[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63564]
[DOCID:fr09no07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-115-003]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 30, 2007, Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P. (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with
an effective date of December 1, 2007:

Original Sheet No. 35B
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 211
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 213
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 501
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 529
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 627

    Texas Eastern states that the filing is being made in compliance
with the Commission's order issued on June 8, 2007 in Docket No. CP06-
115-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone
filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties
to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time November 7, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22018 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 57926-57927]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12851-000]

FFP Project 7, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

October 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12851-000.
    c. Date filed: July 25, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 7, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Gouldsboro Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. The project uses no dam or
impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 7, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12851-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1)
1,000 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 20 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 7, LLC, project would
have an average annual generation of 87.6 gigawatt-hours and be sold to
a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the

particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must
conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``COMPETING
APPLICATION'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'',
``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20016 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7703-7705]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1014; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00428-T;
Amendment 39-21928; AD 2022-03-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a report that the design of the spoiler control system causes certain
engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) messages to be
posted intermittently and repetitively during flight and on the ground,
and flightcrews must action the appropriate checklist each time these
messages appear. This AD requires revising the Non-Normal Procedures
section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) associated with
the spoiler electronic control unit (SECU) EICAS messages. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1014.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1014; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-14, dated April 7,
2021 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1014.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc.,
Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on November 26, 2021 (86 FR 67362). The NPRM was prompted by a report
that the design of the spoiler control system causes certain EICAS
messages to be posted intermittently and repetitively during flight and
on the ground, and flightcrews must action the appropriate checklist
each time these messages appear. The NPRM proposed to require revising
the Non-Normal Procedures section of the existing AFM associated with
the SECU EICAS messages. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
intermittent and repetitive messaging, which increases overall workload
and introduces a risk that flightcrews could become desensitized over
time to the messages. This could result in the required checklist not
being carried out or completed, and could adversely affect the
airplane's continued safe flight and landing. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following AFM procedures, which include a
Caution and a Note to the SPOILERS FAULT (C) Non-Normal Procedures, to
reinforce the importance of completing the procedure in its entirety
each time the message appears.
     Section 05-23, Flight Controls, of Chapter 05, Non-Normal
Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger 300 (Imperial Version)
Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CSP 100-1, Revision 61, dated
September 25, 2020. (For obtaining this section of the Bombardier
Challenger 300 (Imperial Version) Airplane Flight Manual, Publication
No. CSP 100-1, use Document Identification No. CH 300 AFM-I).
     Section 05-23, Flight Controls, of Chapter 05, Non-Normal
Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger 350 Airplane Flight Manual,
Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 27, dated September 25, 2020.
    These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
configurations.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 654 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85          $55,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-03-11 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-21928; Docket No. FAA-
2021-1014; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00428-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the design of the spoiler
control system causes certain engine indication and crew alerting
system (EICAS) messages to be posted intermittently and repetitively
during flight and on the ground, and flightcrews must action the
appropriate checklist each time these messages appear. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address intermittent and repetitive messaging,
which increases overall workload and introduces a risk that
flightcrews could become desensitized over time to the messages.
This could result in the required checklist not being carried out or
completed, and could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe
flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
existing AFM to incorporate the information specified in Section 05-
23, Flight Controls, of Chapter 05, Non-Normal Procedures, of the
AFM revisions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) Bombardier Challenger 300 (Imperial Version) Airplane Flight
Manual, Publication No. CSP 100-1, Revision 61, dated September 25,
2020.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): For obtaining this section of the
Bombardier Challenger 300 (Imperial Version) Airplane Flight Manual,
Publication No. CSP 100-1, use Document Identification No. CH 300
AFM-I.
    (2) Bombardier Challenger 350 Airplane Flight Manual,
Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 27, dated September 25, 2020.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-14, dated April 7, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-1014.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Niczky,
Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 05-23, Flight Controls, of Chapter 05, Non-Normal
Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger 300 (Imperial Version)
Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CSP 100-1, Revision 61,
dated September 25, 2020.
    (ii) Section 05-23, Flight Controls, of Chapter 05, Non-Normal
Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger 350 Airplane Flight Manual,
Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 27, dated September 25, 2020.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 21, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02755 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix D Indirect Exposure Methodology and Inputs This page intentionally left blank. Table D 1. Vapor phase air concentration from soil emissions ( mg/ m^ 3) Appendix D Name Description Value Cvapor VF C C soil vapor = VF Volatilization factor for unlimited mass ( m^ 3/ kg) Calculated Csoil Soil concentration ( mg/ kg) Set equal to waste concentration Based on Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4 24.

