Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs; Record of Decision, 21314-21316 [E9-10633]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21314
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Notices
could result in a loss of domestic or
foreign markets for U.S. potatoes and
other commodities.
The PCN quarantine regulations
(§§ 301.86 through 301.86–9, referred to
below as the regulations) set out
procedures for determining the areas
quarantined for PCN and impose
restrictions on the interstate movement
of regulated articles from quarantined
areas.
Section 301.86–3 of the regulations
sets out the procedures for determining
the areas quarantined for PCN.
Paragraph (a) of § 301.86–3 states that,
in accordance with the criteria listed in
§ 301.86–3(c), the Administrator will
designate as a quarantined area each
field that has been found to be infested
with PCN, each field that has been
found to be associated with an infested
field, and any area that the
Administrator considers necessary to
quarantine because of its inseparability
for quarantine enforcement purposes
from infested or associated fields.
Paragraph (c) provides that the
Administrator will designate a field as
an infested field when PCN is found in
the field. Paragraph (c) also provides
that the Administrator will designate a
field as an associated field when PCN
host crops, as listed in § 301.86–2(b),
have been grown in the field in the last
10 years and the field shares a border
with an infested field; the field came
into contact with a regulated article
listed in § 301.86–2 from an infested
field within the last 10 years; or, within
the last 10 years, the field shared
ownership, tenancy, seed, drainage or
runoff, farm machinery, or other
elements of shared cultural practices
with an infested field that could allow
spread of the PCN, as determined by the
Administrator.
Paragraph (b) describes the conditions
for the designation of an area less than
an entire State as a quarantined area.
Less than an entire State will be
designated as a quarantined area only if
the Administrator determines that:
1. The State has adopted and is
enforcing restrictions on the intrastate
movement of the regulated articles that
are equivalent to those imposed by the
regulations on the interstate movement
of regulated articles; and
2. The designation of less than the
entire State as a quarantined area will
prevent the interstate spread of PCN.
We have determined that it is not
necessary to designate the entire State of
Idaho as a quarantined area. Idaho has
adopted and is enforcing restrictions on
the intrastate movement of regulated
articles from that area that are
equivalent to those we are imposing on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
the interstate movement of regulated
articles.
Paragraph (d) provides for the
removal of fields from quarantine. An
infested field will be removed from
quarantine when a 3-year biosurvey
protocol approved by the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has
been completed and the field has been
found to be free of PCN. An associated
field will be removed from quarantine
when the field has been found to be free
of PCN according to a survey protocol
approved by the Administrator as
sufficient to support removal from
quarantine. Any area other than infested
or associated fields which has been
quarantined by the Administrator
because of its inseparability for
quarantine enforcement purposes from
infested or associated fields will be
removed from quarantine when the
relevant infested or associated fields are
removed from quarantine.
Paragraph (a) of § 301.86–3 further
provides that the Administrator will
publish the description of the
quarantined area on the Plant Protection
and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site, https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml. The
description of the quarantined area will
include the date the description was last
updated and a description of the
changes that have been made to the
quarantined area. The description of the
quarantined area may also be obtained
by request from any local office of PPQ;
local offices are listed in telephone
directories. Finally, paragraph (a)
establishes that, after a change is made
to the quarantined area, we will publish
a notice in the Federal Register
informing the public that the change has
occurred and describing the change to
the quarantined area.
We are publishing this notice to
inform the public of changes to the PCN
quarantined area in accordance with
§ 301.86–3(a). On February 10, 2009, we
updated the quarantined area to remove
approximately 2,721 acres. This acreage
was composed of associated fields that
were found to be free of PCN according
to a survey protocol approved by the
Administrator, under § 301.86–3. The
fields removed from quarantine were in
Bingham, Bonneville, and Jefferson
Counties.
We also added approximately 4,976
acres to the PCN quarantined area. This
acreage was composed of fields that we
determined to be associated with a field
that was quarantined as an infested field
on December 11, 2008. The fields added
to the quarantined area were in
Bingham and Bonneville Counties.
