[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44268-44269]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18856]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026; FRL-9983-03-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``National Water Quality
Inventory Reports (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1560.11, OMB Control No.
2040-0071) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before
submitting the ICR to OMB, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through March 31, 2019. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2003-0026, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia N. Johnson, Watershed
Restoration, Assessment and Protection Division (WRAPD), Office of
Water, Mail Code: 4503T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-
1679; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents that explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated electronic, mechanical or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the
comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR
package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that
time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the
submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional
comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reports contain
information on whether waters assessed by a state meet the state's
water quality standards, and, when waters are impaired, the pollutants
and potential sources affecting water quality. This information helps
State's and the public track progress in addressing water pollution.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify and

rank waters that cannot meet water quality standards (WQS) following
the implementation of technology-based controls. Under Section 303(d),
States are also required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
for listed waters not meeting standards because of pollutant
discharges. In developing the Section 303(d) lists, States are required
to consider various sources of water quality related data and
information, including the Section 305(b) State water quality reports.
Section 106(e) requires that states annually update monitoring data and
use it in their Section 305(b) report. Section 314(a) requires states
to report on the condition of their publicly owned lakes within the
Section 305(b) report.
    Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations,
EPA's WRAPD works with its Regional counterparts to review and approve
or disapprove State Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents
(the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the five Territories).
Section 303(d) specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs,
and EPA is to review and approve or disapprove the lists and the TMDLs.
EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59 respondents (the 50
States, the District of Columbia, five Territories, and 3 River Basin
Commissions).
    Tribes are not required to submit Section 305(b) reports. However,
to meet the needs of Tribes at all levels of development, EPA has
prepared guidance that presents the basic steps a Tribe should take to
collect the water quality information it needs to make effective
decisions about its program, its goals and its future directions.
Tribal water quality monitoring and reporting activities are covered
under the Section 106 Tribal Grants Program and are not included in the
burden estimates for this ICR. In addition, ICR number 2553.02
``Treatment of Indian Tribes in a Similar Manner as States for Purposes
of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (Final Rule)'' addresses the
Tribes' CWA Section 303(d) Impaired Water Listing and TMDL TAS
application and 303(d) Program implementation burden, as well as EPA's
burden for reviewing the Tribes' applications and 303(d) Program
submittals.
    During the period covered by this ICR renewal, respondents will:
Complete their 2020 Section 305(b) reports and 2020 Section 303(d)
lists; complete their 2022 Section 305(b) reports and 2022 Section
303(d) lists; transmit annual electronic updates of ambient monitoring
data via the Water Quality Exchange; and continue to develop TMDLs
according to their established schedules. EPA will prepare biennial
updates on assessed and impaired waters for Congress and the public for
the 2020 reporting cycle and for the 2022 cycle, and EPA will review
303(d) list and TMDL submissions from respondents.
    The burdens of specific activities that States undertake as part of
their Section 305(b) and 303(d) programs are derived from a project
among EPA, States and other interested stakeholders to develop a tool
for estimating the States' resource needs for State water quality
management programs. This project has developed the State Water Quality
Management Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates and sums the
workload involved in more than one hundred activities or tasks
comprising a State water quality management program. Over twenty States
contributed information about their activities that became the basis
for the model. According to the SWQMWM, to meet Section 305(b) and
303(d) reporting requirements the States will conduct: Watershed
monitoring and characterization; modeling and analysis; development of
Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs for public review; public outreach;
formal public participation; tracking; planning; legal support; etc. In
general, respondents have conducted each of these reporting and record
keeping activities for past Section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles
and thus have staff and procedures in place to continue their Section
305(b) and 303(d) reporting programs. The burden associated with these
tasks is estimated in this ICR to include the total number of TMDLs
that may be submitted during the period covered by this ICR.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are States, Territories and Tribes with Clean Water Act
(CWA) responsibilities.
    Respondent 's obligation to respond: Mandatory: Integrated Water
Quality Inventory Reports (Clean Water Act Sections 305(b), 303(d),
314(a), and 106(e)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 59 (total).
    Frequency of response: Biennial.
    Total estimated burden: 3,740,017 (per year) hours. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $214,524,738 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB, published on March 1, 2016. EPA has completed phase 1 of the Water
Quality' Framework, which is a new way of integrating EPA's data and
information systems to more effectively support reporting and tracking
water quality protection and restoration actions. Phase 1 streamlined
water quality assessment and reporting by reducing transactions
associated with paper copy reviews and increasing electronic data
exchange. The system to support this new electronic reporting was
released to support the 2018 reporting cycle in April of 2018. Because
this is the first year that the new reporting method is being used, EPA
will use this reporting cycle to gather information on reporting burden
using this new approach. EPA expects the new approach will result in a
reduction in reporting burden, but does not have enough information at
this time to quantify the reduction. EPA will use the information
collected on reporting burden from the 2018 cycle to revise the ICR
burden estimates in the next iteration of this ICR.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
John Goodin,
Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2018-18856 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62277-62280]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25080]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67992; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-095]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Closing Rotation Procedures for S&P
500 Index Options

October 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 28, 2012, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The filing proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .06 under
CBOE Rule 6.2B relating to closing rotation procedures to determine the
month-end closing price for each series of S&P 500 Index options based
on the theoretical fair value of such series. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify and formalize
the process by which, at each month-end, the closing price of each
series of S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options are aligned with the closing
value of (i) the underlying stock index in the cash market, and (ii)
the related SPX futures contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange (``CME'').
Background
    Beginning in December 1999, the CME instituted a special settlement
procedure to determine a fair value settlement price of its domestic
stock index futures for the December month-end based on the closing
value of the underlying stock index, rather than the actual closing
price of the index futures contract.\5\ The fair value of each index
futures contract is calculated based on the value of the underlying
stock index as of the cash market close at 3:00 p.m.,\6\ even though
futures trading continues until 3:15 p.m. For these month-end
settlement days, this 3:00 p.m. theoretical fair value replaces the
actual 3:15 p.m. final trading price as the settlement value of the
stock index futures contract for all purposes--including account value
reporting and end-of-day variation margin calls.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The CME originally instituted this practice for the December
31, 1999 year-end, but has adopted the practice for each month-end
closing date since January 2001.
    \6\ All times referred to herein are Chicago time.
    \7\ See generally CME Group, Month-End Fair Value Procedures,
available at http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/fairvaluefaq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that the CME created this fair value
settlement price at the request of certain institutional investors.
These institutional investors require an independent third-party
valuation of the fair value of their futures positions as of the 3:00
p.m. close of the underlying cash markets. Many market participants are
active in both the futures and cash markets and want the values of
their futures positions to align with the value of their underlying
cash market positions. If the month-end settlement price in their stock
index futures positions were based on the 3:15 p.m.