D 3 Table D 2. Volatilization factor for unlimited mass  Commercial/ Industrial Scenario ( m^ 3/ kg) Appendix D Name Description Value VF ( ) [ ] Dapp BD T Dapp QC VF ´ ´ ÿ

´ ´ ´ ´ =

2 0001 . 0 14 . 3 2 1 0.0001 Conversion factor ( m^ 2/ cm^ 2)

T Exposure interval ( s) ( 9.5E+ 08 sec or 30 years)

Dapp Apparent diffusivity ( cm^ 2/ s) Calculated QC Dispersion Factor ( g/ m^ 2 s)/( kg/ m^ 3) Calculated BD Dry soil bulk density ( g/ cm^ 3) See Appendix H Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4 24, equation 4 8.

D 4 Table D 3. Dispersion Factor ( g/ m^ 2 s)/( kg/ m^ 3) Appendix D Name Description Value Q/ C ( ) ( )

- ´ = C DF B DF Area e A DF QC _ _ ln _ 2 Area Source Area ( acres) See Appendix H DF_ A Constant selected based on location ( unitless) See Appendix H DF_ B Constant selected based on location ( unitless) See Appendix H DF_ C Constant selected based on location ( unitless) See Appendix H Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4 24.

D 5 Table D 4. Apparent diffusivity ( cm^ 2/ s) Appendix D Dapp

- = RhoS BD n 1 w Theta n v Theta _ _ - = ( ) Hprime v Theta w Theta soil Kd BD n Dw w Theta Hprime Da v Theta app D ´ ´ + ´ ´ + ´ ´ =

_ _ 2 3 10 _ 3 10 _

foc Koc Kd Soil ´ = HLC HLCcoef Hprime ´ = D 6 Name Description Value ( ) Temp R HLCcoef ´ = 1 RhoS Solids particle density ( g/ cm^ 3)

HLCcoef Coefficient to Henry's law constant ( unitless) Calculated Hprime Dimensionless Henry's law constant ( unitless) Calculated KdSoil Soil water Partition Coefficient ( mL/ g) Calculated n Total soil porosity ( L pore/ L soil) Calculated Theta_ v Dry soil void fraction OR air filled soil porosity ( L air/ L soil) Calculated Da Diffusivity in air ( cm^ 2/ s) See Appendix E Dw Diffusivity in water ( cm^ 2/ s) See Appendix E Koc Organic carbon partition coefficient ( mL/ g) See Appendix E BD Soil bulk density ( g/ cm^ 3) See Appendix H foc Fraction organic carbon in soil ( unitless) See Appendix H Theta_ w soil volumetric water content OR water filled soil porosity ( L water/ L soil) See Appendix H Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4 24, equation 4 8.

D 7 Table D 5. Washout ratio for vapor phase contaminants ( unitless) Appendix D Name Description Value Wv HLC air T R W v _ ´ = R Ideal Gas Constant ( atm m^ 3/ K mole) ( 0.00008206) Constant HLC Henry's Law Constant ( atm m^ 3 / mole) See Appendix E T_ air Ambient temperature ( K) See Appendix H MPE, 1998 eq( 6 18).

D 8 Table D 6. Annual wet deposition from vapors ( g/ m^ 2 yr) Appendix D Name Description Value Dyw 00001 . 0 ´ ´ ´ = v vapor W May C Dyw 1.00E 05 Conversion factor ( 10  3 g/ mg)( 10  2 m/ cm)

Cvapor Contaminant air concentration from vapors ( mg/ m^ 3) Calculated Wv Volumetric washout ratio from vapors ( unitless) Calculated May Average annual moisture ( precipitation: rainfall, snowfall) ( cm/ yr) See Appendix H MPE, 1998 eq( 4 3 for particles and 6 16 for vapors)

D 9 Table D 7. Annual dry deposition from vapors ( g/ m^ 2 yr) Appendix D Name Description Value Dyd vapor C Vdv Dyd ´ ´ = 36 . 315 315.36 Conversion factor ([ 3.1536E+ 07 sec/ yr]/[ 100 cm/ m][ 1e3 mg/ g])

Cvapor Vapor phase air concentration ( mg/ m^ 3) Calculated Vdv Dry deposition velocity of vapors ( cm/ s) See Appendix E MPE, 1998 eq( 4 2 for particles and 6 17 for vapors)

