UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM March 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Corrected version of EFED's eco portion of SRRD's April 2001 Disulfoton IRED FROM: Henry Craven, Biologist, ERB 3, EFED (7507C)

THRU: Kevin Costello, Acting Branch Chief ERB 3, EFED (7507C)

TO: Betty Shackleford, PM 53 Christina Scheltema, PM Team Reviewer Michael Goodis Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508W)

This memo serves to transmit the corrected version of EFED's 8/ 20/ 01 modification of EFED's Eco portion of SRRD's April 2001 Disulfoton IRED. Included is the output files for a number of runs of the terrestrial exposure model FATE5. 2 B. Environmental Risk Assessment A summary of the Agency's environmental risk assessment is presented below. For detailed discussions of all aspects of the environmental risk assessment, see the document, Preregistration Eligibility Decision for Disulfoton, dated January 13, 2000, available in the public docket and the most recent amendment to this document, dated September 5, 2000.

The environmental risk assessment for disulfoton has been refined with new information submitted during phases 3 and 5 of the public participation process. This information included proposed changes to the disulfoton registration, such as reductions in the rate and frequency of application, to mitigate risks, as well as public comments on environmental risk and drinking water. 1. Environmental Fate and Transport In soil, disulfoton is not expected to undergo significant hydrolysis or volatilization. Disulfoton parent is photochemically degraded rapidly by sunlight on soil and in water where light can penetrate. Disulfoton is metabolized or oxidized in soil to the corresponding sulfoxide and sulfone degradates. Degradation of disulfoton parent in soil does not appear to follow firstorder kinetics, but the half life is less than 6 days. Field dissipation studies confirm that disulfoton does not persist in the environment. EPA does not have data on the anaerobic metabolism of disulfoton. Disulfoton is not considered mobile under convective dispersive processes, but it has been detected in groundwater monitoring conducted in highly vulnerable areas.

Disulfoton degrades in the environment. The major degradates, disulfoton sulfone and sulfoxide, are more persistent and mobile than the parent. As much as 35% of the applied disulfoton remained in soil as disulfoton sulfone after 367 days. Thus the degradates appear to be much more persistent than parent in soil. The other degradates were either not identified or occurred at much lower concentrations. However, the Agency is concerned that the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates have a high potential to reach ground and surface water. In field testing, degradates were detected at a depth of 18 inches, indicating potential mobility. The Agency has limited data regarding the persistence of the degradates and lacks the absorption/ desorption data necessary to confirm the mobility of the degradates. Aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies are required for the parent and degradates. A study on the mobility and leaching potential of the degradates is also required.

2. Water Resources Assessment The water resources assessment is summarized earlier in this document. The surface water EECs shown in Table  were used to assess potential drinking water exposure to disulfoton. The drinking water assessment has been refined to include the percent crop area 3 factor and the index reservoir. However, the ecological water resources assessment does not include the refinements mentioned above. The Agency's current policy is to include these refinements in the drinking water assessment but not in the ecological risk assessment because the " unrefined" farm pond on the edge of field scenario is thought to better represent the conditions for ecological exposure. For more information, see Preregistration Eligibility Document for Disulfoton, September 5, 2000.

3. Ecological Risk Assessment The Agency's ecological risk assessment compares toxicity endpoints from ecological toxicity studies to estimated environmental concentrations based on environmental fate characteristics, pesticide use, and/ or monitoring data. The Agency first assesses the acute and chronic toxicity to each of four groups of nontarget animals. Acute toxicity is expressed as follows:

EC50 ( invertebrates), LC50 (fish and birds), and LD50 (birds and mammals)

Chronic toxicity is expressed as follows:

NOAEL or NOAEC for avian and mammal reproduction studies, and either The NOAEL for chronic aquatic studies, or The Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration (MATC). To estimate potential ecological risk, EPA integrates the results of exposure and ecological toxicity studies using the quotient method. Risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecological toxicity values, both acute and chronic, for various species. These RQ values are compared to levels of concern (LOCs), which provide an indication of the relative risk the particular pesticide and/ or use may pose for nontarget organisms. In general, the higher the RQ the greater the concern. The LOC indicates whether a chemical, when used as directed, has the potential to cause undesirable effects on nontarget organisms. When the risk quotient exceeds the LOC for a particular category, the Agency presumes a risk of concern to that category. The LOC's and the corresponding Risk presumptions are presented in the following table:

Table 9. Levels of Concern (LOCs) and Associated Risk Presumption IF... THEN the Agency presumes...

Mammals and Birds The acute RQ > LOC of 0.5, Acute risk The acute RQ >LOC of 0.2, Risk that may be mitigated through restricted use The acute RQ > LOC of 0.1, Acute effects may occur in Endangered species The chronic RQ > LOC of 1 Chronic risk and Chronic effects may occur in Endangered species IF... THEN the Agency presumes...

4 Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates The acute RQ > LOC of 0.5 Acute risk The acute RQ > LOC of 0.1 Risk that may be mitigated through restricted use The acute RQ >LOC of 0.05 Acute effects may occur in Endangered species The chronic RQ > LOC of 1 Chronic risk and Chronic effects may occur in Endangered species Plants The RQ > LOC of 1 Acute risk The RQ > LOC of 1 Endangered plants may be affected No separate criteria exist for restricted use or chronic effects for plants.

Risk characterization provides further information on the likelihood of adverse effects occurring by considering the use pattern of the pesticide; its fate in the environment; the species and populations of organisms potentially at risk, their spatial and temporal distributions; and the nature of the effects observed in toxicity studies.

a. Toxicity of Disulfoton to non target organisms The Agency has a fairly robust toxicity database for disulfoton and the two primary degradates, disulfoton sulfoxide and disulfoton sulfone. The following table contains the toxicity values used in the terrestrial animal risk assessment Table 7. Toxicity endpoints used in assessing risk of terrestrial organisms for disulfoton Species Test Type Results (ppm ai) Toxicity Classification Source of Data Japanese quail sub acute dietary LC50= 333 highly toxic 0034769 Northern bobwhite quail sub acute dietary LC50) = 544 moderately toxic 0094233 Northern bobwhite quail sub acute dietary LC50 (sulfone metabolite) = 558 moderately toxic 42585106 Northern bobwhite quail sub acute dietary LC50 (sulfoxide metabolite) = 456 highly toxic 42585105 Mallard duck acute oral LD50= 6.54 mg ai/ kg very highly toxic 00160000 Mallard duck reproduction NOAEC= 37 LOAEC= 80 (decreased adult and hatchling body weight) N/ A 43032502 Species Test Type Results (ppm ai) Toxicity Classification Source of Data 5 Laboratory rat acute oral LD50= 1.9 mg ai/ kg very highly toxic 072293 Laboratory rat acute oral LD50 (sulfone metabolite) =11.24 mg /kg highly toxic 0071873 Laboratory rat acute dietary 1 day LC50 1 (2 to 12.7ppm) highly to very highly toxic N/ A Laboratory rat 2 generation reproduction NOAEL= 0.8 LOAEL= 2.4 (decreased litter size and pup survival) N/ A 261990 Honey bee acute contact LD50 = 4.1 ug ai/ bee moderately toxic 05004151 Honey bee acute contact LD50 (sulfone metabolite) = 0.96 ug/ bee highly toxic 42582902 Honey bee acute contact LD50 (sulfoxide metabolite) = 1.11 ug /bee highly toxic 42582901 Honey bee acute foliar residue 2 RT25 (8 EC) < 3hrs at 1.0 lb ai/ A N/ A 0163423 1 one day LC50 = LD50 (mg/ kg) / proportion of body weight consumed. The mammalian LD50 of 1.9 mg/ kg was used to estimate 1 day LC50s ranging from 2 ppm for a 15 gram herbivore (consumes 95%) to 12.7 ppm for a 1000 gram granivore (consumes 15%) 2 RT25 (residual time) time required to reduce mortality of caged bees to field weathered spray deposits. 6 Table 8. Toxicity endpoints used in assessing risk of aquatic organisms for disulfoton Freshwater Species* Test Type Results (ppb ai) Toxicity Category Source of Data Bluegill Acute LC50= 39 very highly toxic 00068268 Bluegill Acute LC50 (sulfone metabolite) =112 highly toxic 42585108 Bluegill Acute LC50 (sulfoxide metabolite) =188 highly toxic 42585107 Bluegill Early Life Stage** estimated NOAEC = 4.6 Extrapolated from 41935801 Glass shrimp Acute EC50= 3.9 Very highly toxic 40094602 Water flea Life Cycle NOAEC= 0.037 N/ A 41935802 Water flea Life Cycle NOAEC (sulfone metabolite) =0.14 N/ A 43738001 Water flea Life Cycle NOAEC (sulfoxide metabolite) = 1.53 N/ A 43738002 Marine Species*