close of futures trading, while the month-end closing price of their
cash market positions in the stock index were based on the 3:00 p.m.
cash market close, tracking error would likely occur as 3:15 p.m.
futures prices reflect information that became available after the 3:00
p.m. cash market close.\8\ This tracking error due to the difference in
closing time would cause these institutional investors' financial
reporting to misrepresent their actual overall portfolio performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The CME has explained the reason for maintaining its 3:00
p.m. fair value procedure as follows:
     Stock index products on the [CME] normally close and settle
fifteen minutes after the daily close of trading in cash equities.
The cash/futures basis may be affected to the extent that futures
may fluctuate--sometimes sharply--during those final fifteen
minutes. As such, this may become a difficulty for institutional
traders practicing coordinated cash/futures strategies. Still, the
opportunity to lay off equity market exposure during those fifteen
minutes subsequent to the cash close has proven quite beneficial.
The use of [fair value] settlement procedures is intended to address
this so-called ``tracking error'' while still permitting trade to
continue for fifteen minutes past the 3:00 p.m. cash close.
Conceptually, the fair value settlement is determined when the cash
market closes at 3:00 p.m., since any new information following 3:00
p.m. will not affect the closing price of the stocks and the
indexes. However, information or events subsequent to the cash close
may still impact futures prices. Market participants should be aware
of the possibility that futures may trade at prices apart from fair
value settlement prices between 3:00 p.m. and the close of the
market at 3:15 p.m. on days on which [fair value] settlement
procedures are applied.
     See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market for SPX futures and the market for SPX options are
highly interconnected. Many investors in SPX options traded on the
Exchange are also active in SPX futures contracts traded on the CME,
hedging positions in one with positions in the other. In fact,
investors often calculate the value of SPX options with reference to
the value of the related SPX futures. Since the CME began its month-end
fair value procedure in December 1999, the Exchange determined that it
would be disruptive to fair and orderly markets to allow the closing
prices of SPX options at month-end (based on the actual 3:15 p.m.
Exchange close) to significantly diverge from the settlement value of
the related SPX futures (determined based on the fair value at the 3:00
p.m. cash market close). Such a divergence would cause numerous
difficulties for investors active in both SPX options and SPX futures,
including: (i) Month-end portfolio reports would misrepresent an
investor's overall positions because the value of the investor's SPX
options and SPX futures positions would reflect different moments in
time, falsely indicating tracking error or the level of offsetting
hedges, and (ii) an investor that is perfectly hedged between its SPX
options and its SPX futures positions could nonetheless (A) be called
for additional unnecessary margin, or (B) have necessary margin
returned to them, because the futures settlement value (and therefore
margin calculation) was based on the 3:00 p.m. fair value, while the
SPX options closing prices were based on the actual 3:15 p.m. Exchange
close.
    One potential approach to prevent this divergence would have been,
on the last business day of each month, to end trading in SPX options
series at 3:00 p.m. This would cause the closing prices on the Exchange
to naturally align with the 3:00 p.m. fair value assigned to SPX
futures by the CME. However, the Exchange determined that this would
itself be disruptive, as it would result in the market for SPX futures
on the CME being open for trading at a time when the market for SPX
options on the Exchange was closed. This misalignment would disrupt the
trading activities of many market participants, leaving them unable to
actively hedge their SPX futures positions in SPX options. The Exchange
therefore adopted a practice to align the closing price of SPX options
with the settlement value of SPX futures.
Current Procedures
    Throughout each trading day, the Exchange disseminates bid and
offer quotations in each series of SPX options traded on the Exchange.
Upon receipt of the final quotations from the Exchange, the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') determines the final closing price of
each series of SPX options by calculating the midpoint between the
final bid and final offer quotations. Generally, the final quotations
disseminated by the Exchange on each day reflect the final quotations
as of 3:15 p.m. However, pursuant to Exchange Rules 6.2, 6.2A, 6.2B and
24.13, the Exchange determined to deviate from normal rotation policy
and procedure in the interest of a fair and orderly markets on those
month-end business days when the CME adopted a 3:00 p.m. fair value as
the settlement price. On these days, the Exchange holds special non-
trading closing rotations to determine the closing price of each SPX
options series based on the theoretical fair value at the 3:00 p.m.
cash market close.\9\ After the 3:15 p.m. Exchange close, the Exchange,
based on quotes provided by the Lead Market-Maker (``LMM''), conducts a
non-trading closing rotation solely to determine the ``fair value''
closing prices of its SPX options based on all relevant inputs,
including the settlement value for the related SPX futures contract
announced by the CME and the views of any other market participants.
Shortly after 3:15 p.m., the Exchange then disseminates non-tradable
final bid and offer quotations, and their midpoint equals the fair
value price. Upon receipt of these post-3:15 p.m. final quotations, the
OCC calculates the closing price based on the midpoint, which equals to
the 3:00 p.m. fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange has kept the market informed of this procedure
through frequent Regulatory Circulars. See CBOE Regulatory Circular
RG99-233 (Dec. 21, 1999), available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg99-233.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG00-049 (Mar. 29,
2000), available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg00-049.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG01-014 (Jan. 25, 2001),
available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG01-014.pdf; CBOE
Regulatory Circular RG01-040 (Mar. 29, 2001), available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg01-040.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular
RG01-058 (Apr. 27, 2001), available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg01-058.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG02-019 (Apr. 4,
2002), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG02-019.pdf;
CBOE Regulatory Circular RG02-039 (June 12, 2002), available at
http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG02-039.pdf; CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG02-073 (Sept. 17, 2002), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG02-073.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular
RG02-118 (Dec. 19, 2002), available at http://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg02-118.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG03-016 (Mar. 19,
2003), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG03-016.pdf;
CBOE Regulatory Circular RG03-039 (June 11, 2003), available at
http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG03-039.pdf; CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG03-075 (Sept. 10, 2003), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG03-075.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular
RG03-082 (Sept. 22, 2003), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG03-082.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG03-110 (Dec. 17,
2003), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG03-110.pdf;
CBOE Regulatory Circular RG04-132 (Dec. 30, 2004), available at
http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG04-132.pdf; CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG05-130 (Dec. 29, 2005), available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG05-130.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG06-130 (Dec.
19, 2006), available at http://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg06-130.pdf; CBOE Regulatory Circular RG08-004 (Jan. 8, 2008), available
at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RegCir/RG08-004.pdf; CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG09-151 (Dec. 30, 2009), available at http://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg09-151.pdf; and CBOE Regulatory Circular RG12-023
(Jan. 30, 2012), available at http://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg12-023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, unlike other trading days where the SPX options closing
prices are based on the final actual quotes as of 3:15 p.m., for these
month-end dates, the SPX options closing prices are based on the
theoretical 3:00 p.m. fair value. As with the CME, on the days when
this procedure is used, although no actual trades occur at these
prices, these theoretical fair value closing prices are treated as the
closing prices for all purposes, including dissemination through the
Options Price Reporting