D 10 Table D 8. Total Concentration in Above Ground Vegetation ( mg/ kg  WW or DW) Appendix D Name Description Value Pveg ( ) ( ) 100 100 MAF Pr Pv Pd PvegWW - ´ + + = Pr Above ground vegetation concentration due to root uptake ( mg/ kg  DW) Calculated Pv Vegetative concentration due to air to plant transfer ( mg/ kg  DW) Calculated MAF Plant tissue specific moisture adjustment factor to convert DW concentration into WW ( percent) See note below Pd Vegetative concentration due to direct deposition ( mg/ kg  DW) Set to 0 ( based on particles only)

Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

Note: For exposed vegetation MAF is 92, for exposed fruit MAF is 85, and for protected fruit MAF is 90. Dry weight is used for silage and feed. Wet weight is used for exposed vegetataion, exposed fruit, and protected fruit D 11 Table D 9. Above ground vegetation concentration due to root uptake ( mg/ kg  DW) Appendix D Name Description Value Pr Br C Pr soil ´ = BrExfruit Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for exposed fruit ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E BrExveg Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for exposed vegetables ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E BrForage Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for forage ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E BrGrain Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for grain ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E BrProfruit Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for protected fruit ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E BrSilage Soil to plant bioconcentration factor for silage ( mg/ kg DW plant / mg/ kg soil) See Appendix E Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil ( mg/ kg) Set equal to waste concentration Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 12 Table D 10. Vegetative Concentration Due to Air to Plant Transfer ( mg/ kg  DW) Appendix D Name Description Value Pv ( ) ( ) ( ) KpVap Yp e Rp Dv Pv Tp KpVap ´ - ´ ´ = ´ - 1 Dv Deposition term for plants ( for vapor) ( mg/ m^ 2 yr) Calculated KpVap Plant surface loss coefficient, vapor ( 1/ yr) See Appendix E LogKow Octanol water partition coeficient ( unitless) See Appendix E Rp_ exfruit Interception fraction for exposed fruit ( unitless) See Appendix F Rp_ exveg Interception fraction for exposed vegetables ( unitless) See Appendix F Rp_ forage Interception fraction for forage ( unitless) See Appendix F Rp_ silage Interception fraction for silage ( unitless) See Appendix F Tp_ exfruit Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed fruit ( yr) See Appendix F Tp_ exveg Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed vegetables ( yr) See Appendix F Tp_ forage Length of plant exposure to deposition for forage ( yr) See Appendix F Tp_ silage Length of plant exposure to deposition for silage ( yr) See Appendix F Yp_ exfruit Crop yield for exposed fruit ( kg DW/ m^ 2) See Appendix F Yp_ exveg Crop yield for exposed vegetables ( kg DW/ m^ 2) See Appendix F Yp_ forage Crop yield for forage ( kg DW/ m^ 2) See Appendix F Yp_ silage Crop yield for silage ( kg DW/ m^ 2) See Appendix F Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 13 Table D 11. Concentration in Below Ground Vegetation Due to Root Uptake ( mg/ kg  WW) Appendix D Name Description Value Prbg soil soil Kd VGbg RCF C bg Pr ´ ´ = foc Koc Kd Soil ´ = Kdsoil Soil water partition coefficient ( mL/ g) or ( L/ kg) Calculated Koc Organic carbon partition coefficient ( mL/ g) See Appendix E RCF Root concentration factor ( mg/ kg  WW plant) / ( mg/ L soil water) See Appendix E VGbg Empirical correction factor for below ground vegetables ( unitless) See Appendix F foc Fraction organic carbon in soil ( unitless) See Appendix H Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil ( mg/ kg) Set equal to waste concentration Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 14 Table D 12. Vapor Term for Plants ( mg/ m^ 2 yr) Appendix D Name Description Value Dv ( ) ( ) Dyw Fw Dyd Fv Dv ´ + ´ ´ = 1000 1000 Conversion factor ( mg/ g)

Dyd Normalized annual dry deposition from vapor phase ( s m^ 2/ m^ 2 yr) Calculated Dyw Normalized annual average wet deposition from vapor phase ( sm 2/ m^ 2 yr) Calculated Fv Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase ( unitless) See Appendix E Fw Fraction of wet deposition adhering to plant surface ( unitless) See Appendix E D 15 Table D 13. Concentration in Beef Due to Plant and Soil Ingestion ( mg/ kg  WW) Appendix D Name Description Value Abeef ( ) ( ) ( ) silage Qsbs silage F forage Qfbs forage F grain Qgbs grain F e PlantIntak Pr_ _ Pr_ _ Pr_ _ ´ ´ + ´ ´ + ´ ´ = ) )) ( ) ( (( Beef water soil beef Ba Qwbs C C Qsoilbs e PlantIntak A ´ ´ + ´ + = PlantIntake Amount of vegetation consumed by beef cattle ( mg/ day) ( mg/ day) Calculated Pr_ forage Vegetative concentration for forage ( mg/ kg  DW) Calculated Pr_ grain Vegetative concentration for grain ( mg/ kg  DW) Calculated Pr_ silage Vegetative concentration in silage ( mg/ kg  DW) Calculated BaBeef Beef biotransfer factor ( day/ kg  WW) See Appendix E F_ forage Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) See Appendix F F_ grain Fraction of grain grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) See Appendix F F_ silage Fraction of silage grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) See Appendix F Qfbs Quantity of forage eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) See Appendix F Qgbs Quantity of grain eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) See Appendix F Qsbs Quantity of silage eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) See Appendix F Qsoilbs Consumption rate of soil for beef cattle ( kg/ day) See Appendix F Qwbs Consumption rate of water by subsistence beef cattle ( L/ d) See Appendix F Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil ( mg/ kg) Set equal to waste concentration D 16 Cwater Total concentration in the water ( mg/ L) Set equal to waste concentration Source: U. S. EPA, 2000.