The current map of the quarantined
area can be viewed on the PPQ Web site
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
plant_health/plant_pest_info/potato/
pcn.shtml.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of
May 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9–10628 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0166]
Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly
and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest
Control Programs; Record of Decision
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service’s record of decision
for the Use of Genetically Engineered
Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS
Plant Pest Control Programs Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of
decision and the final environmental
impact statement on which the record of
decision is based are available for public
inspection at USDA, room 1141, South
Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between
8 a.m. and 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.
The record of decision may also be
viewed on the APHIS Web site at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
plant_health/ea/geneng.shtml.
Supporting and related materials,
including the final environmental
impact statement, may also be viewed
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2006-0166.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David A. Bergsten, APHIS Interagency
NEPA Contact, Environmental Services,
PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238; (301) 734–
6103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice advises the public that the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) has prepared a record
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Notices
of decision based on its final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
for the Use of Genetically Engineered
Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS
Plant Pest Control Programs, October
2008.
The FEIS was prepared in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its
implementing regulations.
On December 19, 2006, APHIS
published in the Federal Register (71
FR 75933–75934, Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0166) a notice of its intent to
prepare the environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the purpose of
analyzing the use of and alternatives to
genetic engineering technology applied
to sterile insect releases in agency pest
control programs. On May 30, 2008, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register (73
FR 31115) a notice of the availability of
the draft EIS. The official comment
period on the draft EIS ended on July
14, 2008. APHIS accepted late
comments on that document until
August 6, 2008.
In October 2008, APHIS published
and distributed the FEIS, which
included discussion of the seven public
comments received on the draft EIS. On
November 14, 2008, EPA published in
the Federal Register (73 FR 67511) a
notice of the availability of the FEIS.
The NEPA implementing regulations in
40 CFR 1506.10 require a 30-day waiting
period between the time a final EIS is
published and the time an agency makes
a decision on an action covered by the
EIS. APHIS did not receive any
comments on the FEIS by the time this
waiting period ended on December 15,
2008.
APHIS has reviewed the FEIS and has
concluded that it has fully analyzed the
issues covered by the draft EIS and
those comments and suggestions
submitted by commenters. APHIS has
now prepared a record of decision on
the FEIS and is making that record
available to the public.
The Record of Decision for the Use of
Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and
Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest
Control Programs Final Environmental
Impact Statement, as prepared pursuant
to the Council on Environmental
Quality’s NEPA implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is set out
below in its entirety.
Record of Decision for the Use of Genetically
Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in
APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final
Environmental Impact Statement
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been
developed in compliance with the agency
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
decision-making requirements of NEPA. The
purpose of this ROD is to document APHIS’
decision to adopt the preferred alternative of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS), that is, the alternative to permit
integration of genetically engineered insects
into its plant pest control and eradication
programs. The alternatives have been fully
described and evaluated in the FEIS.
This ROD is intended to: (a) State the
APHIS decision, present the rationale for its
selection, and describe its implementation;
(b) identify the alternatives considered in
reaching the decision; and (c) state whether
all means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from implementation of
the selected alternative have been adopted
(40 CFR 1505.2).
National Environmental Policy Act
On November 14, 2008, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register [73 FR
67511] a notice of availability of the final
environmental impact statement titled ‘‘Use
of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink
Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control
Programs.’’ The FEIS considered the
environmental impacts from integration of
genetically engineered insects into sterile
insect technique components of APHIS plant
pest control programs that could result from
our adoption of the proposed new
technologies.
Pursuant to the implementing regulations
for NEPA in cases requiring an EIS, APHIS
must prepare a record of decision to express
the agency determination from review of the
EIS documentation. The NEPA implementing
regulations require that a record of decision
state what decision is being made; identify
alternatives considered in the environmental
impact statement process; specify the
environmentally preferred alternative;
discuss preferences based on relevant factors,
including economic and technical
considerations, as well as national policy
considerations, where applicable; and state
how all of the factors discussed entered into
the decision. In addition, the record of
decision must indicate whether the ultimate
decision has been designed to avoid or
minimize environmental harm and, if not,
why not.
The Decision
This decision described in the ROD
addresses impacts from the preferred
alternative of the FEIS whose availability was
published in the Federal Register on
November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67511, Docket No.
