name
and address in your message and ``Docket No. 03-101-2'' on the subject
line.
Agency Web site: Go to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/cominst.html
for a form you can use to submit an e-mail comment through
the APHIS Web site.
[[Page 57258]]
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: You may view APHIS documents published in the
Federal Register and related information, including the names of groups
and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan M. Koehler, BRS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-4886.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) regulates the introduction (movement into the United
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 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.'' The regulations in Sec. 340.6(a)
provide that any person may submit a petition to APHIS seeking a
determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part
340.
On April 14, 2003, APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition No.
03-104-01p) from Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO) and The Scotts
Company (Gervais, OR) (Monsanto/Scotts), requesting deregulation of a
creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L., synonym A. palustris
Huds.) that has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the
herbicide glyphosate. The Monsanto/Scotts petition states that the
subject creeping bentgrass, designated as event ASR 368, should not be
regulated by APHIS because it does not present a plant pest risk.
In a notice published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2004
(69 FR 315-317, Docket No. 03-101-1), APHIS announced the receipt of
the Monsanto/Scotts petition and solicited comments on whether the
subject creeping bentgrass would present a plant pest risk. (The
petition is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/03_10401p.pdf.
) In that notice, we described: (1) How the
subject creeping bentgrass was genetically engineered for tolerance to
the herbicide glyphosate, (2) why and how it has been regulated by
APHIS under 7 CFR part 340, (3) the regulatory authority and actions
taken or pending by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would
allow certain glyphosate-containing products to be used on the subject
bentgrass during seed production or on golf courses to control weeds,
and (4) the regulatory authority and actions taken by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration that would allow feed use of straw and chaff
derived from the subject bentgrass. The notice provided a link to
APHIS' preliminary risk assessment (available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/03_10401p_ra.pdf
), and also
requested information and public comments on issues pertaining to the
potential environmental effects of the subject creeping bentgrass from
the proposed deregulation, which would allow for unconfined release
into the environment of the United States and its territories.
We solicited comments concerning our notice for 60 days ending
March 5, 2004. We received a total of 483 comments, from respondents in
the following categories: Unaffiliated individuals (166); universities
(118); industry (71); golf course superintendents/operators (37);
farmers (22); associations (16); State, county, and city officials
(11); native plant societies (9); environmental and consumer groups
(8); research centers (8); U.S. Government officials (6); nature
preserve officials (3); State legislators (2); and a foreign government
official (1). The comments may be viewed on the Internet at https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/Bentgrass.nsf
.
Approximately 339 commenters expressed support for the Monsanto/
Scotts petition, while 134 expressed concern or opposed deregulation
for glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass. Among the strongest
supporters of the petition were university-based weed scientists and
turfgrass specialists, as well as golf course superintendents and
operators. Additional support was expressed by industry-affiliated
commenters, farmers, associations, and research centers. Opposition to
the commercial development of glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass
was expressed by commenters associated with native plant societies and
the restoration and management of native plant preserves, environmental
and consumer groups, and certain Federal, State, and city officials.
The unaffiliated individual commenters were nearly evenly split between
those supporting and those opposing the petition.
Among the points frequently stressed by supporters of the petition
were the usefulness of glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass for
selective control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in golf courses and
the associated reduction in the need for pesticide applications
(herbicides, fungicides, and fumigants) to eliminate or manage this and
other weed species; the noninvasiveness of bentgrass in cropping
systems; the existence of alternative herbicides for control in
situations where control is needed; and the noncompetitiveness of
interspecific hybrids.
Some commenters opposing the subject petition described the
aggressiveness of Agrostis, characterizing Agrostis stolonifera as a
major invader of prairie/meadow habitat and riparian areas and a
displacer of indigenous flora. A number of these same commenters also
expressed concern about the spread of the glyphosate-tolerant transgene
and the potential loss of glyphosate for the control of invasive
perennial grasses. One commenter described glyphosate as the herbicide
of choice for feral creeping bentgrass, and another noted that
glyphosate is the means of control for the A. stolonifera occupying
tens of thousands of acres of north coastal California grassland, and
where it is a weed in wetlands. In nearly identical letters, some
respondents opposed to the petition mistakenly identified creeping
bentgrass as redtop, which is a different species (Agrostis gigantea)
that is characterized as more weedy than creeping bentgrass and can
hybridize with it.
In addition to seeking public comments through our January 2004
notice, APHIS asked the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) to
undertake an analysis of the weed management implications associated
with the potential deregulation and commercialization of glyphosate-
tolerant and of glufosinate-tolerant creeping bentgrass varieties.
Their report, ``Determination of the Potential Impact from the Release
of Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Agrostis stolonifera L. in
Various Crop and Non-Crop Ecosystems,'' is available on the WSSA Web
site at http://www.wssa.net/society/bentgrass.pdf. Glufosinate
herbicide-tolerant creeping bentgrass was included because APHIS
expects it may receive a petition for deregulation of such a product
that is currently under development.
Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
[[Page 57259]]
seq.), agencies must examine the potential environmental effects of, as
well as alternatives to, proposed major Federal actions. Based on our
information and the examination of data associated with the petition,
the WSSA report, and public comments submitted in response to our
January 2004 notice, we have decided to inform our decisionmaking
process in this matter through preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS), consistent with regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and APHIS' NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). An EIS is a detailed written
statement of the agency (signed by the responsible official) on Federal
actions with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the
human environment as required by section 102(2)(c) of NEPA on ``(i) the
environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the
relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.'' This notice
identifies the alternatives and potentially significant issues that we
propose to study in the EIS. We are inviting public comment on this
proposed scope of study to help us further delineate the issues.