D 17 Table D 14. Concentration in Fish ( mg/ kg) Appendix D Name Description Value Cfish fish fish BCF Cdw C ´ = BCFfish Bioconcentration factor ( mg/ kg)/( mg/ L) See Appendix E Cdw Concentration in water ( dissolved) ( mg/ L) Set equal to waste concentration Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 18 Table D 15. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Above Ground Produce ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Appendix D Name Description Value Iag profruit I exveg I exfruit I Iag _ _ _ + + = ( ) L P F CR I - ´ ´ ´ = 1 1000 1000 Conversion factor ( g/ kg)

I_ exfruit Contaminant intake from consumption of exposed fruit ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Calculated I_ exveg Contaminant intake from consumption of exposed vegetables ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Calculated I_ profruit Contaminant intake from consumption of protected fruit ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Calculated Pr_ exfruit Exposed fruit concentration ( mg/ kg) Calculated Pr_ exveg Exposed vegetable concentration ( mg/ kg) Calculated Pr_ profruit Protected fruit concentration ( mg/ kg) Calculated CR_ exfruit Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) See Appendix G CR_ exveg Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) See Appendix G CR_ profruit Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) See Appendix G F_ exfruit Fraction of exposed fruit grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) See Appendix G D 19 F_ exveg Fraction of exposed vegetables grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) See Appendix G F_ profruit Fraction of protected fruit grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) See Appendix G L_ exfruit Food preparation loss for exposed fruit ( unitless) See Appendix G L_ exveg Food preparation loss for exposed vegetables ( unitless) See Appendix G L_ profruit Food preparation loss for protected fruit ( unitless) See Appendix G Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 20 Table D 16. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Below Ground Produce ( mg/ kg d) Appendix D Name Description Value Ibg ( ) bg L bg F bg CR bg Pr Ibg _ 1 _ 1000 _ - ´ ´ ´ = 1000 Conversion factor ( g/ kg)

Prbg Below ground vegetable concentration in whole weight ( mg/ kg WW) Calculated CR_ bg Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) See Appendix G F_ bg Fraction of below ground vegetables grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) See Appendix G L_ bg Food preparation loss for root vegetables ( unitless) See Appendix G Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 21 Table D 17. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Fish ( mg/ kg d) Appendix D Name Description Value Ifish ( ) BW fish F fish CR fish C I fish ´ ´ ´ = 1000 _ _ _

1000 Conversion factor ( g/ kg)

Cfish Concentration of contaminant in fish ( mg/ kg) Calculated BW Body weight ( kg) See Appendix G CR_ fish Consumption rate of fish ( g WW/ day) See Appendix G F_ fish Fraction of fish intake from contaminated source ( unitless) See Appendix G Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 22 Table D 18. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Incidental Ingestion of Soil ( mg/ kg d) Appendix D Name Description Value Isoil 000001 . 0 ´

´ ´ = BW F CRs C I soil soil soil 0.000001 Conversion factor ( kg/ mg)

Isoil Daily intake of contaminant from incidental ingestion of soil ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Calculated BW Body weight ( kg) See Appendix G CRs Soil ingestion rate ( mg/ day) See Appendix G F_ soil Fraction of contaminated soil that is ingested ( unitless) See Appendix G Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil ( mg/ kg) Set equal to waste concentration Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 23 Table D 19. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Ingestion of ith Animal Tissue Group ( mg/ kg BW/ d) Appendix D Name Description Value Ianimal beef beef beef beef beef L F CR A I ´ ´

´ = 1000 1000 Conversion factor ( g/ kg)

Ai Concentration of contaminant in ith animal tissue group ( mg/ kg WW) Calculated CRi Daily human consumption rate of ith animal tissue group ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) See Appendix G Fi Fraction of animal tissue that is contaminated ( unitless) See Appendix G Li Contaminant loss factor ( unitless) See Appendix G Source: U. S. EPA, 1998.

