[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18108-18110]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07040]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71797; File No. SR-NSX-2014-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend a Pilot Program Related to Rule 11.19, Titled ``Clearly
Erroneous Executions''

March 25, 2014.
    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 March 24, 2014, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.19, titled ``Clearly
Erroneous Executions'' in order to extend the operation of a pilot
program under which certain portions of the Rule are currently
operating.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and
provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, 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 parts 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 this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the
Exchange's current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions.
Portions of Rule 11.19, explained in further detail below, are
currently operating as a pilot program set to expire on April 8,
2014.\4\ The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program to coincide
with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the
``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan''), including any extensions
to the pilot period for the Plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70589 (Oct. 1,
2013), 78 FR 62782 (Oct. 22, 2013) (SR-NSX-2013-19).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to NSX Rule 11.19 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of
clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving
twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that
result in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the
primary listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before
the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange also
adopted additional changes to Rule 11.19 that reduced the ability of
the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in Rule
11.19,\7\ and in 2013, adopted a provision designed to address the
operation of the Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (Sept. 10, 2010),
75 FR 56613 (Sept. 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-07).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68803 (Feb 1, 2013),
78 FR 9078 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR-NSX-2013-06); see also NSX Rule
11.19(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the
more objective clearly erroneous executions rule should continue on a
pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot will protect
against any unanticipated consequences. Thus, the Exchange believes
that the protections of the Clearly Erroneous Rule should continue
while the industry gains further experience operating the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. Although the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is
operational, the Exchange believes that maintaining the pilot will help
to protect against unanticipated consequences. Thus, the Exchange
believes that the protections of the Clearly Erroneous Rule should
continue while the industry gains further experience operating the
Plan. The Exchange also believes that the pilot program promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly
erroneous. Thus, the Exchange believes that the extension of the pilot
would help assure that the determination of whether a clearly erroneous
trade has occurred will be based on clear and objective criteria, and
that the resolution of the incident will occur promptly through a
transparent process. The proposed rule change would also help assure
consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of
investors and the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange
believes the benefits to market participants from the more objective
clearly erroneous executions rule should continue on a pilot basis to
coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')
and other national securities exchanges are also filing similar
proposals, and thus, that the proposal will help to ensure consistency
across market centers.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from Equity Trading Permit Holders or other
interested parties.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the clearly erroneous pilot program to continue
uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating
under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, and avoid any investor confusion
that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program.
For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to
be operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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-NSX-2014-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2014-07. 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-NSX-2014-07, and should be
submitted on or before April 21, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07040 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 4, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21021

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS AIRCHARTER LTD. D/B/A			 Date Filed:
April 15, 2005

REGENCY EXPRESS FLIGHT OPERATIONS SONICBLUE AIRWAYS (Sonicblue)

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled passenger services between Tofino,
British Columbia, Canada and Seattle, Washington, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Ranj Gill,<PHONE_NUMBER>       		DOT analyst:
Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			   			                      Action date:  October
4, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 4, 2005, through, October
4, 2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Canada Air Transport Agreement (“Agreement”).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached).

Special conditions/Remarks:  We found that the applicant is
operationally and financially qualified to conduct its proposed
operations and is substantially owned and effectively controlled by
citizens of its homeland.  Also, the FAA advised us that it knows of no
reason to withhold this authority.  In the conduct of these operations,
the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the Agreement,
and may only use aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity
of not more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of not more than
18,000 pounds.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director,

		Office of International Aviation

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4721-4723]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76952; File No. SR-BX-2016-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
SQF Port Fees

January 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 12, 2016, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify BX Options Market (``BX Options'')
Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled ``BX Options Market--Access Services,''
which governs pricing for BX members using BX Options,\3\ BX's facility
for executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add new streaming quote
interface (``SQF'') Port Fees.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References in this proposal to Chapter and Series refer to
BX Options rules, unless otherwise indicated.
    \4\ SQF Ports are described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, 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 Exchange proposes to amend BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(b)
to add new SQF Port Fees.
    Currently, BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3 lists port fees as
follows:
    (b) Port Fees, per port, per month, per mnemonic as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Entry Port Fee..........................................   $200.00
CTI Port Fee..................................................    200.00
BX Depth Port Fee \1\.........................................    200.00
BX TOP Port Fee \1\...........................................    200.00
Order Entry DROP Port Fee.....................................    200.00
SQF Port Fee \1\..............................................      0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BX Depth and BX Top Port fees will be assessed to non-BX
  Participants and BX Participants.