ER–FRL–8587–5). After a thorough
evaluation of the potential impacts of the
alternatives considered in the FEIS, APHIS
has decided to integrate the use of genetically
engineered insects into the sterile insect
technique used in agency plant pest control
programs. This includes the adherence to
specific agency requirements for mass-rearing
and release of these new strains of plant
pests. It also involves adherence to certain
procedures for program-specific evaluations
of these strains prior to release in any pest
control or pest eradication applications. As
with any new sterile insect technique, there
are some containment, handling, species/
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21315
strain-specific, and associated release issues
that will need to be addressed as part of the
NEPA documentation for future advances in
the application-specific technologies.
Alternatives Considered in the Impact
Statement Process
The FEIS considers the alternatives of (1)
No action, essentially maintaining sterile
insect technique through irradiation of massreared insects in plant pest control programs
as is currently practiced, (2) expansion of
existing programs in overall size, capacity,
and diversity of plant pest species, and (3)
integration of genetically engineered insects
into APHIS’ plant pest control programs.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative
for the use of sterile insect technique in plant
pest control programs is the alternative that
minimizes potential impacts to human
health, nontarget species, and environmental
quality. Among the alternatives considered in
this EIS, the preferred alternative, which
involves integration of genetically engineered
insects into programs, is also the
environmentally preferable alternative. This
alternative is environmentally preferable
because the potential environmental impacts
of this alternative are minimized by program
use of genetically engineered strains of sterile
and marker-gene insects maintained in
biologically secure containment facilities, by
the reduced use of irradiation with its
associated hazards, by the reduced need for
large numbers of insects due to the release of
males that are more competitive in mating,
and by the reduced need to apply pesticides
from a more effective genetic sterile insect
technique and improved monitoring of pest
populations through the use of genetic
markers.
Preferences Among Alternatives
The preference among the alternatives for
the final EIS is to integrate genetically
engineered insects into the sterile insect
technique of APHIS’ plant pest control
programs. In review of the alternatives
considered, APHIS could use the present
methods without further development (no
action), APHIS could expand on the present
methods without genetic engineering
technology, or APHIS could integrate genetic
technology into the sterile insect technique
components of the plant pest programs. Each
alternative involves potential impacts, but
the context and intensity of those impacts
relate largely to the methods and their
respective relative effectiveness of sterile
insect production. The potential
environmental impacts from methods under
alternatives other than the preferred
alternative are reduced under the preferred
alternative to the extent that genetically
engineered insects are incorporated. For
example, the use of genetically engineered
insects has the potential to decrease the need
for insecticide applications, to decrease the
need to produce both male and female
insects for use in sterile insect releases, to
increase production of males that are more
competitive in mating than radiationsterilized males, and to eliminate the need to
use, operate, and maintain strong gamma
radiation sources.
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
21316
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Notices
The no action alternative (alternative 1
above) was rejected because continuation of
this approach does not contribute to
increased mitigation of present or future
plant pest risks. It does provide a baseline for
the present state of sterile insect technique in
plant pest control programs, but it does not
provide APHIS program managers the
flexibility to apply new methods or new
technologies for the control of fruit flies or
pink bollworm. In particular, this alternative
lacks clear options to expand the use of
irradiation, to expand the use of fluorescent
dye, to expand development and use of
classical selective genetic gender selection
processes, and to increase the overall fitness
of released radiation-sterilized insects. Any
improvement of the insect mass-rearing
production as a result of genetic engineering
would not occur under this alternative.
The alternative of expansion of existing
programs (alternative 2 above) involves an
increase in the present plant pest control
actions and inputs to improve the
effectiveness of sterile insect technique
currently used in APHIS plant pest control
programs. This alternative could include
expansion of the pest insect mass-rearing
operations, the irradiation treatment
capacity, the development of classical genetic
selection methods for separation of insect
sexes for more fruit fly species, the use of
sterile insect technique for more plant pest
species, the sterile insect dispersal capacity,
the monitoring and surveillance capacity,
and the pest mitigation capacity including
the increased use of chemical pesticides.
