[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74556-74557]
[DOCID:fr08de08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59031; File No. SR-SCCP-2008-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of
Philadelphia; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Collection of Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority Section 3 Regulatory Fees

December 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 3, 2008, Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared primarily by SCCP. SCCP filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder \3\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    SCCP proposes to amend the SCCP fee schedule to accommodate the
collection of fees by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') \4\ pursuant to Section 3 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-
Laws (``Section 3 Fees'') from certain SCCP Margin Members that are
also FINRA members (``Joint Members'') through an agreement
(``Agreement'') that will be entered into among SCCP, FINRA and The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA is a national securities association pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, SCCP included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. SCCP has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by SCCP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the SCCP fee
schedule to allow SCCP to collect Section 3 Fees from the Joint
Members. Rule 31 \6\ under Section 31 of the Act \7\ requires national
securities associations and national securities exchanges to pay
transaction fees (``Section 31 Fees'') to the Commission that are
designed to recover the costs related to the government's supervision
and regulation of the securities markets and security professionals.
Currently SCCP members submit transactions to SCCP for clearance of
equity trades executed through XLE, which is the equity trading system
of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., (``PHLX''). Because all SCCP members'
transactions executed on XLE must be submitted to SCCP for trade
recording and confirmation,\8\ SCCP creates and transmits to PHLX a
monthly billing file of the Section 31 Fees for the SCCP members based
on the ``covered sales'' executed through PHLX XLE.\9\ As a result of
the acquisition of PHLX by NASDAQ,\10\ XLE will cease operations as of
October 24, 2008.\11\ Because certain SCCP Members who clear through
SCCP will no longer be able to use XLE, they have decided to become
members of FINRA. FINRA obtains the funds used to pay Section 31 Fees
from its membership in accordance with Section 3 of Schedule A to the
FINRA By-Laws. FINRA's Section 3 Fees apply to ``covered sales''
transactions effected otherwise than on a national securities exchange.
FINRA members are required to report transactions subject to Section 3
Fees to FINRA in an automated manner using FINRA facilities, including
among others, the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/NASDAQ
TRF'').\12\ FINRA uses the transaction data reported to its automated
facilities to bill member firms at the self-clearing and clearing firm
level. However, SCCP is not a member firm of FINRA. Therefore, SCCP,
FINRA and NASDAQ will enter into the Agreement allowing FINRA to obtain
Section 3 fees from certain Joint Members by debiting SCCP's omnibus
account at the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') on a
monthly basis for the aggregate amount of covered sales reported to the
FINRA/NASDAQ TRF by such Joint Members. Because the Section 3 Fees are
ultimately obligations of the Joint Member and not SCCP, the proposed
rule filing will allow SCCP to recover the Section 3 Fees obtained by
FINRA from SCCP's NSCC omnibus account directly from the Joint Member
based on the transaction data reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.31.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 7ee.
    \8\ See SCCP Rule 6, Trade Recording and Confirmation of
Transactions.
    \9\ ``Covered sales'' means a sale of a security, other than an
exempt sale or a sale of a security future, occurring on a national
securities exchange or by or through any member of a national
securities association otherwise than on a national securities
exchange. 17 CFR 31(6).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58179 (July 17,
2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) [SR-Phlx-2008-31]; 58180 (July
17, 2008), 73 FR 42890 (July 23, 2008) [SR-SCCP-2008-01]; and 58183
(July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42850 (July 23, 2008) [SR-NASDAQ-2008-035].
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58613 (September
22, 2008), 73 FR 57181 (October 1, 2008) [SR-Phlx-2008-65].
    \12\ See generally Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53977
(June 12, 2006), 71 FR 34976 (June 16, 2006) [SR-NASD-2006-055].
Also, in limited instances FINRA members may report trades to FINRA
using Form T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    SCCP believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 17A of
the Act \13\ in general, and with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,\14\
which requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
its participants. The filing will allow SCCP to provide a mechanism for
collecting and remitting to FINRA the Section 3 Fees that FINRA charges
to Joint Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    SCCP does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect
upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-SCCP-2008-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-SCCP-2008-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. The text of the proposed rule change is available at SCCP, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com/about/
sccprulechanges.aspx. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-SCCP-2008-02 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28961 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59275-59277]
[DOCID:fr17no09-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60951; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-95]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of a Pilot Program Concerning Non Firm Quote Conditions

November 6, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on October 29, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend, until September 30, 2010, a pilot
program under which the Exchange disseminates option quotations with a
price of $0.00 or $200,000, and a size of one contract, when the
Exchange's disseminated size on one side of the market is exhausted
(the ``pilot''). The current pilot is scheduled to expire November 30,
2009.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through September 30, 2010.
    In June 2009, the Exchange added several significant enhancements
to its automated options trading platform (known as PHLX XL II), and
adopted rules to reflect those enhancements.\3\ As part of the system
enhancements, the Exchange proposed to disseminate a quote condition of
``non-firm'' on a single bid quotation or offer quotation when the size
associated with such bid or offer was exhausted on the Exchange and
there were no new quotations submitted on the exhausted side of the
market in the affected series. The non-exhausted side of the Exchange's
disseminated quotation would remain firm up to its disseminated size.
Currently, however, while the Options

Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') disseminates option quotations for
which both sides of the quotation are marked ``non-firm,'' OPRA
currently does not disseminate a ``non-firm'' condition for one side of
a quotation while the other side of the quotation remains firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposed, for a pilot period scheduled to
expire November 30, 2009, to disseminate quotations in such a
circumstance with (i) a bid price of $0.00, with a size of one contract
if the remaining size is a seller, or (ii) an offer price of $200,000,
with a size of one contract if the remaining size is a buyer.
    The relevant sections of the following rules are effective for a
pilot period scheduled to expire November 30, 2009: Proposed Rules
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(b); 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(3);
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(4); 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(B)(2);
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(C); 1082(a)(ii)(B)(4)(b); and
1082(a)(ii)(B)(4)(d)(iv)(E). The Exchange proposes to amend these rules
to reflect the extension of the pilot through September 30, 2010.
    In its proposed rule change adopting the system enhancements and
rules, the Exchange represented that it would work with OPRA during the
pilot period to explore the development of a ``non-firm'' condition for
one side of a quotation while the other side of the quotation remains
firm. The Exchange represents that it has worked with OPRA during the
pilot period and currently OPRA does not support the ``non-firm''
condition for one side of a quotation.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
by ensuring the orderly continuity of the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the situations described herein where the Exchange disseminates
quotations with a price of $0.00 or $200,000 and a size of one
contract, the Exchange is relieved of its obligations under the SEC
Quote Rule.\6\ The fact that there is no quote from any Phlx XL II
participant is an unusual market condition which requires the Phlx XL
II system to disseminate a market with a price of $0.00 or $200,000 to
indicate that there is a non-firm condition on the side of the market
that is exhausted. Currently, OPRA disseminates option quotations for
which both sides of the quotation are marked ``non-firm.'' OPRA
currently does not disseminate a ``non-firm'' condition for one side of
a quotation while the other side of the quotation remains firm. The
current rule and functionality is simply a method for indicating that
one side of the Phlx disseminated market is firm while the other side
is in a non-firm condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This unusual market condition renders the Exchange incapable of
collecting, processing, and making available to vendors the requisite
data for a particular option series in a manner that accurately
reflects the current state of the market on the Exchange. The $0.00 or
$200,000 quote with a size of one contract will notify all ``specified
persons'' of the determination that one side of the quotation is in a
non-firm condition. Accordingly, in this circumstance, the Exchange is
relieved of its obligations under Rules 602(a)(1) \7\ and (2) \8\ under
the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.602(a)(1).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.602(a)(2).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.602(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
Phlx has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-95 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-95. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted

without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-95 and should be submitted on or before
December 8, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27464 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68666-68668]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1171; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and -300 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report from the airplane
manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with air distribution ducts
in the environmental control system (ECS) wrapped with Boeing Material
Specification (BMS) 8-39 or Aeronautical Materials Specifications (AMS)
3570 polyurethane foam insulation, a material with fire-retardant
properties that deteriorate with age. This proposed AD would require
reworking certain air distribution ducts in the ECS. We are proposing
this AD to prevent ignition of the BMS 8-39 or AMS 3570 polyurethane
foam insulation on the duct assemblies of the ECS due to a potential
electrical arc, which could start a small fire and lead to a larger
fire that may spread throughout the airplane through the ECS.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly A. DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1171;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-101-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of duct assemblies in the ECS with burned
BMS 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation on two Model 767-200 series
airplanes. The airplane manufacturer has also notified us that certain
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and -300 series airplanes were assembled
with duct assemblies in the ECS wrapped with BMS 8-39 or AMS 3570
polyurethane foam insulation. The fire-retardant properties of BMS 8-39
and AMS 3570 polyurethane foam insulation deteriorate with age. This,
along with dust, dirt, and other carbon particulate contamination of
the insulation on the ducts, adds an available fuel source for a
potential fire. Once ignited, the foam insulation emits noxious smoke,
does not self-extinguish, and drips droplets of liquefied polyurethane,
which can further propagate a fire. Because the insulation is wrapped
around the duct assemblies, which are located throughout the airplane,
if the insulation is ignited a fire could potentially travel along the
ducts and spread throughout the airplane. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in ignition of the BMS 8-39 or AMS 3570
polyurethane foam insulation on the duct assemblies of the ECS due to a
potential electrical arc, which could start a small fire and lead to a
larger fire that may spread throughout the airplane through the ECS.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    On January 14, 2008, we issued AD 2008-02-16, Amendment 39-15346
(73 FR 4061, January 24, 2008), applicable to certain Model 767-200 and
767-300 series airplanes.
    On June 17, 2010, we issued AD 2010-14-01, Amendment 39-16344 (75
FR 38007, July 1, 2010), applicable to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
    AD 2008-02-16, Amendment 39-15346 (73 FR 4061, January 24, 2008),
and AD 2010-14-01, Amendment 39-16344 (75 FR 38007, July 1, 2010),
require reworking certain duct assemblies in the ECS. These ADs
resulted from reports of duct assemblies in the ECS with burned BMS 8-
39 polyurethane foam insulation. These ADs also resulted from reports
from the airplane manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with duct
assemblies in the ECS wrapped with BMS 8-39 polyurethane foam
insulation, a material with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate
with age. We issued these ADs to prevent a potential electrical arc
from igniting the BMS 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation on the duct
assemblies of the ECS, which could propagate a small fire and lead to a
larger fire that might spread throughout the airplane through the ECS.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21A1132, Revision 3, dated
February 16, 2011. This service bulletin describes procedures for
reworking and part-marking the following affected duct assemblies ECS
systems. The rework includes doing a pressure and leak test following
installation of the new insulation.
     Captain's outlet air distribution ducts
     Control cabin air distribution ducts
     Distribution manifold
     Passenger air distribution gasper air ducts

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21A1132, Revision 3, dated February 16,
2011, recommends reworking the affected duct assemblies ``during the
next heavy maintenance check, within 24,000 flight-hours from the date
on this service bulletin.'' This proposed AD would require operators to
rework the affected duct assemblies within 72 months after the
effective date of the AD. In developing the compliance time for this
action, we considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing
the subject unsafe condition. We also considered the availability of
required parts and the practical aspect of reworking the affected duct
assemblies within an interval that parallels normal scheduled
maintenance for most affected operators. The average heavy maintenance
schedule for the affected fleet is between 60 and 72 months; therefore,
the proposed compliance time of 72 months is equivalent to the
recommended compliance time of ``during the next heavy maintenance
check, within 24,000 flight-hours,'' and it represents an appropriate
interval in which an ample number of required parts will be available
to modify the affected fleet without adversely affecting the safety of
these airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with the Boeing
Company.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 292 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duct assembly rework/part marking  250 work-hours x $85            $3,545            $24,795         $7,240,140
                                    per hour = $21,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1171; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-101-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 22, 2011.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21A1132, Revision 3, dated
February 16, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report from the airplane manufacturer
that airplanes were assembled with air distribution ducts in the
environmental control system (ECS) wrapped with Boeing Material
Specification (BMS) 8-39 or Aeronautical Materials Specifications
(AMS) 3570 polyurethane foam insulation, a material with fire
retardant properties that

deteriorate with age. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition of
the BMS 8-39 or AMS 3570 polyurethane foam insulation on the duct
assemblies of the ECS due to a potential electrical arc, which could
start a small fire and lead to a larger fire that may spread
throughout the airplane through the ECS.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Air Distribution Duct Rework

    Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, rework the
applicable duct assemblies in the ECS specified in and in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions and Appendix A of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-21A1132, Revision 3, dated February 16, 2011.

    Note 1: The service bulletin accomplishment instructions might
refer to other procedures. When the words ``refer to'' are used and
the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted
alternative procedure can be used to comply with the AD. When the
words ``in accordance with'' are included in the instruction, the
procedure in the design approval holder document must be used to
comply with the AD.