    Today, if an option participant transacting business on BX Options
(``Participant'') \5\ has one mnemonic \6\ and 20 SQF Ports, in a month
the Participant would not pay anything (20 x $0.00). The Exchange now
proposes to assess an SQF Fee, which is currently set at $0.00. This
change is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Options Participants may transact options business via the
Exchange Trading System. See BX Options Chapter II, Section 1.
    \6\ A ``mnemonic'' is a unique identifier consisting of a four
character alpha code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SQF Port is a port that allows a Participant acting as a BX
Options Market Maker (``Market Maker'') \7\ to enter his markets into
the BX Options markets. The SQF Port also allows a Market Maker to
access information such as execution reports and other relevant data
through a single feed. Market Makers rely on data available through the
SQF Port to provide them the necessary information to perform market
making activities in a swift and meaningful way. This proposal
establishes that SQF Ports, which are not currently fee liable, will be
fee liable. Prospectively, fees for SQF Ports will to be assessed per
port, per month.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Market Maker'' or (``M'') means a Participant
that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good standing
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive Market Maker
pricing in all securities, the Participant must be registered as a
Market Maker in at least one security.
    \8\ All current port fee assessments (e.g., CTI Port Fee, Order
Entry Port Fee, and SQF Port Fee) are assessed per port, per month,
per mnemonic. See BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3. For additional
information regarding SQF generally, see http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/TradingProducts/sqfnom2.0.pdf. This document applies to BX Options,
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), and NASDAQ OMX Phlx LLC (``Phlx'').
NOM, Phlx, and BX Options are options exchanges of Nasdaq, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change 1--SQF Port Fees
    SQF Port Fees are currently set at $0.00 and as such are not fee
liable for Participants that are Market Makers. The Exchange is now
proposing in BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3(b) a fee of $500 per
port, per month for SQF Ports. The Exchange had not initially made the
SQF Ports fee liable in order to incentivize more Market Makers to make
markets on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this strategy has
been successful in incentivizing Market Makers and that the Exchange no
longer needs to offer SQF Ports without fee liability. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing a $500 SQF Port Fee that is significantly lower
than that of other exchanges.\9\ Moreover, the Exchange is proposing
that the SQF Port Fee will be per port, per month similarly to how the
same fee is offered on other exchanges.\10\ The Exchange believes the
continued availability of SQF Ports, even where fee liable as
discussed, will continue to incentivize Market Makers to make markets
on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to impose
an SQF Port Fee so that the Exchange may begin to partially recoup the
costs of maintaining and enhancing SQF Ports.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed $500 SQF Port Fee is, for example,
significantly lower than the current $750 NOM SQF Port Fee. See NOM
Chapter XV, Section 3(b).
    \10\ For example, the NOM SQF Port Fee is similarly offered per
port, per month. See NOM Chapter XV, Section 3(b).
    \11\ The Exchange is proposing to delete the ``1'' indicating
applicability of note 1 to the SQF Port Fee, as note 1 is clearly
applicable only to BX Depth and BX Top Port fees.

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

    As proposed, BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3 will read as follows:
Sec. 3 BX Options Market--Access Services
    The following charges are assessed by BX for connectivity to the BX
Options Market:
    (a) TradeInfo BX
     BX Options Participants using TradeInfo BX will be charged
a fee of $95 per user per month.
    (b) Port Fees, per port, per month, per mnemonic as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Entry Port Fee..........................................   $200.00
CTI Port Fee..................................................    200.00
BX Depth Port Fee \1\.........................................    200.00
BX TOP Port Fee \1\...........................................    200.00
Order Entry DROP Port Fee.....................................    200.00
Port Fees, per port, per month as follows:
    SQF Port Fee..............................................    500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BX Depth and BX Top Port fees will be assessed to non-BX
  Participants and BX Participants.

    With the proposed SQF Fee, if a Participant has 20 SQF Ports, the
Participant would pay $10,000 (20 x $500).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The number of mnemonics is not relevant for the proposed
SQF Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities which the Exchange operates or controls [sic], and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should
generally determine pricing because national market system regulation
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \15\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission \16\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the
Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness
of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated
a cost-based approach.\17\ As the court emphasized, the Commission
``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than
regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . .
. to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 [sic] at 37499
(June 9, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \16\ NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 09-
1042 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \17\ See id. at 534-535.
    \18\ See id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \19\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Release No. 59039
(December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-21) at 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal should continue to provide
opportunities for more efficient participation in orders and executions
on the Exchange, and at the same time facilitate the ability of the
Exchange to recoup some costs, maintain, and improve SQF Ports.
Change 1--SQF Port Fees
    SQF Ports are not currently fee liable for Participants that are
Market Makers. The Exchange is now proposing in BX Options Chapter XV,
Section 3(b) a fee of $500 per port, per month for SQF Ports.\20\ The
Exchange had not initially made the SQF Ports fee liable in order to
incentivize more BX Market Makers to make markets on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that this strategy has been successful in
incentivizing Market Makers and that the Exchange no longer needs to
offer SQF Ports without fee liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In establishing that the SQF Fee is per port, per month the
Exchange is proposing that the Exchange SQF Port Fee will be similar
to that of NOM. See NOM Chapter XV, Section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to make the SQF Port Fee
$500 per port, per month is reasonable because it would allow the
Exchange to keep pace with increasing technology costs. The proposed
SQF Port Fee reflects the desire of the Exchange to recoup costs that
the Exchange bears with respect to maintaining ports. The proposed SQF
Port Fee is reasonable because it enables the Exchange to offset, in
part, its costs associated with making such ports available, including
costs based on software and hardware enhancements and resources
dedicated to development, quality assurance, and support. This will
continue to incentivize Market Makers while allowing the Exchange to
recoup its costs. The proposed SQF Port Fee is reasonable because it is
lower than, and therefore competitive with, fees for similar ports on
other exchanges.\21\ In addition, the proposed SQF Port Fee is in line
with costs for other ports at other options exchanges.\22\ SQF Ports
allow a Market Maker to access information and rely on data available
through such ports to provide necessary information to perform market
making activities in a swift and meaningful way. Market Makers are
valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace
and incur costs unlike other market participants because Market Makers
add value through continuous quoting \23\ and the commitment of
capital. Exchange Market Makers provide a critical liquidity function
across thousands of individual option puts and option calls, a function
no other market participants are obligated to perform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The proposed $500 SQF Port Fee is, for example,
significantly lower than the current $750 NOM SQF Port Fee. See NOM
Chapter XV, Section 3(b).
    \22\ See NOM Pricing Schedule (port fees $650 or $750 per port);
and Phlx Pricing Schedule, (port fees $650 or $1250 capped per
port). See also ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'') Fee Schedule (port
fees $750 to $15,000 depending on connectivity levels); and C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') (generally assesses port
fees $500 to $1,000 depending on connectivity levels).
    \23\ Pursuant to BX Options Chapter VII (Market Participants),
Section 5 (Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a Market
Maker, an Options Participant commits himself to various
obligations. Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making
capacity must constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated
to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and
Market Makers should not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with such course of dealings. The
Exchange recognizes that BX Option Market Makers that utilize SQF
Ports require more technology infrastructure and more ports than BX
Option Participants that are not engaged in market making, and has
built this in to the fee structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that establishing the proposed SQF Port Fee
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the SQF
Port Fee is applicable to all Participants that are Market Makers on
the Exchange and will apply uniformly to all similarly