Sheepshead minnow Acute LC50= 520 highly toxic 40228401 Sheepshead minnow Acute LC50 (sulfone metabolite) = 1060 moderately toxic 44369901 Sheepshead minnow Acute LC50 (sulfone metabolite) = 11300 slightly toxic 44369902 Sheepshead minnow Early Life Stage NOAEC= 16.2 N/ A 42629001 Sheepshead minnow Full Life Cycle EC05= 0.96*** N/ A 43960501 Eastern Oyster Acute EC50= 720 highly toxic 40228401 Brown shrimp Acute EC50= 15 very highly toxic 40228401 Mysid Life Cycle EC05= 2.35*** N/ A 43610901 * The species listed and used in risk assessment were selected from the toxicity data because they seemed to represent a distribution of sensitivity. ** An early life stage study was not conducted with bluegill, but was derived from a rainbow trout study (MRID 41935801). 7 b. Environmental Exposure to Disulfoton EPA uses models to estimate exposure of nontarget plants and animals to disulfoton. For terrestrial birds and mammals, the Agency first estimates initial levels of Disulfoton residues on various food items consumed by wildlife using the Fletcher nomogram( MRID # (45374901) followed by a first order decline model such as FATE5. This assessment was further characterized after reviewing one residue monitoring study conducted in potatoes.. Based on the results of this study a foliar dissipation half life of 3.3 was derived and was subsequently used to estimate terrestrial exposure using the FATE5 model.

The following table shows predicted residues immediately after application on terrestrial food items that result from a single application of disulfoton calculated from Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994):

Table 9: Estimated Environmental Concentrations on Avian and Mammalian Food Items (ppm) Following a Single Application at 1 lb ai/ A Food Items EEC (ppm) Predicted Maximum Residue EEC (ppm) Predicted Mean Residue Short grass 240 85 Tall grass 110 36 Forage and small insects 135 45 Fruits, pods, seeds, and large insects 15 7 These residues served as the initial concentrations from which first order residue declines were calculated. When considering repeat applications, degradation over time is simulated from the first application to a period following the last application. The time period modeled varies, depending on the number of applications, the interval between applications. However 30 days was usually modeled unless otherwise specified. The FATE5 program generates a peak value as well as a time weighted average value for the time period modeled. The Fletcher peak maximum value for the food item was compared to the acute toxicity value to produce the acute Risk Quotient (RQ). For chronic risk, the Fletcher maximum value was used as the initial input. Both the peak maximum for short grass and time weighted average maximum EECs for short grass and other food items were used to compute chronic RQs.

For aquatic organisms, EPA estimates the concentration of parent disulfoton in surface water using the Tier II PRZM/ EXAMs models.

4. Nontarget Terrestrial Animal Risk a. Risk to Birds and Mammals EPA predicts acute risk to birds and mammals for both the granular (15 % ai) and liquid 8 EC (8 % ai) formulations. RQs for birds and mammals are summarized in Tables 10 thru 12 below. Bird kills have been associated with applications of granular disulfoton to a tree nursery and potatoes. Field studies in potatoes and small grains showed small mammals to be sensitive to the 15% granular product and jackrabbits to be sensitive to the liquid products. Also, EPA has received a poisoning report of Swainson hawks that died following ingestion of disulfoton contaminated grasshoppers. The Agency predicts chronic risk to birds and mammals from liquid disulfoton (8 EC); mammals appear to be at greater risk than birds.

Table 10. Summary of Acute Ecological Risks to Birds and Mammals potentially exposed to Di Syston 8EC (liquid) in food. Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs)

Crop Application Rate/ Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications Birds 1 LC50 =333 ppm Mammals 2 Estimated 1 day LC50 = 2 12.7 ppm Tobacco 4 lbs ai/ A aerial (soil), unincorporated 1 N/ A 0.2 2.8 Adjacent to field 0.9 480 Adjacent to field 4 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.2 1.6 Within field granivore & insectivore 0.9 270 Within field, granivore insectivore Potatoes NW only 3 lb ai/ A ground (foliar), chemigation 1 N\ A 0.1 2.2 0. 7 360 Potatoes 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), unincorporated side dress 1 N/ A approx 0.1 2.2 Slightly less than foliar approx 0.7 360 Slightly less than foliar 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.1 1.2 Within field granivore & insectivore 0.7 202 Within field, granivore insectivore 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), in furrow or injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Peas & Lentils 2.5 lbs ai/ A ground (soil) injection or in furrow 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Chili peppers 2 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.1 0.8 Within field granivore & insectivore 0.5 135 Within field granivore & insectivore Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs)

Crop Application Rate/ Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications Birds 1 LC50 =333 ppm Mammals 2 Estimated 1 day LC50 = 2 12.7 ppm 9 Beans (snap, dry & lima), lettuce, cabbage 2 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Cotton, sorghum Broccoli, Wheat, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage, barley 1 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Wheat 0.75 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 1 0. 03 0.5 0.2 90 Poplars for pulp wood 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), unincorporated 3 21 day interval 0.1 2.2 0. 7 364 Asparagus 1 lb ai/ A ground and or aerial (foliar) 3 assumed 21 day interval 0.05 0.7 0. 2 121 Barley 1 lb ai/ A ground and or aerial foliar 2 21 day interval 0.05 0.7 0. 2 121 Potato (East of Rockies only), brussels sprouts, cauliflower 0.5 lb ai/ A aerial or ground (foliar) 3 14 days 0.02 0.4 Ground less risk than aerial 0.13 63 Ground less risk than aerial Sorghum 0.5 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 2 14 days 0.02 0.4 0. 1 63 3 days 0.03 0.5 0. 2 92 Cotton (SLN) TX 0.2 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 2 21 days 0.01 0.15 0.05 24 1 RQs for birds vary according to food items consumed; the range is presented here. 2 RQs for mammals vary according to body weight and food items consumed; the range is presented here. Additional information can be found in the September 5, 2000, revised environmental risk assessment. 10 Table 11. Summary of Chronic Ecological Risks to Birds and Mammals potentially exposed to Di Syston 8EC (liquid) in food. Unless specified otherwise the RQ is based on a a 3.3 day half life and 30 day average maximum residue values. RQ in ( ) is based on peak maximum residues short grass. Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs)

Crop Application Rate/ Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications Birds 1 NOAEC = 37 ppm Mammals 2 NOAEC = 0.8 ppm Tobacco 4 lbs ai/ A aerial (soil), unincorporated 1 N/ A 0.3 4.5 (26) 13 210 (1200)

4 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.3 2.5 (14) Within field granivore & insectivore 13 118 (675) Within field, granivore insectivore Potatoes NW only 3 lb ai/ A ground (foliar), chemigation 1 N\ A 0.2 3.4 (19) 9.8 158 (900)

Potatoes 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), unincorporated side dress 1 N/ A approx 0.2 3.4 (19) Slightly less than foliar approx 9.8 158 (900) Slightly less than foliar 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.2 1.9 (11) Within field granivore & insectivore 9.8 89 (506) Within field, granivore insectivore 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), in furrow or injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Peas & Lentils 2.5 lbs ai/ A ground (soil) injection or in furrow 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Chili peppers 2 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), broadcast, incorporated 1 N/ A 0.1 1.3 (7.3) Within field granivore & insectivore 6.6 59 (337) Within field granivore & insectivore Beans (snap, dry & lima), lettuce, cabbage 2 lbs ai/ A ground (soil), injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs)

Crop Application Rate/ Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications Birds 1 NOAEC = 37 ppm Mammals 2 NOAEC = 0.8 ppm 11 Cotton, sorghum Broccoli, Wheat, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage, barley 1 lb ai/ A ground (soil), injection 1 N/ A risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application risk can not be quantified, but less than surface application Wheat 0.75 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 1 N/ A 0.05 0.85 (4.9) 2.5 40 (225)

Poplars for pulp wood 3 lb ai/ A ground (soil), unincorporated 3 21 day interval 0.3 4.9 (20) 63 day ave. 14 225 (911) 63 day ave Asparagus 1 lb ai/ A ground and or aerial (foliar) 3 assumed 21 day interval 0.1 1.6 (6.6) Ground less risk than aerial 63 day ave. 4.7 75 (304) Ground less risk than aerial 63 day ave.

Barley 1 lb ai/ A ground and or aerial (foliar) 2 21 day interval 0.1 1.6 (6.6) Ground less risk than aerial 42 day ave 4.7 75 (304) Ground less risk than aerial 42 day ave Potato (East of Rockies only), brussels sprouts, cauliflower 0.5 lb ai/ A ground or aerial (foliar) 3 14 days 0.08 1.2 (3) Ground less risk than aerial 42 day ave 3.5 56 (158) Ground less risk than aerial 42 day ave Sorghum 0.5 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 2 14 days 0.07 1.1 (3) 3. 2 52 (158)

3 days 0.2 3 (5) 9 day ave 8.6 138 (230) 9 day ave Cotton (SLN) TX 0.2 lb ai/ A aerial (foliar) 2 21 days 0.02 0.3 (1) 42 day ave 0.9 15 (61) 42 day ave 1 RQs for birds vary according to food items consumed; the range is presented here. 2 RQs for mammals vary according to body weight and food items consumed; the range is presented here. Additional information can be found in the September 5, 2000, revised environmental risk assessment.