D 24 Table D 20. Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient Due to Inhalation ( unitless) Appendix D Name Description Value Risk_ Air ( ) ( ) BW AT CSFInhal EFi EDi BRi C Air Risk vapor ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ = 365 _

RFC C Air HQ vapor = _

365 Conversion factor ( days/ yr)

Cvapor Vapor concentration of contaminant in air ( mg/ m^ 3) Calculated CSFInhal Inhalation cancer slope factor ( mg/ kg/ d) 1 See Appendix E RfC Noncancer reference concentration ( mg/ m^ 3) See Appendix E AT Averaging time ( yr) See Appendix G Bri Breathing rate ( m^ 3/ d) See Appendix G BW Body weight ( kg) See Appendix G EDi Exposure duration for inhalation ( yr) See Appendix G EFi Exposure frequency ( d/ yr) See Appendix G D 25 Table D 21. Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient Due to Ingestion ( unitless) Appendix D Name Description Value Risk_ Oral ( ) ( ) 365 _ ´ ´ ´ ´ = AT CSFOral EF ED I Oral Risk RfD I Oral HQ = _

365 Conversion factor ( days/ yr)

I Combined intake rate from soil, animal products and produce ( mg/ kg/ d) Calculated CSFOral Oral cancer slope factor ( mg/ kg/ d) 1 See Appendix E RfD Noncancer reference dose ( mg/ kg/ d) See Appendix E AT Averaging time ( yr) See Appendix G ED Exposure duration for oral ingestion ( yr) See Appendix G EF Exposure frequency ( d/ yr) See Appendix G D 26 Appendix E Chemical Specific Inputs This page intentionally left blank. Table E 1. Chemical Specific Inputs for Benzene ( 71432)

Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E BaBeef 3.39E 06 ( mg/ kg beef)/( mg/ kg DW feed) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BCF_ fish 8.712 ( mg/ kg)/( mg/ L) BcfWIN v2.14 BrExfruit 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrExveg 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrForage 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrGrain 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrProfruit 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrSilage 2.27E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

CSFinhal 0.027 ( per mg/ kg d) calc IRIS CSFOral 5.5E 02 ( per mg/ kg d) IRIS Da 8.95E 02 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Density 0.8765 g/ mL SCDM Dw 1.03E 05 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Fv 1 unitless Junge and Bidleman Fw 0.6 unitless U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

HLC 0.00555 atm m3/ m SCDM Koc 63.10 mL/ g Kollig, 1993 KpPar 18.07 1/ yr U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

KpVap 119.35 1/ yr U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

LogKow 2.13 dimensionless SCDM MW 78.11 g/ mole SCDM RCF 1.32E+ 00 ( mg/ kg WW plant)/( mg/ L soil water) Briggs et al., 1982 Sol 1750 mg/ L SCDM Vdv 1 cm/ s U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

VP 95 Torr SCDM E 3 Table E 2. Chemical Specific Inputs for Trichloroethane, 1,1,2 ( 79005)

Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E BaBeef 2.82E 06 ( mg/ kg beef)/( mg/ kg DW feed) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BCF_ fish 7.56 ( mg/ kg)/( mg/ L) BcfWIN v2.14 BrExfruit 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrExveg 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrForage 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrGrain 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrProfruit 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrSilage 2.53E+ 00 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

CSFinhal 0.056 ( per mg/ kg d) calc IRIS CSFOral 5.7E 02 ( per mg/ kg d) IRIS Da 6.69E 02 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Density 1.4397 g/ mL SCDM Dw 1.00E 05 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Fv 1 unitless Junge and Bidleman Fw 0.6 unitless U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

HLC 0.000913 atm m3/ m SCDM Koc 53.7 mL/ g Kollig KpPar 18.07 1/ yr U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

KpVap 119.35 1/ yr U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

LogKow 2.05 dimensionless SCDM MW 133.4 g/ mole SCDM RCF 1.14E+ 00 ( mg/ kg WW plant)/( mg/ L soil water) Briggs et al., 1982 Sol 4420 mg/ L SCDM Vdv 1 cm/ s U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

VP 23.25 Torr SCDM E 4 Table E 3. Chemical Specific Inputs for Ethoxyethanol 2 ( 110805)

Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E BCF_ fish 3.162 ( mg/ kg)/( mg/ L) BcfWIN v2.14 BrExfruit 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrExveg 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrForage 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrGrain 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrProfruit 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

BrSilage 4.42E+ 01 ( mg/ kg DW plant)/( mg/ kg DW soil) Travis and Arms, 1988.