situated Participants. All Market Makers that use a SQF Port(s) will be
assessed the SQF Port Fee in the same way.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to make changes to BX Options Chapter XV,
Section 3(b) to add new SQF Port Fees will impose any undue burden on
competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular exchange to be excessive. Additionally, new competitors have
entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market
shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees remain
competitive with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that
sense, the Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because it
enables the Exchange to continue offering SQF Ports to the benefit of
market participants.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Moreover, in terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that
the proposed assessment of an SQF Port Fee will be applied uniformly to
all Participants that are Market Makers that use such ports but should
have no undue burden on any particular group of users. The proposal is
designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by
allowing the Exchange to recoup for certain of its connectivity costs,
while continuing to offer competitive rates to Participants.
    Furthermore, in this instance the proposed SQF Port Fee does not
impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and
routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If
the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it
is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the
extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain
order executions.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\24\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-BX-2016-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-003. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01533 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                 July 9, 2013

                                                                PC Code: 036602
MEMORANDUM	DP Barcode: 409108 & 409109

SUBJECT:	Mandipropamid: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on: Basil, Ginseng and Succulent Beans; and Expanded Uses on Bulb Vegetables, Cucurbits, Grapes, and Fruiting Vegetables including Tomatoes.

FROM:	Richard Shamblen, Biologist
	ERB2/EFED (7507P)

THROUGH:  Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist
            Brian Anderson, Branch Chief
	ERB2/EFED (7507P)

TO:	Dennis McNeilly, Risk Assessor
	Christina Swartz, Branch Chief
	RAB2/HED (7509P)

	Tony Kish, Risk Manager, RM Team 20
            Rosemary Kearns, Risk Manager Reviewer
            Laura Nollen, Biologist, RIMU ERB/RD
            FB/RD (7505P)

      The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) conducted a Tier 1 drinking water exposure assessment for the fungicide mandipropamid. The registrant seeks a Section 3 new use registration for basil, ginseng and succulent beans; and expansion of currently registered use groups including bulb vegetables, cucurbits, grapes, and fruiting vegetables including tomatoes. Previous exposure assessments evaluated maximum single application rates of 0.13 lbs a.i./A, four times per season. The registrant seeks to increase the total annual application rate to 2.08 lbs a.i./ A for tomato and basil by allowing for up to four crop production seasons per year. This proposed multi-season total annual application rate exceeds those assessed in previous drinking water exposure assessments.

      Tier 1 exposure model results are summarized in Table 1. PRZM-GW was used to estimate mandipropamid exposure in ground water. Maximum estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) in ground water are 87 and 79 ug/L for acute and chronic exposures, respectively. These values are as much as 480 times higher than SCI-GROW model results. Maximum acute and chronic EDWCs in surface waters are 79 and 9.0 ug/L, respectively.
Table 1. Tier 1 Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC) for Maximum Mandipropamid Use Patterns.
                             Drinking Water Source
                               (Model, Version)
                                      PCA
                                      (%)
                               Crop Use Pattern
                             (Maximum Annual Rate)
                                     Acute
                                    (μg/L)
                                Chronic (μg/L)
Surface Water (FIRST, 1.1.1)
                                      91
                              Tomato & Basil
                               (2.08 lbs a.i./A)
                                      79
                                      9.0
Ground Water (PRZM-GW, 1.01)
                                      N/A
                              Tomato & Basil
                               (2.08 lbs a.i./A)
                                      87
                                      79
Ground Water (SCI-GROW, 2.3)
                                      N/A
                              Tomato & Basil
                               (2.08 lbs a.i./A)
                                     0.18
Abbreviations: A= acre; a.i. = active ingredient; ha = hectare; kg = kilograms; μg = micrograms; lbs = pounds (US); N/A = not applicable

      Two previous Tier 1 drinking water assessments of mandipropamid produced nearly identical exposure estimates (USEPA, 2007; and, 2011). Results of multiple FIRST (v.1.1.0) model scenarios indicated EDWCs in surface waters ranging from 7 to 36 ug/L for chronic and acute exposures. Ground water exposure estimates in both assessments were about 2.4 ug/L when calculated by SCI-GROW (v. 2.3). PRZM-GW (v. 1.01) was not used.