The Agency's assessment suggests the potential for the 8 EC formulation (liquid) to cause acute effects to non endangered herbivorous birds from a single aerial application at or above 0.75 lb ai/ A. Endangered granivores would be at risk from a single, 2.0 lb ai/ A soil incorporated application. The avian acute RQs range from less than 0.1 for potatoes at 3.0 lbs ai/ ai when applied in furrow or soil injected to 2.8 on short grass from a single, 4 lb ai/ A aerial application 12 to tobacco. For the same use patterns/ food items, mammalian acute RQs range from less than 0.1 to 480. A comparison of the NOAECs from avian reproduction studies to estimated exposure concentrations from uses other than in furrow or soil injection, produced chronic RQs ranging from 0.02 for cotton (the 42 day average on seeds for 2 aerial applications with 21 day intervals at 0.2 lbs ai/ A) to 26 for tobacco (the peak on short grass for a single aerial applications at 4.0 lbs ai/ A). For the same use patterns, when the NOAEL in the 2 generation rat study is used as an endpoint, the chronic RQs range from 0.9 to 1200. For both birds and mammals, most of the RQs are above the Agency's level of concern for chronic effects. These exceedences last for several weeks. In all cases (except for in furrow or soil injection) for mammal, but only in a few uses for birds, not only the peak residues, but also the time weighted average residues exceed the test levels at which chronic effects were observed (LOAECs).

Registrants have expressed concern regarding the Agency's use of Fletcher values and models such as FATE5 in its preliminary exposure assessment. Two field residue monitoring studies submitted by a registrant were pertinent to current uses of disulfoton on potatoes. In the study (MRID #412018 01), Di Syston 8 was aerially applied to potato foliage 3 times (6 to 10 day intervals) at 1 lb ai/ acre in Michigan. Residues on the potato leaves peaked at 105 ppm after the 2 nd application and had a mean value of 41 ppm over the course of the study. These values are reasonably close to the FATE5 model (scenario was 1 lb ai/ A, 3 applications, 10 day interval, 21 day sampling period, and half life 3.3 days) estimate of residues on broadleaves of 153 ppm (peak) and 51ppm (mean). A second residue monitoring study (MRID #411189 01) in Michigan was performed, in which Di Syston 8 was soil incorporated by ground equipment, (initially in furrow at planting at 3 lb ai/ acre and 6  7 weeks later as a side dressing at 3 lbs ai/ acre). As was expected the residues on potato foliage were lower (peak was 44 ppm and mean was 8 ppm) than in the first study. Finding residues is due in part because disulfoton is systemic and secondly, though directed at the soil, some spray would contact the emerged plants during the second application. In conclusion, the foliar application study appears to support the use of the Fletcher values in a model such as FATE5 to predict residues on foliage.

The acute and chronic RQs are based solely on dietary exposure via contaminated food sources. Other routes of exposure, including dermal, inhalation, and drinking from contaminated puddles might also be important (Driver et al. 1991) and could further increase acute risks if methods were available to include them in the risk assessment. Other factors contributing to uncertainty (especially for chronic effects) include when exposure occurs during the reproductive cycle; the duration of exposure required to cause a physiological effect and sub lethal effects to adults that may impact breeding and nurturing behavior.

The following table summarizes the acute risk to birds and mammals from the use of the granular formulation (15 G) of disulfoton. 13 Table 12. Acute Risk Estimates for Birds and Mammals Exposed to Di Syston 15G (Granular). Based on mallard ago LD50 (6.54mg/ kg) and rat a. o. LD50 (1.9 mg/ kg). Use Scenario RQs Crop Application Rate lb ai/ A and or (oz. ai/ 1000 ft) Application Method mg ai/ ft 2 exposed on soil surface Birds Mammals Christmas trees (approx 1700/ A) 78 (0.69 oz ai/ tree ~ 2 ft 2 ) Spot treatment/ broadcast, unincorporated approx 9,780 approx 1,500 75,200 approx 5,100 257,300 Christmas trees (SLN) NC approx 1700/ A 4.5 (0.04 oz ai / tree ~ 2 ft 2 ) Spot treatment/ broadcast, unincorporated 567 approx 85 4,350 approx 300 14900 Tobacco 4 (6) Banded (assume 6 inches), incorporated 51 7 392 26 1342 Banded (assume 12 inches), incorporated 25.5 3. 5 196 13 671 Broadcast, incorporated 6.2 0. 9 48 3 164 Ornamental flowers (gladiolus) 28.6 (1.05 oz/ 100 ft 2 ) broadcast, incorporated 45 6.8 346 24 1184 Ornamental flowers (gladiolus) 4.5( 0.16 oz/ 100 ft 2 ) broadcast, incorporated 7 1 54 3. 6 184 Ornamental flowers (gladiolus) 6 (11.25) banded– in trench, incorporated assumed zero assumed zero assumed zero Potatoes 3 (3.4) Banded (assume 6 inches) incorporated 28.9 4. 5 225 15 772 Broadcast, incorporated 4.7 0. 7 35 2. 5 123 In furrow, incorporated 1.9 0. 3 15 1 51 Peas and Lentils 2.5 Broadcast, unincorporated 26 3.8 198 13 683 Peppers 2 (2) Banded (assume 6 inches), incorporated 17 2.5 130 9 447 Soy beans 1 (1.2) Banded ( 4 inch), incorporated 17 2.5 130 9 447 Cabbage 1.5 (1.7) Banded (assume 6 inches), incorporated 14.4 2. 2 110 7.5 378 Sorghum 1 1 Broadcast to whorls 10.4 1.5 80 5 270 Use Scenario RQs Crop Application Rate lb ai/ A and or (oz. ai/ 1000 ft) Application Method mg ai/ ft 2 exposed on soil surface Birds Mammals 14 Barley, wheat 1 Broadcast, unincorporated 10.4 1. 5 80 5 270 Drilled approx 0.1 approx <0.1 0.8 approx <0.1 2.7 Clover 1 (for seed) SLN 1 Broadcast to foliage, unincorporated 10.4 1. 5 80 5 270 Cotton, sorghum 1 (1.2) Banded (assume 6 inches), incorporated 10.2 1. 5 80 5 270 Peanuts, cole crops, 1 (1.1) Banded (assume 6 inches), incorporated 9.3 1. 4 70 5 240 Beans (Lima, Dry) 1 (0.9) Banded (6inch), incorporated 7.6 1. 1 70 4 200 Ornamental trees (Holly, birch) 4.5 Broadcast, incorporated 7.0 1 54 3. 6 184 Ornamental trees (Holly, birch) (12 oz) In furrow 6. 8 1 52 3.5 178 Cotton, sorghum 1 (1.2) In furrow, incorporated 0.68 0.1 5 0. 3 17 Peanuts 1 (1.1) In furrow, incorporated 0.62 0.1 5 0. 3 17 1Some granules will be retained in/ on foliage and could be ingested by non target birds and mammals. RQs for birds and mammals vary according to body weight; the range is presented here. Additional information can be found in the September 5, 2000, revised environmental risk assessment.

The Agency's assessment suggests potential for the 15 G formulation to cause acute risk to birds from a single application at or above the lowest application rate of 1.0 lb ai/ A even when the material is incorporated. The avian acute RQs for small birds range from 5 for the in furrow, 1 lb ai/ A rate on cotton to approximately 75,200 for 78 lb ai/ A, unincorporated spot treatment to Christmas trees. For the same use patterns/ food items, small mammal acute RQs range from 17 to 257,300. EPA can not estimate long term exposure from granular applications because the granules are not expected to remain in tact over extended periods. The chemical is expected to become distributed in the soil, as the granules dissipate. However even a brief exposure period may be sufficient to cause chronic risk because disulfoton is chronically toxic to birds and mammals at low dietary concentrations.

Risk to birds and mammals from the use of 15 G (SLN) on Christmas tree farms in North 15 Carolina Christmas tree farms and the adjacent areas  forests and or pasture – provide excellent habitat for a great variety of wild life. The North Carolina Christmas Tree community has submitted numerous testimonials emphasizing the ever increasing numbers and diversity of wild life . This includes game animals such as turkey rearing young amidst the trees, song birds, rodents and foxes. Although this information is intended to suggest there is little or no negative impact from not only disulfoton, but other pesticides or cultural practices as well, the Agency would prefer to receive documented surveys or research before making a final determination.

b. Non target Insects Disulfoton is moderately toxic to honey bees and its sulfoxide and sulfone degradates are highly toxic to bees. Although a 24 hour residual study on the 8 EC indicated no toxicity to honey bees following exposure to alfalfa that had been treated 3 hours earlier at a rate of 1.0 lb/ A., there is uncertainty as to the risk from later exposure and a longer period of time to the more toxic degradates. Furthermore, the risk from higher rates – especially aerial and foliar applications – can not be assessed without additional data.