Authority (``OPRA'') and OCC margin calculations.
Proposed Interpretation
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .06 to
Rule 6.2B (the ``Interpretation'') to codify in its rulebook the
Exchange's existing practice with respect to the end-of-month SPX
options fair value procedures.
    The Exchange continues to believe that it is integral to fair and
orderly markets in SPX options that the closing price of each series of
SPX options traded on the Exchange be based on the value as of the same
time as the closing price of the related SPX futures traded on the CME.
Because the CME has made a practice of determining the closing price of
SPX futures on the last business day of each month based on the 3:00
p.m. fair value, the Exchange believes the closing price of each
related SPX options series should similarly be based on the 3:00 p.m.
price. Investors active in both the options and futures markets would
face numerous difficulties if the closing values of SPX options and SPX
futures were allowed to significantly diverge. For example, as noted
above, if the closing price of a series of SPX options was to be based
on the 3:15 close of trading, while the related SPX futures settlement
price was based on the 3:00 p.m. fair value, an investor that was
perfectly hedged between the options and futures could nonetheless be
subject to potentially significant margin calls due to market movements
between 3:00 p.m. and 3:15 p.m.--even though such market movement would
not actually impact the level of risk of the perfectly hedged
portfolio.
    As discussed above, on those days when the CME has instituted its
3:00 p.m. fair value settlement procedure, the Exchange determined to
deviate from normal rotation policies and procedures in the interest of
fair and orderly markets and conduct fair value closing rotations. The
Exchange has done so on a regular basis in response to changes in CME
procedures, in order to prevent any disruption to fair and orderly
markets that would occur from the closing price of SPX options being
determined as of the 3:15 p.m. close and the settlement value of SPX
futures being determined as of 3:00 p.m. fair value. However, the CME
appears to have adopted its 3:00 p.m. fair value procedure on a
permanent basis for each month-end trading date.\10\ Therefore, rather
than continuing to rely on its authority to deviate from normal
rotation policies and procedures, the Exchange has determined to adopt
the Interpretation to codify the Exchange's existing practice in its
rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes, however, that the CME does not appear
to maintain a specific rule in connection with its fair value
procedure, and therefore may change its practice at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Interpretation codifies the Exchange's current procedures
without material change. Specifically, on the last business day of each
calendar month, following the 3:15 p.m. close of trading in SPX
options, the Exchange will conduct special non-trading closing
rotations for each series of SPX options in order to determine their
theoretical fair value as of the 3:00 p.m. close of the cash market.
The LMM for each series of SPX options will be responsible for
calculating the fair value of that series.
    The ``fair value'' of a series of SPX options represents the price
at which the series should theoretically trade in relation to cash
values in the absence of transaction costs. It is typically calculated
as a function of the underlying index value plus the financing cost of
owning the underlying stock portfolio, less dividends paid up to the
expiration of the option.
    To reach this fair value, each LMM will consider various inputs,
including the prevailing interest rates, expected dividends, and input
from market participants. Additionally, because the fair value of the
related futures contract reflects a similar calculation, the Exchange
expects that particular weight will be given to the as-of 3:00 p.m.
fair value of the related SPX futures contract disseminated by the CME.
Upon determination of the fair value, the LMMs will calculate bid and
offer quotations, the midpoint of which will equal the calculated fair
value, and provide these non-tradable quotations to the Exchange.
    The Exchange will disseminate these non-tradable fair value
quotations via OPRA after the 3:15 close, within approximately three to
five minutes of closing. The OCC will then determine the final closing
price of each series of SPX options by calculating the midpoint between
these final fair value bid and final fair value offer quotations, which
will equal fair value. This fair value closing price will be used as
the closing price for all purposes, including the OCC's calculation of
variation margin requirements.
    The Exchange recognizes that LMMs may have an interest in the
outcome of the month-end value determination based on the composition
of their own proprietary positions. For example, an LMM may have an
incentive to lean their fair value determination in a direction that
would minimize the potential variation margin the LMM would be called
for by the OCC with respect to their proprietary holdings. However, the
Exchange believes that this risk is limited because, as a mathematical
formula, fair value can be generally approximated by third parties,
allowing for independent checks on the LMMs' calculations. In addition,
the Exchange does and will conduct robust surveillance and oversight of
LMMs' fair value quotations activities to monitor for potential
attempts at manipulation.
    Finally, as described above, the need to disseminate after 3:15
p.m. the fair value closing quotations for SPX options based on the
3:00 p.m. fair value on the last business day of each month is due to
the current CME procedures in place for SPX futures. However, the
Exchange cannot predict whether the CME may determine to forego its
special month-end fair value procedure at any time in the future. The
proposed interpretation therefore provides the Exchange with discretion
not to disseminate the 3:00 p.m. fair value quotations as determined by
the LMMs after the 3:15 p.m. close, if not doing so would be in the
interest of fair and orderly markets. The Exchange anticipates that it
would only not do so in the event that the CME determines not to apply
its special month-end fair value settlement procedure for SPX futures,
either on a particular month-end trading date or otherwise. In such an
event, the Exchange anticipates allowing the actual 3:15 p.m. closing
quotations to act as the final quotations, as occurs on other trading
days, so that both the closing quotations of SPX options at such a
month-end and the settlement value of the related SPX futures would
each reflect the same end of trading time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \11\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular the requirement of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \13\ in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market

system. In particular, the proposed rule change furthers the interest
of fair and orderly markets by avoiding the artificial tracking error
that could result if the underlying value of the closing price of SPX
options were allowed to significantly diverge at month-end from the
closing value of the underlying stock index and the settlement value of
the related SPX futures contract. Additionally, the proposed rule
change is designed to improve the Exchange's ability to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative practices by adopting a surveillance
program to monitor the LMMs' month-end fair value quoting activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate,

it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-095 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-095. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-095 and should be
submitted on or before November 2, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25080 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45579-45583]
[DOCID:fr03au10-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9185-2]
RIN 2040-AF11

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and
Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request
for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of data availability and request for
comment.

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

SUMMARY: This action is a supplemental notice of data availability and
a request for comment related to EPA's January 26, 2010, notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing numeric nutrient water quality
criteria to protect aquatic life in lakes and flowing waters within the
State of Florida. In the January 2010 NPRM, EPA proposed to classify
Florida's streams into four regions (referred to in the proposed rule
as ``Nutrient Watershed Regions'') for application of total nitrogen
(TN) and total phosphorus (TP) criteria. Streams within each of these
regions (Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula and North Central) reflect
similar geographical characteristics including phosphorus-rich soils,
nutrient concentrations and nutrient ratios. In this notice, EPA is
requesting comment on revised stream region boundaries based on
additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich
geological formations in Florida. Based on comments and additional
information, this revised regionalization approach would result in five
Nutrient Watershed Regions for Florida's streams and a clarification of
certain watershed boundaries for the Bone Valley and Peninsula regions.
EPA is also requesting comment on basing the TN and TP criteria for the
nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th
percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites
outlined in the alternate approach at proposal. EPA is continuing to
consider the primary approach proposed in January 2010 to use the 75th
percentile of sites with healthy biological condition as measured by
the Stream Condition Index (SCI). The January 2010 proposal also
proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that
nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes and
requested comment on alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model
and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that
are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible.
Today's notice also requests comment on using the BATHTUB model in
place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria
to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models
under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach
to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would
use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters
flowing into the lake. EPA is seeking comment on alternative stream
regionalization approaches, use of the benchmark dataset to derive
criteria, and derivation of lake downstream protection values discussed
in more detail below, and will consider the comments received before
finalizing the proposed rule, ``Water Quality Standards for the State
of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters.'' This supplemental notice
focuses solely on the delineation of stream nutrient regions, resulting
criteria associated with two approaches (EPA's SCI-based approach and
the alternative benchmark distribution approach), and protection of
downstream lakes in Florida. EPA is not soliciting comment on any other
provisions of the January 2010 proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
    4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www. regulations.gov or in hard copy at a docket facility.
The Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW
Docket Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the Docket
address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Salvaterra, U.S. EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
III. Supplemental Information on Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the
State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters
    A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream
Criteria Derivation
    B. Downstream Protection of Lakes

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or to address a particular issue.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The official public
docket consists of the document specifically referenced in this action,
any public comments received, and other information related to this
action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does
not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A
reasonable fee will be charged for copies.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section
I.B.1.