(h) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    Reworking the applicable duct assemblies in the ECS in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and Appendix A of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21A1132, Revision 2, dated June 13,
2007, before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g)
of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
ECS duct assembly with BMS 8-39 or AMS 3570 polyurethane foam
insulation on any airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM&-Seattle-ACO-Requests-faa.gov.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kimberly A.
DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems
Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6495; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone:
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 26, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-28758 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15426-15427]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. CP10-89-000; PF09-13-000]

East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Application

March 22, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 8, 2010, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC
(East Tennessee), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310,
filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization
to: (i) Install an approximately 8.4-mile, 24-inch diameter mainline
extension and to construct of a new meter station and installation of a
launcher/receiver at the terminus of the extension; (ii) install 8.0
miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline looping, including a launcher/
receiver, mainline valve, and regulator; (iii) abandon and replace
approximately 2.3 miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline with 24-inch
diameter pipeline, including new piping connections at the Fordtown
Compressor Station; (iv) abandon and replace 9.2 miles of 8-inch
diameter pipeline with 24-inch diameter pipeline, including new piping
connections at the Bristol Compressor Station; and (v) modify and
install of regulation and piping at the existing Flatwoods and Glade
Spring Compressor Stations (the NET Project). The NET Project is
located in Greene, Hawkins, Sullivan, and Washington Counties,
Tennessee and Washington County, Virginia. East Tennessee states that
the NET Project will allow it to provide 150,000 dekatherms (Dth) per
day of firm transportation to a proposed natural gas-fired power
generation facility of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site Web at  http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa
A. Moore, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, East Tennessee
Natural Gas, LLC, 5400 Westheimer Court, PO Box 1642, Houston, Texas
77251-1642, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On August 10, 2009, Commission staff granted East Tennessee's
request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF09-
13-000 to staff activities involved the NET Project. Now, as of the
filing the March 8, 2010 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP10-89-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: April 12, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6826 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31593-31594]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9964-12-Region 2]

Proposed CERCLA Sections 104, 106, 107, and 122 Bona Fide
Prospective Purchaser Settlement for Removal Action for the Alfred
Heller Heat Treating Superfund Site, City of Clifton, Passaic County,
New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed bona fide
prospective purchaser settlement agreement pursuant to Sections 104,
106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA, with 356 Getty Avenue, LLC for the Alfred
Heller Heat Treating Superfund Site (``Site''), located in the City of
Clifton, Passaic County, New Jersey. 356 Getty Avenue, LLC agrees to
perform a CERCLA removal action at the Site and pay EPA $25,000 for
EPA's future oversight costs at or in connection with the Site.
    The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take
administrative action against 356 Getty Avenue, LLC pursuant to
Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, for Existing Contamination, a
defined term under the settlement agreement, at the Site. For thirty
(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will
receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider
all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Comments should reference the Alfred Heller Heat Treating Superfund
Site, City of Clifton, Passaic County, New Jersey, Index No. II-CERCLA-
02-2017-2008. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement,
please contact the EPA employee identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Deborah Schwenk, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 2, 2017.
Eric J. Wilson,
Acting Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-14344 Filed 7-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73331-73332]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-45-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: EGTS--October 19, 2023
Administrative Changes to be effective 11/20/2023.

    Filed Date: 10/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20231019-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-46-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cove Point--October 19, 2023
Administrative Change to be effective 11/20/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20231019-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-47-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CGT--October 19, 2023
Administrative Changes to be effective 11/20/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20231019-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-48-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amended Negotiated Rate
Agreement--10/19/2023 to be effective 10/19/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20231019-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-49-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NC Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Muni
Elec Autho of GA 8480 to Energy Authority 57346) to be effective 10/18/
2023.
    Filed Date: 10/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20231019-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23591 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Summary of Assessment of EPA-BEAD Grower Analysis of Azinphosmethyl

Jay F. Brunner

Washington State University

Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center

1100 N. Western Ave.

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Abstract: The three scenarios for replacement of azinphosmethyl (AZM) in
western apple production includes a substitution with phosmet (scenario
#1), substitution with neonicotinyl insecticides (NNI) and an insect
growth regulator, novaluron (scenario #2), and use of pheromone (mating
disruption) with a single AZM rescue treatment (scenario #3). The first
two scenarios are logical and represent possible programmatic directions
western apple growers might follow.  However, scenario #3 is not a
logical option, especially to replace a 3-application AZM program and
should not be considered by the EPA as an alternative when making
decisions about continued use of AZM.  There are serious problems with
the economic analysis, primarily associated with three factors; 1) the
cost of insecticides does not represent realistic costs to the growers ,
2) it is in appropriate to use an average per acre rate of products when
considering substitution programs for AZM, and 3) there is no additional
cost for an additional application in scenarios #1 and #2.  Other
assumptions like the complete shifting of injured fruit from fresh to
processing with growers benefiting somewhat from reduced income may no
longer be valid since processors are as strict as the fresh market in
rejecting lots with codling moth (CM) injury.  The use of NNI and
novaluron will most likely result in the eventual disruption of spider
mite biological control necessitating the application of specific
miticides on a significant proportion of acreage, thus increasing grower
costs.  The argument that some growers will switch from conventional to
organic apple production is likely true if AZM was completely eliminated
as an option for apple growers.  However, there is likely to be no
increased in net revenue from this transition based on the increased
costs of organic programs and lower returns for organic fruit over the
last 3-4 years.

General comments relative to the EPA 2005 Grower Impact Assessment of
Azinphos-methyl Use on Apples (DP 307589)

Spectrum of pests (western US) controlled by AZM.

Leafrollers, San Jose scale and aphids are listed in the report as being
targets of AZM.  In Washington leafrollers are NOT a pest controlled by
azinphosmethyl (AZM) and likely not used as a primary control of LR in
CA or other western states. San Jose scale may be suppressed by AZM
(second codling moth cover spray) but it is not relied upon for the
primary means of control of this pest.   Aphids are NOT controlled by
AZM.

Use of pheromones (mating disruption-MD) in WA and other locations.

Between 2000-2004 about fifty percent of apple acreage was treated with
pheromones for CM control (CMMD) in WA. The acreage treated with CMMD in
WA in 2005 is estimated to be nearly 65% of the apple acreage (120,000
acres treated). Most pear acreage in CA is treated with CMMD but the
percentage apple acreage treated with pheromone is likely much lower. In
OR there is some use of CMMD in apple but the percent area treated is
likely much lower than in WA.

Cost of CMMD is a major concern in the western US, as it is elsewhere.
The high cost has resulted in growers using less than full rates, which
compromises the full effect of the technology and as a result requires
increased use of supplemental insecticides to achieve acceptable
commercial levels of crop protection.

Very few orchards will be able to reduce CM populations to levels where
CMMD will be a stand-alone control for CM.  It is possible with a
concerted effort to reduce CM densities to levels where lower rates of
pheromones can be used with one or two supplemental insecticides and
this is a common management program in many WA orchards.

