[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25218-25221]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11259]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0301; FRL-9994-02-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Revisions to State Implementation
Plan Permitting Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) Permitting Programs
submitted on October 24, 2002, July 26, 2010, November 6, 2012, and
March 24, 2017. Most of the revisions are administrative in nature and
make the SIP current with Federal rules. In addition, the revisions add
permit flexibility provisions to the NSR program. This proposed action
is consistent with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0301, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Ashley Mohr, 214-665-
7289<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in
the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Mohr, EPA Region 6 Office, Air
Permits Section, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75202,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Mohr or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    The EPA is proposing approval of SIP revisions submitted by
Arkansas on October 24, 2002, July 26, 2010, November 6, 2012, and
March 24, 2017. The proposed revisions addressed in this action include
administrative revisions, revisions that make the Arkansas SIP current
with Federal rules, and revisions that add permit flexibility
provisions to the NSR program. Also, included in this action is the
proposed approval of revisions to the Arkansas SIP that address EPA's
previous 2016 disapproval related to biomass deferral language. The
specific provisions addressed in this action are discussed below.

A. October 24, 2002 Submittal

    On October 24, 2002, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes enacted at Reg. 26, Chapters 3, 4, and 6. These
revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology
Commission on August 23, 2002, and became effective on September 26,
2002.
    This action is the EPA's first action on the October 24, 2002 SIP
revision

submittal and will address all of the SIP revisions to Reg. 26,
Chapters 3, 4, and 6 contained in the 2002 submittal.

B. July 26, 2010 Submittal

    On July 26, 2010, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and Appendix A and enacted at Reg. 26, Chapters 3,
4, 5, and 6. These revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution
Control & Ecology Commission on December 5, 2008, and became effective
on January 25, 2009. (On November 23, 2010, Teresa Marks, Director of
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), provided a
clarification letter regarding the July 26, 2010 submittal. This
clarification letter was a resubmission of the SIP revision resulting
from the previous submittal containing one incorrect hardcopy and
electronic copy of the SIP revision.) On March 28, 2019, Arkansas
withdrew a portion of the July 26, 2010 submitted revisions from
consideration for approval into the Arkansas SIP. Therefore, EPA is not
taking action on those withdrawn revisions, as they are no longer in
front of EPA for review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Arkansas withdrew the following revisions from the July 26,
2010 submittal in their March 28, 2019 request for withdrawal:
Changes to Reg. 19.407(B)(1)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to take action only on the revisions to Reg.
19, Chapter 4, Sections 405, 411, 414, 415, and 416; Reg. 19, Appendix
A; Reg. 26, Chapter 3, Sections 301 and 302; Reg. 26, Chapter 4,
Sections 401, 402, 407, 409, and 410; Reg. 26, Chapter 5, Sections 501
and 502; and Reg. 26, Chapter 6, Sections 601, 602, 603, and 604. The
July 26, 2010 submittal also contained the replacement of ``Sections''
with ``Reg.'' throughout Reg. 19 and Reg. 26 section headings (e.g.,
``Section 26.101'' heading revised to ``Reg. 26.101''). We are
proposing to approve this non-substantive change throughout the current
SIP-approved portions of Reg. 19 and Reg. 26. The EPA has already taken
action on other elements of this submittal as follows: (1) EPA approved
revisions to Reg. 19, Chapter 15 on March 12, 2012 (77 FR 14604); (2)
EPA approved revisions to Reg. 19, Chapter 9 on April 2, 2013 (78 FR
19596); (3) EPA approved revisions to Reg. 19, Chapter 14 on April 17,
2014 (78 FR 21631); (4) EPA approved revisions to Reg. 19, Chapters 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11573); and (5)
EPA approved a portion of the revisions to Reg. 19, Chapter 4 on June
29, 2018 (83 FR 30553).

C. November 6, 2012 Submittal

    On November 6, 2012, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and
Appendix A and enacted at Reg. 26, Chapter 4. These revisions were
adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission on June
22, 2012, and October 26, 2012, and became effective on July 9, 2012,
and November 18, 2012, respectively. On March 28, 2019, Arkansas
withdrew a portion of the November 6, 2012 submitted revisions from
consideration for approval into the Arkansas SIP. Therefore, EPA is not
taking action on those withdrawn revisions, as they are no longer
before EPA for review.\2\ In addition, EPA returned a portion of the
November 6, 2012 submitted revisions back to Arkansas because they were
no longer applicable as a result of the March 28, 2019 withdrawal
request. EPA is not taking action those returned revisions, as they are
no longer in front of EPA for review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Arkansas withdrew the following revisions from the November
6, 2012 submittal in their March 28, 2019 request for withdrawal:
Changes to Reg. 19.405(B)(1); changes to Reg. 19.407(C)(3); changes
to Reg. 19, Appendix A, Group A, Item 1; and the addition of
``75,000 tpy carbon dioxide'' to Reg. 19, Appendix A, Group A, Item
13.
    \3\ As a result of Arkansas's March 28, 2019 withdrawal request,
the revisions to 407(B)(1)(b) submitted on November 6, 2012 were no
longer applicable and were returned to the state on May 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to take action only on the revisions to Reg.
19, Chapter 4, Section 407; Reg. 19, Appendix A; and Reg. 26, Chapter
4, Section 401. The EPA has already taken action on other elements of
this submittal as follows: (1) EPA approved revisions to Reg. 19,
Chapter 9 on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596); (2) EPA approved revisions to
Reg. 19, Chapters 1 and 2 on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11573); and (3) EPA
approved revisions to Reg. 9, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 on April 30,
2015 (80 FR 24216).

D. March 24, 2017 Submittal

    On March 24, 2017, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11,
13, 14, 15, Appendix A, and Appendix B and enacted at Reg. 26, Chapters
3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as, the submittal of Infrastructure and NAAQS
SIPs. These revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control &
Ecology Commission on February 26, 2016, and became effective on March
14, 2016.
    The EPA is proposing to take action only on the revisions to Reg.
19, Chapter 7, Sections 702 and 703; Reg. 19, Chapter 9, Sections 901,
903, and 904; Reg. 19, Chapter 11; Reg. 19, Appendix A; Reg. 26,
Chapter 3, Section 302; Reg. 26, Chapter 4, Sections 401, 402, and 407;
Reg. 26, Chapter 5, Section 502; and Reg. 26, Chapter 6, Sections 602,
603, and 604. The EPA has already taken action on other elements of
this submittal as follows: (1) EPA approved revisions to Reg. 19,
Chapter 9 on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596); (2) EPA approved revisions to
Reg. 19, Chapters 1 and 2 on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11573); (3) EPA
approved revisions to Reg. 9, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 on April 30,
2015 (80 FR 24216).

II. Summary of Revisions to the Arkansas SIP and EPA's Evaluation

A. Non-Substantive Changes

    Non-substantive changes were made to Regulation 19, Chapter 4,
Sections 405, 406, 407, 411, 412, and 415; Chapter 7, Sections 702 and
703; Chapter 9, Sections 901, 903, and 904; Chapter 11; Appendix A and
Regulation 26, Chapter 3, Section 302; Chapter 4, Sections 401, 402,
and 407; Chapter 5, Section 502; and Chapter 6, Sections 602, 603, and
604 such as edits to acronyms, punctuation and section symbols. A
complete listing of the non-substantive changes is in the TSD for this
action. In addition, as part of the July 2, 2010 SIP revision
submittal, section headings were changed from ``Section'' to ``Reg.''
throughout Reg. 19 and Reg. 26. We are proposing approval of this non-
substantive change to the SIP-approved portions of Reg. 19 and Reg. 26
as part of this action. The non-substantive changes are being approved
here to maintain consistency between State rules and the approved SIP.

B. Updated References to Federal Regulations

    Revisions were made to Regulations 19 and 26 to reflect more recent
publication and/or effective dates of federal regulations that are
referenced in the Arkansas SIP. These revisions are found in Regulation
19, Chapter 4, Sections 407 and 412; Chapter 7, Sections 702 and 703;
Chapter 9, Section 903 and 904; and Appendix A and Regulation 26,
Chapter 4, Section 401; and Chapter 6, Sections 603 and 604. The TSD
for this action includes a complete listing of the revised reference
dates along with a description of any changes the update version(s) of
the federal rule contained. These changes are being approved here to
maintain consistency between State rules and the approved SIP and so
that the current SIP references the updated federal regulations.