II. Background

    On January 26, 2010, EPA proposed ``Water Quality Standards for the
State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters'' (75 FR 4173). EPA
conducted 13 public hearing sessions in six cities in Florida and held
a 90-day public comment period as part of the proposed rule generating
over 22,000 public comments. EPA is reviewing and considering these
comments in preparation of the final rule, which is scheduled to be
signed by the EPA Administrator on October 15, 2010.
    Today's notice reflects a review of comments and new information
received by the Agency as part of the public comment process, and
requests further comment on possible revisions, additional options, and
new information related to specific approaches and issues identified in
the January 26, 2010 proposal. EPA is only seeking comment on the items
presented in this supplemental notice. EPA is not soliciting comment on
any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule.

III. Supplemental Information on Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the
State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria
Derivation

    EPA proposed classification of Florida's streams north of Lake
Okeechobee by separating watersheds with substantially different stream
molar ratios of TN to TP into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). The
resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural
factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams (e.g.,
geology, soil composition, and/or hydrology). Reliance on a watershed-
based classification approach reflects the understanding that upstream
water quality affects downstream water quality. EPA requested public
comment on the stream regionalization approach as well as factoring in
geological influences from phosphorus-rich soils when classifying
stream regions (75 FR 4195-96). EPA received public comments and
information that suggested refining the proposed stream regions to
account for natural variability in soil nitrogen and phosphorus as well
as clarifying the boundaries of the proposed stream regions.
    Today, EPA is requesting comment on a revised approach to certain
stream regions suggested by FDEP and other commenters. More
specifically, EPA is considering additional information on the
influence of phosphorus-rich soils and geology in Florida (associated
with the Hawthorne Group) for areas in the northern Panhandle region.
Based on comments and information received, the Agency is also
considering further refinements to the regional boundaries separating
the Peninsula region from the West Central region (referred to in the
proposed rule as ``Bone Valley'').
    Based on geological information,\1\ EPA is considering dividing the
proposed Panhandle region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich)
and Panhandle East (more phosphorus-rich) region. In drawing the
boundary between the two regions, EPA is continuing to rely on the
watershed approach described in the proposed rule and is considering
using the eastern boundary of the Apalachicola River watershed as the
dividing line between the two regions. EPA believes that dividing the
Panhandle region in this manner may more accurately represent the
natural influences on stream TP concentrations and provide finer
spatial resolution with respect to TP criteria; however, we request
comment on this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Scott, T.S., 1988, The lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn
Group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No.
59; 148 p.; Scott, T.S., K.M. Campbell, F.R. Rupert, J.D. Arthur,
T.M. Missimer, J.M. Lloyd, J.W. Yon and J.G. Duncan, 2001, Geologic
map of the state of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Map Series
146; Scott, T.S., 2001, Text to accompany the geologic map of
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Report 80; 29 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is considering these adjustments in the Panhandle region to
account for natural geological influences on stream phosphorus
concentrations. EPA considered different approaches to classifying
Florida's streams for application of TN criteria, such as the four
Nutrient Watershed Regions discussed in the January 2010 proposal and
two regions as originally suggested by FDEP. However, differences in
the resulting TN criteria based on these stream classification schemes
were minor and the approaches were comparable. Therefore, to assure
consistency and clarity in applicability decisions and implementation,
EPA is also considering using the same revised Panhandle delineation
for stream TN criteria as well as the TP criteria. This consistency in
regionalization for TN and TP provides clarity to the public on which
stream criteria apply at any given location, which can help facilitate
the State's implementation of both stream TN and TP criteria.
    EPA also reexamined the watershed delineations of the West Central
and Peninsula regions based on comments and information from FDEP and
others. As a result of this review, EPA has gained greater knowledge of
the watershed boundaries and is considering refining the boundary
delineations accordingly. The result for the West Central region would
be a modified western boundary that shifts from Florida's west coast
shoreline inland to the east as explained in more detail below. EPA
believes that these possible adjustments to the West Central and
Peninsula stream region boundaries more accurately reflect the
watershed boundaries; however, we request comment on this conclusion.
    As a result of the new information and possible adjustments to the
proposed stream regionalization approach that are outlined above, EPA
is considering five Nutrient Watershed Regions for deriving TP and TN
criteria for streams. The five Nutrient Watershed Regions would include
a Panhandle West region encompassing Perdido Bay Watershed, Pensacola
Bay Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed, St. Andrew Bay Watershed,
and Apalachicola Bay Watershed. It would also include a Panhandle East
region encompassing Apalachee Bay Watershed, and Econfina/Steinhatchee
Coastal Drainage Area. The West Central (Bone Valley) and Peninsula
regions would be revised slightly to more accurately reflect watershed
boundaries (e.g., the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor Watersheds
would move from the West Central (Bone Valley) to the Peninsula
region). The proposed North Central region encompassing the Suwannee
River Watershed would remain unchanged.
    EPA is providing the following information in the docket to
illustrate and delineate the revised Nutrient Watershed Regions under
consideration: 1. Map of revised TN, TP regions, 2. Map of Hawthorne
group overlaid on revised Panhandle regions, 3. GIS shapefile of
revised TN, TP regions, 4. Florida geological information on the
Hawthorne group (see footnote 1).
    EPA is also providing additional information in this notice and in
the docket on the TN and TP criteria that are based on the revised
Nutrient Watershed Regions under consideration. Using EPA's previously
proposed approach (75th percentile) and the revised stream regions
discussed in this notice, the TN and TP criteria would be: Panhandle
West--0.84 mg/L and 0.03 mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East--0.77 mg/L
and 0.10 mg/L, respectively; North Central--1.48 mg/L and 0.36 mg/L,
respectively; West Central--1.80 mg/L and 0.73 mg/L, respectively; and
Peninsula--1.20 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L, respectively. To illustrate the
derivation of stream criteria based on the revised regions, EPA has re-
organized the same

nutrient dataset provided in the proposed rule and is making it
available to the public in the docket for this notice. These data were
organized on the basis of site averages to derive the proposed criteria
outlined above.
    At proposal, EPA also requested comment on the benchmark
distribution approach. In response to comments, the Agency is
considering using a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values
(depending on regions) based on benchmark sites, with additional data
quality screens applied, to establish criteria. EPA is considering the
90th percentile for all regions except the West Central, where the
Agency is considering the 75th percentile due to less data available.
Using the benchmark distribution approach and the revised stream
regions discussed in this notice, the TN and TP criteria would be:
Panhandle West--0.62 mg/L and 0.04 mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East--
0.97 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, respectively; North Central--1.90 mg/L and
0.35 mg/L, respectively; West Central--1.30 mg/L and 0.35 mg/L,
respectively; and Peninsula--1.67 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, respectively.
Included in the docket for today's notice is the benchmark dataset
presented at proposal with the additional quality assurance screens
applied, that was used to calculate these values. The stream criteria
using this approach are calculated on the basis of Waterbody
Identifiers (WBIDs) and the derivation is outlined in more detail in
the docket for today's notice. EPA requests comment on this approach.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the refined regionalization approach
and criteria described in this supplemental notice. The Agency is
specifically requesting comment on revised stream criteria using EPA's
previously proposed approach (applied to the revised regions) as
outlined above as well as alternative stream criteria based on
utilization of the benchmark distribution approach applied to the
revised regions, also outlined above. EPA will evaluate all data and
information submitted by the close of the public comment period for
this supplemental notice with regard to regionalization and criteria
derivation for Florida's streams.

