[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29969-29972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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