Alternative insecticides for CM control.

The use of kaolin clay (Surround) for CM control is not a practical
approach.  Seasonal use of this product results in increased spider mite
problems and it also interferes with biological control of leafminers.

The statement that CM granulosis virus (CpGv) is not effective against
first generation CM is not true. CpGv is effective against CM in the
first generation and can be a very good fit in an integrated pest
management program that incorporates bio-pesticides.  The use of CpGv in
the second CM generation makes sense where highly effective larvicides
and ovicides are used against in the first CM generation. CpGv is best
used in conjunction with CMMD where it will provide suppression of
resident CM population. The negatives associated with use of the CM
virus in the second CM generation are high temperatures and high UVL
intensity, both of which degrade the virus.

Other alternatives for CM control not listed in the EPA-BEAD review
include methoxyfenozide, mineral oil and pyriproxyfen. All of these
products are considered to have as high or higher efficacy than kaolin
against CM with fewer negative side effects.

Assumptions of statements relative to the use of AZM in western states.

In the Pacific Northwest switching to the use of phosmet is not the most
likely scenario that would occur if AZM were not available.  Increased
use of phosmet would likely occur if AZM was no longer available but it
is more likely that there would be a greater shift to newly registered
alternatives due to the lack of the industries confidence in phosmet as
an effective CM control and the cost of phosmet relative to newer
insecticides that might be perceived as more efficacious or hold
additional value in the control of other pests.

On average the substitution of 4 application of phosmet for 3
applications of AZM is a reasonable model to use in this kind of
analysis, however, in some high-pressure situations (15-20% of orchards)
three applications of AZM is not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels
of crop protection and therefore four applications of phosmet would not
be sufficient to achieved acceptable control of CM. Using average usage
patterns always represents a problem in dealing with other orchard
situations that have high than average pest pressures and thus would not
be able to achieve acceptable control with the “average” use of
products.

Diversion of CM injured fruit from the yield loss category to the
quality reduction category.

Processors have become almost as averse as fresh markets for acceptance
of CM injured fruit.  Therefore, the concept of diverting injured fruit
into processing is not a very rational alternative given current
constraints.  CM injured fruit would more likely be discarded (therefore
reducing yield not shifting yield to a processing category) with NO
value to the grower. The EPA-BEAD report does note that if infestation
rates were too high in processor lots these would be rejected.  While
this might have a greater impact on the eastern growers it is not
without significant impact on the western apple growers.  In addition
the value of processing fruit for western growers, especially fruit, is
way below the cost of production and thus any diversion to processing
only reduces economic loss.

Comments relative to use of neonicotinyl insecticides in western
orchards.

The use of two applications of neonicotinyl insecticides  (NNI) is an
acceptable alternative to replacement of AZM in many but not all WA
orchards.  WSU recommends use of only two NNI in a year but these should
be used against the same generation of CM.  The use of NNIs is
complicated by availability of NNIs that are effective against other
pests (primarily aphids) that could be used at a time CM is active and
therefore selected for resistance even though it is not the primary
target of the treatment.  The use of two NNIs in one season would not
likely increase spider mite populations in treated orchards in one year,
however, there is enough evidence in recent literature and from our
experience to suggest that with other perturbation factors present in
apple orchards it is likely that the long term use of more NNIs will
lead to increased problems with spider mites (Beers EH, Brunner JF,
Dunley JE, Doerr M, Granger K. 2005. Role of neonicotinyl insecticides
in Washington apple integrated pest management. Part II. Nontarget
effects on integrated mite control. 10pp. Journal of Insect Science,
5:16, Available online: insectscience.org/5.16). Increased problems with
spider mites would result in the need to apply more specific miticides
than has been true historically in WA. In addition, the use of NNIs with
novaluron could lead to stimulation in spider mite problems (E. H.
Beers, personal communication). There is also evidence from eastern
apple orchards novaluron can result in increased spider mite problems.

Comments on use of novaluron.

The use of novaluron could reduce costs of leafroller control and
offset, to some extent, the expense of the second scenario, but there is
only limited experience using this product in commercial orchard
situations and preliminary evidence suggests that it will add to the
perturbation of spider mite biological control.

Specific Comments relative to the three proposed scenarios for AZM
replacement.

First Scenario.

The assumption of a substitution of phosmet for AZM is not the most
likely shift that would take place in WA orchards simply because phosmet
is not perceived as an effective control for CM.  However, for the sake
of this analysis it is not an unreasonable scenario to examine.

Prices used for insecticides in the EPA-BEAD analysis are not what WA
growers would likely pay.  Based on retail prices (see table below) the
cost of AZM is $12.41 per pound. Many growers using AZM at a rate of 3
pounds if used only one time but under a three-application program only
2 pounds per acre would be used so the cost per application would be $25
per acre ($37 per acre for a three pound application).  A
three-treatment program of AZM would cost the grower $75 per acre.

Phosmet (Imidan) costs about $8.75 per pound (see table below).  Growers
in WA use the maximum rate allowed for CM control, which is roughly 5
pounds.  Thus, the cost per acre for a phosmet application would be $44
(5 pounds * $8.75/lbs.).  Therefore a replacement program of phosmet (4
applications) would cost $176 per acre versus $75 per acre for a 3 AZM
application program.  In addition, there would need to be added the
extra cost of an application of phosmet ($20 per acre) since there is an
assumption of one more treatment per acre.  The cost of this to the
grower in the west would likely be a real increase since trips through
the orchard are not as common as occurs in eastern apple orchards.
Adding the cost of an extra application to the phosmet substitution
program would make it $196 per acre compared to $75 per acre for AZM, or
a difference of $121 per acre.

Table of information based on expected rate used for CM control and
estimated cost per acre based on high label rate for each product.

Prices based on 2005 retail prices from Wilbur-Ellis Company.  Actually
prices paid for these products would likely be 10-20% lower than shown
here but the relative cost would remain the same.

It appears in the EPA-BEAD analysis the average rate of an insecticide
from NASS surveys is used to help determine the cost of a treatment
scenario.  There is a logical flaw in this reasoning.  Growers do not
use an average rate for an insecticide treatment.  If they are going to
control CM they will use the most effective rate, usually the highest
rate on the label.  When comparing AZM with alternatives in an analysis
of this kind the most efficacious rate for CM control for each
insecticide should be used, not the average rate from a national survey.
 See the table above for the rates (formulated product) that would most
likely be used in WA orchards for control of CM.