      Differences between the previous two and current drinking water exposure assessments reveal that ground water exposure concentrations decreased by more than a factor of 13, whereas acute surface water exposure concentrations nearly doubled. These differences are likely attributed to a variety of recent changes incorporated into the drinking water assessment. In particular, the following factors adopted for this risk assessment may account for the differences:
         1)       Four seasons per year are assumed for tomato and basil, whereas only one season per year was assumed for previously assessed use sites;
         2)       Changes to EFED model input parameter guidance, version 2.1 (USEPA, 2009);
         3)       Higher KOC model input adjustments: mean (575 L/kg) used instead of lowest (405 L/kg);
         4)       Lower aerobic soil metabolism model input values: 133 d instead of 81.3 d;
         5)       Total Residue modeling approach (USEPA, 2013) was used to calculate aerobic aquatic metabolism input of 108 days instead of separately modeling a range of half-lives of 19 to 1323 days for parent and degradates;
         6)       Percent Cropped Area (PCA) factor of 0.91 used instead of 0.87 (USEPA, 2012a); and,
         7)       Revisions to the PestDF kinetics software used to calculate half-lives.

      The Total Residue (TR) modeling approach (USEPA, 2013) was used to estimate aerobic aquatic half-lives, and estimate drinking water concentrations in surface waters. Previous drinking water assessments calculated separate half-lives for the parent compound and two degradates of concern, for which exposure was estimated with separate model runs. Simple addition of the exposure estimates for mandipropamid and it's degradates of concern was used to generate estimated drinking water concentrations. Previous authors acknowledge this approach is conservative because the exposure estimates may not be temporally coincident. The TR method, however, tallies the parent compound and it's degradates of concern prior to calculating a Total Residue half-life using PestDF.

1. Use Characterization

      Mandipropamid is a fungicide used to control downy mildew, phytophthora blight and root rot, blue mold, and late blight in vegetable production. The fungicide can be applied as a post-emergent, foliar spray using ground, aerial, or chemigation equipment. The proposed label specifies a maximum seasonal application rate of 0.52 lbs. active ingredient per acre (a.i./A), and is divided into four separate applications of 0.13 lbs. a.i./A with a 7-day minimum interval.

      The proposed expanded and new use patterns are summarized in Table 2. For six (6) of the eight (8) proposed new and expanded crop uses, the maximum application rate per event and season remain consistent with previously assessed application rates (USEPA, 2007; and, USEPA, 2011). The registrant proposes, however, to expand the product application to tomato and basil with up to four (4) crop production seasons per calendar year. Thus, the registrant proposes a total of sixteen (16) application events for a cumulative annual application rate of 2.08 lbs a.i./A.

Table 2. Proposed Use Patterns for Mandipropamid
                                 Registration
                                    Status
                                   Use Site
                                    Maximum
                                  Application
                                   Rate[1)]
                                 (lbs a.i./A)
                                    Maximum
                            Number of Applications
                                  per Season
                       Minimum Application Interval[2)]
                                    (days)
                                    Maximum
                              Annual Application
                                   Rate[3)]
                                 (lbs a.i./A)
                               Maximum Number of
                           Applications per Year[3)]
                                   Proposed
                                      New
                                      Use
Bean (succulent);
Ginseng
                                     0.13
                                       4
                                       7
                                     0.52
                                       4

Basil (fresh and dried)
                                     0.13
                                       4
                                       7
                                     2.08
                                      16
                               Proposed Expanded
                                      Use
Bulb Vegetables;
Cucurbits;
Fruiting Vegetable (except tomato);
Grapes
                                     0.13
                                       4
                                       7
                                     0.52
                                       4

Tomato
                                     0.13
                                       4
                                       7
                                     2.08
                                      16
Abbreviations: A= acre; a.i. = active ingredient; lbs = pounds

Note(s):
   1) Single application event.
   2) Minimum number of days between application events.
   3) Year is defined as a calendar year; January 1 through December 31.

      The proposed label covers thirteen (13) use sites. There are no requested use changes for five (5) crops or crop groups: brassica; hops; leafy vegetables; potatoes and other tuberous and corm vegetables; and tobacco. The registrant seeks new use registrations for mandipropamid on the three (3) following crops and crop groups, including hybrids and varieties thereof:
      1. Basil: (fresh and dried);
      2. Bean (succulent subgroup): Cicer arietinum (chickpea, garbanzo bean); Lupinus spp. (inkling sweet lupine, white sweet lupine, white lupine, and grain lupine). Phaseoulus spp. (including kidney bean, lima bean, mung bean, navy bean, pinto bean, snap bean, and waxbean); Vicia faba (broad bean, fava bean); Vigna spp. (including asparagus bean, black-eyed pea and cowpea); in succulent form only; and,
      3. Ginseng.

