[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57257-57260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2372]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[email protected]. 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