B. Downstream Protection of Lakes

    In its January 2010 FRN, EPA proposed a phosphorus loading model
equation first developed by Vollenweider \2\ to relate a lake TP
concentration criterion to the concentration necessary in incoming
streams to support the lake criterion. EPA proposed to apply the
equation's resulting stream concentration as the applicable criterion
for all stream segments upstream of the lake if those concentrations
were more stringent than the otherwise applicable instream criteria for
the stream segments. EPA mathematically derived this equation, with
allowable input of lake-specific characteristics, to calculate values
intended to serve as protective criteria necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the lake numeric nutrient criteria also included in
the proposal (75 FR 4198).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input-output models with special
reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.
Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie. 37:53-84; Vollenweider,
R.A. 1976. Advances in differing critical loading levels for
phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobid. 33:53-
83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Vollenweider model equation requires input of two
lake-specific characteristics: The fraction of inflow due to stream
flow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input
values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative
preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and hydraulic
retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA's January
2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-
specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters,
as long as the State determines that they are appropriate and documents
the site-specific values.
    EPA requested comment on several technical aspects of this equation
and its application. In addition, EPA requested comment on the
potential to develop a corollary approach for nitrogen. Several
commenters suggested the need for protective TN values to protect
downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes
in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). EPA recognized that more
specific information may be readily available for individual lakes that
could allow the use of alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model
\3\ and requested comment in the January 2010 proposal on the
availability and application of this model. EPA also requested comment
on whether there should be a specific allowance for use of alternative
lake-specific models where demonstrated to be protective and
scientifically defensible based upon current and readily available
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Kennedy, R. H., 1995. Application of the BATHTUB Model to
Selected Southeastern Reservoirs. Technical Report EL-95-14, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.; Walker,
W. W., 1985. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Report 3, Phase II: Model Refinements. Technical
Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W. W., 1987. Empirical Methods for
Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 4, Phase III:
Applications Manual. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received many comments on this proposed approach for protection
of lakes downstream of rivers and streams. Some felt that that the
Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic to represent all lakes in
Florida and that it does not include the necessary factors to account
for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary
to determine protective criteria. Comments included a recommendation to
use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as
BATHTUB.
    BATHTUB is designed to apply empirical eutrophication models to
morphometrically complex lakes and reservoirs. The program performs
steady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, uses spatially
segmented hydraulic networks, and accounts for advective and diffusive
transport of nutrients. BATHTUB predicts nutrient-related water quality
conditions such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll a
concentrations, transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rates.
The model can apply to a variety of lake sizes, shapes and transport
characteristics. A high degree of flexibility is available for
specifying model segments as well as multiple influent streams. Because
water quality conditions are calculated using empirically-derived
relationships, BATHTUB inherently accounts for internal loading of
phosphorus from bottom sediments. Additional technical references are
available that describe the model and its applications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Walker, W.W., 1981. Empirical Methods for Predicting
Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 1, Phase I: Data Base
Development. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W.W., 1982. Empirical
Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 2,
Phase II: Model Testing. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W.W., 1999.
Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction:
User Manual; Instruction Report W-96-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, M.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the provision of EPA's proposed rule for deriving criteria for
protection of downstream lakes (Sec.  131.43(c)(2)(ii)), EPA is
considering requiring the use of BATHTUB rather than a loading model
equation based on Vollenweider. The rule would therefore require that
the criteria for protection of downstream lakes would be the more
stringent of the instream TP and TN criteria value or the

concentration of TP and TN derived from application of BATHTUB. The
resulting criteria using BATHTUB could be either more or less stringent
than the criteria derived using Vollenweider, depending on site-
specific lake factors. EPA believes BATHTUB may be more appropriate for
downstream protection value calculations than Vollenweider because
BATHTUB has the capability to represent a greater number of site-
specific variables, which may influence nutrient responses. In
addition, BATHTUB can estimate TN concentrations. As noted above, a
number of commenters observed that a limitation in EPA's original
proposal was that it only addressed TP.
    EPA is also considering additional rule language that would
specifically authorize FDEP or EPA to use a model other than BATHTUB
when either determines that it would be appropriate to use another
scientifically defensible technical model or approach that demonstrates
protection of downstream lakes. While BATHTUB is a peer reviewed and
versatile model, there are other models that, when appropriately
calibrated and applied, can offer additional capability to address more
complex situations and address an even greater degree of site-
specificity.
    One example of an alternative model that FDEP or EPA might consider
using for particularly complex site-specific conditions is the Water
Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) model. This model allows
users to conduct detailed simulations of water quality responses to
natural and manmade pollutant inputs. WASP is a dynamic compartment-
modeling program for aquatic systems, including both the water column
and the underlying benthos. WASP allows the user to simulate systems in
1, 2, or 3 dimensions, and a variety of pollutant types. The model can
represent time varying processes of advection, dispersion, point and
diffuse mass loading, and boundary exchange. WASP also can be linked
with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models that can provide flows,
depths, velocities, temperature, salinity and sediment fluxes.
Additional technical information may be found at http://www.epa.gov/
athens/wwqtsc/html/wasp.html.
    EPA is considering recommending BATHTUB as the method for
calculating the TN and TP downstream protective values in streams that
flow into lakes because of its ability to incorporate site-specific
factors in estimates, its use of data that may be readily available,
and its ease of use and rapid processing time. BATHTUB has been used to
model nutrients in lakes and reservoirs throughout the United States.
BATHTUB allows for greater site-specificity than the Vollenweider
approach, and input of more local information to calculate
concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus in streams that assure
downstream protection of lakes. In certain circumstances, a more
complex model such as WASP may be appropriate, and EPA is considering
and requesting comment on adding specific provisions to allow either
the Agency or FDEP to use an alternative model such as WASP where
greater spatial or temporal detail in model output is called for, or
where water quality considerations that fall outside the scope of
BATHTUB are to be explicitly considered.
    EPA is also requesting comment on including a provision in this
section of the rule that would provide that if data are not readily
available to derive a TN or TP downstream protection value using
BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model, the lake criteria
values for TN and TP would be used as the downstream protection values
where they are more stringent than the instream values. EPA believes
that this approach is protective because the allowable concentration of
nutrients entering the lake would be equal to criteria that are
protective of the lake water itself; however, this approach may result
in the application of more stringent criteria in the streams entering
the lake than would be calculated using BATHTUB or another
scientifically defensible model if site-specific data were available.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the approaches to protect downstream
lakes described in this supplemental notice. EPA will evaluate all data
and information submitted by the close of the public comment period for
this supplemental notice with regard to nutrient criteria to protect
downstream lakes in Florida.

    Dated: July 29, 2010.
Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2010-19140 Filed 7-30-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM	July 12, 2006

SUBJECT: 		Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Proposals from the U. S. Apple
Assoc. for Use of Azinphos methyl

DP Barcode:	D307577

PC Code:	058001

TO:			Katie Hall, Chemical Review Manager

			Reregistration Branch 2

Special Review and Reregistration Division

FROM:		R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

			Environmental Risk Branch 4

Colleen Flaherty, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 3

THROUGH:		Elizabeth Behl, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Dan Rieder

Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

As a follow up to the interim reregistration of azinphos methyl in 2002
(OPP, 2002), additional data was submitted regarding the exposure of
workers to azinphos methyl. A reassessment of the occupational risk from
azinphos methyl is being conducted pursuant to the submission of this
data. Revised ecological risk assessments have also been conducted
(D307567, D307568) in concert with this reassessment to ensure Agency
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

	This document assesses potential mitigation practices to determine
their efficacy, and some alternative scenarios to further characterize
the risk to aquatic organisms. In both cases, the only crop considered
was apples. Two mitigation practices were considered: a reduction in the
seasonal maximum application rate from 4.5 lb/acre to 3 lb/acre, and
increasing the spray drift buffer from 25 feet to 60 or 100 feet. For
these simulations, changing the seasonal maximum rate to 3 lb/acre
effectively limits the number of applications to 2, since standard
practice is to use the maximum single application rate for each
application; for azinphos methyl this is 1.5 lb/acre.