C. Clarifications to Existing SIP Provisions

    Revisions to provide additional clarification in the regulatory
language were made to Reg. 19, Section 407 and Reg. 19, Appendix A.
These changes were made to ensure consistency within the regulatory
provisions of Reg. 19 and to make the existing requirements clearer
within the regulatory language itself. The TSD for this action denotes
the revisions made to the regulatory text and details regarding the
basis for the revisions. EPA does not believe that the approval of the
revisions made to provide additional clarification impact the
regulations ability to meet the applicable CAA requirements for the
Arkansas SIP, including non-interference with attainment.

D. Revisions To Address EPA's Previous Disapproval

    EPA's final rulemaking effective June 22, 2016, disapproved
severable portions of the Arkansas SIP submittal dated November 6, 2012
that adopted the Biomass Deferral because they were no longer
consistent with federal laws and regulations (81 FR 32239). In response
to EPA's 2016 final rulemaking, Arkansas adopted subsequent revisions
to address the disapproval and remove the previously adopted biomass
deferral language at Reg. 19.904(G)(2)(b). In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions to the Arkansas SIP that address
our 2016 disapproval.

E. Permit Flexibility Provisions--Regulation 19.414, 19.415, and 19.416

    Arkansas submitted the permit flexibility provisions found in Reg.
19.414, 415, and 416 for incorporation into the Arkansas SIP. As
discussed in this section, EPA finds that the revisions to add these
provisions into the SIP are approvable.
    Reg. 19.414--Operational Flexibility-Applicant's Duty to Apply for
Alternative Scenarios, allows permittees to implement alternative
scenarios that were initially included in their permit application,
without a permit revision or notification to the Department. These
alternative scenarios underwent review by the Department and were
included, along with any associated requirements (e.g., monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements), in the permit that
underwent public review prior to issuance. Section 110(l) is met
because the Department's review is required by the SIP's permitting
rules at Reg. 19.402 and 19.405(A) to ensure that the applicable
requirements, which include a demonstration that there will be no
interference with attainment and reasonable further progress and any
other applicable requirement of the Federal CAA, are met for each
scenario. As such, approval of the SIP revisions incorporating Reg.
19.414 does not impact the SIP's ability to continuing meeting the
applicable requirements since the underlying permitting process through
which the alternative scenarios are reviewed, approved, and
incorporated into the permit is a SIP-approved process. EPA finds that
the approval of Reg. 19.414 into the Arkansas SIP will satisfy the
requirements of Section 110(l) to not interfere with applicable
requirements concerning attainment or other applicable CAA SIP
requirements.
    Reg. 19.415--Changes Resulting in No Emissions Increases, allows
permittees to make certain changes within the facility that otherwise
contravene permit terms without a permit revision if the changes are
not modifications under Title I, do not exceed emissions allowed under
the permit, do not violate applicable requirements, and do not
contravene federally enforceable permit terms and conditions that are
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance certification
requirements. Pursuant to Reg. 19.415(C), these provisions cannot be
used to violate applicable requirements, which would include the
circumvention of state or federal permitting requirements and cannot be
used for changes that result in emission increases beyond short-term or
long-term permitted limits, which were determined to be protective of
the NAAQS by ADEQ during permit issuance. Reg. 19.415(D) also prohibits
any changes that would contravene federally enforceable permit limits,
which would include any applicable SIP requirements. ADEQ has indicated
that they would deny any request pursuant to Reg. 19.415 that violates
a state or federal permit or permitting requirement.\4\ Section 110(l)
is met because Reg. 19.415 prohibits changes that circumvent applicable
state and federal permitting requirements, including those contained in
the SIP, and does not allow for increases in emissions beyond
permitting limits that were determined during the SIP-approved
permitting process to not cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS. EPA finds that the approval of Reg. 19.415 into the Arkansas SIP
will not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
or other applicable CAA SIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Clarification letter dated March 11, 2019, addressed to Ms.
Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6, from Mr. Thomas Rheaume, ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reg. 19.416--Permit Flexibility, codifies ADEQ's discretion to
grant extensions to testing, compliance or other dates in a permit; to
grant a request to allow temporary emissions and/or testing that would
otherwise exceed a limit in a facility's permit; and to allow an
alternative to monitoring specified in a facility's operating permit.
Reg. 19.416 cannot be used to circumvent state or federal permitting
requirements, and it prohibits at Reg. 19.416(A)(2), (B)(2), and (C)(2)
any changes that would violate federal requirements, which would
include any applicable SIP requirements. The temporary emissions
increases allowed under Reg. 19.416 are limited to less than five tons
of any individual criteria pollutant, one ton of any single hazardous
air pollutant, and 2.5 tons of any hazardous air pollutant. The
temporary emissions increases allowed by Reg. 19.416 are at levels that
would qualify as an insignificant activity under SIP-approved Reg. 19,
Appendix A, Group A(13) and are expected to have negligible impacts on
ambient air concentrations and not interfere with the NAAQS. Section
110(l) is met because Reg. 19.416 prohibits changes that circumvent
applicable state and federal permitting requirements, including those
contained in the SIP, and the temporary emissions increases allowed by
Reg. 19.416 are limited to levels that would not impact compliance with
the NAAQS. EPA finds that the approval of Reg. 19.416 into the SIP will
not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment or
other applicable CAA requirements for SIPs.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve portions of the revisions to the
Arkansas SIP submitted on October 24, 2002, July 26, 2010, November 6,
2012, and March 24, 2017. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the
following revisions:
     Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 4 adopted on December
5, 2008 (effective January 25, 2009), June 22, 2012 (effective July 9,
2012), October 26, 2012 (effective November 18, 2012), and February 26,
2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 7 adopted on February
26, 2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 9 adopted on February
26, 2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 11 adopted on February
26, 2016 (effective March 14, 2016);

     Revisions to Regulation 19, Appendix A adopted on December
5, 2008 (effective January 25, 2009), June 22, 2012 (effective July 9,
2012), October 26, 2012 (effective November 18, 2012), and February 26,
2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 26, Chapter 3 adopted on August
23, 2002 (effective September 26, 2002), December 5, 2008 (effective
January 25, 2009), and February 26, 2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 26, Chapter 4 adopted on August
23, 2002 (effective September 26, 2002), December 5, 2008 (effective
January 25, 2009), June 22, 2012 (effective July 9, 2012), October 26,
2012 (effective November 18, 2012), and February 26, 2016 (effective
March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 26, Chapter 5 adopted on December
5, 2008 (effective January 25, 2009) and February 26, 2016 (effective
March 14, 2016);
     Revisions to Regulation 26, Chapter 6 adopted on August
23, 2002 (effective September 26, 2002), December 5, 2008 (effective
January 25, 2009), and February 26, 2016 (effective March 14, 2016);
and
     Non-substantive revisions throughout the current SIP-
approved portions of Regulation 19 and 26 that replace ``Section'' with
``Reg.'' within section headings (e.g., ``Section 26.101'' revised to
``Reg. 26.101'') that were adopted on December 5, 2008 (effective
January 25, 2009).
    EPA is not proposing any action to be taken on the portions of the
July 26, 2010 and November 6, 2012 SIP revision submittals that were
listed in the letter from Arkansas dated March 28, 2019, that requested
the withdrawal of those revisions from EPA's consideration for approval
into the Arkansas SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-11259 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62233]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78750; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-97]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of PowerShares
Government Collateral Pledge Portfolio Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600