      The registrant seeks to expand the current registration of mandipropamid on the following five (5) crops and crop groups, including hybrids and varieties thereof:
      1. Bulb vegetables including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these and others in
         * the onion (dry) subgroup 3-07A: daylily; fritillaria; garlic; garlic (great-headed); garlic (serpent); lily onion; onion (Chinese); onion (pearl); onion (potato); shallot; and,
         * the green onion (subgroup 3-07B): chive; chive (Chinese); elegans hosta; fritillaria; kurrat; lady's leek; leek; leek (wild); onion Beltsville bunching); onion (fresh); onion (green); onion (macrostem); onion (tree tops); onion (Welsh); and shallot;
      2. Cucurbit vegetables: Chayote (fruit); Chinese wax gourd (Chinese preserving melon); citron melon; cucumber; gherkin; gourds, edible (includes hyotan, cucuzza, hechima, Chinese okra); Momordica spp. (includes balsam apple, balsam pear, bitter melon, Chinese cucumber); muskmelon (includes true cantaloupe, cantaloupe, casaba, crenshaw melon, golden pershaw, melon, honeydew melon, honey balls, mango melon, Persian melon, pineapple melon, Santa Claus melon, and snake melon); pumpkin; squash, summer (includes crookneck squash, scallop squash, straintneck squash, vegetable marrow, zucchini); squash, winter (includes butternut squash, calabaza, hubbard squash, acorn squash, spaghetti squash); watermelon.
      3. Grapes including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of subgroup 13-07F (except fuzzy kiwifruit): Amur river grape, gooseberry, grape, kiwifruit (hardy); maypop; schisandra berry;
      4. Fruiting Vegetable Group (except tomatoes) including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these and others in this group: African eggplant, bell pepper; cocona; eggplant, garden huckleberry; goji berry; groundcherry; martynia; naranjilla; okra; pea eggplant; pepino; nonbell pepper; roselle; scarlet eggplant; sunberry; and,
      5. Tomato (includes tomato, bush; tomato, currant; tomatillo; tomato tree).

2. Environmental Fate Characterization

      When Mandipropamid is released into the environment, it is expected to be somewhat persistent and has low to moderate mobility.  The primary degradation route is typically expected to be metabolism with half-lives ranging from approximately 40 to 90 days in aerobic conditions in water and soil laboratory studies. Half-lives from field studies were similar and ranged from 75 to 100 days.  The fungicide degrades relatively quickly via photolysis with a half-life of approximately 2 days.  However, photolysis is only relevant under some environmental conditions and field studies suggest that it is not a major degradation route under conditions of those studies.  Mandipropamid degrades very slowly via hydrolysis, and volatilization from soil and water is expected to be minimal.  Bioconcentration is also not a primary concern.

      For general characterization and pesticide exposure modeling purposes, Table 3 contains selected physical and chemical properties and environmental fate data, and corresponding sources of data for mandipropamid.

      There are several data uncertainties from pesticide metabolism and mobility studies used in this drinking water assessment, including:

         1.          There is no statistically significant degradation of mandipropamid by hydrolysis at the p = 0.05 confidence level. Based on the level of uncertainty in the hydrolysis study due to background variability, the degradation might be as fast as 1900 day at pH 7 and not be detected in the current 30 day study. In order to bound the effects of hydrolytic degradation in the PRZM-GW simulations, estimates were made using the 1900 day hydrolysis half-life rather than assuming no hydrolytic degradation and the EDWC decreased from 90 to 79 day (12%).

         2.          Of the three aerobic aquatic metabolism studies, only one study (MRID 46800031) is currently classified as "supplemental and upgradeable." Additional information is needed related to identification of all major transformation products for both systems. The remaining two studies are classified "unacceptable."

         3.          There are two batch equilibrium studies that are classified as "supplemental and upgradeable." One study (MRID 46800038) includes four foreign soils, for which taxonomic classifications are needed to clarify if they represent domestic agricultural use areas where the pesticide is anticipated to be applied. For this assessment, it is assumed that three U.S. soils from one study (MRID 46800040) are representative of agricultural use areas. Although the USEPA guideline requires five soil types (USEPA, 2008b), data from the three domestic soils were used for modeling purposes, pursuant to model input parameter guidelines, in the absence of additional acceptable data.

         4.          There are five aerobic soil metabolism studies representing seven soils, yet only one study (MRID 46800020) with one soil type is currently acceptable. This is because the acceptable soil is domestic and the other six are foreign soils without taxonomic classifications with which to assess their representativeness of agricultural areas where the pesticide will be applied. Although the USEPA guideline requires four soil types for determination of transformation rates (USEPA, 2008c), the one soil type was used for modeling purposes, pursuant to model input parameter guidelines, in the absence of additional acceptable data.

      Reported half-life values for aerobic soil and aquatic metabolism studies were calculated using the PestDF (version 2.14.1) software from referenced study data (PestDF model results and metabolism calculations are attached in Appendix B).