	In addition to the standard eastern and western apple scenarios in
Pennsylvania and Oregon respectively, an additional scenario in central
Washington State has been added so as to better characterize the risks
in this location and to confirm whether the Oregon apple scenario is a
suitable surrogate. For the spray drift simulations, the ‘orchard’
option was chosen rather than the ‘sparse’ orchard, as this may
better reflect drift from apple orchards with a full canopy.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 			Models  tc "a.	Aquatic Exposure Modeling " \l 4

	For Tier 2 surface-water assessments, two models are used in tandem.
PRZM simulates fate and transport on the agricultural field.  The
version of PRZM (Carsel et al., 1998) used was PRZM 3.12 beta, dated May
24, 2001.  The water body is simulated with EXAMS version 2.98, dated
July 18, 2002 (Burns, 1997).  Tier 2 simulations are run for multiple
(usually 30) years and the reported estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) are the concentrations that are expected once
every ten years based on the thirty years of daily values generated by
the simulation.  PRZM and EXAMS were run using the PE4 shell, dated May
14, 2003, which also summarizes the output.  Spray drift was simulated
using the AgDrift model version 2.01 dated May 24, 2001.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	For air blast applications, buffer strips were
modeled with AgDrift in Tier I Orchard Airblast mode.  A sparse orchard
was modeled, and the output value for the loading into the standard pond
was tripled in order to reflect the upper 95% confidence bound on the
drift.  The only management practice that was varied was the buffer
strip width.  A buffer strip of 25 ft was evaluated, which is consistent
with label requirements for almonds, apples, Brussels sprouts, cherries,
grapes, pears, pistachios and walnuts.  The modeled spray drift from
AgDrift for the 25 ft buffer was 4.5%.  In comparison, an AgDRIFT
simulation with no buffer strip results in estimated spray drift of
12.5%.

Management Practices

The current maximum label practice for application of azinphos methyl to
apples is 1.5 lb a.i./acre per single application with a seasonal
maximum of 4.5 lb a.i./acre. A minimum interval of 7 d is required
between applications. Aerial application cannot be used on apples, and a
25 ft buffer is required around all water bodies. This use pattern has
been simulated using three applications of 1.5 lb/acre, 7 d apart
applied with spray blast equipment with the 25 ft buffer. In practice,
there are often more applications made at a lower single application
rate, but the simulated pattern results in the greatest EECs. The U. S.
Apple Association has recommended reducing the seasonal application rate
to 3 lb/acre and increasing the spray drift buffer to 60 ft. In
addition, simulations have been run for a 100 foot buffer and for when
there is no spray drift. These last simulations (no spray drift) reflect
the contribution from spray drift alone and reflect the EECs that might
occur when application is a long distance from the water body, e.g.
several thousand feet.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	For air blast applications, buffer strips were
modeled with AgDrift in Tier I Orchard Airblast mode.  The generic
“orchard” was modeled, and the output value for the loading into the
standard pond was tripled in order to reflect the upper 95% confidence
bound on the drift.  The only management practice that was varied was
the buffer strip width. In comparison, an AgDRIFT simulation with no
buffer strip results in estimated spray drift of 12.5%.

Table 1. Management practices simulated for azinphos methyl use on
apples*.

Crop

App Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

Max. No. Apps.

App. Interval (days)

Buffer Width (ft)

App. Method

(% drift)

First App. Date

Label	1.5	3	7	25	air blast (4.5%)	May 1

U. S Apple Assoc. 1	1.5	2	7	60	air blast (1.4%)	May 1

U. S Apple Assoc. 2	1.5	2	7	100	air blast (1.4%)	May 1

No drift	1.5	2	7	NA	no drift	May 1

* For all simulations, IPSCND, the disposition of foliar pesticide
residues on foliage at harvest was set to 1, so that the residues are
applied to the soil.

	The percent spray drift used to represent each buffer width is in Table
2. The value for no buffer (‘0 buffer width’) is provided for
reference and was not used in a simulation.

Table 2. Fraction of applied spray drift as a fraction of the
application rate loaded to the standard pond as a function of buffer
width . Values were estimated using AgDrift 2.01.

Buffer Width (ft)	Fraction of Application Rate

0	0.0654

25	0.0279

60	0.0144

100	0.0093

Scenarios

	Three scenarios were used in this assessment (Table 3). Two scenarios,
apples in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Marion County Oregon were
the same scenarios as were used in the assessment of apples in the prior
assessment (D307568). This provides a standard of comparison against
which the new use patterns can be compared. A scenario for apples in
central Washington was added in order to demonstrate differences in
aquatic exposure between apples grown in Oregon and Washington. This
scenario is not a standard scenario but was developed for assessment of
the carbamate insecticide in the carbamate cumulative.  As such, it has
been through EFED QA procedures for scenarios .

Table 3.  Scenarios used to represent crops for PRZM/EXAMS modeling of
azinphos methyl uses.

Crop	Location	Soil	Weather

Apples, Eastern	Lancaster Co, PA	Elioak silt loam	Allentown, PA

Apples, Western, OR	Marion Co, OR	Cornelius silt loam	Portland, OR

Apples, Western, WA	Grant Co, OR	Taunton silt loam	Yakima, WA

Chemistry Input Parameters tc \l4 "i.         Chemistry Input Parameters

Azinphos methyl is an organophosphate insecticide used on a wide variety
of food and non-food crops.  Azinphos methyl environmental fate data
used for generating model parameters is listed in Table 4. The input
parameters for PRZM and EXAMS are in Table 5.  Descriptions of special
considerations used to select environmental fate parameters or to
generate modeling input values are described below.

Hydrolysis.  As noted above, measurements of the hydrolysis rates were
made at 30( C and 40( C rather than the standard 25(C. The Arrhenius
Rate Law was used to calculate the degradation rate by hydrolysis at
25(C for use in EXAMS.

Soil and Aquatic Metabolism.  Only one anaerobic and one aerobic soil
metabolism value were available for azinphos methyl.  No aquatic
metabolism data are currently available.  Current policy for generating
input parameters for PRZM 3 when only one value is available is to
multiply the half-life by three resulting in a PRZM input parameter for
aerobic soil degradation of 95.3 d.  In previous modeling for azinphos
methyl, the anaerobic soil metabolism value was used as input to PRZM
representing the degradation rate in the sub-surface horizons.  For this
set of simulations, the aerobic soil metabolism half-life was used for
all depths.  This will have no effect on the EECs.

Since no aquatic metabolism data were available, current policy is to
use the value of the corresponding half-life for aerobic soil metabolism
and multiply that value by 2 to represent aerobic aquatic metabolism.
This is done as there is usually some correspondence between soil and
aquatic metabolism rates and in the absence of aquatic data this is
judged to be a reasonable conservative surrogate. The aerobic aquatic
metabolism input parameters were multiplied by 2 again to estimate the
degradation rate in the pond sediment. The resulting half lives for
aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism are 190.8 and 381.6 d
respectively. In practice these values are of little importance as the
degradation in the water column will be dominated by hydrolysis.