September 1, 2016.
    On July 6, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the
PowerShares Government Collateral Pledge Portfolio under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016.\3\ The Commission has
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78373 (July 20,
2016), 81 FR 48869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is September 9, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a
longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change
so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates October 24, 2016, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21493 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 3116]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-141]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7; OMB Control No. 3235-0291; SEC
File No. 270-151.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7 (17
CFR 240.17Ad-6 and -7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit
this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-6 under the Exchange Act requires every registered
transfer agent to make and keep current records about a variety of
information, such as: (1) Specific operational data regarding the time
taken to perform transfer agent activities (to ensure compliance with
the minimum performance standards in Rule 17Ad-2 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-2);
(2) written inquiries and requests by shareholders and broker-dealers
and response time thereto; (3) resolutions, contracts or other
supporting documents concerning the appointment or termination of the
transfer agent; (4) stop orders or notices of adverse claims to the
securities; and (5) all canceled registered securities certificates.
    Rule 17Ad-7 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78b et seq.) requires each registered transfer agent to retain the
records specified in Rule 17Ad-6 in an easily accessible place for a
period of six months to six years, depending on the type of record or
document. Rule 17Ad-7 also specifies the manner in which records may be
maintained using electronic, microfilm, and microfiche storage methods.
    These recordkeeping requirements are designed to ensure that all
registered transfer agents are maintaining the records necessary for
them to monitor and keep control over their own performance and for the
Commission to adequately examine registered transfer agents on an
historical basis for compliance with applicable rules.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 600 registered transfer
agents will spend a total of 300,000 hours per year complying with
Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7 (500 hours per year per transfer agent).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 12, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-880 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52962-52964]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22930]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 227 and 230

[Release No. 33-10567]

Regulation Crowdfunding and Regulation A Relief and Assistance
for Victims of Hurricane Michael

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interim final temporary rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting interim final temporary rules for issuers
subject to reporting obligations pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding
and Regulation A in order to address the needs of companies directly or
indirectly affected by Hurricane Michael. The temporary rules extend
the filing deadlines for specified reports and forms due pursuant to
Regulation Crowdfunding and Regulation A for certain issuers.

DATES: These rules are effective from October 19, 2018 through November
23, 2018, except that amendatory instruction 1 revising the authority
citation of part 227 is effective October 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Zepralka, Office Chief, or
Amy Reischauer, Special Counsel, Office of Small Business Policy,
Division of Corporation Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adopting amendments to 17 CFR 227.202
(``Rule 202'') of Regulation Crowdfunding \1\ under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the ``Securities Act'') \2\ and 17 CFR 230.257 (``Rule 257'')
of Regulation A \3\ under the Securities Act as interim final temporary
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 227 et seq.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 230.251 through 230.263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall on the Florida
Panhandle. The storm and subsequent flooding have displaced individuals
and businesses and disrupted communications and transportation across
the affected region. We are adopting these interim final temporary
rules to address the needs of companies directly or indirectly affected
by Hurricane Michael or its aftermath that are subject to reporting
obligations pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A.
    Section 28 of the Securities Act provides that the Commission may,
by rule or regulation, ``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any
person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons,
securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of this
title or of any rule or regulation issued under this title, to the
extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 77z-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Temporary Relief From Filing Requirements for Issuers Subject to
the Reporting Obligations of Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A

    The lack of communications, transportation, electricity,
facilities, and available staff and professional advisors as a result
of Hurricane Michael could hamper the efforts of companies with
reporting obligations to meet their filing deadlines pursuant to
Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A. At the same time, investors
have an interest in the timely availability of required information
about these companies. While the Commission believes that the temporary
relief from filing requirements provided by the amendments to Rule 202
of Regulation Crowdfunding \5\ and Rule 257 of Regulation A \6\ is both
necessary in the public interest and consistent with the protection of
investors, we remind companies that are the subject of the relief
provided in these interim final temporary rules to continue to evaluate
their obligations to make materially accurate and complete disclosures
in accordance with the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 202(c) of Regulation Crowdfunding. 17 CFR
227.202(c).
    \6\ See Rule 257(f) of Regulation A. 17 CFR 230.257(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 28 of the Securities Act, we are
adopting interim final temporary rules providing that an issuer subject
to the reporting

requirements of either Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A is
exempt from any requirement to file specified reports or forms with the
Commission where the conditions below are satisfied:
    (a) The issuer is not able to meet a filing deadline due to
Hurricane Michael or its aftermath;
    (b) The issuer files with the Commission, on or before November 23,
2018, the report or form required to be filed pursuant to either
Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A during the period from and
including October 10, 2018 to and including November 21, 2018; and
    (c) In any such report or form, the issuer discloses that it is
relying on the interim final temporary rules and states the reasons
why, in good faith, it could not file such report or form on a timely
basis.
    For Regulation Crowdfunding, the relief includes annual reports on
Form C-AR, progress updates on Form C-U, and termination of reporting
on Form C-TR. For Regulation A, the relief includes post-qualification
amendments required at least every 12 months after the qualification
date to include updated financial statements, annual reports on Form 1-
K, semi-annual reports on Form 1-SA, special financial reports on Forms
1-K or 1-SA, current reports on Form 1-U, and exit reports on Form 1-Z.

III. Economic Analysis

    Regulation Crowdfunding and Regulation A permit offers and sales of
securities without registration under the Securities Act, subject to
certain limitations and conditions, including compliance with ongoing
reporting requirements. Based on staff analysis, between June 19, 2015
(the effective date of the most recent Regulation A amendments \7\) and
September 30, 2018, approximately 244 filers had Regulation A offering
statements qualified by the Commission, excluding withdrawn offerings.
Approximately 1,067 issuers initiated Regulation Crowdfunding offerings
with Form C filings between May 16, 2016 and September 30, 2018,
excluding issuers that have withdrawn offerings.\8\ Approximately 41
registered intermediaries, including 32 registered funding portals and
9 registered broker-dealers, have participated in Regulation
Crowdfunding offerings with Form C filings between May 16, 2016 and
September 30, 2018, excluding withdrawn offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SEC Rel. No. 33-9741 (Mar. 25, 2015) [80 FR 21806 (Apr. 20,
2015)].
    \8\ These figures overstate the number of issuers with
obligations to file annual reports under Regulation Crowdfunding,
because they do not exclude issuers that have failed to raise the
target amount or have exited the reporting regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We lack the data to estimate the number of investors in Regulation
A or Regulation Crowdfunding offerings that could be affected if
issuers rely on the relief provided by the interim final temporary
rules, because information on the number of investors is generally not
required to be disclosed in periodic or current reports required under
Regulation A or in periodic reports or progress updates required under
Regulation Crowdfunding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Regulation A issuers that file Form 1-Z to suspend reporting
are required to disclose the number of shareholders of record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are mindful of the costs and benefits of the interim final
temporary rules.\10\ We believe the interim final temporary rules will
benefit issuers that have an obligation to file specified reports with
the Commission pursuant to either Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation
A and have been adversely affected by Hurricane Michael or its
aftermath by permitting them to take additional time to meet their
reporting obligations. We expect the relief provided by the interim
final temporary rules will benefit issuers that, absent the relief,
would not be able to avail themselves of the exemption from
registration under Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A because the
timely filing of required reports is a condition to the exemptions. In
the absence of this relief, issuers could incur prohibitively high
costs in an attempt to meet filing deadlines given the lack of
communications, transportation, electricity, facilities, and available
staff and professional advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section 2(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77b(b)]
requires the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking where it is
required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the
protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement for an issuer to disclose that it is relying on
Rule 202(c) of Regulation Crowdfunding or Rule 257(f) of Regulation A
and to state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not file a report
or form on a timely basis may impose minimal additional costs on
issuers availing themselves of this relief. However, we believe that
these minimal costs are justified in light of the significant negative
implications of not being able to rely on the exemption and the
prohibitively high costs an issuer may incur in attempting to file in a
timely manner.
    We also acknowledge that there may be costs imposed on investors,
intermediaries, and other market participants due to delayed access to
information about offerings conducted in reliance on Regulation A and
Regulation Crowdfunding. Generally, reporting requirements strengthen
investor protection and decrease the extent of information asymmetries
between issuers and investors. Ongoing reporting provides investors
with periodically updated information, allowing them to assess
investment opportunities based on the information provided and their
level of risk tolerance, resulting in better informed investment
decisions and improved allocative efficiency. Given that the interim
final temporary rules allow for delayed reporting for a limited time
period and only under specified conditions, we do not believe such
costs will be significant.
    The interim final temporary rules will not substantially affect
competition or capital formation. We acknowledge the possibility that
the interim final temporary rules may have a minor impact on
efficiency. On the one hand, as noted above, the delay in reporting
could marginally affect allocative efficiency to the extent that it
allows information asymmetries between investors and issuers to persist
for the length of time of the delay. On the other hand, we expect
efficiency gains to the extent that the interim final temporary rules
allow issuers to continue to rely on either of the exemptions from
registration that would not be available if one of the required reports
that is a condition to the exemptions was not filed in a timely manner,
or to the extent the issuers are able to avoid paying a premium to
service providers in an attempt to file in a timely manner by delaying
reporting during the specified relief period.
    As an alternative to the relief specified in the interim final
temporary rules, we could have considered a longer or shorter relief
period. While a shorter period would have reduced the costs to
investors of asymmetric information, it would also reduce the benefits
of the interim final temporary rules to issuers. Similarly, a longer
period would increase the costs to investors. We believe that the
approximately six-week delay in the interim final temporary rules is
appropriate given the potential impact Hurricane Michael or its
aftermath could have on the efforts of companies to meet filing
deadlines pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding and Regulation A.