5 Risk to Nontarget Aquatic Animals Disulfoton technical is moderately to very highly toxic to freshwater fish; very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates; highly toxic to estuarine fish and highly to very highly toxic to estuarine invertebrates. None of these organisms were at risk from disulfoton when the EC was soil injected. Neither fresh water nor estuarine fish acute risk Levels Of Concern (LOC) are exceeded; however, a few uses exceed restricted use and endangered species concerns for fresh water fish. Chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine fish may occur from uses where single application rates are equal to 4 lb a. i./ A. Estuarine fish may also be at chronic risk from 2 or more applications of the EC formulation at rates equal to or greater than 1 lb ai/ A. Although many modeled crop scenarios suggest a potential for acute risk for freshwater invertebrates; except for the greater risk from the tobacco use, RQs were between 0.5 and 2.1 with most being less than one. Typically, unless soil injection was employed, the invertebrate restricted use and endangered species concerns were exceeded. Chronic risk to fresh water invertebrates (i. e., number of young produced, their survival and growth) is predicted for all modeled scenarios. Although modeling predicts acute and chronic risks estuarine/ marine invertebrates for a few uses on such sites as tobacco, barley and cotton, there is uncertainty in the exposure estimates and the RQs are less then 2 for acute and less then 6 for chronic risk. RQs for fish and invertebrates are summarized in Tables 13 and 14.

(i) Freshwater Fish – Acute and Chronic Risk Acute risk LOC is not exceeded for any use patterns. RQs range from <0.01 (soil injection of the EC to any crop or one unincorporated application of the 15 G by ground 16 equipment to soil at 1.0 lb ai/ A to wheat) to 0.48 (1 aerial application of 4.0 lb ai/ A to soil for tobacco). The restricted use LOC is exceeded by a single application at rates greater than or equal to1.0 lb ai/ A.. The endangered species LOC is exceeded by: 1) a single, unincorporated application at rates greater than or equal to 0.75 lb ai/ A and 2) 2 or more unincorporated applications at 0.2 lbs ai/ A. Chronic risk is only exceeded by one application regime in tobacco the RQ is 1.5 for a single aerial application to soil (followed by incorporation) at 4.0 lb ai/ A.

While the acute LC50 was never exceeded by peak concentrations mortality is predicted for some application regimes of the EC for tobacco, barley and possibly asparagus (other than N. West). In a series of miniature ponds known as microcosms, bluegills were exposed to a range of concentrations for 27 days. This resulted in a 27 day LC10 of 4.7 parts per billion. Since LC10 is exceeded by the modeled 21 day average EEC's (4.5 to 12 ppb) for these 3 uses, this suggests use of disulfoton adjacent to aquatic sites may result in mortality to freshwater fish. Three fish kills associated with tobacco and wheat were reported to the Agency in which disulfoton and or two metabolites – the sulfoxide and sulfone were present. These metabolites are persistent and 1/ 3 to 1/ 5 less toxic than disulfoton; they may have contributed to the impact. However, it should be noted that other toxic chemicals were also discovered in the water in two of the incidents and in the other instance runoff contributed decaying vegetation and sediment that may have resulted in very low oxygen levels.

(ii) Freshwater Invertebrates a Acute Risk The fresh water invertebrate acute risk RQs range from <0.01 (soil injection of the EC to any crop or one unincorporated application of the 15 G by ground equipment to soil at 1.0 lb ai/ A to wheat) to 4.8 (1 aerial application, followed by incorporation, of 4.0 lb ai/ A to soil for tobacco). Acute risk is usually exceeded by: 1) one incorporated or unincorporated application of the EC at rates equal to or greater than 1.0 lb ai/ A; 2) one unincorporated application of the 15 G at rates equal to or greater than 1.0 lb ai/ A; 3) 2 or more aerial unincorporated applications of the EC at rates equal to or greater than 0.2 lbs ai/ A. 4) 2 or more unincorporated ground applications of the EC at rates equal to or greater than 0.5 lbs ai/ A. The restricted use LOC is exceeded by nearly all techniques for all modeled sites. The exceptions are soil injection applications of the EC; one unincorporated application of the 15 G by ground equipment to soil at 1.0 lb ai/ A to wheat and one soil incorporated, ground application of the 15 G at 2.0 lbs ai/ A for chili peppers. All techniques for all modeled sites exceed the endangered species LOC except for soil injection of the EC and one unincorporated application of the 15 G by ground equipment to soil at 1.0 lb ai/ A to wheat.

b Chronic Risk Chronic risk is anticipated from all regimes for all modeled sites except for soil injection and one unincorporated application of the 15 G by ground equipment to soil at 1.0 lb ai/ A to 17 wheat. RQs for all of the modeled crop scenarios greatly exceeded the LOC of one. The 21 day average EECs for the modeled sites that exceeded chronic risk concerns ranged from 0.2 ppb (chili peppers– single application of soil incorporated 15 G at 2 lbs ai/ A) to 12 ppb (tobacco– a single aerial application, followed by soil incorporation of the EC at 4 lbs ai/ A). Invertebrate life cycle testing on daphnia with disulfoton showed impacts to reproductive parameters (number of young produced by adults) as well as impacts to survival and growth occurring between 0.037 and 0.07 ppb. With the exception of soil injection of the EC formulation (where residues in water were considered to be zero) the RQs ranged from 5 to 324. Because invertebrates have a short life cycle, their reproduction is more likely to be at least temporarily impacted by a brief exposure of adults to disulfoton concentrations near the NOAEC.

A microcosm study toxic suggests that disulfoton's impacts to the invertebrate community may be short term and only slightly extended due to the toxicity and persistence of the degradates of disulfoton. Similarly to their toxicity to freshwater fish the two primary degradates – D. sulfone and D. sulfoxide – are respectively approximately 1/ 3 to 1/ 5 as acutely toxic as parent disulfoton.. The chronic toxicity to daphnia magna of these two degradates is approximately 1/ 3 (for D. sulfone) and 1/ 45 (for D. sulfoxide). The invertebrates were dosed four times during the first 28 days of the 77 day study. An analysis of the data suggests short term negative impact from exposure as low as 3 ppb, but recovery occurred by the end of the study for most invertebrate populations exposed to 30 ppb. It should be noted that at this time the Agency has not validated the significance of microcosm studies.

(iii) Estuarine and Marine Fish – Acute and Chronic Risk There is uncertainty in using the PRZM/ EXAMS EECs derived for ponds to predict exposure to marine/ estuarine organisms. The scenarios modeled are based on hydrologic data for ponds. Estuarine fish residing in the upper reaches of tributaries of bays would be exposed to residues coming from adjacent crop lands. Exposure to pesticide residues in estuarine habitats may be higher or lower than that predicted for pond, depending upon the volume of water and residence time in the estuary. An additional uncertainty is the fact that the only species tested

Sheepshead minnow probably does not represent the true range of sensitivity of marine or estuarine fish; therefore both the acute and chronic risk may be underestimated. Nevertheless, acute risk to estuarine and marine fish appears to be low, because the RQs for all modeled crops are less than 0.05 –the LOC for endangered species.

Concerning chronic risk, in addition to the previously stated uncertainties, other uncertainties are the duration adult fish must be exposed to disulfoton for their reproductive systems to be effected and when in their reproductive cycle is the impact occurring. For example, even if adults are effected after an exposure of only a week, disulfoton residues may dissipate from an area within several days resulting in little or no chronic risk. However, based on modeling and the results (endpoints of concern included fecundity, hatching success, and growth) of the fish full life cycle test only some of the uses on 3 crops – tobacco, cotton and barley – slightly exceed the chronic risk levels of concern. The RQs showing exceedences range 18 from 2 for barley ( 2 lb ai/ A, 2 applications at 21 day intervals) to 5 for tobacco (a single application of the liquid formulation at 4 lb ai/ A). All other modeled uses had RQs less than the level of concern of 1.

(iv) Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates – Acute and Chronic Risk Similar to the risk assessment for estuarine fish the same uncertainties associated with exposure apply to estuarine invertebrates. Most of the modeled scenarios do not exceed the acute or restricted use criteria for marine and estuarine invertebrates. The RQs range from <0.01 (a single soil injected application of 1 2.5 lbs ai/ A for a variety of vegetables) to 1.26 ( one aerial application of the liquid formulation at 4 lbs ai/ A to tobacco). Although nearly all uses exceeded endangered species risk concerns, currently there are no marine or estuarine invertebrates listed as endangered. Few of the modeled crop scenarios show the potential for chronic risk to marine and estuarine invertebrates; those that do (ie some uses in tobacco, cotton and barley) have RQs between 1 and 5. Mysid shrimp are less sensitive than daphnia, the surrogate for freshwater invertebrates; therefore, on the basis of this limited data, the chronic impact to estuarine invertebrates appears to be lower than freshwater invertebrates.