Soil Water Partition Coefficients.  In previous modeling, a Koc value
based on Kf's was used in the simulations.  The method for generating
soil-water partition coefficient input values has changed substantially
from this in the new simulations.  In selecting a value for the
soil-water partition coefficient to use in the simulations, four issues
needed to be considered.  First, adsorption and desorption isotherms are
not equal, so it must be decided whether to use the adsorption or
desorption isotherm.  Current policy is to use the desorption values in
PRZM because the dominant process during a runoff event is desorption
and to use the adsorption isotherm in EXAMS as that it is the dominant
process in the pond.  Secondly, the data for each of the three soils
(both adsorption and desorption processes) were fitted to a Fruendlich
isotherm and the 1/n or "curvature" term in the equation was
significantly different than 1, indicating that concentration adsorbed
to soil was curvilinearly related to concentration in solution.
Unfortunately, PRZM and EXAMS only have a linear (Kd) partition model
for handling soil-water partitioning of pesticides.  For the desorption
isotherm, this was handled by calculating the partitioning between soil
and water at the maximum concentration it would be expected to occur in
each media.  While this method does not give the most accurate
soil-water partitioning of the pesticide over the range of the isotherm,
it should be most accurate at near application rate, where the greatest
portion of the runoff occurs.  For the calculated desorption Kd's for
PRZM 2, the soil concentration of 17.2 µg kg-soil-1 was used, which
corresponds to the concentration resulting from the application rate
being mixed into the top 1 cm of soil.  The soil water was content was
assumed to be 0.35 cm3-H2O ( cm-3-soil and the bulk density of the soil
was assumed to be 1.3 kg L-1.  The partitioning under these conditions
was used to calculate a Kd appropriate for this soil content.  Note that
for each soil, four different desorption experiments were done and
Fruendlich parameters were given for each separate experiment. The
average of the four sets of parameters was used to calculate a single Kd
for the soil at the application rate rather than four different Kds
being calculated and then averaged.

Finally, a Pearson's Correlation Analysis of the of the calculated Kd
with organic carbon content was used to calculate a Koc. for neither
adsorption nor desorption was there a significant correlation between
the calculated Kd's and organic carbon content, so the Kd value for the
silty clay soil, 8.414 L (kg-1 for desorption and 7.55 L (kg-1 for
adsorption was used.  Finally it should be noted that the concentrations
in the soil-water partitioning study are only about 1 tenth the
concentration of pesticide that could be found in the soil at the
application rate.  Hence, we are extrapolating considerably beyond the
range of the experimental data for calculating the EEC and this usually
results in substantial error.

Table 4. Environmental fate parameters for azinphos methyl.

Fate Parameter	Value	Source

Molecular Mass	317.32 g mol-1	OPP, 1986

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Rate Constant	2.17 x 10-2 d-1	MRID 29900

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Rate Constant	1.04x10-2 d-1	MRID 29900

Kd	7.6 L kg-soil-1 (sandy loam)	MRID 42959702

Solubility	25.10 mg L-1	OPP, 1986

Vapor Pressure	 2.2x10-7 torr 	OPP, 1986

Acidic Hydrolysis Rate Constant	4.78 L (mol-H+)-1 d-1	MRID 29899

Neutral Hydrolysis Constant	7.83 x 10-4 d-1	MRID 29899

Alkaline Hydrolysis Constant	82 L (mol-OH+)-1 d-1	MRID 29899

Aqueous Photolysis Constant	3.19 d	MRID 40297001

Washoff Fraction	0.937	Gunther et al., 1977

Foliar Degradation Rate Constant	7.2 d	see text

Foliar Washoff and Degradation.   Foliar dissipation is an important
process for estimating the EEC of azinphos methyl.  Data for foliar
washoff of azinphos methyl (Gunther et al., 1977) is not presented in a
manner that is most amenable to direct use in PRZM 2.  The value
available for foliar washoff is 60% of the amount applied washed off in
the first 0.33 cm of rainfall.  The PRZM foliar washoff parameter,
FEXTRC, is the amount of pesticide washed off in 1 cm of rainfall,
expressed as a fraction.  There is some indication (McDowell et al.,
1984) that a hyperbolic model (1/[a+bt]) best predicts the concentration
profile with washing volume of methyl parathion, a similar compound, in
washoff, but integration of the regression equations failed to provide
meaningful estimates of the percent washed off in 1 cm of rainfall
(Values calculated exceeded the initial concentration).  To obtain a
meaningful, if not particularly accurate or precise estimate of foliar
washoff, the following assumptions were made: first, that washoff rate
was proportional to the amount on the leaf (i.e. ∂[AM]/∂V = -k[AM],
where [AM] is the azinphos methyl concentration on the leaf, V is the
volume of runoff expressed as cm of precipitation and k is the washoff
rate constant).  The exponential removal model which was selected for
the first assumption was chosen over a linear model as there is some
indications that an exponential model better described the structure of
the data.  Based on the first assumption, the equation describing the
washoff fraction as a function of the precipitation amount, V, in 1 cm
is:

where W is the fraction remaining on the foliage.  The 40% remained
after 0.33 cm of precipitation allows calculation of a point estimate of
k as 2.78.  Using this value for k, the fraction washed off (1-W) with 1
cm of rainfall is 0.937.

For foliar degradation, 7 foliar half-lives measurements are available
(Lindquist and Krueger, 1975; Hoskins, 1962; Pree et al., 1976;
Winterlin et al., 1974, McDowell et al, 1984).   Assuming these values
are distributed normally, the value which represents the one tail upper
90% confidence limit of the mean is 9.8 d.

Table 5. Chemistry input parameters for Tier-II (PRZM/EXAMS) simulation
of azinphos methyl for aquatic assessment of the peach and potato uses.
Source data is in Table 10.

Input Parameter	Value	Justification	Quality

Molecular weight	317.32 g mol-1	calculated	excellent

Solubility	25.10 mg L-1	measured	very good

Hydrolysis	39.4 (pH 5)

37.5 (pH 7)

 6.6 (pH 9)	adjusted for temperature	excellent

Photolysis	3.19 d	measured

	Aerobic Soil Metabolism	95.4 d	single value x 3	fair

Water Column Metabolism	190.8 d	aerobic soil x 2	poor

Sediment Metabolism	381.6 d	water column x 2	poor

Foliar Degradation 	9.8 d	UCB90 on 7 values	good

Foliar Washoff Coefficient	0.937 cm-1	point estimate from 1 study	fair

Henry’s Law Constant	3.66 x 10-6 L atm mol-1	estimated from solubility
and vapor pressure	poor

Vapor Pressure	2.2 x 10-7 torr	good	good

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (Kd)	7.6 L kg-soil-1	lowest non-sand Kd
good

Results

For comparison purposes, two simulations from the previous assessment
were included (Table 6), one each for Oregon and Pennsylvania. These
reflect 3 applications spaced 7 days apart, a 25 ft spray drift buffer,
a spray drift generated with AgDrift using the ‘sparse orchard’. The
sparse orchard is appropriate to reflect applications to applications in
winter to orchards of deciduous trees (‘dormant applications’),
applications to immature trees that have not achieved a closed canopy,
applications early in the season prior full leaf emergence, and sprays
made over the top of the canopy. Dormant applications of azinphos methyl
and applications made over the top of the canopy are specifically
prohibited on the label. Information is not currently available on the
prevalence of applications made to immature orchards. Applications of
azinphos methyl may be made prior to full canopy development as it is
applied to control plum curculio at petal fall (the end of bloom),
particularly in the eastern United States. However, azinphos methyl is
dominantly used to control codling moth. Applications to control this
pest are made in mid-season to mature, bearing orchards and using the
sparse orchard in AgDrift will result in overestimates of drift for
these applications.

To simulate the drift in this assessment, the “orchard” option in
AgDrift was chosen. This option represents the mean drift curve over all
the spray blast drift trials used to develop the drift curves for Spray
Blast simulation in AgDrift. They show a considerably reduced drift
loading compared to the sparse orchard. For example, for the 25 ft
buffer for orchards on the azinphos methyl label, the sparse orchard
results in 4.5% of the application rate into the standard pond while
drift while the drift using the “orchard” option is 2.8%, a 37%
reduction.

The mitigation practices suggested by the U. S. Apple Assoc. (2
applications, 60 foot buffer) along with consideration of different
spray drift scenario reduce the EECs from the 15.1 to 8.8 µg L-1 in
Pennsylvania, and from 9.9 to 3.6 µg L-1 in Oregon for the 1-in 10 year
peak concentration, reductions of 42 and 67% respectively. However, in
neither case does the reduction lower the risk below the level of
concern for acute risk of 0.3 µg L-1 for fish and 0.15 µg L-1 for
freshwater aquatic invertebrates. In addition to the 60 ft buffers
suggested by U. S. Apple Association, a 100 ft buffer was also
simulated, with 1 in10 year peak EECs of 6.5 and 3.1 µg L-1 for
Pennsylvania and Oregon respectively. In fact, assuming no drift in the
lower exposure Oregon scenario still results in a 1 in 10 year peak EEC
of 2.1 µg L-1. So, while these suggested changes do substantially
reduce the estimated exposure for the use of azinphos methyl, they do
not mitigate the risk below the level of concern.

The U. S. Apple Association had concerns that the Oregon apple scenario
was not representative of apple culture in the Pacific Northwest. A
scenario for apples in central Washington has been developed for use in
the carbamate cumulative risk assessment, one of the most prominent
apple growing areas in that region, and a simulation was made for
azinphos methyl using that scenario. Relative to the Oregon apple
orchard, the Washington orchard produced somewhat higher EECs, 4.8 µg
L-1 for 1 in 10 year peak EEC in Washington versus 3.6 µg L-1 for
Oregon with 2 applications and a 60 foot spray drift buffer. The
differences are likely due to the use of irrigation in the Washington
scenario and not in the Oregon scenario. Irrigation is, in fact, use
most of the time for apple culture in the Pacific Northwest.

Table 6. Tier 2 EECs for azinphos methyl application to apples with U.
S. Apple Assoc. mitigation practices.

Use Pattern	Maximum	4 Day	21 Day	60  Day	90 Day

	----------------------------------------- μg L-1
-------------------------------------------------

PA sparse orchard;

 3 apps, 25 ft buffer	15.1	14.1	11.6	8.5	6.7

OR sparse orchard;

3 apps, 25 ft buffer	9.9	9.4	8.1	5.7	4.4

PA, “orchard”;

2 apps 25 ft buffer	8.8	8.4	6.8	4.6	3.7

PA, “orchard” ,

2 apps, 60 ft buffer	7.1	6.8	5.6	3.7	2.9

PA, “orchard”;

2 apps, 100 ft buffer	6.5	6.2	5.2	3.4	2.7

OR, “orchard”;

2 apps, 25 ft buffer	5.4	5.1	4.1	2.9	2.2

OR, “orchard”,

2 apps, 60 ft buffer	3.6	3.4	2.7	1.9	1.5

OR, “orchard”;

2 apps, 100 ft buffer	3.1	2.9	2.3	1.6	1.2

OR, no drift,

2 apps	2.2	2.0	1.6	1.0	0.74

WA, “orchard”,

2 apps, 60 ft buffer	4.8	4.5	3.8	2.5	1.9

Literature Citations

Office of Pesticide Programs. 1986. Guidance for the Reregistration of
Pesticide Products Containing Azinphos-methyl as the Active Ingredient.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Issued
September, 1986.

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002. Interim Reregistation Eligibility
Decision for Azinphos methyl: Case No. 0235   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf .

MRID 00029899. Wilkes, L.C., J. P. Wargo, and R. R. Gronberg. 1979.
Dissipation of Guthion in Buffered Aqueous Solution.  Analytical
Development Crop., Monument, Colorado. ADC Project 378-F, notebook
reference 79-R-126,127, Acc. No. 099216, Tab No. 67983.

MRID 00029887. M.F. Lenz. 1979. Soil Adsorption and Desorption of
Guthion.  Mobay Chemical Corp. April 11, 1979.  Accession No. 099216.
Tab No. 66848.

MRID 00029900. Gronberg, R. R., R .J. Polluck and J.P. Wargo. 1979. The
Metabolism of Guthion in sandy loam soil. Mobay Chemical, August 27,
1979, Accession No. 099216, Tab No 68030.

MRID 40297001. J. G. Morgan. The Aqueous Photolysis of
GUTHION-Phenyl-UL-14C. Report No. 94709. 14 July 1987. Accession No.
4029701.

D307567. Flaherty, Colleen and R. David Jones. 2005.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Azinphos Methyl Insecticide: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of
Azinphos Methyl on Caneberries, Cranberries, Peaches, Potatoes, and
Southern Pine Seeds (Group 2 Uses). Internal EPA Memorandum to Diane
Isbell dated June 12, 2005.

D307568. Flaherty, Colleen and R. David Jones. 2005.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Azinphos-methyl Insecticide: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of
Azinphos-methyl on Almonds, Apples, Blueberries (Low- and Highbush),
Brussels Sprouts, Cherries (Sweet and Tart), Grapes, Nursery Stock,
Parsley, Pears, Pistachios, and Walnuts. Internal EPA Memorandum to
Diane Isbell dated September 29, 2005.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Appendix

Aquatic Exposure Model Input File Names

 Input files archived for azinphos methyl applied to apples

File Name	Date	Description

W14737.dvf	July 3, 2002	weather for Pennsylvania apple scenario
(Allentown, PA)

W24229.dvf	July 3, 2002	weather for Oregon apple scenarios (Portland,
OR)

W24243.dvf	July 3, 2002	weather for Washington apple scenario (Yakima,
WA)

ORappleC.txt	October 12, 2002	PE4 scenario file for Oregon apples,
unirrigated

PAappleC.txt	October 12, 2002	PE4 scenario file for Pennsylvania apples

ༀ킄ሂĀ䀀&葞ː摧ӫ\

#

7

¿

Ü

Ý

þ

ÿ

퀄ꀂ瀅䀈

葞ː葠ࡰ

h²

Ȇ

騆

š

š

š

摧桒a

摧桒a

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

* h)

h)

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

d@

Pennsylvania apples, 2 applications, 60 ft buffer

058001 PA apples 06	July 5, 2006	Pennsylvania apples, 2 applications,
100 foot buffer

058001 WA apples 01	July 5, 2006	Washington apples, 2 applications, 60
ft buffer

 PAGE

 PAGE   7