      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                                                OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Date:		10/24/06

Subject:	Determination of Buffer Zones for AZM Applications

To:		Katie Hall, Chemical Review Manager

	Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

From:		Seyed Tadayon, Chemist

		Health Effects Division

		Reregistration Branch 3 (7508P)

Thru:		Catherin Eiden, Branch Chief

Health Effects Division

		Reregistration Action Branch 3(7508P)

Pc Code:	058001

DP Barcode:	311132

Introduction: Application of pesticides to agricultural crops by a variety of spraying techniques results in a portion of the material drifting beyond the intended targeted areas and poses potential human risk. The purpose of this memo is to estimate safe buffer  zones for bystanders when applying AZM.

Background

One way of protecting bystanders from direct exposure to sprays is the use of no-spray buffer zones. The magnitude of spray drift is largely controlled by the physics of particle formation and aerosol movement/deposition.

HED used the AgDrift model for estimating drift deposition from various types of equipment used for spraying AZM. A number of agrochemical registrants (known as the Spray Drift Task Force) have developed the model AgDrift. EPA has approved the model for determining off-site movement of chemicals during spraying. The model estimates downwind deposition following ground, orchard, and aerial applications of pesticides. The ground and orchard modules are empirical in that they are based on the results of studies of drift, but the aerial portions, which are applicable to both agricultural and forestry landscapes, rely on a theoretical function for particle movement and particle size distributions for various types of nozzles.

AZM Buffer Calculation for bystanders

Using the Agdrift model HED calculated the possible buffer zones needed to protect children bystanders from exposures to AZM through spray drift.  Children have the highest surface area per unit of body weight therefore the buffer zone estimates in this assessment are conservative.  In this assessment HED utilized toxicological endpoints from animal studies to quantify risk at different buffer zone distances. The toxicological end points used for this assessment were a NOAEL of 0.56 mg/kg/day for short-term dermal exposure and a NOAEL of 0.15 mg/kg/day for incidental oral ingestion.  The Toxicological endpoints are summarized in Table 1.  Inhalation exposure was not assessed because of the low vapor pressure of AZM combined with the belief that droplets of AZM are only minimally inhalable.

Table 1.  Toxicity Endpoints Used for Buffer Calculation for AZM Application

Exposure Route/Scenario

Study

NOAEL

Effect

UF

Short-Term Dermal	Dermal absorption in rat	0.56 mg/kg/day	RBC ACHE	100

Incidental Oral Ingestion	1-year oral dog feeding study	0.15 mg/kg/day RBC ACHE	100

Summary of Results

Exposures from aerial application, ground boom application and air-blast application were assessed by using varying buffer zone distances.  One clear outcome for aerial application was the relationship between increased risk and decreased nozzle diameter, ie, the finer the spray the higher the exposure and risk.  A similar relationship can be seen with ground boom application, however, the risks are less due to the fact that the sprays are directed toward the soil rather than into the air, thereby limiting the higher airborne drift.  With the airblast application, different risks are based on the density of the foliage, with higher density foliage blocking the drift, and sparser density foliage allowing drift to occur.  The MOEs are lower earlier in the growing season, when foliage is less dense.  Buffer distance and risks for AZM’s application methods are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Buffer Distance and Risk for Various Equipment used Applying AZM

	Aerial (1.5 lb ai/A)

	Apple , Pear Crabapple

	Spray quality (Fine)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE	Total MOE

	Dermal	100	0.11543	5	4

	Ingestion	100	0.00444	34

	Dermal 	1000	0.01213	46	40

	Ingestion	1000	0.00047	319

	Spray quality (Medium)	Buffer (ft)	Dose

	Dermal	100	0.04517	12	11

	Ingestion	100	0.00174	86

	Dermal 	1000	0.00341	164	144

	Ingestion	1000	0.00013	1154

	Spray quality (Coarse)	Buffer (ft)	Dose	MOE

	Dermal	100	0.00258	217	89

	Ingestion	100	0.00099	152

	Dermal 	1000	0.0016	350	307

	Ingestion	1000	0.00006	2500

	Groundboom application (0.75 lb ai/A)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

 	Groundboom application (1.0 lb ai/A)	Buffer (ft)	Dose	MOE	Total MOE

Blueberry, Brussel sprouts, Parsley

	 	Nursery Syock

Spray quality (high/fine)

	 	Spray quality (high/fine)

Dermal	60	0.00869	64	56	 	Dermal	60	0.01159	48	42

Ingestion	60	0.00033	455

 	Ingestion	60	0.00045	333

	Dermal 	100	0.00584	96	84	 	Dermal 	100	0.00779	72	63

Ingestion	100	0.00022	682

 	Ingestion	100	0.0003	500

	Dermal	150	0.00411	136	119	 	Dermal	150	0.00548	102	89

Ingestion	150	0.00016	938

 	Ingestion	150	0.00021	714

	Spray quality (low/fine)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

 	Spray quality (low/fine)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

	Dermal	60	0.00324	173	152	 	Dermal	60	0.00433	129	113

Ingestion	60	0.00012	1250

 	Ingestion	60	0.00017	882

	Dermal 	100	0.0023	243	212	 	Dermal 	100	0.00306	183	160

Ingestion	100	0.00009	1667

 	Ingestion	100	0.00012	1250

	Dermal	150	0.0017	329	286	 	Dermal	150	0.00227	247	215

Ingestion	150	0.00007	2143

 	Ingestion	150	0.00009	1667

	Spray quality (Hi/med-coarse)	Buffer (ft)	Dose	MOE

 	Spray quality (Hi/med-coarse)	Buffer (ft)	Dose	MOE

	Dermal	60	0.00234	239	209	 	Dermal	60	0.00312	179	157

Ingestion	60	0.00009	1667

 	Ingestion	60	0.00012	1250

	Dermal 	100	0.00172	326	283	 	Dermal 	100	0.0023	243	212

Ingestion	100	0.00007	2143

 	Ingestion	100	0.00009	1667

	Dermal	150	0.00131	427	374	 	Dermal	150	0.00175	320	278

Injestion	150	0.00005	3000

 	Injestion	150	0.00007	2143

	Spray quality (low/med-coarse)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