IV. Procedural and Other Matters

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires an
agency to

publish notice of a rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an
opportunity for public comment. This requirement does not apply,
however, if the agency ``for good cause finds . . . that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' \11\ The APA also generally requires that an agency
publish an adopted rule in the Federal Register at least 30 days before
it becomes effective. This requirement does not apply, however, if the
agency finds good cause for making the rule effective sooner.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the temporary nature of the relief contemplated by the
interim final temporary rules and the significant and immediate impact
of Hurricane Michael and its aftermath on issuers in affected areas, as
discussed above, the Commission finds that good cause exists to
dispense with notice and comment as impracticable and unnecessary, and
to act immediately to amend Rule 202 of Regulation Crowdfunding and
Rule 257 of Regulation A.\13\ Further, the interim final temporary
rules will not affect the burden or cost estimates associated with
existing collections of information under Regulation Crowdfunding and
Regulation A for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This finding also satisfies the requirements of 5 U.S.C.
808(2), allowing the interim final temporary rules to become
effective notwithstanding the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 (if a
federal agency finds that notice and public comment are impractical,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, a rule shall take
effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule
determines). The interim final temporary rules also do not require
analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a)
(requiring a final regulatory flexibility analysis only for rules
required by the APA or other law to undergo notice and comment).
    \14\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory Basis and Text of Amendments

    We are adopting amendments to Rule 202 of Regulation Crowdfunding
and Rule 257 of Regulation A under the authority set forth in the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), particularly, Section 28
thereof.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 227

    Crowdfunding, Funding portals, Intermediaries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 230

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 227--REGULATION CROWDFUNDING, GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77d, 77d-1, 77s, 77z-3, 78c, 78o, 78q,
78w, 78mm, and Pub. L. 112-106, secs. 301-305, 126 Stat. 306 (2012).

0
2. Amend Sec.  227.202 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  227.202   Ongoing reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Temporary relief from certain reporting requirements. (1) An
issuer that is not able to meet a filing deadline for any report or
form required to be filed by this section, 17 CFR 227.203(a)(3)), or 17
CFR 227.203(b) during the period from and including October 10, 2018 to
and including November 21, 2018 due to Hurricane Michael and its
aftermath shall be deemed to have satisfied the filing deadline for
such report or form if the issuer files such report or form with the
Commission on or before November 23, 2018.
    (2) In any report or form filed pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, the issuer must disclose that it is relying on this
paragraph (d) and state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not
file such report or form on a timely basis.

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
3. The authority citation for part 230 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h,
77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-
7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-
30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 201(a), sec. 401, 126
Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  230.257 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  230.257   Periodic and current reporting; exit report.

    (g) Temporary relief from ongoing reporting requirements. (1) An
issuer that is not able to meet a filing deadline for any report or
form required to be filed by 17 CFR 230.252(f)(2)(i) or this section
during the period from and including October 10, 2018 to and including
November 21, 2018 due to Hurricane Michael and its aftermath shall be
deemed to have satisfied the filing deadline for such report or form if
the issuer files such report or form with the Commission on or before
November 23, 2018.
    (2) In any report or form filed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of
this section, the issuer must disclose that it is relying on this
paragraph (g) and state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not
file such report or form on a timely basis.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: October 16, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22930 Filed 10-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Assessment of stakeholder requests to retain use of azinphos methyl in crops where its registration will expire in 2005 FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli Bill Chism William Gross Biologists Biological Analysis Branch Stephen Smearman Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch TO: Diane Isbell, Chemical Review Manager Margaret Rice, Chief Reregistration Branch 2 Special review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

BEAD Product Review Panel date: March 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION As a result of the interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( iRED) for azinphosmethyl ( AZM) in 2001, EPA categorized those crops whose growers were allowed to continue to use this insecticide into three groups. " Group 1" comprised crops for which 2 AZM use was voluntarily cancelled by the registrant ( Bayer). " Group 2" uses comprise those crops that are slated to have their AZM labels expire in 2005. " Group 3" uses are those crops for which EPA agreed to re examine both risks and benefits prior to making a final decision on their continued use of AZM. As part of the process of canceling the " group 2" uses, SRRD recently published a 6( f) notice in the Federal Register, inviting stakeholder comment as to any continued need for AZM in any of the crops involved.

Crop sites in this group are as follows: cotton, cranberries, peaches and nectarines, potatoes, southern pine seed orchards, and caneberries ( raspberries and blackberries). SRRD requested BEAD to evaluate stakeholder concerns and use them to determine whether or not the benefits assessments done in 2001 require significant changes, and whether or not this is feasible based on available information. In this context, the reader should note that, in 2001, BEAD explicitly evaluated only the effect of extending re entry intervals ( REIs) for AZM for most crops.

Analyses are presented below for each crop separately. Each analysis begins with a brief description of BEAD's 2001 benefits assessment, a summary of the stakeholder comments regarding AZM elimination, and ends with BEAD's assessment of these comments and whether or not the benefits of AZM use have changed substantially since 2001. Comments were received for caneberries, cranberries, peaches, potatoes, and southern pine seed orchards, so these will be the only crops discussed in this document.

EVALUATION OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Caneberries ( blackberries and raspberries)

Summary of BEAD's 2001 assessment In 2001 BEAD evaluated the benefits impact of extending REIs for AZM in caneberry production. Caneberries is the general term for Rubus spp., which are commonly called raspberries and blackberries. Caneberries are a high value perennial crop with approximately 25,000 acres grown in Washington, Oregon, and California ( the major production areas). In 2001, a critical use of AZM was in Oregon for control of the raspberry crown borer ( RCB), Pennisetia marginata Harris, in blackberries. All other pests that AZM is used on have alternative products available. RCB is a clear winged moth with a two year life cycle. While not widespread, it can be a devastating pest, causing losses of up to 50 % of the plant in heavily infested fields in the absence of a targeted control program ( communication with local experts). The only reported use of AZM was on 11 % of blackberries in 1997 in Oregon ( USDA 1999). Use of AZM ranked fourth among control alternatives for Oregon blackberry growers in 1999 with approximately 300 total pounds applied. At that time, BEAD believed that limited impact would result from extending the restricted entry intervals on AZM for caneberries. Diazinon is an efficacious alternative and is readily available ( although pest resistance could develop in the future). BEAD believed that the most likely outcome resulting from extending the restricted entry intervals is that growers would switch to diazinon. 3 Summary of stakeholder comments or concerns regarding cancellation of AZM registration Information from Oregon crop extension service staff indicates that diazinon is the only effective alternative to AZM currently available for blackberries, in particular. Because of recent label changes ( in 2003 2004), diazinon can only be used once per season for control of RCB, and growers would like to use it later in the season for the western raspberry fruitworm ( Byturus bakeri) instead of as a dormant spray for the raspberry crown borer. Fruitworm adults emerge from the soil during April and May to lay eggs; hatched larvae feed within developing fruit. Stakeholders claim that diazinon is the only effective pesticide for control of this insect.

The Michigan Farm Bureau also mentioned caneberries as a crop needing AZM in that region. However, their statements were generically framed and focused on the utility of AZM as a rotational tool to slow resistance development and as a reasonably priced material for a number of crops, of which caneberries were just one member.