Table 3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Mandipropamid
                                   Parameter
                                    (units)
                                     Value
                                  Reference
                                    (MRID)
                     Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters
Molecular Mass
(Empirical Formula)
                                  411.9 g/mol
                                 (C23H22ClNO4)
                                   46800004
Vapor pressure  (25 °C)[1][)]
(mmHg)
                               <7.1x10[-][9]
                                   46800006
Aqueous solubility (25C)
(mg/L)
                                      4.2
                                   46800006
Henry's Law Constant: calculated (25 °C)
(atm-m[3]/mol)
                               <9.1x10[-12]
                                   46800006
Log octanol-to-water partition
coefficient (25 C)
(log KOW)
                                      3.2
                                   46800006
Dissociation constants
(pKa, pKb)
 No pKa was found in the range of 1.0 to 12.0 by spectrophotometric titration.
                                   46800006
                                  Persistence
Hydrolysis
half-life  (25C)
(days)  (pH 4, 7 and 9)
                       no significant degradation (pH 5)
                                  1900 (pH 7)
                                  1000 (pH 9)
                                   46800007
Aqueous photolysis
half-life  (25C)
(days)
                                      1.9
                                   46800009
Aerobic soil metabolism
half-life (25°C)
(days) (Soil Texture)
                               44   (Sandy loam)
                                   46800020
Aerobic aquatic metabolism
half-life (25°C)
(days) (Aquatic sample system: Sediment)
                       79       (Swiss Lake: Loamy Sand)
                       94     (Calwich Abbey: Silt Loam)
                                   46800031
                                   Mobility
Freundlich organic carbon-normalized coefficient (KFOC)[2][)]
(mL/goc) (Soil Texture)
                              694   (Sandy loam)
                                   46900040

                              406   (Loamy Sand)

                              625   (Loamy Sand)

                               Field Dissipation
Terrestrial field dissipation
half-life[3)]
(days) (Soil Texture)
                               75   (Sandy loam)
                                   46800045

                              100   (Loamy sand)
                                   46800046

                               82   (Loamy sand)
                                   46800047
                             Fish Bioconcentration
Fish bioconcentration factors (steady-state, total residues)
(L/kg)
Depuration Rate:
                                Edible: 8.8-10
                               Inedible: 160-190
                              Whole body: 35-48x
                        Depuration: >82% in 25 hours
                                   46800109
Abbreviations: atm = atmosphere; °C = degree Celsius; g= gram; Hg = mercury; L = liter; log = logarithm, base 10; m[3] = cubic meter; mg = milligram; mL = milliliter; mm = millimeter; mol = mole; NA = Not applicable; MRID = master record identification

Note(s):
   1) Converted to torr (mmHg) from Pascal units (Pa).
   2) The coefficient of variation (CV) for KFOC (0.3) is less than the CV of Kd (0.5), thus sorption was correlated with organic carbon content. KFOC was calculated with the following equation: (KF/ % organic matter)*100 (USEPA, 2008b). Calculations are provided in the Adsorption/ Desorption spreadsheet attached in Appendix B.
   3) Field dissipation data are not used for modeling purposes in the Tier 1 drinking water assessment.  Thus, half-lives were not re-calculated.

3. Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

   2.1 Model Parameterization

      2.1.1 FIRST (Version 1.1.1)

      EFED used the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) Version 1.1.1 (USEPA, 2008a) to calculate Tier 1 estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for surface water systems. The model is used to estimate both acute and chronic potential concentrations in untreated drinking water (USEPA, 2001a). Model input parameters (USEPA, 2001a), values selected, brief justification statements for values selected (USEPA, 2009), and data sources are summarized below in Table 4.

      Total Residue (TR) kinetics calculations were used to estimate the aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life model input value (USEPA, 2013). TR kinetics calculations are presented in Appendix B. Total residues include the mandipropamid parent compound and its major degradates of concern, SYN500003 and SYN 504851. Other model inputs did not require TR calculations because the degradates of concern were not present in the supporting studies at concentrations greater than 10% of the applied.

Table 4. FIRST (v1.1.1) Input Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                     Value
                                 Justification
                                   Reference
                                    (MRID)
Application Rate
(lbs a.i./ A)
                                     0.13
                           Maximum application rate
                                Proposed label
Application Events
(per year)
                                      16
                    Maximum number of applications per year
                                Proposed label
                                Meeting Minutes
Minimum Application Interval
(days)
                                       7
                         Minimum application interval
                                Proposed label
Application Method
                                    Aerial
                   Application equipment of maximum exposure
                                Proposed label
Incorporation Depth
(cm)
                                       0
             Product is foliar applied via ground or aerial spray
                                Proposed label
Wetted-in
                                      No
                                Not applicable
                                 US EPA, 2009
Solubility (25C)
(mg/L)
                                      4.2
                               Maximum value at
                                   20 - 25C
                                    46800006
Hydrolysis
Half-life
(days)
                                     1900
                      Represents the study value at pH 7.
                                   4680007;
                                   46800008
Aquatic Photolysis
Half-life
(days)
                                      1.9
                      Represents the maximum study value.
                                   46800009
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism
Half-life
(days)
                                      108
           Total Residue approach was used to calculate half-lives.