The following 3 tables – 13 thru 15 – contain the Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) and Risk Quotients (RQs) for the risk assessment for freshwater and estuarine organisms. 19 Table 13. Tier II Upper Tenth Percentile EECs for Disulfoton Parent Used on barley, cotton, potatoes,

tobacco, and wheat for current and proposed applications estimated using PRZM3/ EXAMS Crop Disulfoton Application Concentration ( : g/ L)

(1 in 10 annual yearly maximum value) Mean of Annual Means ( : g/ L)

Rate/ Number of Apps/ Interval/ Incorp.

Depth / method 1 lb. ai/ A/ #/ days/ inches Peak 96 Hour Avg. 21 Day Avg. 60 Day Avg. 90 Day Avg. Annual Avg.

Tobacco 4.0/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ a, s 18.97 17.26 11.86 7.12 4.91 1.24 0.83 Tobacco 4.0/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s 12.02 10.93 8.08 4.39 3.04 0.76 0.35 Tobacco 4.0/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s (granular) 2. 09 1. 90 1. 41 0. 75 0. 52 0. 13 0. 05 Barley 1.0 /2/ 21/ 0/ a, f 8. 28 7. 44 5. 52 3. 58 2. 91 0. 75 0. 49 Barley 1.0 /2/ 21/ 0/ g, f 6. 61 5. 94 4. 47 2. 65 2. 04 0. 52 0. 25 Barley 1.0/ 2/ 21/ 0/ g, s (granular) 6. 41 5. 75 4. 35 2. 56 1. 90 0. 47 0. 19 Cotton 1. 0 /1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s 4.28 3.89 2.83 1.46 1.00 0.25 0.10 Cotton SLN (TX) 0.2/ 2/ 21/ 0 /a, f 2.71 2.36 1.55 0.92 0.66 0.18 0.13 Cotton 1. 0/ 1/ 0/ 2.50/ g, s (granular) 0. 79 0. 72 0. 52 0. 27 0. 19 0. 05 0. 02 Cotton, wheat 1/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s (injection) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Potatoes 0.5 /3/ 14/ 0/ a, f 2. 91 2. 59 2. 07 1. 33 0. 94 0. 23 0. 20 Potatoes 3.0/ 1/ 0/ 0/ g, s 2. 53 2. 26 1. 74 0. 92 0. 63 0. 17 0. 11 Potatoes 3.0/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s 1. 81 1. 63 1. 27 0. 64 0. 44 0. 11 0. 09 Potatoes 0.5 /3/ 14/ 0/ g, f 1. 32 1. 18 0. 87 0. 50 0. 36 0. 09 0. 06 Potatoes 3.0/ 1/ 0/ 2.5/ g, s (granular) 0. 53 0. 47 0. 35 0. 18 0. 12 0. 03 0. 11 Sorghum 0.5/ 2/ 14/ 0a, f 2.98 2.59 1.74 1.04 0.71 0.20 0.13 Crop Disulfoton Application Concentration ( : g/ L)

(1 in 10 annual yearly maximum value) Mean of Annual Means ( : g/ L)

Rate/ Number of Apps/ Interval/ Incorp.

Depth / method 1 lb. ai/ A/ #/ days/ inches Peak 96 Hour Avg. 21 Day Avg. 60 Day Avg. 90 Day Avg. Annual Avg.

20 Sorghum 0.5/ 2/ 3/ 0a, f 2.90 2.52 1.76 0.94 0.64 0.18 0.13 Sorghum 0.5/ 2/ 14/ 0g, f 2. 00 1. 74 1. 03 0. 55 0. 38 0. 11 0. 04 Sorghum 1/ 1/ 0/ 4 g, s (granular) 0. 86 0. 78 0. 51 0. 23 0. 16 0. 05 0. 02 Winter wheat 0.75/ 1// 0/ 0 a, f 2. 19 1. 98 1. 54 0. 77 0. 53 0. 14 0. 11 Winter wheat 0.75/ 1// 0/ 0 g, f 0. 95 0. 85 0. 60 0. 30 0. 21 0. 05 0. 03 Winter wheat 1/ 1/ 0/ 0 g, s (granular) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 Spring Wheat 0.75/ 1// 0/ 0 a, f 2. 10 1. 96 1. 54 0. 86 0. 59 0. 16 0. 13 Values are Tier II Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Disulfoton Parent using PRZM/ EXAMS based on Current and Proposed Rates for Disulfoton All EECs are the 1 in 10 annual yearly maximum values.

1 Method of application: g = ground, a = aerial f = foliar and s = soil; unless specified the emulsifiable concentrate (EC) was modeled. 21 Table 14. Acute Risks to Freshwater and Estuarine Organisms Potentially Exposed to Disulfoton in Surface Water Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs = EEC/ Tox value) for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Peak (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine Fish (Bluegill) LC50 39 ppb Invertebrates (glass shrimp) LC50 3.9 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) LC50 520 ppb Invertebrates (Brown Shrimp) LC50 15 ppb Tobacco 4, aerial (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 19 0.48 4.8 0. 04 1. 26 4, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 12 0.30 3 0. 02 0. 80 Tobacco (Granular) 4, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 2 0. 05 0. 5 <0.01 0. 13 Barley Asparagus 1 1, aerial (foliar) 2 21 8. 3 0.21 2.1 0. 02 0. 55 1, ground (foliar) 2 21 6. 6 0.17 1.7 0. 01 0. 44 Barley (Granular) 1, ground (soil)

unincorporated 2 21 6. 4 0.16 1.6 0. 01 0. 43 Cotton 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 4.3 0. 11 1. 1 <0.01 0. 28 Cotton (SLN)

TX 0.2, aerial (foliar) 2 21 2. 7 0.07 0.7 <0.01 0.18 Cotton (granular) 1, ground (soil)

incorporation 1 N/ A 0.8 2 0.02 0.2 <0.01 0.05 Sorghum 0.5, aerial (foliar) 2 3 approx 3 0. 08 0. 77 <0.01 0.20 14 Sorghum 0.5, ground (foliar) 2 14 2 0.05 0.5 <0.01 0.13 Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs = EEC/ Tox value) for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Peak (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine Fish (Bluegill) LC50 39 ppb Invertebrates (glass shrimp) LC50 3.9 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) LC50 520 ppb Invertebrates (Brown Shrimp) LC50 15 ppb 22 Sorghum 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A between 0.9 and 2 0.04 3 0.4 3 <0.01 3 0.10 3 Sorghum (granular) 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 0.9 0. 02 0. 2 <0.01 0. 06 Cotton, peanuts, sorghum (granular) 1, ground (soil) in furrow 1 N/ A< 0. 8 3 <0.02 <0.2 <0.01 <0.05 Cotton 1, ground (soil)

injection 1 1 approx zero <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Potatoes 0.5, aerial (foliar) 3 14 2. 9 0.07 0.7 <0.01 0.19 3, ground (soil)

unincorporated 1 N/ A 2.5 0. 06 0. 6 <0.01 0. 17 3, ground (soil)

in furrow 1 N/ A 1.8 0. 05 0. 5 <0.01 0. 12 0.5, ground (foliar) 3 14 1. 3 0.33 0.3 <0.01 0.09 Potatoes (N. West only) 4 3, ground (foliar) chemigation 1 N/ A between 1.8 and 2.5 0.05 5 0.5 5 <0.01 5 N/ A 0.14 5 N/ A Potatoes (granular) 3, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 0.5 0. 01 0. 1 <0.01 0. 03 Peas, lentiles 6 2.5, ground (soil) in furrow 1 N/ A 2.5 0. 06 0. 6 <0.01 0. 17 Wheat (Fall) 0.75, aerial (foliar) 1 N/ A 2.1 0. 05 0. 5 <0.01 0. 14 Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs = EEC/ Tox value) for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Peak (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine Fish (Bluegill) LC50 39 ppb Invertebrates (glass shrimp) LC50 3.9 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) LC50 520 ppb Invertebrates (Brown Shrimp) LC50 15 ppb 23 Wheat (Spring) 0.75, aerial (foliar) 1 N/ A 2.2 0. 06 0. 6 <0.01 0. 15 0.75, ground (foliar) 1 N/ A 0.9 0. 02 0. 2 <0.01 0. 06 Wheat (granular) 1, ground (soil)

unincorporated 1 N/ A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Chili peppers 7 2, ground (soil)

incorporated. 1 N/ A 1.2 0. 03 0. 3 <0.01 0. 08 Chili peppers 8 (granular) 2, ground (soil)

incorporated. 1 N/ A 0.3 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0. 02 Peas, lentils Beans (snap,

dry & lima), lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage, wheat, barley 9 1 to 2.5, ground (soil)

injection 1 N/ A approx zero <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1 The RQs for asparagus in the N West are assumed to be much less than for foliar applications to barley even though there is potential for three applications..