Da 8.19E 02 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Density 0.9297 g/ mL SCDM Dw 9.76E 06 cm2/ s Calculated based on WATER9, 2001.

Fv 1 unitless Junge and Bidleman Fw 0.6 unitless U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

HLC 1.23E 07 atm m3/ m SCDM Koc 21.02 mL/ g Calculated eq 4 8 chemical handbook KpPar 18.07 ( 1/ yr) U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

KpVap 119.35 ( 1/ yr) U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

LogKow  0.1 dimensionless SCDM MW 90.12 g/ mole SCDM RCF 8.45E 01 ( mg/ kg WW plant)/( mg/ L soil water) Briggs et al., 1982 RfC 0.2 mg/ m3 IRIS RfD 4.0E 01 mg/ kg d HEAST Sol 1000000 mg/ L SCDM Vdv 1 cm/ s U. S. EPA, Parameter Guidance Document, 1997.

VP 5.31 Torr SCDM E 5 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix F Model Parameters for Biota Data This page intentionally left blank. Code Description Value Appendix F Table F 1. Model Parameters for Biota Data Reference Cattle Intake Rates Qfbs Quantity of forage eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 8.8 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qfds Quantity of forage eaten each day by dairy cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 11 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qgbs Quantity of grain eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 0.47 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qgds Quantity of grain eaten each day by dairy cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 2.6 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qsbs Quantity of silage eaten each day by beef cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 2.5 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qsds Quantity of silage eaten each day by dairy cattle ( kg  DW/ day) 3.3 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qsoilbs Consumption rate of soil for beef cattle ( kg/ day) 0.39 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qsoilds Consumption rate of soil for dairy cattle ( kg/ day) 0.41 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Qwbs Consumption rate of water by subsistence beef cattle ( L/ day) 2.5 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Fraction Contaminated F_ forage Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) 1 U. S. EPA, 1997.

F_ grain Fraction of grain grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) 1 U. S. EPA, 1997.

F_ silage Fraction of silage grown on contaminated soil and eaten ( unitless) 1 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Vegetation Rp_ exfruit Interception fraction for exposed fruit ( unitless) 0.052 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Rp_ exveg Interception fraction for exposed vegetables ( unitless) 0.052 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Rp_ forage Interception fraction for forage ( unitless) 0.47 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Rp_ silage Interception fraction for silage ( unitless) 0.44 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Tp_ exfruit Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed fruit ( yr) 0.123 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Tp_ exveg Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed vegetables ( yr) 0.123 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Tp_ forage Length of plant exposure to deposition for forage ( yr) 0.123 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Tp_ silage Length of plant exposure to deposition for silage ( yr) 0.164 U. S. EPA, 1997.

VG_ bg Empirical correction factor for below ground vegetables ( unitless) 0.01 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Yp_ exfruit Crop yield for exposed fruit ( kg DW/ m2) 0.09 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Yp_ exveg Crop yield for exposed vegetables ( kg DW/ m2) 0.18 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Yp_ forage Crop yield for forage ( kg DW/ m2) 0.31 U. S. EPA, 1997.

Yp_ silage Crop yield for silage ( kg DW/ m2) 0.31 U. S. EPA, 1997.

F 3 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix G Exposure Data This page intentionally left blank. Code Description Value Appendix G Table G 1a. Model Parameters for Exposure Data Reference AT Averaging time ( yr) 70 U. S. EPA, 1991.

Bri Breathing rate ( m3/ d) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b BW Body weight ( kg) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ beef Daily human consumption rate of beef ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ bg Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ dw Consumption rate of water ( L/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ exfruit Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ exveg Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ fish Consumption rate of fish ( g WW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ milk Daily human consumption rate of milk ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CR_ profruit Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b CRs Soil ingestion rate ( mg/ day) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b ED Exposure duration for oral ingestion ( yr) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b EF Exposure frequency ( d/ yr) 350 U. S. EPA, 1991.