We have identified three broad alternatives for study in the EIS:
Approval of the petition. APHIS would deregulate the
genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis
stolonifera L.).
Denial of the petition. APHIS would continue to regulate
the genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass.
Approval of the petition in part. APHIS would partially
deregulate introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release
into the environment) of the genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant
creeping bentgrass. Such a partial deregulation might be achieved
through the placement of restrictions or conditions designed to
mitigate any anticipated plant pest effects or adverse environmental
effects.
``Significantly,'' as used in NEPA, requires consideration of both
the context (i.e., the scope and duration) and intensity (i.e., the
severity of impact) of the proposed action as described by CEQ's
regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. APHIS regulations at 7 CFR 340.6 require
an examination of the plant pest risk potential of the regulated
article with respect to its non-genetically engineered counterpart.
Familiarity with the impacts associated with the use of the non-
genetically engineered counterpart or with the use of plants with
traits similar to the trait introduced through genetic engineering has
been used in examining the significance of potential environmental
impacts resulting from previous decisions to deregulate. It is within
the context of these CEQ and APHIS regulations that the following
potentially significant environmental issues have been identified for
further examination in the EIS process:
Herbicide resistance, weed management, and vegetation
control.
Compared to non-genetically engineered creeping bentgrass
and other herbicide-tolerant grasses, will deregulation of the subject
glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass result in its establishment and
persistence in situations where it is unwanted, unintended, or
unexpected?
To what extent will deregulation of glyphosate-tolerant
creeping bentgrass result in its hybridization and introgression of the
herbicide-tolerance trait into related species, and will this result in
their establishment and persistence in situations where they are
unwanted, unintended, or unexpected?
Will attempts to manage glyphosate-tolerant creeping
bentgrass or its relatives in situations where they are unwanted,
unintended, or unexpected have significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the human environment, including the ability to restore the
land and vegetation to their intended use?
Will adoption of glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass,
coupled with the use of glyphosate products that might be registered
for use on this bentgrass, result in the selection of weeds that are
tolerant of doses of glyphosate that were previously lethal, or result
in a shift to weeds that are more difficult to control? If so, what are
the likely weed species, over what timeframe would selection occur, and
how likely would the weeds spread to and persist in other locations?
What alternatives are available to control them in situations where
they are unwanted, and will those alternative control methods have
significant adverse impacts on the environment?
Will adoption of glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass on
golf courses, coupled with the expected use of glyphosate products that
might be registered to control weeds in this bentgrass, have
significant benefits to the environment compared to the growth and weed
management of non-glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrasses on golf
courses?
Hybridization and introgression. In addition to the
potential impacts identified above with respect to weediness and
herbicide tolerance or resistance, what other significant impacts could
occur to the quality of the human environment as a result of the
crossing and subsequent introgression of the glyphosate-tolerance trait
from glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass with non-glyphosate-
tolerant creeping bentgrass and certain compatible species?
Threatened and endangered species. Could there be adverse
affects on a listed threatened or endangered species or its habitat, as
designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
through the spread of glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass or its
relatives to areas where they are unwanted, unintended, or unexpected,
e.g., riparian areas, wetlands, or grasslands, or through management of
vegetation in those situations?
Precedence. Will deregulation of this genetically
engineered species establish a precedent for future actions with
potentially significant effects or represent a decision in principle
about a future consideration? Examples might include deregulation of
other genetically engineered grasses, or other perennial species,
particularly those that are highly outcrossing, widespread species that
may also reproduce vegetatively, and which can hybridize with many wild
(native or naturalized) relatives.
Cumulative effects. Can this action be said to be related
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively potentially significant
impacts, including actions that may be taken by other agencies and
individuals?
Impacts on unique geographic areas or significant
scientific, cultural, or historical resources. To what extent would
deregulation impact unique geographic areas, such as prime farmlands,
wetlands, parklands, or ecologically critical areas, or scientific,
cultural, or historical resources, e.g., species targeted for
conservation?
Uncertainty. Are there associated with this action
possible effects on the quality of the human environment that are
highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks, including those
listed above?
[[Page 57260]]
Mitigation. Can negative environmental impacts of the
action be reasonably mitigated, and what is the likelihood that
mitigation measures will be successfully implemented? CEQ regulations
(40 CFR 1508.20) indicate that mitigation to be considered in the scope
of a NEPA document can include actions or decisions that avoid,
minimize, reduce, rectify, or compensate for the adverse impacts
identified. The EIS will consider the stewardship plan outlined in
section VII. E. of the petition, which is designed to minimize
inadvertent gene flow as well as to monitor and mitigate the potential
development of glyphosate-resistant weeds. The EIS will also consider
other actions, e.g., deployment (release) strategies or management
practices, including those that may be outside APHIS' jurisdiction,
that might mitigate any adverse impacts identified, so as to alert
those who may be in a position to implement them.
Comments that provide information relevant to the scope identified
above or that identify other potentially significant environmental
issues or alternatives that should be examined in the context of the
EIS process would be especially helpful. All comments that we received
in response to the January 2004 notice will be included as part of this
scoping process; there is no need to resubmit those comments. We will
fully consider all the comments received in response to the January
2004 notice and this current notice in developing a final scope of
study and in preparing the draft EIS. When the draft EIS is completed,
we will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its
availability and inviting the public to comment on it. Following our
consideration of the comments received, APHIS will prepare a final EIS;
its availability will also be announced in the Federal Register along
with a 30-day public comment period, after which the Record of Decision
will be issued.
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of September 2004.
W. Ron DeHaven,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E4-2372 Filed 9-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P