The cost information from Table 7 in the EAP-BEAD analysis indicates
that using the AZM alternative, phosmet, in the first scenario would
cost $60 per acre and that the AZM would cost $42 per acre.  Based on
more realistic prices for these products the cost of the phosmet program
should have been $196 (including the cost of an extra application)
compared to $75 per acre for AZM.  Therefore the phosmet program is 2.6
times the cost of the AZM program very close to the 2.5 used in the
EPA-BEAD report.  This is only a small difference but the total cost of
insect control is much higher than predicted given the scenario being
analyzed.

Second Scenario.

The products used in the second scenario as an alternative CM control
program for AZM represents a possible, though maybe not the most
logical, program for WA growers.  Even so the assumptions used in the
report are flawed based primarily on the prices of the products.

Novaluron is an insecticide that has been used for only one season in
WA.  Novaluron is priced at $1.70 per ounce and 32 fl. ounces (or more)
are used for CM control in WA orchards.  Thus, the cost per acre is $54
not $20 as reported in Table 7 of the EPA-BEAD analysis.  Since there is
no data on novaluron use in apples prior to this report either the high
label rate should have been used or the typical label rate from research
trials should be used, that is the 32 fl. ounces per acre.

Acetamiprid is used at a rate of 3.4 ounces for CM control in WA as a
replacement of one AZM treatment.  The cost of an application of
acetamiprid would therefore be $52 per acre. Thiacloprid is used at a
rate of 6 fl. ounces per acre for CM control at cost of $8.42/fl oz,
which results in a cost of $50 per acre per application. The rates used
for the NNIs should be as shown in the table above.  When the NNIs are
used for aphid control the rates used are much lower (about half)
compared to those used for CM control.  Therefore it is inappropriate to
use an average rate per acre in NASS or other use surveys for
determining costs of CM control programs.

The current best estimate for WA is that about 65% of apple growers are
using CMMD of one kind of another.  The lowest cost for this technology
is about $100 per acre for a full use rate plus $15-20 per acre for
application. A much more realistic second scenario should include CMMD
at half to three-quarter the full field rate for at least 50% of the
acreage treated plus the cost of the alternative insecticides. This is
the program that is currently followed for uses of AZM and is a much
more realistic assessment for the economic cost of CM control programs
in WA. Other products that could likely be used in the second scenario
include methoxyfenozide, pyriproxyfen, mineral oil, and CpGv (CM virus),
all likely in conjunction with CMMD.

The cost information from Table 7 in the EAP-BEAD analysis indicates
that using the AZM alternatives in the second scenario would cost $105
per acre. However, based on real prices and rates the program would cost
$212 per acre (acetamiprid-$52 + thiacloprid-$50 + two novaluron-$110).
Like the first scenario the cost of an application ($20) should be
included, putting the total cost to $234 per acre. The second scenario
would therefore be about 3.1 times more expensive than the AZM
3-application program. The pest control cost increase would be $162 per
acre not the $63 per acre stated in the EPA-BEAD analysis.

The EAP-BEAD analysis assumes that no yield or quality losses would
accompany the use of AZM alternatives in the second scenario. However,
there is really not sufficient commercial experience to confidently
claim that there would not be losses of yield or quality.  Evidence from
numerous recent research field trials would suggests that all the
alternative products used in the second scenario are close to AZM in
control of CM but none provide an equal level of crop protection as AZM.
 In several years of field trials in WA, AZM under high-pressure
situations provided an average of 94.2% reduction in fruit injury
relative to the untreated control.  Acetamiprid and thiacloprid provided
82.2 and 71.0% reduction in fruit injury, respectively (Brunner JF,
Beers EH, Dunley JE, Doerr M, Granger K. 2005. Role of neonicotinyl
insecticides in Washington apple integrated pest management. Part I.
Control of lepidopteran pests. 10pp. Journal of Insect Science, 5:14,
Available online: insectscience.org/5.14.). Some of the differences in
lower efficacy are related to experiments where lower rates were used in
initial trials, especially with thiacloprid.  However, there does seem
to be an inherent weakness in these two NNI products relative to AZM in
field tests where coverage and timing of treatments is precise. How
these differences would be expressed in commercial orchards has yet to
be determined but the very best scenario is that there would be no loss
in yield.  It is possible that operational factors, spray coverage and
timing issues, would reduce efficacy of commercial applications of the
NNIs and novaluron relative to AZM.  Excellent coverage of the target is
required for each of the alternative products because they have very
little or no contact activity. When using an IGR like novaluron timing
must be exact and is different from AZM so there is an adaptive period
while growers learn how to use new products.  Taking these factors
together it is likely that some yield losses could occur as new
technologies are implemented in apple IPM systems.

In a three-year study where AZM alternatives were compared with an AZM
(conventional) program there were no differences in the cost of controls
or in the level of fruit loss due to CM injury.  These studies were
conducted in 15 grower orchards throughout WA and growers applied
treatments.  The key difference in this study and scenarios offered by
the EPA-BEAD report is that all the orchards were treated with
half-rates of CMMD (primarily Isomate C-plus) and AZM and
AZM-alternatives were applied as supplements.  In addition, most of
these orchards started out with very low CM populations and thus the
study primarily points out that it is possible to achieve adequate
control of CM over three years when starting at these low pest
populations levels.  This study should not be used as a typical
representation for all WA apple orchards (see the attached report on
this project below).

Most effective specific miticides cost $50-60 per acre. The increasing
evidence that use of NNIs and novaluron could increase spider mite
problems resulting in the use of miticides on an additional 20% of apple
acreage in WA suggests that these costs should be added to the AZM
alternative program in the second scenario. It would be reasonable to
add at least $15 per acre to the second scenario to take into account
for the need to control spider mites.

The use of novaluron could reduce costs of leafroller control and offset
to some extent the increased expenses caused by spider mites control of
the second scenario.   Since there is only limited experience in
commercial orchards with this product, and preliminary evidence suggests
that it will add to the perturbation of spider mite biological control,
the reduced costs of leafroller control would probably be neutralized by
the increased cost of spider mite control.

Third Scenario.

In reality this scenario is NOT a comparison that is appropriate for an
orchard requiring 3 AZM applications to control CM. The third scenario
would only be appropriate for a small proportion of WA growers, maybe
10% of the acreage, and these growers would not have been using 3 AZM
sprays prior to adopting CMMD.   Any orchard requiring 3 AZM
applications could not achieve acceptable control of CM using CMMD plus
one “rescue” AZM application.  Therefore, all the analyses conducted
under this scenario would seem to be inappropriate.

Evidence from early work on CMMD use in WA apple orchards suggests that
if used as a stand-alone technique it would not be able to provide
adequate CM control in many orchards.  In the paper by Gut and Brunner
(Gut, L.J. and J.F. Brunner. 1998. Pheromone-based management of codling
moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Washington apple orchards. J. Agric.
Entomol. 15(4): 387-406.) 2 of the five orchards using CMMD as a
stand-alone technology showed a serious increase in CM populations and
crop (yield) loss when compared to a conventional program (see below
page 392 from the publication).  Other evidence from a non-peer reviewed
report (see Oregon State Horticulture Proceedings article below - page
99) also shows that CMMD alone does not provide adequate control where
CM densities are high. A high CM pressure orchard was described as
having moth captures (non pheromone treated orchard) greater than 50
moths per trap, use of 3-4 cover sprays, and greater than 1.5% crop loss
at harvest (Gut, L.J. and J.F. Brunner. 1996. Mating disruption as a
control for codling moth in Washington apple orchards. Wash. State Univ.
Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Info. Series No. 1, March 1996.
The Good Fruit Grower, Yakima. 8 p.).  All these evidences plus grower
experience in WA strongly indicates that the third scenario is not a
realistic alternative for CM control.

The EPA-BEAD assumption that there would be no yield or quality losses
in the third scenario is not supported by experience.  It might be
possible to have no additional yield losses in the first or second year
of a program like the third scenario but it is very likely that over
time yield losses would equal or exceed that experienced in the first
scenario.  While there is historical evidence to show that pheromones
plus AZM when used in an areawide program can reduce the need for AZM
applications from ca. 3 to less than less than one, it required 3 years
to achieve this level of AZM reduction (Brunner J.F., S. Welter, C.
Calkins, R. Hilton, E.H. Beers, J.E. Dunley, T. Unruh, A. Knight, R. Van
Steenwyk and P. VanBuskirk. 2002. Mating disruption of codling moth:  a
perspective from the Western United States. In: Witzgall, P., B.
Mazomenos and M. Konstantopoulou, editors. IOBC WPRS Bulletin Vol.
25(9): 207-215. Samos, Greece: OPBC WPRS.). In most situations replacing
3 AZM applications with a full rate of pheromone plus one AZM would lead
to an increase in yield loss of 0.5-1.0% the first year and it would
likely increase more in following years in many orchards.  While it is
possible to achieve acceptable commercial control of CM with pheromones
plus one or two insecticides, even AZM alternatives, this would occur
where CM populations have been driven to, or initially were at, low
levels.

A more appropriate alternative scenario, one that would be an
organic-like approach, would include pheromones plus methoxyfenozide,
spinosad, oil and virus.  Such a program would avoid the perturbation of
spider mite biological control experienced in the second scenario but
would also be subject to high insecticide costs and yield losses similar
or greater than in first scenario.

Building a Pheromone-based Multi-tactic Pest Management

System for Western Orchards

Areawide II Demonstration Project Report

Mike Doerr, Jay Brunner, Elizabeth Beers, John Dunley and Vince Jones

Washington State University

Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center

Wenatchee, WA

Objective 1.1	Evaluate CMMD programs that replace supplemental controls
of organophosphates with selective insecticides.

Objective 2.1	Evaluate/compare biological control in orchards using
mating disruption integrated with other selective tactics.

Project Title 	Implementation of a non-organophosphate program to
supplement a pheromone-based IPM program in apple.

PI(s)	Jay F. Brunner, Elizabeth Beers, John Dunley, Vince Jones

Abstract

Both SOFT and CONV treatment regimes were able to maintain injury from
CM at a very low level across the AWII project, even in the face of
increasing CM pressure throughout most of the growing areas of
Washington State. CM pressure varied in the AWII project from low to
moderate in most blocks to high at two of the orchards (A3 and A5). On
average, there was no real change in CM injury in either treatment
regime from 2001-2003 as measured at harvest by bin samples. The average
number of insecticide applications and the total cost of insecticides
were very similar between the two management programs. It is worth
noting that the total cost of insecticides was reduced in both
management programs each year of the project (No-OP - $250/acre in 2001,
$173/acre in 2003/acre; CONV- $220/acre in 2001, $179/acre in 2003). It
is becoming apparent after three years of the AWII that in most
situations a pheromone-based pest management program that relies on
No-OP insecticides for both CM and leafroller control with supplemental
Assail applications for CM is competitive with CONV regimes in cost and
fruit protection.

Impact Statement

This project demonstrated that, for many orchards in Washington, apples
could be produced using a pheromone-based management approach that did
not rely on organophosphate insecticides and at no economic increase in
cost to the grower. If even half of the apple orchards in Washington
would adopt this management approach organophosphate use could be
reduced 50%. Along with federal rules that set long reentry intervals
for organophosphate insecticides new state rules on cholinesterase
testing for farm workers applying organophosphate pesticides will likely
have growers asking for pest management programs that eliminate the need
for these products. This project has helped provide a realistic basis
for alternative pest management programs that Washington growers can
adopt immediately without increasing risk of crop losses or increasing
their expenses.

Specific Project Objectives

Compare pest control at several sites using codling moth (CM) mating
disruption as a base program supplemented with either “conventional”
insecticides or newly registered selective insecticides.

Monitor CM and other pests using newest technology available to
supplement monitoring by crop consultants.

Assess the impact of selected natural enemies on pests at each site
under different pest control programs.

Evaluate the impact of different programs based on crop loss due to
pests and costs of pest controls.

Use the demonstration sites as opportunities to educate growers and crop
consultants on how different selective pest control programs work.

Methods

The 15 apple sites were established in Washington to compare
pheromone-based pest management programs that use conventional
insecticide treatments with those that do not use organophosphate
insecticides. Each site consists of a grower and crop consultants
willing to participate in the project. The entire site was treated with
CM mating disruption. Within each site, supplements to CM mating
disruption were either conventional insecticides (OP supplements or
other non-selective insecticides) or selective insecticides (non-OP
supplements, e.g., oil, Intrepid, Esteem). Controls for other pests
followed a “traditional conventional” or “selective
alternatives” approach. Close adherence to control programs was
expected unless crop injury exceeded acceptable levels. Management of
sites was through a combination of a local on-site manager, grower
committee, extension agent and technical advice from researchers. Crop
consultants contracted to work on the project performed assigned pest
monitoring activities. Standardized recordkeeping was established for
all monitoring activities and was continued all three years. Pest
control costs were borne by the grower with the exception of certain
non-OP products that may have been donated by the registrant.

Monitoring activities: Standardized monitoring activities developed
under CAMP were used to assess pest insects in cooperation with crop
consultants working at the sites. Pheromone trapping was used for CM and
leafroller. New monitoring systems under development for leafrollers, CM
and lacanobia fruitworm were also incorporated into the areas to obtain
data on efficiency relative to pheromone monitoring systems and
correlation with pest density and crop injury measurements.