F_ beef Fraction of animal tissue that is contaminated ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ bg Fraction of below ground vegetables grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ dw Fraction of drinking water ingested that is contaminated ( unitless) 1 F_ exfruit Fraction of exposed fruit grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ exveg Fraction of exposed vegetables grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ fish Fraction of fish intake from contaminated source ( unitless) 1 F_ milk Fraction of milk that is contaminated ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ profruit Fraction of protected fruit grown in contaminated soil ( unitless) Receptor Specific See Table G 1b F_ soil Fraction of contaminated soil that is ingested ( unitless) 1 L_ bg Food preparation loss for root vegetables ( unitless) 0.05 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

L_ exfruit Food preparation loss for exposed fruit ( unitless) 0.21 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

L_ exveg Food preparation loss for exposed vegetables ( unitless) 0.16 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

G 3 Code Description Value Appendix G Table G 1a. Model Parameters for Exposure Data Reference L_ profruit Food preparation loss for protected fruit ( unitless) 0.29 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

L1_ beef Cooking loss for beef ( unitless) 0.27 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

L2_ beef Post cooking loss for beef ( unitless) 0.24 U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

SY Start year ( yr) Receptor and Cohort Specific See Table G 1b G 4 Code Value Appendix G Table G 1b. Exposure Data for Farmer/ Fisher Receptor Cohort_ 1 Cohort_ 2 Cohort_ 3 Cohort_ 4 F_ exfruit ( unitless) 0.328 L2_ beef ( unitless) 0.24 SY ( yr) 3 8 15 20 Bri ( m3/ d) 7.6 11.8 14 13.3 BW ( kg) 15.3 29.6 56.8 69.3 CR_ beef ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) 2.11 2.11 1.51 1.64 CR_ exfruit ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) 1.82 1.11 0.609 1.3 CR_ exveg ( gWW/ kg BW/ day) 1.46 0.643 0.656 1.38 CR_ fish ( g WW/ day) 2 2 2 2 CR_ milk ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) 69.99 38.6 14.28 12.1 CR_ profruit ( gWW/ kg BW/ day) 2.34 2.34 1.23 2.13 CR_ root ( g WW/ kg BW/ day) 0.686 0.523 0.565 0.883 CRs ( mg/ day) 100 50 50 50 L1_ beef ( unitless) 0.27 F_ beef ( unitless) 0.485 F_ soil ( unitless) 1 F_ exveg ( unitless) 0.42 F_ fish ( unitless) 1 F_ milk ( unitless) 0.254 F_ profruit ( unitless) 0.03 F_ root ( unitless) 0.173 L_ exfruit ( unitless) 0.21 L_ exveg ( unitless) 0.16 L_ profruit ( unitless) 0.29 L_ root ( unitless) 0.05 CR_ dw ( L/ day) 0.6165 0.731 0.8685 1.275 F_ dw ( unitless) 1 EF ( d/ yr) 350 ED ( yr) 5 7.5 8 10 Ref: U. S. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997.

G 5 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix H Model Parameters for Site Data This page intentionally left blank. Code Description Value Appendix H Table H 1. Model Parameters for Site Data Data Reference DF_ A Constant selected based on location ( unitless) 13 SSL, U. S. EPA, 2001 DF_ B Constant selected based on location ( unitless) 19 SSL, U. S. EPA, 2001 DF_ C Constant selected based on location ( unitless) 215 SSL, U. S. EPA, 2001 foc_ soil Fraction organic carbon; top 20 cm of soil ( fraction) 0.0686 Meteorology May Average annual moisture ( precipitation: rainfall, snowfall) ( cm/ yr) 114 Based on Hartford, CT T_ air Ambient temperature ( K) 283 Based on Hartford, CT Surface Soil BD Dry soil bulk density ( g/ cm3) 1.56 Value for sandy loam, Hartford Theta_ w Soil volumetric water content OR water filled soil porosity ( L water/ L soil) 0.15 SSL, U. S. EPA, 2001 Area Source Area ( acres) 0.5 SSL, U. S. EPA, 2001 H 3 This page intentionally left blank.


[Federal Register: January 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2143-2145]
[DOCID:fr14ja09-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59218; File No. 4-575]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and the Boston Stock Exchange,
Incorporated

January 8, 2009.
    On December 8, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') and the Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated (``BX'')
(together with FINRA, the ``Parties'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a plan for the allocation of
regulatory responsibilities, dated December 5, 2008 (``17d-2 Plan'' or
the ``Plan''). The Plan was published for comment on December 22,
2008.\1\ The Commission received no comments on the Plan. This order
approves and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59101 (December 15,
2008), 73 FR 78402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ among other things, requires every self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national securities
exchange or national securities association to examine for, and enforce
compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules,
unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section
17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\3\ Without this relief, the
statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern
of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in
more than one SRO (``common members''). Such regulatory duplication
would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \4\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\5\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \5\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\6\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\7\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs
to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that
the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among
the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a
national market system and a national clearance and settlement system;
and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the
Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2
relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the
plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).