There is little or no rainfall causing runoff during the application period. (Personnel communication with Alan Schriber Wash State Dept of Ag). However, EECs may be higher where rainfall is expected.

2 In furrow locates most of the applied material lower in the soil profile than incorporation by tillage; therefore exposure from run off will be less.

3 RQ derived from the average of the range of EECs (1.45) divided by the toxicity value.

4 Other potato scenarios were for Maine where run off and rainfall is greater than N West. Although drift may be greater than conventional ground spray (1 %)

the proximity to adjacent water bodies is farther in the N West. Finally, the amount available for runoff is less when material is applied to foliage rather than soil.

5 RQ derived from the average of the range of EECs (2.15) divided by the toxicity value.

6 EEC is estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid when in furrow) 24 7 EEC estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid, soil incorporation)

8 EEC estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application granular, soil incorporation)

9 EEC is estimated to be the same as for cotton (1 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid when injected = approx. zero)

Based on the data described above, disulfoton poses the greatest acute risk to freshwater invertebrates and the least risk to estuarine fish.

Table 15. Chronic Risks to Freshwater and Estuarine Organisms Potentially Exposed to Disulfoton in Surface Water Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs =EEC/ NOAEC) 1 for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Day Ave (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine 21 60 90 Fish (Bluegill) 2 4.6 ppb Invertebrates (Daphnia) 0.037 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) 3 0.96  16.2 ppb Invertebrates (Mysid Shrimp) 2.35 ppb Tobacco 4, aerial (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 12 7 5 1. 5 324 0.4  5 5 4, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A8 4 3 0. 92160. 2  33 Tobacco (Granular) 4, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 1.4 0. 7 0.5 0. 1 38 <0.1  0.5 0. 6 Barley, asparagus 4 1, aerial (foliar) 2 21 5. 5 3.6 2. 9 0.8 149 0.2  3 2. 3 1, ground (foliar) 2 21 4. 5 2.6 2 0.6 122 0.2  2 1. 9 Barley (Granular) 1, ground (soil)

unincorporated 2 21 4. 3 2.5 1. 9 0.5 116 0.1 2 1.8 Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs =EEC/ NOAEC) 1 for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Day Ave (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine 21 60 90 Fish (Bluegill) 2 4.6 ppb Invertebrates (Daphnia) 0.037 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) 3 0.96  16.2 ppb Invertebrates (Mysid Shrimp) 2.35 ppb 25 Cotton 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 2.8 1. 5 1 0. 3 76 <0.1  1 1. 2 Cotton (SLN)

TX 0.2, aerial (foliar) 2 21 1. 5 0.9 0. 7 0.2 40 <0.1  0.7 0. 6 Cotton (granular) 1, ground (soil)

incorporation 1 N/ A 0.5 5 0.3 5 0.2 5 <0.1 13 <0.1  0.2 0. 2 Sorghum 0.5, aerial (foliar) 2 3 approx 1.7 approx 1.0 approx 0.7 0.2 46 <0.1  0.7 0. 7 14 Sorghum 0.5, ground (foliar) 2 14 1. 0 0.5 0. 4 0.1 27 <0.1  0.4 0. 4 Sorghum 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A between 0.5 and 1.0 between 0.2 and 0.5 between 0.1 and 0.4 <0.1 6 19 6 <0.1  0.2 6 0.3 6 Sorghum (granular) 1, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 0.5 0. 2 0.1 <0.1 13 <0.1  0.1 0. 2 Cotton, peanuts, sorghum (granular) 1, ground (soil) in furrow 1 N/ A< 0. 5 6 <0.3 6 <0.2 6 <0.1 <13 <0.1 < 0.2 <0.2 Cotton 1, ground (soil)

injection 1 N/ A approx zero approx zero approx zero <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Potatoes 0.5, aerial (foliar) 3 14 2 1.3 0. 9 0.3 54 <0.1  0.9 0. 8 3, ground (soil)

unincorporated 1 N/ A 1.7 0. 9 0.6 0. 2 50 <0.1  0.6 0. 7 Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs =EEC/ NOAEC) 1 for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Day Ave (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine 21 60 90 Fish (Bluegill) 2 4.6 ppb Invertebrates (Daphnia) 0.037 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) 3 0.96  16.2 ppb Invertebrates (Mysid Shrimp) 2.35 ppb 26 3, ground (soil)

in furrow 1 N/ A 1.3 0. 6 0.4 0. 1 35 <0.1  0.4 0. 5 0.5, ground (foliar) 3 14 0. 9 0.5 0. 4 0.1 24 <0.1  0.4 0. 4 Potatoes (N. West only) 7 3, ground (foliar) chemigation 1 N/ A between 1.3 and 1.7 between 0.6 and 0.9 between 0.4 and 0.6 0.1 8 40 8 <0.1  0.5 8 N/ A 0.6 8 N/ A Potatoes (granular) 3, ground (soil)

incorporated 1 N/ A 0.3 0. 2 0.1 <0.1 8 <0.1  0.1 0. 1 Peas, lentiles 9 2.5, ground (soil) in furrow 1 N/ A 1.1 0. 5 0.3 0. 1 30 <0.1  0.3 0. 5 Wheat (Fall) 0.75, aerial (foliar) 1 N/ A 1.5 0. 9 0.6 0. 2 40 <0.1  0.6 0. 6 Wheat (Spring) 0.75, aerial (foliar) 1 N/ A 1.5 0. 8 0.5 0. 2 40 <0.1  0.5 0. 6 0.75, ground (foliar) 1 N/ A 0.6 0. 3 0.2 <0.1 16 <0.1  0.2 0. 3 Wheat (granular) 1, ground (soil)

unincorporated 1 N/ A 0.002 0.001 0.001 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 Chili peppers 10 2, ground (soil), incorp. 1 N/ A 0.8 0. 4 0.3 <. 1 21 <0.1  0.3 0. 3 Chili peppers 11 granular 2, ground (soil), incorp. 1 N/ A 0.2 0. 1 0.07 <0.1 5 <0.1 <0.1 Use Scenario Risk Quotients (RQs =EEC/ NOAEC) 1 for Aquatic Organisms Crop and Formulation (liquid unless specified) Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)/

Method/ Site (foliar or soil) Number of Applications per Season Time Interval between Applications (days) Day Ave (ppb ai) Freshwater Estuarine 21 60 90 Fish (Bluegill) 2 4.6 ppb Invertebrates (Daphnia) 0.037 ppb Fish (Sheepshead Minnow) 3 0.96  16.2 ppb Invertebrates (Mysid Shrimp) 2.35 ppb 27 Peas, lentils beans (snap,

dry & lima), lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage, wheat, 12 1 to 2.5, ground (soil),

injection 1 N/ A approx zero approx zero approx zero <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1Risk quotients for fresh water / estuarine invertebrates and freshwater fish are based on 21 and 60 day EECs, respectively.

2 Bluegill NOAEC (4.6 ppb) is derived from the less sensitive rainbow trout chronic: acute ratio of 0.119.

3 Risk quotients for estuarine fish are based on 60 and 90 day EECs. Lower value derived is from 60 EEC and fish early life stage (fertilized egg through swim up stage of larvae). Higher value is from 90 day EEC and full life cycle (fertilized egg through survival of juveniles of next generation).

4 The RQs for asparagus in the N West are assumed to be less than for foliar applications to barley even though there is potential for three applications. There is little or no rainfall causing runoff during the application period. (Personnel communication with Alan Schriber Wash State Dept of Ag). However, EECs may be higher where rainfall is expected.

5 In furrow locates most of the applied material lower in the soil profile than incorporation by tillage; therefore exposure from run off will be less.

6 RQ derived from the average of the range of EECs divided by the toxicity value. The averages are as follows: 21 day ave.= 0.7, 60 day ave.= 0.3, 90 day ave= 0.2.

7 Other potato scenarios were for Maine where run off and rainfall is greater than N West. Although drift may be greater than conventional ground spray (1 %)

the proximity to adjacent water bodies is farther in the N West. Finally, the amount available for runoff is less when material is applied to foliage rather than soil.

8 RQ derived from the average of the range of EECs divided by the toxicity value. The averages are as follows: 21 day ave.= 1.5, 60 day ave.= 0.7, 90 day ave= 0.5.