BEAD's assessment of stakeholder comments and changes in benefits of AZM As regards the situation in blackberries in the PNW states, BEAD has communicated with regional experts and has determined that there are some limitations to the registered alternatives. Carbaryl and spinosad ( a " reduced risk" chemical) also have the raspberry fruitworm listed on their labels for caneberries, and thus could be used by growers against that pests and allow them to substitute diazinon for AZM use against the RCB. However, both have significant limitations that BEAD believes will inhibit their use as drop in replacements for diazinon. Carbaryl is more toxic to bees than diazinon and tends to cause mite outbreaks ( DeFrancesco, personal communication), and spinosad's efficacy against this pest remains unproven. Evaluations of spinosad efficacy against the fruitworm are ongoing, but given the high quality standards for the caneberry crop ( USDA 2003), the optimal use pattern of this or any other new alternative needs time for Oregon growers to effectively adopt in a commercial setting. However, BEAD notes here that at least one other state ( Virginia) suggests using spinosad as the only insecticide option for the eastern raspberry fruitworm ( B. rubi), an insect very similar in biology to the fruitworm that PNW caneberry growers encounter ( Pfeiffer et al. 2005).

In this context, it may be useful to note that other recently developed, " reducedrisk or " OP alternative" insecticides may also hold promise for controlling either the raspberry fruitworm or the RCB. Indoxacarb and novaluron, while not presently registered for caneberries, have shown good efficacy against other pests similar to the raspberry fruitworm  e. g., cranberry fruitworm, leafrolling caterpillars ( e. g., Wise et al. 2004). As compounds active against Lepidoptera in particular, they may also have some efficacy against adult RCB. Preliminary research also indicates that tebupirimphos ( an OP) combined with cyfluthrin ( a pyrethroid) applied as a soil drench controls RCB larvae as well as diazinon ( Johnson and Lewis 2002). 4 Therefore, BEAD suggests that researchers and regulators include these materials in future efforts to find alternatives to both AZM and diazinon for caneberries. This is particularly important for RCB management, because even with alternatives available for fruitworm control, reliance on diazinon alone for RCB control may increase the likelihood of resistance developing in that insect over the longer term. BEAD notes, in this regard, that RCB is a relatively slow growing insect ( with two years needed for the completion of a single generation), a factor that should increase the time needed for resistance to develop fully.

Unfortunately, an accurate estimation of the losses that might be incurred by growers who face both the RCB and the fruitworm depends on a reliable estimate of the extent of such an overlap in these pests' distribution. Stakeholders have not supplied this information, and BEAD has been unable to locate it. BEAD concludes that some growers may face yield losses if AZM was removed as a pest control option for Pacific North West caneberry production, since either the borer or the fruitworm might attack their fields in any given season. Others would be forced to increase their pesticide use to control mite outbreaks engendered by carbaryl use. However, the extent of these worstcase impacts is, arguably, likely to be no more than the area treated currently with AZM   approximately 1,000 acres out of a total of 10,000 acres of blackberries grown in 2003 ( USDA/ NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage, Fruit Summaries 2003).

The general need for AZM that was stated by the Michigan farm bureau for caneberries and several other crops is very difficult for BEAD to evaluate quantitatively. While resistance to the remaining alternatives could theoretically develop faster in the absence of AZM, and price differences between AZM and the alternatives could result in higher production costs for some growers, the bureau did not provide any estimates of the likelihood or extent for these potential impacts in their comments. BEAD examined the scientific literature and extension reports for the region to attempt an evaluation of resistance risk. Resistance to alternatives likely to be used ( carbaryl, diazinon, and spinosad, assuming the pest spectrum in Michigan is similar to other caneberry growing regions) has not been reported or scientifically monitored for the target pests in that region, and production costs for the crop in this region are apparently not available. BEAD acknowledges that it is possible that an unknown number of Michigan caneberry growers might face increased production costs, or resistance problems in pests in the long term future. In this context, it may be useful to note that Michigan produces about 644 acres of caneberries, out of about 30,088 acres or about 2% produced nationally according to NASS.

Cranberries Summary of BEAD's 2001 assessment In August 2001, BEAD evaluated the benefits of AZM for cranberry production. The American cranberry ( Vaccinium macrocarpon) is a low growing woody perennial shrub. Cranberries are a high value crop grown in five states on approximately 37,000 5 acres. A critical use of AZM in Wisconsin is for control of blackheaded fireworm, cranberry fruitworm ( Acrobasis vaccinii Riley) and sparganothis fruitworm and minor pests such as cranberry tipworm. The most recent figures available in 2001 indicated that AZM use in cranberries had declined in all areas except Wisconsin. Use of AZM increased slightly in Wisconsin between 1996, when 60% of the crop was treated, and 1998 ( the latest year for which figures were available) when 66% of the crop was treated.

In 2001, BEAD believed that adequate alternatives were both available and efficacious. BEAD further determined that the most likely outcome resulting from extending the restricted entry interval was that growers would switch to alternative pest control methods, including increased usage of other organophosphate insecticides.

Summary of stakeholder comments or concerns regarding expiry of AZM registration Wisconsin and the Cranberry Institute have requested that AZM remain available for the control of the fruitworm complex in Wisconsin. They claim that alternative control measures for the control of fruitworm complex such as phosmet or tebufenozide are not effective. One effective alternative, methoxyfenozide ( Intrepid   ) , has an endangered species restriction and can only be used in certain counties representing less than half the cranberry acreage. Stakeholders state that another potential alternative diazinon ( AG 600 water based formulation) is in short supply because of the transition of ownership to a new company. Wisconsin would like to use AZM for two applications in the summer for use in rotation with tebufenozide. In addition, they have suggested that if methoxyfenozide were available they would not need AZM.

The Michigan Farm Bureau also mentioned cranberries as a crop needing AZM in that region. However, their statements were generically framed and focused on the utility of AZM as a rotational tool to slow resistance development and as a reasonably priced material for a number of crops, of which cranberries were just one member.

BEAD's assessment of stakeholder comments and changes in benefits of AZM BEAD has discussed the situation with regional experts in conference calls, examined Wisconsin extension service pest management guides ( Mahr et al. 2005) and results of efficacy trials on a number of insecticide alternatives submitted by stakeholders ( Dittl 2000). Based on these sources it appears that the AZM alternatives, tebufenozide, diazinon, methoxyfenozide, and phosmet are effective and/ or recommended by extension services for control of both fruitworm pests cited by the Wisconsin stakeholders. Thus, while short term shortages of diazinon may exist ( BEAD was unable to confirm or refute this), other alternatives appear to exist. 60% of Wisconsin's cranberry acres were treated with AZM in 2003, according to the Cranberry Institute, so usage of the material does appear to remain high in this region. However, AZM is recommended for use against a suite of insect pests of which the fruitworms are only one component; for example, the cranberry tipworm and the cranberry girdler ( Mahr et al. 2005). It is therefore not clear whether or not the fruitworms are the chief targets of AZM in Wisconsin. 6 Given the availability of effective alternatives, BEAD believes that most Wisconsin growers should be able to manage most fruitworm infestations without AZM in the near future. However, an unknown number of growers may have to dedicate use of the alternatives to control of the other insects ( mentioned above), and without both AZM and methoxyfenozide, these producers would be left without effective fruitworm control materials. In this context, BEAD also notes that in most other cranberry growing regions ( e. g., Massachusetts), methoxyfenozide is the standard treatment for fruitworms, based on its effectiveness on egg and larval stages and reduced risk status ( e. g., see Anonymous 2004). Thus, BEAD agrees with stakeholders that the impact of the removal of AZM on Wisconsin cranberry production would be further minimized if the buffer restrictions on methoxyfenozide are alleviated.

The general need for AZM that was stated by the Michigan farm bureau for cranberries and several other crops is very difficult for BEAD to evaluate quantitatively. While resistance to the remaining alternatives could theoretically develop faster in the absence of AZM, and price differences between AZM and the alternatives could result in higher production costs for some growers, the bureau did not provide any estimates of the likelihood or extent for these potential impacts in their comments.

Resistance to alternatives likely to be used ( tebufenozide, diazinon, and methoxyfenozide, assuming the pest spectrum in Michigan is similar to the Wisconsin cranberry growing regions) has not been reported or scientifically monitored for the target pests in that region, and production costs for the crop in this region are apparently not available. BEAD acknowledges that it is possible that an unknown number of Michigan cranberry growers may face increased production costs, or resistance problems in pests in the long term future. As was stated in the discussion of caneberry comments ( above), there are presently unregistered alternatives that have shown promise against fruitworms or other caterpillar pests, such as indoxacarb and novaluron. BEAD urges stakeholders ( and OPP's Registration Division) to pursue the development of these insecticides as alternatives for the longer term.

Peaches Summary of BEAD's 2001 assessment The critical use of AZM in 2001 was to control plum curculio, Oriental fruit moth, white peach scale, San Jose scale, peach tree borer, lesser peach tree borer ( LPTB) and leafrollers. AZM provides excellent control of plum curculio and scale insects ¸ but its use has decreased since the REI was increased to 14 days, which prevents use during the thinning period. Phosmet is used during this period. Cost effective alternatives to both AZM and phosmet were found to be available in the West. 40 % of the U. S. peach crop acreage was treated with AZM, mostly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, with lesser use in Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. However, 71% of U. S. peach production was in California and, ( nearly all processed peaches and 49% of fresh market peaches were grown in California in1997). 7 Summary of stakeholder comments or concerns regarding expiry of AZM registration For southeastern US peaches ( primarily Georgia and South Carolina), stakeholders claim there are currently two critical uses for AZM   " clean up", and control of the lesser peachtree borer, Synanthedon pictipes ( LPTB), a clear winged moth. Stakeholders claim that AZM does more to clean up outbreaks from a wide array of insects than any other peach insecticide ( including currently registered materials and unregistered reduced risk materials that have been tested in this region).

Stakeholders also claim that LPTB has emerged as a potentially serious pest of peaches in this region since 2001. They believe this change in pest status is correlated to the loss of use of methyl parathion, which occurred in 1999. Historically, the impacts of LPTB were restricted to older orchards already showing visible signs of aging and decline. Growers and crop experts claim that in recent years, orchards as young as 8 years of age have been taken out of production because of LPTB. Normal life expectancy for peach orchards in the Southeast is 12 to 14 years. Orchards typically pay for themselves in their 6th season. Growers also state that AZM use has become widespread in recent years. The use of 1 to 3 sprays is claimed to provide an observable improvement in slowing development of debilitating levels of LPTB ( 1 to 3 sprays depending on the season of ripening, with 1 for early varieties and 3 for full season varieties).

According to crop experts, pheromone mating disruption for LPTB has promise, but it is not ready for commercial use in the Southeast ( Horton, personal communication). Mating disruption works well on peach tree borer complex further north. However, several years of work in Georgia has shown that even elevated application rates ( 4 pheromone dispensing ties per tree) may be insufficient against heavy infestations of LPTB in the Southeast. Further research on LPTB mating disruption is planned for 2005. Researchers and growers are asking for an extension on AZM cancellation while tests of new and promising alternatives against LPTB proceed.

In New Jersey peaches, AZM is used to control numerous insect pests including the Oriental fruit moth, tarnished plant bug, various species of stink bugs, leafrollers, plum curculio, San Jose scale and white peach scale and borers. NJ growers typically apply 1 1.25 lbs of product per acre per application, and point out that these rates are well below the maximum label rate. They further state that, since most mid Atlantic growers apply sprays using the alternate   row middle technique, only 0.5 0.63 lbs are typically applied per acre per spray. Of the pests listed above, the San Jose scale ( SJS), Quadraspidiotus perniciosus, and the Oriental fruit moth ( OFM), Grapholitha molesta, are the critically important targets mentioned by stakeholders as the basis for their request for AZM retention.

Finally, some northwestern US growers ( primarily from Oregon and Washington), as represented by the Northwest Horticultural Council, have also requested AZM be retained mainly for use against the peach twig borer, Anarsia lineatella ( PTW), also a clear winged moth. 8 BEAD's assessment of stakeholder comments and changes in benefits of AZM For southeastern peaches, BEAD believes that some growers may face yield losses due to the LPTB in the absence of AZM as a control option. The extent of these yield losses cannot be determined reliably at the present time, since pest populations are still being assessed, and alternatives with some promise against similar insects, such as novaluron and thiamethoxam, have not yet been evaluated or registered for peaches. LPTB can be controlled to some extent with dormant season applications of chlorpyrifos or growing season applications of either esfenvalerate or endosulfan ( Brannen et al. 2005). Chlorpyrifos ( with or without horticultural oil) will probably offer good control of overwintering LPTB larvae, albeit with higher costs because all scaffold limbs ( and not just the trunk) of trees will have to be treated.

Since the LPTB has multiple generations per year in the southeast, damage to productive tree limbs during in season will probably require control outside the dormant season. The pest management goal is to keep the LPTB from damaging as much productive peach wood ( flower and fruit bud producing branches for the following season) as is possible. Orchards that have high populations of LPTB in the previous year will show dead and dying branches, reduced flower buds, and a reduction in fruit number and size in the following summer. Size is important in fresh market fruit; the greater the size, the greater the profit.

To control high populations of LPTB during the growing season, reliance on esfenvalerate ( a synthetic pyrethroid) probably cannot be increased significantly without increasing the risk of secondary pest outbreaks ( of scales and mites). Increased use of endosulfan ( an organochlorine insecticide), the only other recommended foliar insecticide, also may not be a viable option due to grower concerns about environmental and health effects. However, given the lack of information on the peach acreage sensitive to in season damage by LPTB and the uncertain efficacy of dormant season control of apparently increasing pest populations, BEAD cannot make an accurate quantitative assessment of the impact of the loss of AZM as a potential control option for this insect in the southeast.

For scale insects in New Jersey, BEAD believes that dormant oil and newly registered materials, including pyriproxyfen and buprofezin, are adequate substitutes for control in the absence of AZM. For the OFM ( the other critical northeastern pest), effective alternatives also appear to exist. These include mating disruption using pheromone treated ties and methoxyfenozide, a reduced risk pesticide recently registered in this crop. Indoxacarb has also shown good efficacy, and its registration is pending for peaches.

The pest management value of these materials as part of a larger set of newer insecticides was recently demonstrated by a study funded by the USDA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program ( RAMP). This study was conducted in 2002 2004, under the directorship of Drs. Peter Shearer and A. Atanassov of Rutgers University. Eight peach 9 orchards on four farms were used each year to study the implementation of reduced risk arthropod management practices.

The study sites were approximately 10 40 acres in size. Each study site was divided into two blocks and assigned one of two treatments; 1) " RAMP", ¸ in which pests were managed with reduced risk chemicals ( such as Indoxacarb and methoxyfenozide) and mating disruption ( for OFM, PTB, and LPTB), and 2) " conventional", in which pests were managed with broad spectrum insecticides, such as AZM, phosmet, and esfenvalerate. In all years and most farms, scale and OFM damage appeared to be adequately controlled in the " RAMP" treatments. However, the cost of the products used to control arthropods was considerably higher for the RAMP treatments   up to three times higher than the conventional treatments in some farm/ year combinations.

Thus, while effective alternatives exist for these pests, production costs will probably go up in the absence of AZM, though in an unpredictable manner, since over the longer term, the cost of most insecticides tends to decline, and growers will probably not need to control all target insects every year.

For northwestern peach growers facing the PTW, BEAD has identified the following registered alternatives: carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, esfenvalerate, horticultural oil, lambda and gamma cyhalothrin, malathion, methidathion, permethrin, and spinosad. At least one state ( Oregon) in the region recommends oil mixed with either diazinon or spinosad as the main control options for PTW ( Olsen and Pscheidt 2005). Therefore, as in 2001, BEAD believes that growers should be able to use these alternatives in place of AZM for control of this insect.