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

II. Proposed Plan

    On August 29, 2008, BX was acquired by The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
(``NASDAQ OMX''). At the time of this acquisition, BX was not operating
a venue for trading cash equities. BX has since adopted a new rulebook
with rules governing membership, the regulatory obligations of members,
listing, and equity trading.\9\ The new BX rules, in particular the
member conduct rules that would be the Common Rules under the proposed
Plan, are based to a substantial extent on the rules of the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ Exchange''),\10\ which, in turn, are based
to a substantial extent on the comparable rules of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58927 (November 10,
2008), 73 FR 69685 (November 19, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48) (notice of
proposed rule change); and 59154 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468
(December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48) (order approving proposed rule
change).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58927 (November 10,
2008), 73 FR at 69686 (November 19, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48) (notice
of proposed rule change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ Exchange currently is party to a 17d-2 plan with
FINRA.\11\ The proposed Plan would allocate regulatory responsibility
between BX and FINRA in a manner similar to the allocation of
regulatory responsibility that currently exists between the NASDAQ
Exchange and FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54136 (July 12,
2006), 71 FR 40759 (July 18, 2006) (File No. 4-517) (order approving
and declaring effective the plan between the NASDAQ Exchange and
NASD (n/k/a FINRA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce
regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of both FINRA
and BX.\12\ Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume
certain examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members
with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan refers to these common members as
``Dual Members.'' See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory
responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed
Plan is an exhibit (the ``Rules Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with
FINFA,'' referred to herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every
BX rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations,
for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing
and enforcing with respect to BX members that are also members of FINRA
and the associated persons therewith (``Dual Members'').
    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of BX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA, as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules'').\13\ Common Rules would not include
the application of any BX rule or FINRA rule, or any rule or regulation
under the Act, to the extent that it pertains to violations of insider
trading activities, because such matters are covered by a separate
multiparty agreement under Rule 17d-2.\14\ In the event that a Dual
Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on
BX, the plan acknowledges that BX may, in its discretion, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
Common Rules). See also paragraph 1(f) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan
(defining Regulatory Responsibilities). Paragraph 2 of the Plan
provides that annually, or more frequently as required by changes in
either BX rules or FINRA rules, the parties shall review and update,
if necessary, the list of Common Rules. Further, paragraph 3 of the
Plan provides that BX shall furnish FINRA with a list of Dual
Members, and shall update the list no less frequently than once each
calendar quarter.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58806 (October 17,
2008), 73 FR 63216 (October 23, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (notice of
filing and order approving and declaring effective the plan). The
Certification identifies two Common Rules that may also be addressed
in the context of regulating insider trading activities pursuant to
the separate multiparty agreement.
    \15\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, BX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance, examination, investigation, and enforcement with respect
to trading activities or practices involving BX's own marketplace;
registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons
(i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its duties and
obligations as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any BX
rules that are not Common Rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \17\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \18\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for Dual Members that
would otherwise be performed by both BX and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to Dual Members.
Furthermore, because BX and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection. The Commission notes that the proposed Plan would allocate
regulatory responsibility between BX and FINRA in a manner similar to
the allocation of regulatory responsibility that currently exists
between the NASDAQ Exchange and FINRA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
    \19\ The proposed new BX rules are based to a substantial extent
on the rules of the NASDAQ Exchange which, in turn, are based to a
substantial extent on the comparable rules of FINRA. The NASDAQ
Exchange currently is party to a 17d-2 plan with FINRA. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54136 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR
40759 (July 18, 2006) (File No. 4-517) (order approving and
declaring effective the plan between the NASDAQ Exchange and NASD
(n/k/a FINRA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, BX and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those BX rules, set forth on
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    According to the Plan, BX will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of BX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add BX rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete BX
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the
remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be BX rules
that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.\20\

FINRA will then confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any
updated list are Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan,
BX will also provide FINRA with a current list of Dual Members and
shall update the list no less frequently than once each quarter.\21\
The Commission believes that these provisions are designed to provide
for continuing communication between the Parties to ensure the
continued accuracy of the scope of the proposed allocation of
regulatory responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \21\ See paragraph 3 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all BX rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for Dual Members of BX and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to BX rules in
the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a BX
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete a BX rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a BX rule that
is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change
would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public
comment.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, Dual Members, also would
constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits BX and FINRA to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice.\23\ The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan
permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by
themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the
Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or
re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the
Commission.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See paragraph 13 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \24\ The Commission notes that paragraph 13 of the Plan reflects
the fact that FINRA's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the Commission approves any termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-575. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-575, between FINRA and BX, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is further ordered that BX is relieved of those responsibilities
allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-613 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P