9 EEC is estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid when in furrow)

10 EEC estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid, soil incorporation)

11 EEC estimated to be proportional to the EEC for potato (3 lb ai/ A ground application granular, soil incorporation)

12 EEC is estimated to be the same as for cotton (1 lb ai/ A ground application of liquid when injected = approx. zero)

Based on the data described above, freshwater invertebrates are at greater chronic risk than fish or estuarine invertebrates. 28 Risks to Nontarget Organisms from the use of Disulfoton 15 on Christmas Trees in North Carolina The use of Disulfoton 15 G in Christmas tree farms at this time can not be modeled for potential surface water contamination. EFED assumes the estimated concentration for the North Carolina 24 (c) use pattern  4.5 lbs ai/ A unincorporated  may be similar to the values for the single 4.0 lb ai/ A incorporated application of granular disulfoton to tobacco. Based on this assumption there is potential for acute risk and chronic to aquatic invertebrates and chronic risk to freshwater fish. This assumption would be more likely when the receiving body of water is a pond, rather than a stream. The Christmas tree use pattern has a higher rate than tobacco; the granules are unincorporated; and current cultural practices recommend maintaining vegetation under the trees and between the rows. Therefore while the first two conditions may increase the estimated concentrations above those for tobacco, the third condition may reduce the concentrations as the absence of soil erosion reduces the amount of disulfoton moving off site. Since this preliminary screen of the 24( c) exceeds levels of concern, the Sec 3 use at 59.7 lbs ai/ A would exceed (perhaps by 20 fold) the same levels of concern for aquatic life as well as the acute risk for fish.

The North Carolina Christmas tree industry has provided information that has contributed to a refinement of EFED's risk assessment for aquatic organisms from Christmas tree farming. First, the nearly exclusive use for Disulfoton 15 G on Christmas trees throughout the United States is on Fraser fir grown in 6 counties in Western North Carolina, thereby localizing the exposure and precluding any estuarine exposure. Second, the primary aquatic sites adjacent to tree farms are streams, not ponds. Residues in these streams will be lower and of shorter duration than would be expected for a pond. Third, two rapid assessment macro invertebrate surveys of streams in the Western region of North Carolina have been submitted. These studies show that when conservation measures associated with Christmas tree farming in the Western counties of North Carolina are implemented, there may be only slight, short term impact to aquatic macro invertebrates from disulfoton use. The Agency concurs with the investigators that when implementing (but not limited to) conservation measures such as establishing ground cover throughout the farm, constructing and maintaining the fewest number of roads and bridges, creating a riparian zone to include vegetation and trees and employing Integrated Pest Management practices, there appears to be " ... little negative effect on the fauna of adjacent streams...." The slight negative effect that was observed seemed to impact stoneflies (Plecoptera) more than the two other orders– caddisflies (Trichoptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera)  that were the focus of the survey. In conclusion, aquatic macro invertebrates appear to have the capacity to recover from impacts that could be caused by disulfoton use on Christmas trees in Western North Carolina.

(e) Nontarget Plants EPA was unable to conduct a risk assessment for nontarget plants due to a lack of test data. Nontarget plant testing was not required for disulfoton because it is not a herbicide. r, the Di Syston 8 EC label contains phytotoxicity statements suggesting a potential risk to nontarget plants. Therefore Tier 1 seedling emergence (850.4100) and Tier I vegetative vigor (850.4150) are requested to support the liquid formulations of disulfoton.

(f) Endangered Species 29 For disulfoton, EPA has risk concerns for the following scenarios: avian acute, avian chronic, mammalian acute, mammalian chronic, freshwater fish acute, freshwater invertebrate acute, freshwater invertebrate chronic, marine/ estuarine fish acute, marine/ estuarine fish chronic, marine/ estuarine invertebrate acute, and marine/ estuarine invertebrate chronic. Endangered terrestrial, semi aquatic and aquatic plants also may be affected, based on label statements indicating phytotoxicity.

The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for REDs into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticides uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. This analysis will include consideration of the regulatory changes recommended in this RED. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary.

At present, the program is being implemented on an interim basis as described in a Federal Register notice (54 FR 27984 28008, July 3, 1989). A final program, which may be altered from the interim program, will be proposed in a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication in autumn of 2001.

(g) Ecological Incident Reports Several reports of wildlife poisonings are associated with disulfoton. These poisoning incidents are summarized in Table 16 below. Some of these incident reports support EPA's concerns for acute risk. 30 Table 16. Chronological List of Ecological Incidents Start Date Misuse? (yes/ no/ un known) Incident Description 6/ 12/ 95 unknown Johnston County, NC: Fish kill occurred in commercial fish pond. Crop fields nearby treated with pesticides. Water, soil and vegetation samples analyzed for a variety of pesticides. Disulfoton, as well as several other pesticides, was found at 0.2 2.5 ppm in vegetation samples. Possible certainty index for disulfoton. (Incident Report No. I003826 002).

1/ 24/ 94 unknown Puerto Rico: 6 grackles fell dead from tree in yard of private residence. Dead heron and owl also found in vicinity. Use site and method not reported. Birds had depressed acetyl cholinesterase. Analysis of GI contents of a grackles showed disulfoton at 2.37 ppm wet weight. Highly probable certainty index for disulfoton. (Incident Report No. I003966 004).

6/ 11/ 94 unknown Arapahoe CO: Fish kill following application of Di Syston EC. to wheat just before heavy rain. Water samples contained disulfoton sulfoxide at 29.5 48.7 ppb and disulfoton sulfone at 0.0199 0.214 ppb. (Incident Report No. I001167 001).

6/ 18/ 93 No Young County, TX: 18 Swainson's hawks dead, 1severely disabled in a cotton field. Cotton seed had been treated with disulfoton prior to planting, ~10 days before the birds were discovered. No additional applications of OP or carbamate pesticides made in vicinity of field. Autopsies showed no trauma or disease. Lab analysis showed insect material in GI tracts; this material contained disulfoton (~ 7 ppm); no other OP or carbamate insecticides were present. Hawks fed on insects, which had been feeding on the young cotton plants, which contained disulfoton residues. (L. Lyon, Div. of Environmental Contaminants, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA.)

6/ 22/ 91 unknown Onslow County, NC: Fish kill in pond at private residence. Pond received runoff from neighboring tobacco field; pondwater analysis showed disulfoton and several other pesticides, including endosulfan. Disulfoton sulfoxide found in water at 0.32 ppb. Endosulfan had highest concentration (1.2 µg/ L), and is toxic to fish, but disulfoton cannot be ruled out as a possible cause of death. No tissue analysis. Possible certainty index for disulfoton. (Incident Report No. B0000216 025).

4/ 26/ 91 unknown Sussex County, DE: 9 American robins dead following application of granular disulfoton at tree nursery. Corn and soybeans also in vicinity. No laboratory analysis. Probable certainty index for disulfoton. (Incident Report No. I000116 003).


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 40366]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97727; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 307, Position
Limits

June 14, 2023.
    On April 21, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 307,
Position Limits, to establish a process for adjusting option position
limits following a stock split or reverse stock split in the underlying
security. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 8, 2023.\3\ The Commission has received no
comment letters regarding 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. 97421 (May 2, 2023),
88 FR 29725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 June 22, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. 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, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates August 6, 2023, as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13109 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32022-32024]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14430]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81079; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, to
Amend Listing Standards for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies to
Modify the Initial and Continued Distribution Requirements

July 5, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On March 20, 2017, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 amend listing standards for Special Purpose
Acquisition Companies (``SPACs'') to modify the initial and continued
distribution requirements, and to make other minor changes. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 6, 2017.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. On May 19, 2017, the Commission designated a longer period
for Commission action until July 5, 2017.\4\ On May 23, 2017, NYSE
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. On June 19, 2017, NYSE withdrew
Amendment No. 1 and filed Amendment No. 2 to, among other things,
revise the proposed continued listing distribution standard from a
requirement of 300 total stockholders to a requirement of 300 public
stockholders.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice of Amendment
No. 2 and approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80358 (March 31,
2017), 82 FR 16865 (April 6, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80735 (May 19,
2017), 82 FR 24173 (May 25, 2017) (``Extension'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange replaced the proposal in
its entirety. Amendment No. 2, in addition to changing the proposed
distribution standard to 300 public stockholders, rather than 300
total stockholders as originally proposed, specifies that NYSE
Listed Company Manual (``Manual'') Section 802.01A does not apply to
SPACs, defines the term ``public stockholders,'' and corrects
typographical errors. Text of Amendment No. 2 is available as a
comment letter to this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 2

A. General Background on SPACs

    A SPAC is a special purpose company that raises capital in an
initial public offering (``IPO'') to enter into future undetermined
business combinations through mergers, capital stock exchanges, assets
acquisitions, stock purchases, reorganizations or similar business
combinations with one or more operating businesses or assets. The
Exchange represented that in an IPO, a SPAC typically sells units
consisting of one share of common stock and one or more warrants (or
fraction of a warrant) to purchase common stocks. The units are
separable at some point after the IPO. The Exchange also noted that
management of the SPAC typically receives a percentage of the equity at
the outset and may be required to purchase additional shares in a
private placement at the time of the IPO. Due to their different
structure, SPACs do not have any prior financial history, at the time
of their listing, like operating companies.