 	Spray quality (low/med-coarse)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

	Dermal	60	0.00147	381	331	 	Dermal	60	0.00197	284	247

Ingestion	60	0.00006	2500

 	Ingestion	60	0.00008	1875

	Dermal 	100	0.0011	509	448	 	Dermal 	100	0.00148	378	329

Ingestion	100	0.00004	3750

 	Ingestion	100	0.00006	2500

	Dermal	150	0.00086	651	576	 	Dermal	150	0.00115	487	431

Ingestion	150	0.00003	5000

 	Ingestion	150	0.00004	3750

	Airblast application (1.5 lb ai/A)	Buffer (ft)	Dose	MOE

 	Airblast application (2.0 lb ai/A)	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

	Apple, Pear, Crabapple

	 	Almond, Pistachio, Walnut

Sparse

	 	Sparse

Dermal	60	0.02626	21	19	 	Dermal	60	0.035	16	14

Ingestion	60	0.00101	149

 	Ingestion	60	0.00135	111

	Dermal 	100	0.01178	48	42	 	Dermal 	100	0.01571	36	31

Ingestion	100	0.00045	333

 	Ingestion	100	0.0006	250

	Dermal	150	0.00569	98	86	 	Dermal	150	0.00759	74	65

Ingestion	150	0.00022	682

 	Ingestion	150	0.00029	517

	Dense	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

 	Dense	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

	Dermal	60	0.01442	39	34	 	Dermal	60	0.01923	29	25

Ingestion	60	0.00055	273

 	Ingestion	60	0.00074	203

	Dermal 	100	0.00859	65	57	 	Dermal 	100	0.01146	49	43

Ingestion	100	0.00033	455

 	Ingestion	100	0.00044	341

	Dermal	150	0.00056	1005	418	 	Dermal	150	0.00074	755	307

Ingestion	150	0.00021	714

 	Ingestion	150	0.00029	517

	Normal	Buffer (ft)	Dose 	MOE

 	Normal	Buffer (ft)	Dose

Dermal	60	0.00131	427	374	 	Dermal	60	0.00175	320	278

Ingestion	60	0.00005	3000

 	Ingestion	60	0.00007	2143

	Dermal 	100	0.00087	644	570	 	Dermal 	100	0.00117	479	424

Ingestion	100	0.00003	5000

 	Ingestion	100	0.00004	3750

	Dermal	150	0.00061	918	818	 	Dermal	150	0.00081	691	607

Ingestion	150	0.00002	7500

 	Ingestion	150	0.00003	5000

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST ( in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51  App. V)

SIP Submitted by: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ( WVDEP)

Date Submitted: May 17, 2006 Subject: Redesignation of the Huntington portion of the Huntington Ashland ozone nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the area's maintenance plan.

Completeness Review Completed by: Amy Caprio Date Completed: May 31, 2006 Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. Letter was submitted May 17, 2006 on behalf of the State of West Virginia from Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Cabinet Secretary, WVDEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III. X 2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order,

consent agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/ issuance date. 2. N/ A ( Not a regulatory change the submittal is request for redesignation and a maintenance plan that is effective May 2006). X 3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. WV Code 16 20 5. X Administrative Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

2 4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan,

including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/ document signed, stamped,

dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/ document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4. N/ A See number 2 above. X 5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/ issuance of the plan. 5. N/ A X 6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. WVDEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the West Virginia Register on March 31,

2006. X 7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. As required by provisions of 29A of the West Virginia Code, notice of public hearing was given to the public in The Herald Dispatch on March 31, 2006 and The Saturday Gazette Mail on April 3, 2006. X 8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. The state submittal includes a compilation of public comments and responses thereto. X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

3 1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. 8 Hour Ozone X 2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/ nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area( s). 2. Applies to the Huntington Portion of the Huntington

Ashland Ozone Nonattainment Area, comprising Cabell and Wayne Counties. X 3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate,

quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. An updated allowable emissions inventory was provided along with submittal. X 4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The state has developed a current and projected ( 2002, 2004,

2009, and 2018) emissions inventory showing attainment of the national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS). This portion of the maintenance plan shows how the NAAQS will be protected since emission levels are expected to remain at or below the levels needed for attainment. X 5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,

ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,

justification for use of offsite data ( where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. All data and evidence is present for this action. X 6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6. N/ A X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

4 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/ reporting requirements,

where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 7. Evidence is shown that WVDEP will do periodic emission inventory updates and analysis. X 8. Compliance/ enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. West Virginia will continue to monitor ambient air in the area and to review the emissions inventory. If an exceedance or growth in the emissions inventory occurs, contingency measures will be triggered. X 9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. ( If a policy is not appropriate,

explain why.) 9. N/ A X 10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. The Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region III on May 17, 2006. This plan demonstrates maintenance for 2006

2018. X


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 47222]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78328; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-63]

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

July 14, 2016.
    On May 19, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the
BlackRock Government Collateral Pledge Unit. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2016.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77941 (May 27,
2016), 81 FR 35425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is July 17, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates August 31, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NYSEArca-2016-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ Id.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17098 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


This directory contains spreadsheets and additional documentation for the inventories provided in the SIP (including Appendices D and E).