Although this approach could meet the
increasing demand for sterile insects, the
selection of this alternative would incur
higher program costs, greater mass-rearing
facility construction, longer timeframes for
development, and more extensive pest
mitigation efforts than would be afforded by
the integration of genetically engineered
insects into APHIS sterile insect technique
programs.
The preferred alternative (alternative 3
above), integration of genetically engineered
insects into programs, provides program
managers with several methods for pest risk
reduction in an environmentally safe and
efficient manner. Although the present plant
pest control program benefits apply to fruit
flies and pink bollworm, long-term program
activities are likely to be extended to other
plant pest species and new technologies.
APHIS plant pest programs could augment
their use of sterile insect technique by massrearing only male fruit flies that have a
marker gene and are subject to sterilization
by radiation, mass-rearing genetically
sterilized male fruit flies that have a marker
gene and that compete more effectively for
mates than radiation-sterilized male insects,
mass-rearing fruit flies that produce only
male offspring which carry a sterility gene
resulting in only males that pass on this
sterility gene and no female offspring, massrearing both male and female pink bollworm
that have a marker gene and are subject to
sterilization by radiation, and mass-rearing of
both male and female pink bollworm that are
genetically sterile and more competitive in
mating with wild bollworms than radiationsterilized bollworms. The benefits to fruit fly
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
programs are long-term in consideration of
the continuing introductions that occur from
abroad. There are also long-term benefits to
cotton growers from successful eradication of
pink bollworm that may result from this new
technology being incorporated into APHIS
program actions.
Please see the FEIS for a full discussion of
the reasons why APHIS is proposing to adopt
the preferred alternative.
Factors in the Decision
APHIS’ authority for action and
cooperation with other agencies in these
plant pest control programs is based upon the
Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out operations to
eradicate insect pests and to use measures to
prevent the dissemination of plant pests that
are new or not known to be widely prevalent
or distributed within or throughout the
United States. There is an impending need
for the development of more efficient, lower
cost, and more effective control and
eradication methods for the pink bollworm
and invasive fruit fly species because of the
continuing and increasing frequency of
detection of fruit flies and other invasive and
crop destructive insects. In order to achieve
these objectives, the use of genetically
engineered insects provides biological traits
that are of value for use in sterile insect
technique control methodologies. These
novel biological traits are not available to
present programs and could not be readily
developed or adopted for program use by
APHIS using other methods.
This record of decision authorizes the
development and use of genetically
engineered insects in sterile insect technique
applications for APHIS plant pest control
programs in order to achieve the mandates of
the PPA. In addition, this selection of the
environmentally preferable alternative for
these control programs is in keeping with the
ongoing effort at the agency to promote
environmental quality through ongoing
efforts to identify and add to our regulations
valid technical and economically feasible
alternatives to fulfill regulatory mandates.
over a half century ago. Much of this work
has involved developing improved strains,
developing more effective methods for
handling and transport of insects, and
developing more effective techniques of
insect sterilization. APHIS has attempted to
adapt new technologies to our pest control
programs as these methods become available
and logistically feasible for program
applications. The use of genetically
engineered insects to improve agency sterile
release programs involves genetic
engineering technologies that are new to the
agency, but many of the sterile release
methods have involved extensive testing over
many years. The work on improved markers,
more effective pest strains (including
genetically engineered strains), improved
handling, and more efficient rearing is
expected to continue to be an important part
of APHIS’ future innovations to agency pest
control programs.
In a notice summarizing EPA comments on
recent environmental impact statements and
proposed regulations that was published in
the Federal Register on August 15, 2008 (73
FR 47947–47948), EPA expressed their lack
of objection to the draft EIS and APHIS’
adoption of the preferred alternative to
permit integration of genetically engineered
insects into the sterile insect release
components of plant pest control programs.
The record of decision has been
prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA,
(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).
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of
May 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9–10633 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
Avoid or Minimize Environmental Harm
The environment can be harmed by the
presence of invasive plant pest insect species
and the mitigations applied to decrease the
pest damage to crops. Actions such as those
considered in the preferred alternative
reduce pest risks through applications of
sterile insect technique in control programs
and preventive release programs. The extent
to which such actions reduce the pest
damage, reduce the need for use of chemical
pesticides, and reduce the need to expand
facilities and insect production are the basis
for minimizing environmental impacts.