Represents the upper 90[th] percentile confidence bound on the mean of two total residue half-lives.
                                   46800031
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC)
(mL/kgOC)
                                      575
                     Represents the mean of three values.
                                   46800040
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Half-life
(days)
                                      133
                  Represents 3x the single acceptable value.
                                   46800020
Percent Cropped Area (PCA) Adjustment Factor
(decimal)
                                     0.91
                 National-level PCA for all agricultural land
                                 US EPA, 2012a
Abbreviations: A= acre; a.i. = active ingredient; cm = centimeter; kg = kilogram; L = liter; lbs. = pounds; mg = milligram; mL = milliliter; MRID = master record identification

      2.1.2 SCI-GROW (Version 2.3)

      The Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW version 2.3) model was used to estimate drinking water pesticide concentrations in ground water.  Results of the Tier 1 model determine if mandipropamid potentially poses sufficient risk to warrant higher level assessment (USEPA, 2001b).  Table 5 summarizes the SCI-GROW input parameters (USEPA, 2001b), justification for values selected (USEPA, 2009), and appropriate references and data sources (USEPA, 2001b; and, USEPA, 2009).

Table 5. SCI-GROW (Version 2.3) Input Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                     Value
                                 Justification
                                   Reference
                                    (MRID)
Application Rate
(lbs a.i./ A)
                                     0.13
                           Maximum application rate
                                Proposed label
Application Events
(per year)
                                       16
                    Maximum number of applications per year
                                Proposed label
                                Meeting Minutes
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC)
(mL/kgOC)
                                      625
                          Median of three KOC values;
                        less than three-fold variation
                                   46800040
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Half-life
(days)
                                      44
                Single acceptable aerobic soil metabolism value
                                   46800020
Abbreviations: A= acre; a.i. = active ingredient; cm = centimeters; kg = kilogram; L = liter; mg = milligrams; mL = milliliter; MRID = master record identification

      2.1.3  PRZM-GW (Version 1.01)

      As part of a one-year evaluation period, EFED scientists are using the Pesticide Root Zone Model for Ground Water (PRZM-GW v. 1.01) model in conjunction with SCI-GROW to estimate Tier 1 pesticide concentrations in ground water used as drinking water (USEPA, 2012d). PRZM-GW input parameters are summarized below in Table 6.

      A cumulative annual application rate of 2.33 kg a.i./ ha (2.08 lbs a.i./ A) was used in PRZM-GW. This rate represents the registrant's proposed most conservative use pattern (i.e. four (4) crop production seasons per calendar year for use on both tomatoes and basil).

      PRZM-GW v.1.01 is limited to eleven (11) pesticide application events per year. In order to model 16 application events using 11 input events, values for the following input parameters were adjusted: 1) single-event maximum application rate; 2) number of application events per year; and, 3) application interval, 4) number of years to simulate.

      The single-event maximum application rate was increased from 0.147 kg a.i./ ha (0.13 lbs a.i./A) to 0.212 kg a.i./ ha (0.19 lbs a.i./ A). Correspondingly, the number of annual application events decreased from sixteen (16) to eleven (11). Moreover, the application interval was equally distributed across the calendar year.  This increased the proposed label's minimum application interval from 7 to 33 days. The cumulative annual application rate of 2.33 kg a.i./ ha (2.08 lbs a.i./A), however, remains consistent with the registrant's proposed label product application scenario. Because PRZM-GW is limited to 800 total application events, the extended simulation was conducted every year through year 72.

      An analysis was performed on the effects of adjusting PRZM-GW input parameters. Results indicate no difference as a result of using higher single-event application rates, reduced numbers of applications per year, and increased application intervals with respect to those of the proposed product label.

Table 6. PRZM-GW (Version 1.01) Input Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                     Value
                                 Justification
                                    Source
Application Rate[1][)]
(kg  a.i./ ha)
                                     0.212
See text above table. Maximum annual application rate is divided into 11 application events spread across the year.
                                Proposed Label
Application Events
(per year)
                                      11

                                Proposed Label
Application interval
(days)
                                      33

                                Proposed Label
Application Method
                                       2
   1)    Proposed use pattern.
   2)    Above canopy selected: product is applied to target foliage.
                                Proposed Label
                                 USEPA, 2012c
Initial Application
Date[2&3][)]
                                  February 2
1) Proposed four crop production seasons during the calendar year.
2) Eleven (11) application events evenly distributed.
3) Sensitivity analysis (see text above table)
                                 USEPA, 2012c
Hydrolysis
Half-life
(days)
                                     1900
                      Represents the study value at pH 7.
                                   46800007
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Half-life (25C)
(days)
                                      133
            Represents 3x the single acceptable half-life at 25°C.
                                   46800020
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC)
(ml/gOC)
                                     575
                         Represents the mean of three
                                  KOC values
                                   46800040
Abbreviations: A= acre; a.i. = active ingredient; cm = centimeters; ha = hectare; kg = kilograms; ml = milliliter; C = degree Celsius

Note(s):
   1) Unlike the other two models used in this drinking water assessment, the pesticide application rate for PRZM-GW requires metric units.
   2) The initial application date selected represents eleven (11) evenly distributed application dates (i.e. approximately every 33 days) during the calendar year, beginning February 2.
   3) Calendar dates are set to "Absolute."

   3.1 Model Results

      Results of the three models used in this drinking water assessment are summarized in Table 1.  FIRST model estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were 79 ug/L for acute exposure and 9.0 ug/L for chronic exposure.  The SCI-GROW EDWC was 0.18 ug/L.  PRZM-GW EDWCs are tabulated in Table 7.