Potatoes Summary of BEAD's 2001 benefits assessment In 2001, based on available published data and personal communications with crop experts, BEAD believed that the impacts resulting from extending the REIs ( to seven days, as was proposed) on potatoes for AZM would be insignificant. BEAD analysts arrived at this conclusion based primarily on the fact that worker activities were not likely to be affected by the extension of the restricted entry intervals. If for some reason grower production practices were significantly impacted by an extension of the REIs, BEAD determined that they would be replaced with one of several efficacious and similarly priced alternatives. Imidacloprid, carbofuran, permethrin, and phorate were available and apparently preferred by many growers for use against the key target pest, the Colorado potato beetle ( CPB). While AZM was used against some other insects, particularly flea beetles, leafhoppers, and aphids ( various species), approximately 80 % of AZM use was targeting CPB. BEAD determined that insects other than CPB that were targeted with AZM also had effective alternatives, including imidacloprid, methamidophos, and permethrin. 10 Summary of stakeholder comments or concerns regarding expiry of AZM registration In 2001, The National Potato Council asked to continue use of AZM on potatoes. In this context, it may be useful to note that this use was originally listed in Group 1 ( cancellation without a phase out). Because of comments received during the iRED publication phase, potatoes were moved to Group 2 ( cancellation with a 4 year phaseout The current label allows for use in the Columbia River Basin or Washington state only. The National Potato Council has requested to expand the use to include Colorado and the Mid Atlantic region. A recent request to retain the AZM potato use in the Columbia River Basin has also been received from the Washington State Potato Commission. The Potato Council claims that growers need AZM to control Colorado potato beetles ( CPB) in all areas, as well as a pest new to the northwest, the potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella, ( PTW). In this context, the Potato Council also claims that AZM is necessary for control of CPB without generating mite outbreaks in Pacific Northwest ( PNW) potatoes, where the beetle has not yet developed resistance to organophosphates ( OPs).

The PTW sporadically damages tubers in the field and also propagates in storage bins and damages harvested tubers there. It is a long standing pest of potatoes in South America, and occasionally becomes a serious pest in California as well. The Potato Council indicated that they are not certain how widespread this pest is in PNW potatoes, nor whether AZM is the most efficacious control option available.

BEAD's assessment of stakeholder comments and changes in benefits of AZM As in its 2001 benefits assessment, BEAD believes that CPB can be effectively controlled with a number of other products already available, including synthetic pyrethroids such as bifenthrin, and neonictonoids such as imidacloprid. Thiamethoxam, a newer neonicotinoid ( i. e., the same chemistry as imidacloprid) has also been registered on potato since 2001. A suite of OPs and carbamates, all with CPB listed as being controlled on their labels, continue to be registered on potatoes, at least for the short term. These include aldicarb, carbofuran, endosulfan, esfenvalerate, methamidophos, permethrin, phorate, and methyl parathion. BEAD believes that judicious use of the neonicotinoids, along with OPs still available, such as methamidophos, and cultural controls such as removal of refugia and crop rotation should continue to provide adequate protection against CPB for potatoes in the absence of AZM.

Further, BEAD notes that CPB is notorious for its propensity to develop resistance to OPs, and AZM use can reasonably be said to be limited by that factor alone. While CPB populations in the PNW region have not yet developed such resistance, alternatives to AZM do appear to currently exist and of these, at plant applications of neonictonoids should control most CPB infestations through most of the growing season. An unknown number of growers may need to make additional treatments for CPB later in the season. Based on the very low current usage of AZM in the region ( see below) the proportion of growers thus affected is arguably low. Indeed, it is not clear to BEAD why growers outside the PNW would rely on AZM given that most of the U. S. potato 11 production community has been notified by University extension services that CPB can develop OP resistance quickly.

In this context, the latest figures show that nationally 3,900 pounds ( on average) of AZM are applied annually to the entire U. S. potato crop. The proportion of the crop treated with AZM ranges from 2  3% nationally. There has been a modest decline since 2001, in terms of the pounds applied annually. In the PNW, EPA usage data indicate that less than 1 % of the potato acreage was treated in 2002 and 2003.

For PTW, BEAD notes that foliar insecticides such as AZM only kill the adult moths, which are not the tuber damaging life stage. While such insecticides may reduce damage by killing female moths before they lay eggs, it appears that growers in other regions where this insect is a problem rely more on cultural control, such as destroying culled potatoes and volunteer plants in fields ( which removes overwintering refugia), or using sprinkler irrigation to reduce soil cracking ( Godfrey et al. 2003). Soil cracking allows moths to reach tubers more easily, and furrow irrigated fields are much more vulnerable. A search of extension service materials available on the internet for both U. S. and South American potato production did not reveal any publications or researchers specifically recommending AZM as an effective treatment for PTW.

The University of California, which discusses this pest at some length, lists methomyl, methamidophos, and esfenvalerate as recommended insecticide options for suppressing adult PTW ( Godfrey et al. 2003). In light of these findings, low current usage of AZM in the PNW, and lacking quantitative evidence to the contrary, BEAD does not believe that PTW is currently a compelling need for retaining AZM use in potatoes. BEAD acknowledges that there may be a niche for AZM use among some growers who face high levels of multiple pests ( aphids, CPB, and PTW) throughout the season. In these cases, the alternative insecticides available may be assigned in such a way as to create a situation where AZM has no practical replacement. However, the number of growers facing such a situation is arguably low, given the very low current usage of AZM in PNW potatoes. However, for the longer term, BEAD suggests that stakeholders explore efficacy of reduced risk materials such as indoxacarb and novaluron, as well as registered neonicotinoids such as thiamethoxam, since these have shown promise against other caterpillar pests in other crops ( e. g., Wise et al. 2004, Mangini 2003a, b).

Southern Pine Seed Orchards Summary of BEAD's 2001 benefits assessment Based on expert comment and published research, BEAD concluded that there would be significant grower level impacts, impacts on the seed industry, and on supplies of the seeds if both AZM and phosmet ( the best alternative, which was also undergoing registration review at that time) were simultaneously removed from use. The key pests are coneworms ( four species of moths in the genus Dioryctria) and seed bugs ( two species of true bugs, order Heteroptera). Together, these insects can attack the flowers, 12 developing cones, or mature cones ( Ebel et al. 1980). Thus, they cause both direct yield reductions and reductions in the quality of the harvested seed. A major factor driving AZM benefits was that southern pine seed was estimated to be worth $ 2,917 per lb. ( based on the discounted value of future seed and trees produced from these seeds). The value of the seed has remained near $ 3,000 per pound since 2001 ( Mangini, Byram, and Taylor, personal communication).

Impacts to national gross revenue for pine seed producers were estimated to range from $ 105 million to $ 245 million annually. This estimate was based on the assumptions that ( 1) southern pine seed yield losses of 30 70 % are realized without effective control of the key pests in the absence of AZM, and ( 2) replanting costs and the losses due to the lag to regenerate production are not included.

In 2001, small scale efficacy tests ( on single trees) suggested that phosmet, soon to be registered on this crop at that time, could provide acceptable control of the key pests. On the basis of these tests, BEAD also concluded that growers might not face the negative impacts as long as phosmet was available. BEAD also estimated that ( assuming equivalent efficacy) the use of phosmet instead of AZM would result in a savings of approximately $ 10,000 in control costs based on the total application cost difference of $ 1/ acre between AZM and Phosmet. BEAD analysts cautioned that this was a tentative scenario since the effectiveness of phosmet on coneworms and seed bugs was in a single tree treatment and large scale control had not yet been definitively evaluated.

Summary of stakeholder comments or concerns regarding expiry of AZM registration Crop experts and grower groups state that a larger scale study of phosmet failed to show the high levels of efficacy that the single tree studies suggested ( Mangini, Byram, and Taylor, personal communication, Mangini 2002). This study, conducted across four seed orchards in the southern U. S., showed that neither phosmet nor bifenthrin ( a synthetic pyrethroid) improved yield in terms of either the number of seeds per cone, or survival of mature cones ( ready for harvest) significantly, as compared to the untreated control. AZM was not simultaneously evaluated in that study ( Mangini 2002).

Currently, orchard managers use sequential sprays of a synthetic pyrethroids ( esfenvalerate or permethrin) and AZM to control the two key pests. Multiple insecticide applications are claimed to be necessary because both key pests have multiple generations per year, and can damage all stages of the developing cones ( Barber et al. 1989). Typically, synthetic pyrethroids are sprayed only once to minimize their disruption of beneficial insect populations ( predators and parasitoids) that control scale insects. AZM applications are necessary later in the season. Stakeholders note that, since 2001, they have been successfully using AZM at a lower rate and fewer applications per season. Rates are now at 1.5 lb a. i./ acre ( vs. 3 lb/ acre before 2001), and the maximum number of applications are three per season, as opposed to five prior to 2001. 13 BEAD's assessment of stakeholder comments and changes in benefits of AZM Based on the available literature, conference calls with crop experts, and an examination of the results of the larger scale efficacy study of phosmet ( described in the previous section), BEAD believes that the potential for a significant negative impact on southern pine seed production continues to exist, if AZM is removed from this crop as a seed pest management tool. Phosmet cannot be relied upon to provide the same level of efficacy as AZM, and increased pyrethroid use cannot be substituted for AZM indefinitely, due to their disruption of scale insect control, lower residual efficacy, and the inevitable increase in resistance to these insecticides. In the near future, however, pyrethroids will probably control the target pests.

Recent efficacy studies conducted on multiple tree plots indicate that a combination of tebufenozide ( a reduced risk insecticide, sold as Mimic TM) and esfenvalerate ( Asana TM) provides acceptable control of coneworms ( Mangini 2003a). Similar studies showed that thiamethoxam ( Actara TM), a neonicotinoid, provides acceptable control of seed bugs, and indoxacarb ( Steward TM) also works well against coneworms ( Mangini 2003b).

Unfortunately, none of these materials is currently registered for use in pine seed orchards, and apparently, registrants have not yet expressed interest in pursuing registrations. Unless these promising alternatives are made available to growers, BEAD believes that there may be economic losses in the long term if AZM is removed as a pest control option for pine seed orchards.

CONCLUSION BEAD has evaluated the main stakeholder comments on the Group 2 uses within the constraints imposed by the timeframe for AZM cancellation as stated in the iRED. The results of these evaluations indicate that in the absence of AZM, growers should have viable alternatives ( for the critical target pests cited in stakeholder comments) in all crops, at least in the near term. However, important caveats should be mentioned when stating this conclusion for some of the crops involved. In caneberries and southern pine seeds, growers will have only one alternative insecticide or class of chemistry to rely on without AZM; this can be expected to increase the selection pressure for resistance to develop in the target insects to an unknown extent.

In peaches, while scale and OFM have effective new alternatives as well as viable older alternatives available, the overall cost of control will probably go up in the absence of AZM. The LPTB is a pest that is apparently increasing its numbers and damage in southeastern peaches, in particular. While there is a dormant season control ( chlorpyrifos) and a few in season alternatives ( esfenvalerate and endosulfan), these have their own risk concerns or pest management constraints ( secondary pest outbreaks). Thus, while in the short term these alternatives may provide some control of LPTB, the loss of 14 AZM may contribute to a long term increase in yield losses due to this insect that is unsustainable for growers.

However, given the lack of information on the amount of acreage affected by the damage inflicted by this pest or on efficacy of AZM or registered and potential alternatives as in season control options, BEAD cannot quantify the extent of negative impacts of LPTB in the absence of AZM. Given the uncertainties associated with these crops, BEAD suggests that promising alternatives ( described in the crop discussions above) be given registration priority wherever possible to minimize pest impacts to this crop, if and when AZM use is removed.

Finally, for cranberries, while other adequate alternatives appear to be available, BEAD notes that growers' use of methoxyfenozide ( which may be the most practical and effective option) is hampered by the buffer restriction on its label. In potatoes, while the arrival of the potato tuber worm in the PNW does not currently appear to be a compelling reason to retain AZM use, BEAD recognizes that there is a long term need for stakeholders and regulators to explore the efficacy of reduced risk alternatives, as well as pest management strategies in the broader sense.

INFORMATION SOURCES Anonymous. 2004. Cranberry Station Newsletter, December 2004. A publication of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Available on the web at http:// www. umass. edu/ cranberry.

Brannen, P., Horton, D., Bellinger, B., and Ritchie, D. ( editors). 2005. Southeastern Peach, Nectarine, and Plum Pest Management Guide. Bulletin # 1171 of the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Available on the web at: http:// entomology. ent. uga. edu/ peach/ peach_ guide/ title. htm Barber, L. R., Cordell, C. E., Anderson, R. L., Hoffard, W. H., Landis, T. D., Smith, R. S., and Toko, H. V. 1989. Seed and Cone Insects. In: Forest Nursery Pests. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 680. 184 pp.

DeFrancesco, J. Personal communications via e mail to EPA/ OPP/ BEAD, March 1 25, 2005.

Dittl, T. 2000. Fruitworm Management: Wisconsin Insecticide Trials. 2000. PowerPoint presentation e mailed to Diane Isbell, EPA/ OPP/ SRRD.

Ebel, B. H., Flavell, T. H., Drake, L. E., Yates, H. O., and DeBarr, G. L. 1980. Seed and cone insects of southern pines. U. S. DA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE 8, revised. 43 pp. 15 Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Caneberry Biological and Economic Benefits Assessment for Azinphos methyl. W. Chism and S. Smearman.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Cranberry Benefits Assessment for Azinphosmethyl and Phosmet Related to Proposed Occupational Risk Mitigation. W. Chism and S. Smearman.

Godfrey, L. D., and Haviland, D. R. 2003. UC Pest management Guidelines: Potato tuberworm. UC ANR Publication # 3463. Available on the web at http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ selectnewpest. potatoes. html.

Horton. D. Professor, Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Personal communication to EPA/ OPP/ BEAD via telephone and e mail, March 1   30, 2005.

Johnson, D. and Lewis, B. A. 2002. Insecticide efficacy trails for raspberry crown borer on blackberry. Study C2 in: Arthropod Management Tests 2003. Available on the web at www. entsoc. org.

Mahr, D. L., Roper, T. R., McManus, P. S., and Flashinski, R. A. 2005. Cranberry Pest Mangement in Wisconsin. Pub. # A3276 of the University of Wisconsin Extension Service.

Mangini, A. 2002. Southwide Imidan Eficay Study. Unpublished data summary, communicated via e mail from A. Mangini to EPA/ OPP/ BEAD on March 24, 2005.

Mangini, A. 2003a. A pilot test of tebufenozide ( Mimic TM 2LV) combined with esfenvalerate ( Asana TM XL) for control of seed and cone insects of loblolly pine; includes an efficacy test of thiamethoxam ( Actara TM). Unpublished manuscript from the U. S. DA Forest Service, Pineville, LA.

Mangini, A. 2003b. A pilot test of tebufenozide ( Mimic TM 2LV) and indoxacarb ( Steward TM) for control of seed and cone insects of loblolly pine. Unpublished manuscript from the U. S. DA Forest Service, Pineville, LA.

Mangini, A., Byram, T. D., and Taylor, J. Personal communications via teleconference and e mail to EPA/ OPP/ BEAD, March 1  22, 2005.

NASS, 2000. Cranberries. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Olsen, J. L. and Pscheidt, J. W. 2005. Peach Pest Management Recommendations. A publication of the Oregon State University Extension Service. Available on the web at: http:// eesc. orst. edu/ agcomwebfile/ edmat/ html/ EM/ EM8419/ EM8419. html 16 Pfeiffer, D. G., Yoder, K. S., and Bergh, C. 2005. Diseases and Insects. Pp. 47 66 In: 2005 Pest Management Guide: Horticultural and Forest Crops. Publication No. 456 017 of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Available on the web at: http:// www. ext. vt. edu/ pubs/ pmg/ index. html USDA. 1998. Crop Profile for Cranberries in Wisconsin. K. A. Delahaut and S. E. R. Mahr. Available on the web at http:// ipmcenters. org.

USDA 1999. Crop Profiles for Raspberries and Blackberries in Oregon. Prepared by P. Thomson, W. Parrott, and J. Jenkins. Available on the web at http:// ipmcenters. org.

USDA 2003. Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacific Northwest caneberries. Available on the web at http:// ipmcenters. org.

Wise, J. C., Gut, L. J., Isaacs, R., and Schilder, A. 2004. Tree and Small Fruits Insecticide/ fungicide Evaluation Studies. A publication of the Michigan Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.