Adequate enforcement of effective quarantine
measures is required to protect the
environment from these pest risks. APHIS is
committed to monitoring these efforts
through the NEPA process, and otherwise.
AGENCY: Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS
State Technical Guide for review and
comment.
Other
A considerable amount of research and
development of alternatives to ongoing
program actions has been done since the
early applications of sterile insect technique
SUMMARY: It has been determined by the
NRCS State Conservationist for Virginia
that changes must be made in the NRCS
State Technical Guide specifically in
practice standards: #338, Prescribed
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Notice of Proposed Change to Section
IV of the Virginia State Technical Guide
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 87 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21314-21316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0166]
Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in
APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs; Record of Decision
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service's record of decision for the Use of Genetically
Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control
Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of decision and the final environmental
impact statement on which the record of decision is based are available
for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 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.
The record of decision may also be viewed on the APHIS Web site at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/geneng.shtml. Supporting and
related materials, including the final environmental impact statement,
may also be viewed on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0166.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS
Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700
River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-6103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a
record
[[Page 21315]]
of decision based on its final environmental impact statement (FEIS)
for the Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in
APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs, October 2008.
The FEIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its
implementing regulations.
On December 19, 2006, APHIS published in the Federal Register (71
FR 75933-75934, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0166) a notice of its intent to
prepare the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the purpose of
analyzing the use of and alternatives to genetic engineering technology
applied to sterile insect releases in agency pest control programs. On
May 30, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in
the Federal Register (73 FR 31115) a notice of the availability of the
draft EIS. The official comment period on the draft EIS ended on July
14, 2008. APHIS accepted late comments on that document until August 6,
2008.
In October 2008, APHIS published and distributed the FEIS, which
included discussion of the seven public comments received on the draft
EIS. On November 14, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register (73 FR
67511) a notice of the availability of the FEIS. The NEPA implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 1506.10 require a 30-day waiting period between
the time a final EIS is published and the time an agency makes a
decision on an action covered by the EIS. APHIS did not receive any
comments on the FEIS by the time this waiting period ended on December
15, 2008.
APHIS has reviewed the FEIS and has concluded that it has fully
analyzed the issues covered by the draft EIS and those comments and
suggestions submitted by commenters. APHIS has now prepared a record of
decision on the FEIS and is making that record available to the public.
The Record of Decision for the Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit
Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final
Environmental Impact Statement, as prepared pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2,
is set out below in its entirety.
Record of Decision for the Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and
Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final Environmental
Impact Statement
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed in compliance
with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of
this ROD is to document APHIS' decision to adopt the preferred
alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), that
is, the alternative to permit integration of genetically engineered
insects into its plant pest control and eradication programs. The
alternatives have been fully described and evaluated in the FEIS.
This ROD is intended to: (a) State the APHIS decision, present
the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation;
(b) identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision;
and (c) state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental
harm from implementation of the selected alternative have been
adopted (40 CFR 1505.2).
National Environmental Policy Act
On November 14, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published in the Federal Register [73 FR 67511] a notice of
availability of the final environmental impact statement titled
``Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS
Plant Pest Control Programs.'' The FEIS considered the environmental
impacts from integration of genetically engineered insects into
sterile insect technique components of APHIS plant pest control
programs that could result from our adoption of the proposed new
technologies.
Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA in cases
requiring an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of decision to express
the agency determination from review of the EIS documentation. The
NEPA implementing regulations require that a record of decision
state what decision is being made; identify alternatives considered
in the environmental impact statement process; specify the
environmentally preferred alternative; discuss preferences based on
relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations,
as well as national policy considerations, where applicable; and
state how all of the factors discussed entered into the decision. In
addition, the record of decision must indicate whether the ultimate
decision has been designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm
and, if not, why not.
The Decision
This decision described in the ROD addresses impacts from the
preferred alternative of the FEIS whose availability was published
in the Federal Register on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67511, Docket
No. ER-FRL-8587-5). After a thorough evaluation of the potential
impacts of the alternatives considered in the FEIS, APHIS has
decided to integrate the use of genetically engineered insects into
the sterile insect technique used in agency plant pest control
programs. This includes the adherence to specific agency
requirements for mass-rearing and release of these new strains of
plant pests. It also involves adherence to certain procedures for
program-specific evaluations of these strains prior to release in
any pest control or pest eradication applications. As with any new
sterile insect technique, there are some containment, handling,
species/strain-specific, and associated release issues that will
need to be addressed as part of the NEPA documentation for future
advances in the application-specific technologies.
Alternatives Considered in the Impact Statement Process
The FEIS considers the alternatives of (1) No action,
essentially maintaining sterile insect technique through irradiation
of mass-reared insects in plant pest control programs as is
currently practiced, (2) expansion of existing programs in overall
size, capacity, and diversity of plant pest species, and (3)
integration of genetically engineered insects into APHIS' plant pest
control programs.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative for the use of
sterile insect technique in plant pest control programs is the
alternative that minimizes potential impacts to human health,
nontarget species, and environmental quality. Among the alternatives
considered in this EIS, the preferred alternative, which involves
integration of genetically engineered insects into programs, is also
the environmentally preferable alternative. This alternative is
environmentally preferable because the potential environmental
impacts of this alternative are minimized by program use of
genetically engineered strains of sterile and marker-gene insects
maintained in biologically secure containment facilities, by the
reduced use of irradiation with its associated hazards, by the
reduced need for large numbers of insects due to the release of
males that are more competitive in mating, and by the reduced need
to apply pesticides from a more effective genetic sterile insect
technique and improved monitoring of pest populations through the
use of genetic markers.
Preferences Among Alternatives
The preference among the alternatives for the final EIS is to
integrate genetically engineered insects into the sterile insect
technique of APHIS' plant pest control programs. In review of the
alternatives considered, APHIS could use the present methods without
further development (no action), APHIS could expand on the present
methods without genetic engineering technology, or APHIS could
integrate genetic technology into the sterile insect technique
components of the plant pest programs. Each alternative involves
potential impacts, but the context and intensity of those impacts
relate largely to the methods and their respective relative
effectiveness of sterile insect production. The potential
environmental impacts from methods under alternatives other than the
preferred alternative are reduced under the preferred alternative to
the extent that genetically engineered insects are incorporated. For
example, the use of genetically engineered insects has the potential
to decrease the need for insecticide applications, to decrease the
need to produce both male and female insects for use in sterile
insect releases, to increase production of males that are more
competitive in mating than radiation-sterilized males, and to
eliminate the need to use, operate, and maintain strong gamma
radiation sources.
[[Page 21316]]
The no action alternative (alternative 1 above) was rejected
because continuation of this approach does not contribute to
increased mitigation of present or future plant pest risks. It does
provide a baseline for the present state of sterile insect technique
in plant pest control programs, but it does not provide APHIS
program managers the flexibility to apply new methods or new
technologies for the control of fruit flies or pink bollworm. In
particular, this alternative lacks clear options to expand the use
of irradiation, to expand the use of fluorescent dye, to expand
development and use of classical selective genetic gender selection
processes, and to increase the overall fitness of released
radiation-sterilized insects. Any improvement of the insect mass-
rearing production as a result of genetic engineering would not
occur under this alternative.
The alternative of expansion of existing programs (alternative 2
above) involves an increase in the present plant pest control
actions and inputs to improve the effectiveness of sterile insect
technique currently used in APHIS plant pest control programs. This
alternative could include expansion of the pest insect mass-rearing
operations, the irradiation treatment capacity, the development of
classical genetic selection methods for separation of insect sexes
for more fruit fly species, the use of sterile insect technique for
more plant pest species, the sterile insect dispersal capacity, the
monitoring and surveillance capacity, and the pest mitigation
capacity including the increased use of chemical pesticides.
Although this approach could meet the increasing demand for sterile
insects, the selection of this alternative would incur higher
program costs, greater mass-rearing facility construction, longer
timeframes for development, and more extensive pest mitigation
efforts than would be afforded by the integration of genetically
engineered insects into APHIS sterile insect technique programs.
The preferred alternative (alternative 3 above), integration of
genetically engineered insects into programs, provides program
managers with several methods for pest risk reduction in an
environmentally safe and efficient manner. Although the present
plant pest control program benefits apply to fruit flies and pink
bollworm, long-term program activities are likely to be extended to
other plant pest species and new technologies. APHIS plant pest
programs could augment their use of sterile insect technique by
mass-rearing only male fruit flies that have a marker gene and are
subject to sterilization by radiation, mass-rearing genetically
sterilized male fruit flies that have a marker gene and that compete
more effectively for mates than radiation-sterilized male insects,
mass-rearing fruit flies that produce only male offspring which
carry a sterility gene resulting in only males that pass on this
sterility gene and no female offspring, mass-rearing both male and
female pink bollworm that have a marker gene and are subject to
sterilization by radiation, and mass-rearing of both male and female
pink bollworm that are genetically sterile and more competitive in
mating with wild bollworms than radiation-sterilized bollworms. The
benefits to fruit fly programs are long-term in consideration of the
continuing introductions that occur from abroad. There are also
long-term benefits to cotton growers from successful eradication of
pink bollworm that may result from this new technology being
incorporated into APHIS program actions.
Please see the FEIS for a full discussion of the reasons why
APHIS is proposing to adopt the preferred alternative.
Factors in the Decision
APHIS' authority for action and cooperation with other agencies
in these plant pest control programs is based upon the Plant
Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), which authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to carry out operations to eradicate insect
pests and to use measures to prevent the dissemination of plant
pests that are new or not known to be widely prevalent or
distributed within or throughout the United States. There is an
impending need for the development of more efficient, lower cost,
and more effective control and eradication methods for the pink
bollworm and invasive fruit fly species because of the continuing
and increasing frequency of detection of fruit flies and other
invasive and crop destructive insects. In order to achieve these
objectives, the use of genetically engineered insects provides
biological traits that are of value for use in sterile insect
technique control methodologies. These novel biological traits are
not available to present programs and could not be readily developed
or adopted for program use by APHIS using other methods.
This record of decision authorizes the development and use of
genetically engineered insects in sterile insect technique
applications for APHIS plant pest control programs in order to
achieve the mandates of the PPA. In addition, this selection of the
environmentally preferable alternative for these control programs is
in keeping with the ongoing effort at the agency to promote
environmental quality through ongoing efforts to identify and add to
our regulations valid technical and economically feasible
alternatives to fulfill regulatory mandates.
Avoid or Minimize Environmental Harm
The environment can be harmed by the presence of invasive plant
pest insect species and the mitigations applied to decrease the pest
damage to crops. Actions such as those considered in the preferred
alternative reduce pest risks through applications of sterile insect
technique in control programs and preventive release programs. The
extent to which such actions reduce the pest damage, reduce the need
for use of chemical pesticides, and reduce the need to expand
facilities and insect production are the basis for minimizing
environmental impacts. Adequate enforcement of effective quarantine
measures is required to protect the environment from these pest
risks. APHIS is committed to monitoring these efforts through the
NEPA process, and otherwise.
Other
A considerable amount of research and development of
alternatives to ongoing program actions has been done since the
early applications of sterile insect technique over a half century
ago. Much of this work has involved developing improved strains,
developing more effective methods for handling and transport of
insects, and developing more effective techniques of insect
sterilization. APHIS has attempted to adapt new technologies to our
pest control programs as these methods become available and
logistically feasible for program applications. The use of
genetically engineered insects to improve agency sterile release
programs involves genetic engineering technologies that are new to
the agency, but many of the sterile release methods have involved
extensive testing over many years. The work on improved markers,
more effective pest strains (including genetically engineered
strains), improved handling, and more efficient rearing is expected
to continue to be an important part of APHIS' future innovations to
agency pest control programs.
In a notice summarizing EPA comments on recent environmental
impact statements and proposed regulations that was published in the
Federal Register on August 15, 2008 (73 FR 47947-47948), EPA
expressed their lack of objection to the draft EIS and APHIS'
adoption of the preferred alternative to permit integration of
genetically engineered insects into the sterile insect release
components of plant pest control programs.
The record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1)
NEPA, (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).
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9-10633 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