      For the PROZM-GW model, all six geographic scenarios were modeled as surrogates for tomato and basil crops. The Wisconsin corn scenario provided the most conservative estimates for acute and chronic drinking water exposure concentrations, at 87 and 79 ug/L, respectively.

Table 7. PRZM-GW Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations and Average Breakthrough Time for Mandipropamid Use Scenarios[1)].
                                     Crop
                                   Scenario
                                    Maximum
                                     Daily
                                 Concentration
                                    -Acute-
                                    (ug/L)
                                    Average
                               Breakthrough Time
                                    (years)
                           Post-breakthrough Average
                                   -Chronic-
                                    (ug/L)
                                    Tomato
                                   DMV corn
                                      47
                                      14
                                      40
                                    Tomato
                                   FL citrus
                                      57
                                      14
                                      52
                                    Tomato
                                 FL potato[2)]
                                     0.14
                                      34
                                     0.08
                                    Tomato
                                 GA peanut[2)]
                                      11
                                      28
                                      10
                                    Tomato
                                   NC cotton
                                      31
                                      16
                                      26
                                    Tomato
                                  WI corn[2)]
                                      87
                                      28
                                      79
Abbreviations: ug = micrograms; L = liter

Note(s):
   1) PRZM-GW model results are reported to two (2) significant figures.
   2) The PRZM-GW extended weather files were created and used for these scenarios.

   Figure 1: PRZM-GW WI Corn Extended Weather Scenario

       Uncertainty regarding PRZM-GW outputs results from the extended time period of ground water flow and the model's underlying assumptions, including that soils are sterile below a 1-meter depth.  Bacteria in soils greater than one meter below the surface may degrade the residues of concern (ROC), however potentially at a slower rate than in the surface layer, and may potentiate over years or decades in order to degrade the ROC at a faster rate. Mandipropamid residues of concern have an average breakthrough time of 28 years with the Wisconsin scenario. Breakthrough times for PRZM-GW have been up to one order of magnitude shorter than observed for bromide (USEPA, 2012e) and up to one order of magnitude longer than observed for oxamyl (MRID 45591605).

      Also, the model represents a drinking water well that is surrounded by a large pesticide-treated area. Most drinking water wells are not surrounded by large pesticide-treated areas. Therefore, horizontal convection and dispersion may attenuate persistent, dissolved residues such as these over time.

References

MRID 45591605. Hiscock, A., R. Warren, and B. Patterson. A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Oxamyl. DuPont Report No. AMR 4318-97. Unpublished study conducted by Stone Environmental, Inc., Ecologic, Inc., Agricultural Systems Associates, AGVISE Laboratories, Centre Analytical Laboratories, Inc., and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE. Jan. 14, 2002.

USEPA, 2001a.  FIRST User's Manual: FQPA Index Reserovir Screening Tool. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. August 1, 2001.

USEPA, 2001b.  SCI-GROW Screening Concentration In Ground Water: User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. November 1, 2001.

USEPA. 2006.  Guidance for Developing a Tier 1 Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Jan. 27, 2006.

USEPA. 2007.  Drinking water assessment for mandipropamid and its two degradates (SYN500003, SYN504851) use on brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, grapes, leafy vegetables, potatoes, tomatoes, tuberous and corn vegetables. DP barcode D339258. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Memorandum to the Health Effects Division. April 23, 2007.

USEPA, 2008a.  FIRST FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool, Version 1.1.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. March 25, 2008.

USEPA. 2008b.  Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines: OPPTS 835.1230 Adsorption/ Desorption (Batch Equilibrium), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7101), Environmental Fate and Effects Division. EPA 712-C-08-009, October, 2008.

USEPA. 2008c.  Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines: OPPTS 835.4100 Aerobic Soil Metabolism; and, OPPTS 835.4200 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7101), Environmental Fate and Effects Division. EPA 712-C-08-016, EPA 712-C-08-017, October, 2008.

USEPA. 2009.  Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Oct. 22, 2009.

USEPA. 2011.  Mandipropamid: Drinking Water Exposure Assessmnt of Section 3 new Use for Outdoor; Non-food Crops.  DP barcode D383758. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Memorandum to the Registration. Division. March 2, 2011.

USEPA. 2012a.  Guidance on Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments: 2012 Update. Internal Environmental Fate and Effects Division memorandum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Mar. 16, 2012.

USEPA. 2012b.  Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Oct. 15, 2012.

USEPA. 2012c.  Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model. Version 1.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division; and, Health Canada, Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, Environmental Assessment Directorate. Oct. 15, 2012.

USEPA. 2012d.  Approval of PRZM-GW for Use in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum to the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dec. 11, 2012.

USEPA. 2012e. Identification and Evaluation of Existing Models for Estimating Environmental Pesticide Transport to Groundwater. Final Report (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Health Canada. Jan. 27, 2012.

USEPA. 2013.  Guidance for Modeling Pesticides Total Toxic Residues (TTR) - DRAFT: v.01. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. January 3, 2013.

Appendix A. Exposure Model Input/Output Files

FIRST and SCI-GROW Output Files, with input values embedded in the Output Files.

PRZM-GW Input Files

Appendix B. Calculations

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Total Residue:

Aerobic Soil Metabolism with R model degradation kinetics:

Soil Adsorption/ Desorption: