A Discussion with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Regarding the Terrestrial and Aquatic Level II Refined Risk Assessment Models ( Version 2.0)

Meeting Scheduled for March 30  April 2, 2004 March 4, 2004 Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1Scientists identified are in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs unless noted otherwise.

Page ii of x Acknowledgements1 Authors: Refined Risk Assessment Implementation Team Chair: Ingrid Sunzenauer Terrestrial Team: Edward Fite ( Lead) Timothy Barry, Office of Economy and Environment Henry Nelson, Office of Science Policy and Coordination Edward Odenkirchen Dirk Young Aquatic Team: Donna Randall ( Lead) Timothy Barry, Office of Economy and Environment Marietta Echeverria Dirk Young Additional Supporting Team Members: Douglas Urban ( Deceased) Stephanie Irene Additional Contributors: Christine Hartless James Carleton Reviewers: Steven Bradbury R. David Jones James Hetrick Karen McCormack Page iii of x Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 A. Purpose and Organization of Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 B. History and Goals of Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 C. Overview of Proposed Conceptual Risk Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1. Levels of Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2. Guidance to Move Between the Levels of Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Chapter II. Charge to the Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 A. Purpose of This Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 B. Questions Regarding the Terrestrial Level II Model ( Version 2.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 C. Questions Regarding the Aquatic Level II Model ( Version 2.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Chapter III. Terrestrial Level II Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 B. General Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 C. Generic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 2. Generic Species Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 D. Bimodal Feeding Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 1. Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 2. Markov Chain Model of On Field Avian Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 3. Incorporation of the Markov Chain Model into the Level II Algorithm for Avian On field persistence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 17 E. Puddle Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 24 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 24 2. Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 24 a. Field Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 24 b. Puddle Hydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 25 c. Field Contaminant Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 26 d. Puddle Contaminant Hydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 29 3. Summary of Puddle Model Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 31 4. Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 32 5. Future Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 35 F. Model for Inhalation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 38 1. General Inhalation Exposure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 38 2. Consideration of Other Agency Approaches in Modeling the Air Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 40 3. Combining the HWIR Approach with Mass Conservation in a Two Compartment Equilibrium Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 41 4. Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 Page iv of x 5. Scenarios for Consideration of Pesticide Exposure Through Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 44 6. Relating External Inhalation Dose to Oral Dose Equivalents . . . . . . . . . 3 44 7. Next Steps for Inhalation Exposure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 a. Examination and Comparison of Alternative Air Concentration Models with Available Air Measurement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 b. Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 G. Model for Dermal Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 1. General Dermal Exposure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 2. Transfer Coefficient ( TC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3. Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 4. Scenarios for Consideration of Pesticide Exposure Through Dermal Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 5. Relating External Dermal Dose to Oral Dose Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 6. Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 Chapter IV. The Aquatic Level II Refined Risk Assessment Model ( Version 2.0) . . . . . . . . 4 1 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 B. Overview of the Aquatic Level II Assessment Objectives and Model . . . . . . . . . 4 2 1. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 2. Summary of Aquatic Level II RRA Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 3. Software Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 C. A Varying Volume Water Body Model with Daily Parameter Variations for Pesticide Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 2. Current Ecological Surface Water Scenario and Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 3. Varying Volume Surface Water Body Model ( VVWM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 a. Solute Holding Capacity Ratio (  ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 18 b. Effective Littoral Zone Dissipation (   1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 20 3. Effective Benthic Zone Dissipation (   2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 32 a. Benthic hydrolysis (

hydr_ 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 32 b. Benthic Metabolism (

bio_ 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 35 4. Mass Transfer Coefficient (   ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 35 5. Daily Piecewise Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 38 a. Volume Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 38 6. Daily Initial Pesticide Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 38 7. Analytical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 39 8. Testing and Comparison of Solution with EXAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 41 9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 41 D. Testing and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 45 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 45 2. Methods and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 45 a. QA/ QC Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 45 Page v of x b. Evaluation of the RRA Level II Exposure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 47 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 49 a. QA/ QC Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 49 b. Evaluation of the RRA Level II Exposure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 4. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 E. Development and Evaluation of Scenario Specific Field Drainage Area and Water Body Size Parameter Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2. The Current Standard Surface Water Ecological Exposure Modeling Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Sources of DA/ VC Ratios and Associated Surface Water Body Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. Development and Evaluation of Field Drainage Area and Water Body Size Conditions for Crop Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 a. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 b. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. Proposed Crop Scenario Specific Field Drainage Area and Water Body Size Parameter Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 6. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 91 F. Implementation of a Probabilistic Curve Number Method in the PRZM Runoff Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 93 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 93 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 93 3. Probabilistic Treatments of Curve Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 97 4. Continuous Simulation Modeling With the Curve Number . . . . . . . . . . . 4 99 5. The PRZM 3.12 Method of Curve Number Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 4 100 a. Incorporation of a Probabilistic Curve Number into PRZM . . . . . 4 101 b. Example Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 105 6. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 106 Chapter V. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 A. Finalizing the Level II Models ( Version 2.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 B. Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 1. Risk Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 2. Risk Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 3. Risk Assessors and Risk Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 C. Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 D. Building Partnerships and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 1. Addressing Uncertainties Related to Effects Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 a. Extrapolation Research for Predicting Toxicological Responses . . . 5 3 b. Advancing Techniques for Assessing Risk of Pesticides . . . . . . . . . 5 4 2. Addressing Exposure Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 a. Database of Regional Small Surface Water Body Characteristics . . 5 5 Page vi of x b. Initial Application Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 c. Development of Uncertainty and Extrapolation Factors for Metabolism Rate Constants for Use in Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 3. Predictions of Population Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 Chapter VI. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 Page vii of x Table and Figures Table 3 1. Generic Species for Level II Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 Table 3 2. Transition probabilities for various combinations of the long run, on field probability,

  1, and Q, the bias factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23 Table 3 3. List of input parameters for puddle model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 33 Table 3 4. A Summary of Mixing Zone Depths from the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 35 Table 3 5. Inhalation model parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 Table 3 6. Dermal model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 Table 4 1. Level I and II Aquatic Risk Assessment Exposure Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Table 4 2. Level I and II Aquatic Risk Assessment Acute Effects Components . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 Table 4 3. Parameters and standard values used in the current EXAMS based model. Parameters are defined in the EXAMS user manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 11 Table 4 4. Parameter values for the current EXAMS based model in terms of the VVWM definitions of the parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 16 Table 4 5. VVWM parameter equivalents to EXAMS parameters( a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 17 Table 4 6. Input Parameters for Short lived Chemical, ChemA, and Long lived chemical, ChemB 4 48 Table 4 7. Summary of PRZM/ EXAMS and PRZM/ VVWM Field Area and Water Body Size Variables and Their Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 Table 4 8. Identified Disparities Between the PE4 Shell and the RRA Shell for Generating PRZM Input Files and Any Subsequent Modifications Made to Address Issues . . . . . . . . . 4 50 Table 4 9. Identified Incompatibilities of Standard Crop Scenarios and Corresponding Meteorological Files with RRA Shell and Subsequent Modifications Made to Address Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 Table 4 10. Identified Disparities Between VVWM and EXAMS Static Water Body Model While Holding the Volume of the Water Body in VVWM constant and Equal to the Water Body Volume in EXAMS ( 20,000 m3) and Subsequent Modification Made to Address Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 Table 4 11. Water body volume for a given depth and set surface area of 1 ha ( 10,000 m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 Table 4 12. Field drainage area ( ha) for a given water body depth and water body volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 Table 4 13. Water body surface area for a given initial depth and set water body volume ( 20,000 m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 Table 4 14. Field drainage area for a given depth and set water body volume ( 20000 m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 Table 4 15. Field drainage area and water body size parameter values for option ( 1) setting surface area, SA, to 1 ha, ( 2) setting volume capacity, VC, to 20,000 m3, and ( 3) setting field area, DA, to 10, 20, 40, and 100 ha for crop scenarios CA fruit and FL sugarcane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 Page viii of x Table 4 16. Field area and water body size parameter values derived by setting field area to 10 ha and setting initial and maximum depth to the minimum, average and maximum of the range in Figure 4 20b for crop scenarios CA fruit and FL sugarcane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 Table 4 17. Proposed field and water body size parameter values for all standard crop scenarios for the Level II Exposure Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 Table 4 18. Summary of simulated water volume and depth conditions and runoff volume associated with proposed crop scenario specific conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 88 Table 4 19. Runoff Curve Numbers for soil cover complexes and soil groups ( Antecedent Runoff Condition II and I a = 0.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 Table 4 20. Relationship of CN I CN II and CN III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 96 Figure 3 1. Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Figure 3 2. Hypothetical examples of the avian bimodal feeding pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 13 Figure 3 3. Examples of the betapert density used in the bimodal feeding pattern model and the range of shapes that it can assume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 14 Figure 3 4. Examples of feeding fractions based on bimodal feeding model. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 15 Figure 3 5. The two state, first order Markov chain model for avian persistence. . . . . . . 3 16 Figure 3 6. Region of valid on field to on field transitional probability as a function of long run, on field probability,   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 19 Figure 3 7. Effect of Q on the shape of the triangle distribution of P 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 20 Figure 3 8. Change in avian on field persistence ( persistence) as it depends on long term on field probability and on Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 21 Figure 3 9. Figures ( a), ( b), and ( c) above illustrate the main features of the Level II bimodal feeding model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 Figure 3 10. Depiction of the area that contributes to runoff to the puddle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 36 Figure 3 11. Depiction of the hydrologic processes controlling puddle volume . . . . . . . . . 3 37 Figure 3 12. Depiction of the field mixing zone concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 37 Figure 4 1. Flowchart of the Level II Two Dimensional Monte Carlo Risk Assessment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Figure 4 2. Conceptualization of the Varying Volume Water Body Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 14 Figure 4 3. Solute holding capacity as a function of K oc for the current ( EXAMS based) model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 21 Figure 4 4. Relative solute holding capacity of individual components in the littoral zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 22 Figure 4 5. Relative solute holding capacity of individual components in benthic region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 23 Figure 4 6. Effective half life of pesticide due to washout in a water body as currently parameterized ( 1 ha area by 2 m deep). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 25 Figure 4 7. Effect of Henry's Law Coefficient and wind speed ( measured at 6m) on effective volatilization half life of aqueous phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 33 Page ix of x Figure 4 8. Effect of Henry's Law Coefficient and temperature on effective volatilization half life of aqueous phase for the current ( EXAMS based) model. The lack of temperature sensitivity is a result of not considering the effect of temperature on Henry's Law Coefficient. Wind speed = 1 m/ s, MW= 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 34 Figure 4 9. Comparison the volatilization mechanisms of the proposed VVWM and EXAMS for conditions of pesticide solubility = 100 mg/ L, MW = 100, vapor pressure = 0.1 torr, K oc = 1 mL/ g, wind speed = 1 m/ s, temperature = 25

C, and an input mass of 0.02 kg to the littoral zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 42 Figure 4 10. Comparison of proposed VVWM with EXAMS for the conditions of MW = 100, solubility = 100 mg/ L, vapor pressure of 0.01 torr, aerobic half life of 10 days, anaerobic half life of 100 days, K oc of 100 mL/ g, wind speed of 1 m/ s, temperature of 25

C, and arbitrarily selected PRZM input fluxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 43 Figure 4 11. Flow chart of Level II exposure modeling approach compared to Level I . . . . 4 46 Figure 4 12. RRA shell launched PRZM output compared to PE4 shell launched PRZM output, ( a) mass loading in runoff ( RFLX) and ( b) mass loading in erosion ( EFLX). . . . . . . 4 53 Figure 4 13. RRA Level II Exposure model ( PRZM/ VVWM) output compared to PRZM/ EXAMS exposure model where all transformation processes were set to zero except aerobic metabolism, which was set to an 80 day half life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 Figure 4 14. RRA Level II Exposure model ( PRZM/ VVWM) output compared to PRZM/ EXAMS exposure model where all transformation processes were set to zero except benthic metabolism, which was set to an 80 day half life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 Figure 4 15. RRA Level II Exposure model ( PRZM/ VVWM) output compared to PRZM/ EXAMS exposure model where all transformation processes were set to zero except hydrolysis, which was set to an 80 day half life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 Figure 4 16. RRA Level II Exposure model ( PRZM/ VVWM) output compared to PRZM/ EXAMS exposure model where all transformation processes were set to zero except photolysis, which was set to an 80 day half life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 Figure 4 17. RRA Level II Exposure model ( PRZM/ VVWM) output compared to PRZM/ EXAMS exposure model where all transformation processes were set to zero except volatilization, vapor pressure was set to 1e 4 torr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 Figure 4 18. EXAMS and VVWM simulated daily concentrations for ( a) short lived ChemA and ( b) long lived ChemB and water body volume for CA almond crop scenario. . . . . . 4 61 Figure 4 19. EXAMS and VVWM simulated daily concentrations for ( a) short lived ChemA and ( b) long lived ChemB and water body volume for FL sugarcane crop scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 Figure 4 20. ( a) USDA recommended minimum depth of water for a small, permanent surface water supply ( e. g., pond) in the U. S. ( USDA, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 Figure 4 21. ( a) USDA guidelines for estimating the size of drainage area ( in acres) required for each acre foot of storage in an embankment or pond ( USDA, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 Figure 4 22. The effect of setting water body surface area, initial volume or drainage area on ( a) daily concentration and ( b) water body volume for ChemB at a semi arid site corresponding to the CA fruit crop scenario ( metfile W93193, DA/ VC = 50 acre/ acre ft, D 0 = D max = 2.4 m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 Page x of x Figure 4 23. The effect of varying drainage areas on ( a) daily concentration and ( b) water body volume for ChemB in semi arid site corresponding to standard scenario CA fruit ( metfile W93193, DA/ VC ratio = 50 acre/ acre ft, and D 0 = D max = 2.4 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 Figure 4 24. The effect of using the minimum ( min), average ( avg), and maximum ( max) initial water body depth ( D0) on daily concentration for ( a) ChemA and ( b) ChemB and ( c) water body volume in semi arid site corresponding to standard scenario CA fruit, metfile w93193. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 Figure 4 25. The effect of using the minimum ( min), average ( avg), and maximum ( max) initial water body depth ( D0) on daily concentration for ( a) ChemA and ( b) ChemB and ( c) water body volume in humid site corresponding to standard scenario FL sugarcane, metfile w12844. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 Figure 4 26. Comparison of VVWM using standard water body conditions and VVWM using crop scenario specific water body conditions for ( a) ChemA, ( b) ChemB, and ( c) volume for CA fruit scenario, met w93193. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 84 Figure 4 27. Comparison of VVWM using the standard water body conditions, and VVWM using the crop scenario specific water body conditions for ( a) ChemA, ( b) ChemB and ( c) volume for FL sugarcane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 86 Figure 4 28. Plot of the curve numbers that represent the 10th and 90th percentile exceedence frequencies for 14 watersheds as presented by Hjelmfelt ( 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 98 Figure 4 29. PRZM's relationship of curve number to soil moisture. FC is field capacity, and WP is wilting point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 102 Figure 4 30. Curve numbers implied by the data of Wauchope et al. ( 1999) plotted as a function of soil moisture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 103 Figure 4 31. A comparison of curve numbers derived from field data with those generated by the probabilistic curve number and those generated by PRZM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 107 Figure 4 32. Curve numbers generated probabilistically and by PRZM shown as a function of soil moisture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 108 Figure 4 33. A depiction of the runoff/ rainfall relationship of the measured field data and PRZM 3.12 simulated values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 109


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16844-16845]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64105; File No. SR-BX-2011-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness Relating to Changing the Starting
Time