Assessment of biological control: Orchards at each site were monitored
to compare effects of different programs on the kinds and abundance of
natural enemies. Pest/natural enemy systems to be monitored were spider
mites/predatory mites, aphids/parasitoids-predators and
leafminer/parasitoids.

Program evaluation: The efficacy of different control programs was
evaluated from several different perspectives. The level of pest density
in each pest control program was determined throughout the season based
on monitoring activities and compared to arrive at a relative value for
pest suppression. The level of natural enemy density was also monitored
as described above and their abundance compared in the different pest
control programs to arrive at a relative value for natural enemy
conservation. Crop losses were determined from in-field inspection of
fruit in orchards using the different pest control programs. The level
of crop loss by pest was determined for each pest control program and
compared using statistical inference across all sites. Costs were
compared for each pest control program.

Education: The demonstration study sites were used as field locations
for tours and workshops showing growers the results of the different
pest control programs. These educational events were held in each region
where the demonstration study sites are located to provide a local value
to the experiences of growers and crop consultants participating in the
project. Workshops and demonstrations were held each year of the project
to update the industry on progress and new products being integrated
into the pest control programs.

Results and Discussion

Codling moth: Initially a wide range of CM populations were present
within the 15 AWII apple sites. In the first generation of 2001 CM traps
(10X) averaged 4.0 (OP blocks) and 7.0 (No-OP blocks) moths/trap and
ranged from an average of 0 to 52 moths/trap for the season. Codling
moth catches were lower in the second generation in most orchards in
2001, average of 1.7 (OP blocks) and 1.5 (No-OP blocks) moths/trap.
There were no differences in the season average capture in 10X
lure-baited traps between programs, 5.6 ± 2.1 in the OP blocks and 8.5
± 4.2 in the No-OP blocks. There were no significant differences in
codling moth captures in 10X traps between the OP and No-OP treatment
blocks in 2002 or 2003 (Fig. 1), and in most all blocks trap counts
would be considered moderate to low by industry standards.

The DA lures attract both sexes of CM. Capture of moths in the DA
lure-baited traps was low in 2001. In the first generation, captures in
the OP and No-OP blocks averaged 72% and 70% males, respectively, while
second generation males accounted for 67% and 63%, respectively. The
percentage of mated females was slightly lower in the OP compared to the
No-OP blocks for the first generation in 2001, 32% versus 50%,
respectively. The percentage of mated females increased in the second
generation to 80% and 78%, respectively. This same trend was observed in
2002, although in 2003 the percentage of females mated was lower than in
the previous two years. Average catch in DA lure-baited traps in the
first generation was slightly lower than 10X pheromone lure-baited traps
while in the second generation catch in DA lure-baited traps was
slightly higher than in the pheromone lure-baited traps. This pattern
was different in two of 15 orchards in 2003. In these unique cases CM
capture in DA traps was about 10 times higher than in the
pheromone-baited traps. However, the high level of moth capture in the
DA lure-baited traps did not translate into high levels of fruit injury.

Figure 1. Average CM/trap for the season (10X lure-baited traps).

Leafroller: A wide range of leafroller densities was detected in the
AWII blocks in 2001. The range of moth capture per block was from 0 to
895 (OP mean 233±68 and No-OP mean 149±62) for OBLR and 0 to 554 (OP
mean 68±40 and No-OP mean 65±31) for PLR. In 2002, the average OBLR
moth captures were about the same as 2001 (OP mean 250±75 and No-OP
mean 167±61), while the PLR moth captures increased slightly (OP mean
139±49 and No-OP mean 160±50). In 2003, average OBLR moth captures
were lower than in 2001 or 2002 (OP mean 75±22 and No-OP mean 121±37),
and the PLR moth captures also decreased slightly compared to 2002 (OP
mean 94±37 and No-OP mean 124±66).

Leafroller pressure in each block was categorized using moth capture in
a standard lure-baited trap as High: >200 moths, Moderate: 100-200
moths, Low: 50-99 moths, and Very low: <50 moths per trap. The ratio of
captures in the standard and low-load lure-baited trap in each block was
used to determine if a leafroller population was internal (0 to 5),
unclear (5 to 10) or external (>10). Using these criteria, OBLR
populations were rated as being “high” in 6 OP blocks (3 with an
internal population source) and 4 No-OP blocks (only one with an
internal population source) in 2001, while PLR populations were rated as
being “high” in only 2 blocks in both OP and No-OP blocks. In 2002,
OBLR populations were rated as being “high” in 6 OP blocks (all of
which had an internal population source) and 5 No-OP blocks (with 4
having an internal population source) while PLR populations were rated
as being “high” in 5 OP and 6 No-OP blocks (all of which were rated
as having an internal population source). Most of the orchards with high
OBLR populations were in the Columbia Basin, Quincy and Brewster areas.
Orchards with high PLR populations were in the Wenatchee or Yakima
valley area. In 2003, OBLR populations were rated as being “high” in
6 OP blocks (4 of which had an internal population source) and 3 No-OP
blocks (with 2 having an internal population source) while PLR
populations were rated as being “high” in 4 OP and 2 No-OP blocks
(with none being rated as having an internal population source). The
perception that OBLR was becoming more common in all orchards over time
was not as well supported by moth capture data as by the identification
of larvae found at each location. The trend across the fruit industry is
for an increase in the densities of OBLR in apple orchards while PLR
densities have declined. This does not seem to be due to any specific
pesticide program, conventional or soft, but could be due to OBLR being
more fit (resistant) to all pesticides used in apple orchards and
because they have a higher biological potential for increase and more
alternate hosts than PLR.

Lacanobia fruitworm: This relatively new pest was monitored with a
pheromone lure-baited trap, one per block. There was a wide range of
total moths captured but there were little differences between OP and
No-OP treatment blocks in any year. One problem with attempting to
compare lacanobia populations with pheromone traps is the strong flying
capability of these moths and their ability to move long distances. It
is probably better to rely upon other measures, such as foliage feeding
or fruit injury, to gauge the effect of different programs on this pest.

Field damage surveys

The AWII apple orchards were surveyed for damage by lepidopteran pests
four times during the growing season: late May (leafroller feeding on
shoots), early July (codling moth damage to fruit and lacanobia/cutworm
feeding on shoots), early August (leafroller feeding on shoots), and
late August/September (codling moth damage to fruit). The surveys showed
a range of pest injury among the AWII orchards.