B. Proposed Changes to Round Lot Holders in Initial Listing Standards

    NYSE Manual Section 102.06 sets forth the initial listing standards
that apply to SPACs.\6\ Currently, in order to list on the Exchange, a
SPAC is required to meet, among other standards, initial distribution
requirements including having at least 400 round lot holders.\7\ The
Exchange proposes to lower the initial distribution requirements of
round lot holders from 400 to 300 for a SPAC listing either in
connection with an IPO or a transfer from another exchange or a
quotation listing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that throughout this order we have used
the term ``SPAC'' or ``SPACs'', but these terms have the same
meaning as ``Acquisition Company'' or ``Acquisition Companies''
which are the terms used for listing, and continued listing, in
Section 102.06 of the Manual.
    \7\ See NYSE Manual Section 102.01A.
    \8\ The other alternative distribution criteria that currently
apply to transfers and quotation listings will remain unchanged but
is being moved so that all the criteria for listing SPACs will be
contained in Section 102.06 of the Manual. See Notice, supra note 3
and discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Changes to Total Stockholders in Continued Listing
Standards

    NYSE Manual Section 802.01B sets forth the continued listing
standards that apply to SPACs. Currently, a SPAC is deemed below the
continued listing standards if, among other things, the SPAC's total
number of stockholders is less than 400. The Exchange proposes to
change this continued distribution requirement to 300 public
stockholders.\9\ In connection with the amendment, the Exchange
proposes to define ``public stockholders'' to exclude holders that are
directors, officers, or their immediate families and holders of other
concentrated holdings of 10% or more.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5 and accompanying text. As
with the initial standards, the alternative shareholder and other
distribution continued listing standards will remain unchanged.
    \10\ The Exchange represents that it primarily relies on the
beneficial ownership disclosure included in the issuers'
registration statements and annual meeting proxy statements in
calculating publicly held shares and public stockholders, but also
refers to other SEC filings where appropriate and its determinations
are made in accordance with Rule 13d-3 under the Act. The Exchange
stated that this is its practice under all of its rules where these
calculations must be made. The Exchange also stated that this is the
practice of NYSE MKT and the Exchange believes that its approach is
generally consistent with that of the NASDAQ Stock Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Technical Changes

    The Exchange also has proposed four technical changes to its
initial and continued listing standards on SPACs. First, the Exchange
proposed to consolidate the SPAC initial listing standards in Section
102.06 of the Manual, rather than referring to Section 102.01A of the
Manual, which applies for operating companies. Second, the Exchange
proposed to move a sentence in Section 102.06 of the Manual that
details the minimum price per share for a SPAC at the time of initial
listing from the end to the beginning of the same paragraph. Third, the
Exchange proposed to delete an incorrect reference to footnote (A) that
is included following the aggregate market value requirement in Section
102.06 of the Manual.\11\ Finally, the Exchange proposed to add
language to the continued listing criteria applicable to SPACs set
forth in Section 801.01B of the Manual clarifying that the distribution
standards in Section

802.01A of the Manual do not apply to SPACs. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange also proposes correct two instances of a
typographical error included in the original filing by adding a
second ``or'' to the phrase ``Number of holders of 100 shares or
more or of a unit of trading. . .'' in Section 102.06 of the Manual.
See Amendment No. 2.
    \12\ The Exchange represented that the proposed rule change
would not affect the status of NYSE listed securities under Rule
3a51-1(a) of the Act (``Penny Stock Rule'')1 because the proposed
standards will satisfy the requirements of Rule 3a51-1(a)(2) under
the Act.1 While the proposed requirements do not include a
requirement that newly-listed SPACs have at least $5 million in
stockholders' equity as required by Rule 3a51-1(a)(2)(i)(A)(1) under
the Act,1 the Exchange represented that the current requirement for
a SPAC to place at least 90% of its offering proceeds in trust upon
consummation of its IPO would ensure that all SPACs meet the Penny
Stock Rule's requirement. To be considered for listing, the Exchange
requires SPACs to demonstrate, among other things, an aggregate
market value of $100,000,000 and a market value of publicly-held
shares of $80,000,000. See NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections
102.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
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-NYSE-2017-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-11. 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 will also 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-11 and should be
submitted on or before August 1, 2017.

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2, and finds that it is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\13\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development and enforcement of adequate listing standards
governing the initial and continued distribution of securities on an
exchange is an activity of critical importance to financial markets and
the investing public. Listing standards, among other things, serve as a
means for an exchange to screen issuers and to provide listed status
only to bona fide companies that have, or in the case of an IPO, will
have, sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to
provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly
markets. Adequate listing standards are especially important given the
expectations of investors regarding exchange trading and the imprimatur
of listing on a particular market. Once a security has been
distributed, maintenance criteria allow an exchange to monitor the
status and trading characteristics of that security to ensure that the
security continues to meet the exchange's standards for market depth
and liquidity so that fair and orderly markets can be maintained.
    As noted above, SPACs are companies that raise capital in IPOs,
with the purpose of purchasing existing operating companies or assets
within a certain time frame. One of the important investor protection
safeguards incorporated into the Exchange's listing standards for SPACs
is the right of public shareholders \15\ to convert their shares for a
pro rata share of the cash held in the trust account, provided that the
business combination is approved and consummated.\16\ The Exchange
noted that the securities of SPACs typically have a trading price very
close to their liquidation value. The Exchange stated its belief that
due to this trading characteristic, liquidity and market efficiency
concerns relevant to listed operating companies do not arise to the
same degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 801.01B of the Manual defines public shareholders
would exclude holders that are directors, officers, or their
immediate families and holders of other concentrated holdings of 10%
or more.
    \16\ See NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections 102.06(b). If a
shareholder vote is not held on a Business Combination for which the
company must file and furnish a proxy or information statement
subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Act, the company must
provide all shareholders with the opportunity to redeem all their
shares for cash equal to their pro rata share of the aggregate
amount then in the deposit account, pursuant to Rule 13e-4 under the
Act (which regulates issuer tender offers). See NYSE Listed Company
Manual Sections 102.06(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the initial and continued
distribution requirement for a SPAC listing. For initial distribution,
either in connection with an IPO or a transfer from another exchange or
a quotation listing, the Exchange proposes to lower the round lot
holders requirement from at least 400 round lot holders to at least 300
round lot holders. For continued distribution, the Exchange proposes to
change the stockholders requirement from 400 total stockholders to 300
public stockholders. The Commission notes that Nasdaq Capital Market
has similar distribution requirements, and unlike the stockholders of
many operating companies, public stockholders of a SPAC have a cash
conversion right in certain limited circumstances related to the SPAC's
business combination.\17\ The Commission has previously stated that the
conversion right is an important part of the investor protection
mechanism for SPAC stockholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If the tender offer option is used all shareholders must be
provided an opportunity to redeem their shares for cash. See note
16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange stated that the
stockholder

requirements are important because the existence of a significant
number of stockholders can be an indicia of a liquid trading market
which helps to support price discovery. The Exchange further
represented, in contrast to operating companies, that the securities of
a SPAC trade very close to their liquidation value. The Exchange
concludes that because the pricing of a SPAC is related to its
liquidation value there is less reliance on stockholder requirements
when listing SPACs, as opposed to operating companies, to assure
appropriate price discovery.
    The Commission believes that the conversion right and the nature of
SPAC securities pricing support the proposed amendment to treat
securities of SPACs and operating companies differently. In approving
the NYSE's proposal, the Commission notes that we are doing so only in
the narrow context of SPACs based on the NYSE's representations that
the added liquidity and price discovery that additional shareholders
can provide to the market place is less important in the context of a
SPAC due to the price discovery issues noted above. As NYSE also notes
in its filing, once the SPAC becomes an operating company it will have
to meet the higher 400 round lot holder requirement to remain listed
and the 400 total stockholders continued listing standard requirement,
which is the same standard for any operating company. As noted earlier,
the Exchange proposed to make a number of technical amendments. The
Commission finds these technical changes should clarify the Exchange's
rules, as well as help to avoid confusion on which continued
distribution standards apply, and are consistent with the requirements
of the Act. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed changes to SPAC listing standards are consistent with the
requirements of the Act.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\18\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after publication of Amendment
No. 2 in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 2 revises the proposed
continued listing distribution standards from a requirement of 300
total stockholders to a requirement of 300 public stockholders,
specifies that Section 802.01A does not apply to SPACs, defines the
term ``public stockholders'', and corrects typographical errors. The
Commission notes that the other changes proposed in the rule change are
not being amended and was subject to a full notice-and-comment period
and no comments were received.\19\ The revisions in Amendment No. 2
align the proposal more closely to Nasdaq Capital Market with respect
to the public stockholders continued distribution requirement and
definition of the term, adds clarity to the proposal, and does not
raise any novel regulatory concerns. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that good cause exists to approve the proposal, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ See note 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered that pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act \20\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2,
(SR-NYSE-2017-11) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \21\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-14430 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P