March 22, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 15, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules of the Exchange's
equity trading facility to change the starting time from 8 a.m. Eastern
Time (``ET'') to 7 a.m. ET. The Exchange proposes to amend provisions
of Exchange Rules 4120, 4420, 4421, 4617, 4751, 4752 and 4756 to
reflect the proposed amended starting time.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=BXRulefilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend certain rules
of the Exchange to change the starting time from 8 a.m. ET to 7 a.m.
ET. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following
Exchange rules in the following manner:
    i. Exchange Rule 4120(b)(4)(B) to reflect that the ``Pre-Market
Session'' means the trading session will begin at 7 a.m. ET instead of
8 a.m. ET.
    ii. Exchange Rule 4420(i)(7) to reflect that the Exchange may
designate each series of Portfolio Depository Receipts for trading
during a pre-market session beginning at 7 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. ET.
    iii. Exchange Rule 4420(j) to reflect that the Exchange may
designate each series of Index Fund Shares for trading during a pre-
market session beginning at 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 a.m. ET.
    iv. Exchange Rule 4421(a)(2) to reflect that the information
circular distributed by the Exchange prior to the commencement of
trading in each UTP Derivative Security contain applicable trading
hours for the UTP Derivative Security and the risks of trading
beginning with the period starting from 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 a.m. ET.
    v. Exchange Rule 4617 to reflect that the normal business hours for
the trading platform begins at 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 a.m. ET; and,
Equity Market Makers whose quotes are open before 9:30 a.m. ET or after
4 p.m. ET shall be obligated to comply, while their quotes are open,
with all rules that are not by their express terms, or by an official
interpretation of the Exchange, inapplicable to any part of the period
7 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. or 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. ET period instead of 8 a.m. to
9:30 a.m. or 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. ET.
    vi. Exchange Rule 4751(h)(1) to reflect that System Hours Immediate
or Cancel \3\ orders must be will be [sic] available for entry and
execution from 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``System Hours Immediate or Cancel'' shall mean, for orders
so designated, that if after entry into the System the order (or a
portion thereof) is not marketable, the order (or unexecuted portion
thereof) shall be canceled and returned to the entering Participant.
See Exchange Rule 4751(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vii. Exchange Rule 4751(h)(2) to reflect that System Hours Day \4\
orders must remain available for potential display and/or execution
from 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 a.m. ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``System Hours Day'' shall mean, for orders so designated,
that if after entry into the System, the order is not fully
executed, the order (or the unexecuted portion thereof) shall remain
available for potential display and/or execution from the opening of
the normal business day until 7 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it was
submitted unless cancelled by the entering party. See Exchange Rule
4751(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    viii. Exchange Rule 4751(h)(4) to reflect that System Hours Expire
Time \5\ orders must remain for entry and execution from 7 a.m. ET
instead of 8 a.m. ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``System Hours Expire Time'' or ``SHEX'' shall mean, for
orders so designated, that if after entry into the System, the order
is not fully executed, the order (or the unexecuted portion thereof)
shall remain available for potential display and/or execution for
the amount of time specified by the entering Participant (up to 7
p.m. on the day entered) unless canceled by the entering party. See
Exchange Rule 4751(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ix. Exchange Rule 4751(h)(8) to reflect that ``good-til-market
close'' \6\ orders must be available for entry and potential execution
from 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Good-til-market close'' shall mean for orders so
designated, that if after entry into the System, the order is not
fully executed, the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) shall
remain available for potential display and/or execution until
cancelled by the entering party, or until 4 p.m., after which it
shall be returned to the entering party. See Exchange Rule
4751(h)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    x. Exchange Rule 4752(a)(1) to reflect that the system shall add in
time priority all eligible Orders in accordance with each order's
defined characteristics at 7 a.m. instead of 8 a.m.
    xi. Exchange Rule 4756(a)(3) to reflect that orders can be entered
into the System (or previously entered orders cancelled) from 7 a.m. ET
instead of 8 a.m. ET.
    xii. Exchange Rule 4756(b) to reflect that Equities Market Makers,
Order Entry Firms, and Equities ECNs can enter quotes into the system
starting at 7 a.m. ET instead of 8 a.m. ET.
    The Exchange is a fully electronic system that accommodates diverse
business models and trading preferences. Exchange utilizes technology
to aggregate and display liquidity and make it available for execution
of orders. Exchange is

proposing to expand its operational hours to open the System earlier so
that firms can enter orders and execute beginning at 7 a.m. rather than
8 a.m.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the
proposal enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply
with and enforce compliance by members, member organizations, and
persons associated with members and member organizations with
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of the Exchange. The proposal is also consistent with Section 6
of the Act in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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. An earlier open will enhance
the national market system by providing market participants increased
opportunity to more effectively carry out the execution of orders in
the manner addressed by Exchange rules. Such improvements will enhance
the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-016. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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. Copies of the filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-016 and
should be submitted on or before April 15, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7109 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5845]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 16, 2009, vol. 74, no. 199, page
53315. This collection is necessary for gathering data concerning
potential new hires for the FAA.

DATES: Please submit comments by March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Application for Employment with the Federal Aviation
Administration.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0597.
    Form(s): 3330-42, 3330-52, OF 304, 3330-43-1, AF-SRG-005, AF-SRG-
002, 3330-43, AF-SRG-001, OPM 1635, 54972, AC-3300-70, 3330-473, AF-
SRG-007, 3330-71, ASG-MFG-001, OF 612, SF 15, AF-SRG-004, OPM-1170, AF-
SRG-003, AF-SRG-006, AF 3330.1A, 52569, FTP 001, 2105-0557.
    Affected Public: An estimated 180,000 respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.5 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 207,000 hours annually.
    Abstract: This collection is necessary for gathering data
concerning potential new hires for the FAA. The information is used to
evaluate the qualifications of applicants for a variety of positions.
Without the information there would be no means to accurately evaluate
applicants' skills, knowledge, and abilities to perform the duties of
the positions.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2010.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-2473 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P