Arizona Farm Bureau’s (AZFB) regulatory engagement has remained steady into the second quarter of 2025. Below is a summary of the regulatory dockets AZFB addressed during this period, along with a submission made in early July.

Environmental Protection Agency – Pesticide Registration Review: Atrazine – Our comments acknowledged EPA’s reevaluation of the Concentration Equivalent Level of Concern (CE-LOC), which helps address earlier concerns about overly restrictive thresholds. However, we also expressed concern about the EPA’s decision to retain the annual maximum application rate of 2 pounds of active ingredient per acre, as this would negatively impact Arizona’s corn and sorghum growers, particularly those who double-crop or plant back-to-back fields. We urged EPA to consider regional factors, such as Arizona’s low CELOC values and unique cropping practices, when finalizing the rule to better reflect growers’ needs and allow for higher maximum annual application rates.

Environmental Protection Agency – Air Plan Revisions; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality – AZFB’s comments supported the concerns raised by the Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee (Ag BMP Committee) in its letter to the EPA. The comments noted concerns with the delay in EPA’s response to Arizona’s SIP submission, the limited information provided in the proposed rule, and the decision to defer evaluation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Best Available Control Measures (BACM). In addition, we disagreed with the EPA’s conclusion that crop and animal operation rules are unenforceable, citing the BMP Program Record form as evidence of clear compliance documentation and the use of updated practices to reduce PM10 emissions. The comments also requested clarification on penalties and recordkeeping expectations and recommended that EPA delay finalizing the proposed action until clearer guidance is provided to the state and affected stakeholders.

Environmental Protection Agency – WOTUS Notice: Request for Recommendations – AZFB’s comments supported those submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which urged the EPA to revise the WOTUS rule by making specific changes to the regulatory text and substantial revisions to the preamble. These changes aim to realign the WOTUS definition with Supreme Court decisions, addressing concerns that the current rule disregards the limiting principles established in the Rapanos plurality and Sackett cases.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) – Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Monarch Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat – AZFB’s comments addressed several considerations regarding the proposed listing of the monarch butterfly under the ESA. The comments noted the current Species Status Assessment (SSA) is incomplete and does not include recent research that questions the extent of long-term monarch population decline and recommended that USFWS address these gaps. We also encouraged the Service to fully recognize ongoing conservation activities by state agencies, regional initiatives, and private programs when evaluating the need for listing. Regarding the proposed 4(d) rule, we supported exceptions for routine agricultural, livestock, and silvicultural practices but suggested further clarification. Additionally, we emphasized that monarch habitat is generally found in areas such as field margins, meadows, and transportation corridors rather than actively farmed land, and recommended that this distinction be considered when evaluating pesticide use and designing targeted conservation measures. Finally, we supported including exceptions for pesticide use consistent with EPA labeling and, where applicable, provisions outlined in EPA’s ESA Workplan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) – Rescinding the Definition of “Harm” Under the Endangered Species Act – AZFB’s comments supported removing the current regulatory definition of “harm,” agreeing with USFWS that this change would better align the definition of “take” with the ESA’s original intent and offer greater clarity for landowners. We noted that under the existing definition, routine and beneficial land management practices, such as field work, grazing rotations, and habitat restoration, could unintentionally be considered violations if they alter habitat conditions. Consequently, this lack of clarity can discourage landowners from engaging in proactive stewardship and sustainable management practices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) – ESA Section 10(a) Program Implementation – AZFB’s comments urged USFWS to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the development and implementation of conservation agreements. We recommended prioritizing staffing and developing approaches to streamline internal reviews and permit issuance. We also raised concerns about the high cost of preparing compliance documentation. To address this, we recommended sourcing dedicated funding to help NGOs, landowner groups, and other partners hire qualified contractors to prepare compliance documents for USFWS review.

For more information about a specific comment letter, contact Ana Kennedy Otto at advocacy@azfb.org.