Codling moth (CM) surveys revealed very low levels of fruit damage in
July in all years. The preharvest surveys typically showed slightly more
CM damage than harvest bin samples. The preharvest on-tree fruit injury
surveys were also of value because they provided a better idea of injury
distribution in the orchard than bin samples. In most blocks where CM
damage was found it was largely confined to orchard edges in both OP and
No-OP blocks. There were no significant differences in average CM
damaged fruit between treatments in any year with either assessment
method (Fig. 2).

Leafroller feeding on fruit was detected in 17, 13, and 16 of the 30
treatment-blocks in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. Fruit injury by
leafrollers was higher in the OP and No-OP blocks in 2001, but there
were no significant differences between treatments thereafter.

Fruit feeding by cutworms on fruit was detected in 15, 8, and 10 of the
30 treatment-blocks in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively. There was no
difference in damage levels between treatments in any year.

Figure 2.	The average percentage of fruit injury from CM in OP or No-OP
blocks over three years as measured by in-tree assessments or bin
samples.

Damage by other pests was sporadic and rare. Stink bug damage was a
problem in some blocks in some years but was not a widespread problem
throughout the AWII blocks. Likewise, lygus damage was reported from a
few blocks each year but the levels were always low. Damage by
campylomma was reported from only two blocks (at 0.04% in each). No San
Jose scale was found in any of the 30 treatment-blocks surveyed during
the three years. Thrips damage was found in only one orchard of Granny
Smith (0.2% fruit with marking in the OP block, 0.3% in the No-OP). One
orchard of Golden Delicious had grape mealybug infesting the fruit at
harvest (1.4% infested fruit in the OP block, 0.8% in the No-OP). Fruit
damage levels in 2002 were quite low and similar to the levels found in
2001.

Pesticide use

All AWII apple blocks used CM mating disruption, most at rates close to
200 dispensers/acre, or about half the recommended full rate of the
dispensers used. CM mating disruption is included as a single
insecticide application based on the rate used (400 dispensers per acre
= 1 full application and 200 dispenser per acre = 0.5 of an
application), with cost based on the number of dispensers per acre. The
data presented here include only insecticides and miticides, not
fungicides, plant growth regulators or other non-insecticidal products.
For example, carbaryl (Sevin) used for crop load management and Lime
Sulfur or Rally used for disease suppression are not included in the
data. The main organophosphate (OP) insecticides used in the OP
treatment blocks were chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) [7 of 15 blocks] and
azinphosmethyl (Guthion) [7 blocks]. For the control of lepidopteran
pests the No-OP blocks relied upon methoxyfenozide (Intrepid) [9 of 15
blocks] and pyriproxifen (Esteem) [9 blocks]. The use of the more
selective “soft” insecticides was not limited just to the No-OP
blocks; 2 OP blocks received methoxyfenozide and 2 OP blocks received
pyriproxifen, generally applied soon after bloom for leafroller control.
Spinosad (Success) was used mostly in the OP blocks for leafroller
control (8 OP blocks, one No-OP block). Chloronicotinyl insecticides
were used in both treatment blocks but to a greater extent in the OP
blocks: imidacloprid (Provado) in 2 OP and 1 No-OP blocks, thiamethoxam
(Actara) in 1 OP and one No-OP block, and acetamiprid (Assail) in 6 OP
and 3 No-OP blocks. Miticides were used in the OP blocks (3) but not in
any of the No-OP blocks.

The total number of insecticide applications was not significantly
different between the OP and No-OP programs in all project years (Table
1). The number of insecticides that were applied that controlled both CM
and LR were higher in the No-OP blocks in all years and were 0.5 more
over the duration of the project (Table 1). By contrast, more of the LR
specific insecticides were applied to the OP program blocks than No-OP
blocks. There were no differences in the total number of “other’
insecticides applied (mostly aphicides or controls for true bugs) in the
OP and No-OP blocks. Very few miticides were applied to any block but
there were slightly more in the OP blocks than No-OP blocks.

Table 1.	Average number of foliar insecticides applied per acre
equivalent to AWII apple orchards, 2001-2003.

	CM+LR	Leafroller	Mites	Other	Total

Year	OP	No-OP	OP	No-OP	OP	No-OP	OP	No-OP	OP	No-OP

2001	1.9	2.4	1.3	0.6	0.1	0.1	1.8	2.4	5.0	5.5

2002	1.7	2.0	1.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	2.1	2.1	5.1	4.3

2003	2.2	2.7	1.1	0.1	0.2	0.0	2.1	1.6	5.6	4.3

3-year avg.	1.9	2.4	1.2	0.3	0.1	0.0	2.0	2.0	5.2	4.7

To compare the relative expense of the OP and No-OP programs only
insecticide data are used. These data do not include Sevin (carbaryl),
as its main use is as to modify crop load. It no doubt has some impact
as an insecticide but its impact is not thought to be an over-riding
influence. In 2001 the cost of the OP program was $30 higher than the
No-OP program though there was no statistical difference between them
(Table 2). In 2002 the average cost of the No-OP program declined by $50
per acre and was lower than the OP program, but again the difference was
not statistically significant. In 2003 the cost of both programs
increased but was essentially the same for both programs. Oil was used
about equally by both the OP and No-OP programs. Guthion
(azinphosmethyl) was the most commonly used insecticide, other than oil,
in the OP blocks. In orchards that used Guthion, it t was used an
average of almost 2 times per acre at a cost of nearly $25. Intrepid
(methoxyfenozide) was the most commonly used insecticide in the No-OP
blocks. In orchards that used Intrepid, it was used an average of 2
times per acre at a cost of $50. The average cost of pheromone
treatments in both OP and No-OP blocks was $60 per acre.

Table 2.	Average cost of foliar insecticides applied per acre to AWII
apple orchards, 2001-2003.

Program	2001	2002	2003

OP	151±14.4	150±12.5	175±16.0

No-OP	183±23.7	138±14.1	170±11.8

In 2001 and 2002 the average number of Sevin applications was between
1.5 and 1.7 per block in 9 to 12 of the 15 orchards with essentially no
differences between programs. In 2003 the average use of Sevin was
lower, 1.2 times in 8 of 15 orchards. The average cost of Sevin
treatments was between $10 and $15 per acre across the project with no
differences between OP and No-OP blocks.

Secondary pests and natural enemies

Personnel from the WSU-TFREC visited each orchard several times
throughout the season to sample specifically for a number of secondary
pests and natural enemies. These samples included campylomma, aphids,
white apple leafhopper, leafminer and spider mites. Associated natural
enemies were also sampled. There were no differences between treatments
over the three years of the study.

High pressure sites – W7 and W3

Moderate pressure sites – W2 and W5

Low pressure sites – W4 and W9

.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 67729]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-116-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; XO Energy CAL,
LP

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced XO Energy
CAL, LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 9, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23641 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P