Minimum Stack 0.05 xch/ min 95 10 0 130 90 580 460 895 710 99 15 10 155 110 680 540 1065 855 99.9 20 15 185 140 705 560 1145 920 Minimum Stack 1 xch/ min 95 0 0 70 60 115 85 235 160 99 0 0 85 70 135 105 445 325 99.9 10 0 110 90 145 115 695 530 No Stack 95 65 55 335 285 875 755 1380 1180 99 75 60 370 320 995 855 1440 1340 99.9 80 65 385 335 1030 890 1440 1385 Portable Stack 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPQ 1 xch/ min. 95 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 10 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 Whole Field Buffer Distances.

Minimum Stack 0.05 xch/ min 95 0 0 0 0 40 35 0 0 99 0 0 50 40 200 160 280 230 99.9 10 0 120 85 535 425 850 675 Minimum Stack 1 xch/ min 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 20 0 45 40 105 90 99.9 0 0 65 50 105 80 220 155 No Stack 95 0 0 15 10 35 35 40 35 99 20 15 115 95 295 260 440 385 99.9 60 50 320 270 835 720 1440 1125 Portable Stack 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7: PERFUM Methyl Bromide Buffer Distances ( meters) For All Aeration Processes Considered Based On UF30, 4 hour Exposure Duration, 4 lb/ 1000 cubic feet Application Rate, Varied Structure Size & Varied Percent Mass Released Aeration Type Percentile 1000 Cubic Feet 10000 Cubic Feet 50000 Cubic Feet 100000 Cubic Feet 95% Mass Release 75% Mass Release 95% Mass Release 75% Mass Release 95% Mass Release 75% Mass Release 95% Mass Release 75% Mass Release 40 PPQ 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In addition to concerns over appropriate buffer distances and other mitigation strategies during the aeration phase of methyl bromide use in commodity treatments, it is also important to consider how much material may leak from a chamber during the treatment phase ( Table 8). In order to simulate this, low percentage mass release values were used to mimic such situations. These estimates were calculated based on all aeration types but it is believed that the no stack scenario best represents real world conditions because of a lack of active aeration ( i. e., no fans are used to push methyl bromide from the chamber in the no stack aeration, it essentially represents a leaky box which is what would be expected during treatment in most situations). It is clear that based on the results presented in Table 8 that in most circumstances some sort of buffer distance or other mitigation option ( e. g., a performance criteria for leaking less than a specific percentage of the applied mass) needs to be in place to reduce exposures for those in proximity to a structure during treatment itself except for the smallest chambers considered.

Table 8: PERFUM Methyl Bromide Buffer Distances ( meters) During Treatment Based On UF30, 4 hour Exposure Duration, 4 lb/ 1000 cubic feet Application Rate, Varied Structure Size & Varied Percent Mass Released Aeration Type Percentile 1000 Cubic Feet 10000 Cubic Feet 50000 Cubic Feet 100000 Cubic Feet 10% Mass Release 1% Mass Release 10% Mass Release 1% Mass Release 10% Mass Release 1% Mass Release 10% Mass Release 1% Mass Release Maximum Buffer Distances.

No Stack 95 0 0 60 0 205 0 335 35 99 0 0 75 0 230 0 375 45 99.9 0 0 80 0 240 0 390 50 Whole Field Buffer Distances.

No Stack 95 0 0 0 0 10 0 20 0 99 0 0 15 0 75 0 120 0 99.9 0 0 55 0 195 0 320 30 Along with the factors examined above, the Agency also investigated the impact varying both the duration of exposure in order to more closely mimic real world conditions ( i. e., 1 hour durations) and also to present more realistic risk estimates ( i. e., 4 hour durations). The 1 hour duration exposure intervals are as close as the PERFUM model can represent many commodity treatment situations where aeration is rapidly completed. The issue is, however, that albeit a better simulation of many actual exposure events the 1 hour duration does not provide a more realistic risk estimate because the HEC 41 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1hr1lbmax 1hr4lbmax 4hr1lbmax 4hr4lbmax 1hr1lbw f ld 1hr4lbw f ld 4hr1lbw f ld 4hr4lbw f ld Duration/ Rate/ Type Buffer Distance ( m)

10Kcuf t/ 95th%

100Kcuft/ 95th%

10Kcuf t/ 99.9th%

100Kcuft/ 99.9th%

Figure 11: Methyl Bromide Minimum Stack ( 0.05 xch/ min.) 95th & 99.9th Percentile Buffer Distances Based On UF30, & Varied Structure Size, Duration, Application Rate used to calculate risks is based on a 8 hour exposure interval. The available hazard data do not allow for a more refined HEC estimate. In order to better approximate likely risks 4 hour exposure durations were also considered which were calculated by including 1 hour of emission coupled with 3 hours of no emissions. This approach more closely approximates the 8 hour HEC, which is based on continuous exposure over that time, but the comparison is still somewhat conservative. [ Note: In some ports and other treatment facilities, the frequency of treatments, or number of batches treated on a daily basis is high. In order to address these types of occurrences, the Agency completed PERFUM calculations using a 4 hour  4 event scenario. However, these calculations have not been summarized for the purposes of this assessment to save resources because any likely mitigation strategy based on a single event would also impact these estimates. The PERFUM outputs can be provided to interested parties for examination is so desired.] Application rate is also a key factor in determining buffer distances using the PERFUM approach. All of the summaries presented above are based on an application rate of 4 lb/ 1000 cubic feet which is the maximum rate or just slightly above ( i. e., it is 3.5 lb/ 1000 cubic feet for many crops) for most commodities that have an associated food tolerance. It has also been noted by many stakeholders that a significant portion of methyl bromide applications do not occur at that rate but occur at much lower rates. In order to examine the effect of lowering the application rate a value of 1lb/ 1000 cubic feet was also used to illustrate a more typical use situation. Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14 below illustrate how changes in exposure duration and application rates can impact predicted buffer distances. Figure 11 presents the results for a minimum stack scenario using 10,000 and 100,000 cubic feet chambers and an air exchange rate of 0.05X/ minute. Figure 12 is similar except the air exchange has been increased to the APHIS PPQ standard of 1 air exchange/ minute. Figure 13 presents results for a no stack scenario which essentially represents what would happen if a chamber was treated and aeration occurred by opening a door. Figure 14 presents the results for the APHIS PPQ standard method of an air exchange per minute using groundlevel portable output vents in secured areas near a chamber ( e. g., parking lot). APHIS PPQ use of a portable 50 tall stack was also evaluated but all analyses resulted in a 0 meter buffer distance prediction. 42 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1hr1lbmax 1hr4lbmax 4hr1lbmax 4hr4lbmax 1hr1lbwf ld 1hr4lbwf ld 4hr1lbwf ld 4hr4lbwf ld Duration/ Rate/ Type Buffer Distance ( m)

10Kcuf t/ 95th%

100Kcuft/ 95th%

10Kcuf t/ 99.9th%

100Kcuft/ 99.9th%

Figure 12: Methyl Bromide Minimum Stack ( 1 xch/ min.) 95th & 99.9th Percentile Buffer Distances Based On UF 30 & Varied Structure Size, Duration, Application Rate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1hr1lbmax 1hr4lbmax 4hr1lbmax 4hr4lbmax 1hr1lbw f ld 1hr4lbw f ld 4hr1lbw f ld 4hr4lbw f ld Duration/ Rate / Type Buffer Distance ( m)

10Kcuf t/ 95th%

100Kcuf t/ 95th%

10Kcuf t/ 99.9th%

100Kcuf t/ 99.9th%

Figure 13: Methyl Bromide No Stack Aeration 95th & 99.9th Percentile Buffer Distances Based On UF 30 & Varied Structure Size, Duration, Application Rate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1hr 1lbmax 1hr4lbmax 4hr 1lbmax 4hr4lbmax 1hr 1lbwf ld 1hr 4lbwf ld 4hr 1lbwf ld 4hr 4lbwf ld Duration/ Rate/ Type Buffer Distance ( m)

10Kcuft/ 95th%

100Kcuft/ 95th%

10Kcuft/ 99.9th%

100Kcuft/ 99.9th%

Figure 14: Methyl Bromide PPQ Aeration ( 1 xch/ min.) 95th & 99.9th Percentile Buffer Distances Based On UF 30 & Varied Structure Size, Duration, Application Rate 43 The results presented in Figures 11 through 14 indicate that the PPQ and portable stack aeration procedures as well as the minimum stack at full exit velocity have smaller associated buffer distances. For larger structures at lower aeration velocities, predicted buffer distances are large and likely will result in operational changes by users regardless of whether 1 or 4 hour durations are considered or even based on application rate. It is also clear from Figures 11 through 14 that lower application rates have lower associated buffer distances as would be expected. It is also clear that the longer the averaging time for a single exposure event the lower the associated buffer distances as also would be expected. The Agency reaffirms that the 4 hour duration results probably represent the most refined risk estimates because they result in a closer comparison to the 8 hour HEC. The values presented in Figures 11 through 14 above represent the losses that would be expected during aeration after treatment. PERFUM outputs were also summarized to examine similar results during treatment ( i. e., at 1 and 10 percent applied mass loss as above). The trends were similar for those observed above in Table 8 where predicted buffer distances were much lower as expected and the general relationship between exposure duration and application rate with predicted buffer distances also still applies. Table 9 below provides a summary of some of the values included in Figures 11 through 14 for illustrative purposes. [ Note: Refer to Appendix F5, Tables 21 through 28 for more information.]

Table 9: PERFUM Methyl Bromide Buffer Distances ( meters) For All Aeration Processes Considered Based On UF30, 95% Applied Mass Release, & Varied Structure Size, Exposure Duration, Application Rate Aeration Type Percentile 1 Hour & 1 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 1 Hour & 4 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 4 Hour & 1 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 4 Hour & 4 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft Maximum Buffer Distances.

Minimum Stack 0.05 xch/ min 95 100 790 480 1440 25 165 130 895 99 120 860 515 1440 30 215 155 1065 99.9 135 965 560 1440 35 275 185 1145 Minimum Stack 1 xch/ min 95 70 225 245 1440 0 55 70 235 99 85 360 340 1440 25 75 85 445 99.9 95 500 370 1440 30 140 110 695 No Stack 95 305 1270 710 1440 135 570 335 1380 99 320 1340 750 1440 150 645 370 1440 99.9 330 1365 765 1440 155 670 385 1440 Portable Stack 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPQ 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 85 385 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 90 1005 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 95 1440 0 0 0 0 Table 9: PERFUM Methyl Bromide Buffer Distances ( meters) For All Aeration Processes Considered Based On UF30, 95% Applied Mass Release, & Varied Structure Size, Exposure Duration, Application Rate Aeration Type Percentile 1 Hour & 1 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 1 Hour & 4 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 4 Hour & 1 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 4 Hour & 4 lb/ 1000 cu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 10K cu. ft 100Kcu. ft 44 Whole Field Buffer Distances.

Minimum Stack 0.05 xch/ min 95 0 70 45 165 0 0 0 0 99 60 315 230 1105 0 80 50 280 99.9 95 730 470 1440 25 155 120 850 Minimum Stack 1 xch/ min 95 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 99 25 125 95 460 0 0 20 105 99.9 70 220 215 1440 0 55 65 220 No Stack 95 25 85 45 145 0 25 15 40 99 145 585 345 1330 45 200 115 440 99.9 295 1285 695 1440 125 545 320 1440 Portable Stack 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPQ 1 xch/ min. 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 99.9 0 0 80 1440 0 0 0 0 An issue that has been recurrent throughout the development of this and other similar fumigant risk assessments is the reliability of predicted buffer zones. Often, this has been examined by ascertaining what risks for an individual might be if they happened to have an excursion within an established buffer distance. This situation, by definition, would represent an individual in a situation where the Agency's level of concern would be exceeded. In order to examine the relative change in buffer distance with changing uncertainty factor ( i. e., MOE change with distance) an analysis was completed using no stack aeration maximum buffer distances, 75 and 95 percent mass releases, 4 hour duration, 4 lb/ 1000 cubic feet application rate, and a 100000 cubic feet chamber ( Figure 15). As expected, as the target uncertainty factors decrease the predicted buffer distances also decreased. At an MOE or UF = 1 ( i. e., the NOAEL HEC) predicted buffers are < 200 meters and at a UF = 3 predicted buffers < 400 meters even at the highest percentiles of exposure. At the uncertainty factor = 30 buffer distances are 1440 meters at the highest percentiles of exposure. All totaled it appears that the relative change in distance with changing uncertainty factors is best represented by what could be described as a gradual slope which indicates that even if an individual had an excursion event within an established buffer zone that their associated risks would not change dramatically with that event. 45 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1 3 10 30 Margins Of Exposure ( UF) Buffer Distance ( meters) 95% Rel./ 95th 95% Rel./ 99.9th 75% Rel./ 95th 75% Rel./ 99.9th Figure 15: Methyl Bromide Buffer Distances At Varied Uncertainty Factors Based On No Stack Aeration, 100K cubic feet Structure, 4 hour Exposure Duration, 4 lb/ 1000 cubic feet Application Rate, & Varied Mass Releases In conclusion, it is clear that many different factors can impact the air concentrations ( and hence, risks) in proximity to structures and chambers that are used for commodity treatments with methyl bromide; these include many of the factors which have been investigated in this analysis. It is also important to acknowledge this issue so that stakeholders understand that the results of this analysis can be interpreted in many ways depending upon the factors which are considered. Many conclusions can be drawn, but the key ones include: ( 1) depending upon the scenario and inputs predicted buffer distances can range from adjacent to treatment structures to distances as far as 1440 meters, it appears that no stack aeration results in the longest buffer distances while the APHIS PPQ methods result in the shortest general buffer distances, when stacks are used greater exit velocities seem to decrease buffer distances; ( 2) the sensitivity of results to changes in key factors is generally well within an order of magnitude for the factors which have been evaluated; ( 3) PERFUM is an empirically based approach so the generation of use, emissions, facility/ structure and meteorological data would allow a broader analysis that could be applied more specifically to other situations across the country; and ( 4) the identification of a result, per se, for any sort of regulatory action would depend upon careful consideration of the variability and uncertainty as well as any particular merits of the inputs associated with each.

6.1.2 Ambient Bystander Exposure From Multiple Regional Sources Ambient levels of methyl bromide are generally not attributable to specific application events, rather contributions may occur from multiple sources within a region. For example, it is likely that individuals could potentially be exposed to methyl bromide if they live in proximity to or otherwise frequent areas where significant uses occur such as a neighborhood located around a port facility during the season of use.

Exposures from ambient air that occur from non point sources of methyl bromide were estimated from monitoring data collected to represent conditions at a regional level. CARB generated most of the data considered in this analysis. CARB is a widely recognized institution for these types of programs and it is 46 part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CARB conducts air monitoring studies for various types of chemicals throughout California. The studies conducted by CARB can generally be categorized as one of two types including: ( 1) targeted monitoring typically completed upon request to provide information related to specialized issues such as fumigant exposures in areas of high agricultural use during the season of use ( Appendix G); and ( 2) routine monitoring for select pollutants via established networks in order to better quantify exposures in the general population ( i. e., CARB established its Toxic Air Contaminant monitoring program or TAC for routinely quantifying toxic chemicals such as soil fumigants in air in urban areas). Additional data were considered that were generated by the Alliance of the Methyl Bromide Industry ( AMBI). Review of the AMBI data identified quality control issues in some sample collection procedures and for this reason they are presented only for comparative purposes. For ease and clarity, the Agency has opted by convention to describe the available ambient bystander data used in this assessment as follows:

( 1) " CARB Data": includes targeted monitoring data generated by both CARB and AMBI focused on areas of high agricultural methyl bromide use in the season of use [ Note: Targeted monitoring data are not specific for commodity uses but are the only such data available for this type of analysis.]; and ( 2) " TAC Data": includes data from CARB's Toxic Air Contaminant Network for Methyl bromide that quantifies background levels in non agricultural, urban environments.

The results associated with the CARB data are presented in Section <IP_ADDRESS> below while the results associated with the TAC data are presented in Section <IP_ADDRESS>.

<IP_ADDRESS> Exposures From Regionally Targeted Non Point Source Ambient Air Monitoring In 2000 and 2001, CDPR requested that CARB conduct a series of studies to quantify ambient levels of methyl bromide ( http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ empm/ pubs/ tac/ requests. htm).

" Because most of California's pesticide applications normally occur in agricultural areas and are seasonal in nature, ARB conducts the monitoring studies to collect data during the worst case situation  in the areas of high use during the season of peak use  instead of collecting samples throughout the State. This " worst case" information can then be used to determine the ambient exposures of those people living near places where pesticides are used."

The CDPR also requested that the Alliance of the methyl bromide Industry ( AMBI) conduct monitoring studies.

For the targeted ambient air analysis, HED evaluated different durations of exposure including single day acute exposures, short and intermediate term exposures, and chronic exposures ( Table 10). Since samples were collected 3 to 4 times per week from each station, and the contribution of specific applications could not be determined, the statistics were calculated by station and not on a regional basis ( e. g., county). Risks from acute exposures were calculated using the maximum 24 hour TWA values measured at each station and comparing them to the acute 24 hour (" agricultural") HEC and not the 8 47 hour (" commodity") HEC because these ambient air results are all 24 hour time weighted averages.

Risks from short and intermediate term exposures ( i. e., same HEC and uncertainty factors apply to both durations) were calculated using the mean of 8 weekly means calculated by DPR for samples taken over the course of the use season and comparing them to the short and intermediate term HEC. This approach was taken in order to statistically weigh equally each week's contribution to the overall seasonal mean because of differing numbers of samples in some weeks. Concentrations over the course of a season monitored in these studies did not vary extensively so calculation of average concentrations for shorter durations ( e. g., 4 weeks) or even the use of an overall mean of all samples would not expected to be dramatically different than estimates used in this assessment. This supposition is supported physically because these studies spanned high use seasons in high use areas and use would not be expected to dramatically change at these locations during use seasons. It should be noted that the statistical summaries of the available data were completed by DPR and that the Agency reviewed and concurred with this approach. There are many possible ways to calculate exposure estimates given the available data for completing a short and intermediate term assessment. For example, a TWA over an entire season could be calculated or weekly TWAs could be calculated and then averaged over a season. The Agency agrees with DPR's use of the mean of 8 weekly means because it does not weigh results for the number of samples collected in a week ( i. e., most weeks had 4 samples but some had 3) and it does not require a data filling procedure for the days missing each week ( i. e., usually Wed., Sat., and Sun with most applications early in the weekend because of near school issues).

Chronic exposure estimates were also calculated using the targeted non point source ambient data. These calculations should be considered as rangefinder estimates of exposure because of a lack of monitoring studies specifically designed for this purpose. Specifically, short and intermediate term estimates were amortized to reflect a potential for exposure of 180 days out of each calendar year in order to calculate chronic estimates of exposure. This was determined based on the approximate use patterns for methyl bromide over a year in high use areas. This approach does introduce the potential for significant uncertainty into the estimates, however, the Agency views the potential for chronic exposures in high use regions as significant and has addressed this scenario in order to be health protective. Because there are many uncertainties associated with the approach used in this assessment it is difficult to determine how these estimates either over or under predict actual chronic exposures for those living in high use areas. There are several factors that should be considered:

° Monitoring was specifically targeted toward areas of high use, this limits the populations for which these types chronic exposure estimates could be applied ( i. e., for those living in such regions);

° More refined amortization approaches on a regional basis could be possible with use data, especially in California, but in most regions such data are not available; and ° Targeted monitoring was conducted during selected seasons of high use, but because the data are limited, the impacts of changing conditions ( e. g., from different pest pressures, use patterns, or extended seasons) cannot be quantified, especially for different regions of the country with different climates, which could lead to potentially missing higher end exposures under some conditions. 48 Acute exposures for all of the monitoring stations considered ( N = 30) do not exceed HED's level of concern ( Table 10). Results were similar for the 8 week TWA exposures ( short and intermediate term exposures), none of the monitoring stations exceed HED's level of concern, and in many cases by orders of magnitude. These results should be considered in conjunction with the fact that these studies were deemed to be worst case situations as described by CDPR above. HED calculated chronic exposure based on CARB data using a rangefinder approach because monitoring data specifically meant to establish chronic exposure levels in high use areas were not available. Based on this approach, in some cases, chronic risks exceed HEDs level of concern ( i. e., MOEs < 100 for 6 of 41 station years); however, HED believes that these results do not pose an imminent health concern to the general public due to the nature of the rangefinder calculations as described above.

CDPR also reached similar conclusions that risks resulting from exposure to ambient air were of minimal concern.

Table 10: Results of 2000 Through 2002 California Ambient Monitoring In High Use Areas During Season Of Use CA. County Data Source Site Dates & Mon. Days ( N) Maximum 24 Hr. TWAs ( ppb) Acute MOE! 8 Week TWA ( mean of means) ( ppb) Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Amortized 180 days ( ppb) Calculated Chronic MOE3 Kern CARB ARB 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 25) 0.996 10040 0.189 5291 0.09 1444 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 0.31 32258 0.12 8333 0.06 2166 SHA 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 26) 3.52 2841 0.792 1263 0.39 333 CRS 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 24) 14.2 704 2.16 463 1.07 121 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 33.50 299 2.49 402 1.23 106 MVS 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 26) 0.487 20534 0.092 10870 0.05 2600 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 0.23 43478 0.08 12500 0.04 3250 VSD 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 26) 0.247 40486 0.099 10101 0.05 2600 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 0.23 43478 0.08 12500 0.04 3250 MET 7/ 10 9/ 1, 2000 ( 26) 0.224 44643 0.084 11905 0.04 3250 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 0.25 40000 0.07 14286 0.03 4333 ARV 6/ 30 8/ 31, 2001 0.22 45455 0.07 14286 0.03 4333 Table 10: Results of 2000 Through 2002 California Ambient Monitoring In High Use Areas During Season Of Use CA. County Data Source Site Dates & Mon. Days ( N) Maximum 24 Hr. TWAs ( ppb) Acute MOE! 8 Week TWA ( mean of means) ( ppb) Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Amortized 180 days ( ppb) Calculated Chronic MOE3 49 Ventura AMBI ( CDPR Stats Used) SHA 8/ 15 10/ 10, 2001 2.94 3401 0.50 2000 0.25 520 7/ 10 8/ 31, 2002 ( 31) 5.77 1733 0.58 1724 0.29 448 ABD 8/ 15 10/ 10, 2001 0.44 22727 0.18 5556 0.09 1444 7/ 10 8/ 31, 2002 ( 30) 3.44 2907 0.76 1316 0.37 351 UWC 8/ 15 10/ 10, 2001 4.35 2299 0.82 1220 0.40 325 7/ 10 8/ 31, 2002 ( 26) 13.17 759 2.22 450 1.09 119 PVW 8/ 15 10/ 10, 2001 3.17 3155 0.56 1786 0.28 464 7/ 10 8/ 31, 2002 ( 32) 9.51 1052 1.62 617 0.80 163 Santa Barbara AMBI ( CDPR Stats Used) PLN 8/ 23 10/ 9, 2001 2.69 3717 0.93 1075 0.46 283 EDW 8/ 23 10/ 9, 2001 11.15 897 1.32 758 0.65 200 AGC 8/ 23 10/ 9, 2001 1.16 8621 0.28 3571 0.14 929 BLO 8/ 23 10/ 9, 2001 4.55 2198 0.73 1370 0.36 361 SLO 8/ 23 10/ 9, 2001 1.12 8929 __ __ __ __

Monterey CARB SAL 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 31) 7.91 1264 1.29 775 0.64 203 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 9.25 1081 1.38 725 0.68 191 OAS 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 31) 1.84 5435 0.387 2584 0.19 684 CHU 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 31) 2.41 4149 0.644 1553 0.32 406 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 1.84 5435 0.56 1786 0.28 464 LJE 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 30) 24.0 417 3.79 264 1.87 70 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 14.49 690 2.82 355 1.39 94 Table 10: Results of 2000 Through 2002 California Ambient Monitoring In High Use Areas During Season Of Use CA. County Data Source Site Dates & Mon. Days ( N) Maximum 24 Hr. TWAs ( ppb) Acute MOE! 8 Week TWA ( mean of means) ( ppb) Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Amortized 180 days ( ppb) Calculated Chronic MOE3 50 AMBI ( CDPR Stats Used) BBC 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 32) 6.28 1592 2.08 481 1.03 126 MAQ 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 32) 4.53 2208 1.12 893 0.55 236 Santa Cruz CARB PMS 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 31) 30.8 325 7.68 130 3.79 34 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 21.08 474 2.99 334 1.47 88 SES 9/ 11 11/ 3, 2000 ( 31) 16.4 610 2.60 385 1.28 101 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 5.31 1883 1.22 820 0.60 217 MES 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 36.64 273 5.51 181 2.72 48 SCF 9/ 8 11/ 7, 2001 0.74 13514 Not Sampled __ __ __

AMBI ( CDPR Stats Used) WAT 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 30) 16.38 611 3.79 264 1.87 70 FRM 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 31) 14.00 714 2.62 382 1.29 101 CPW 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 30) 11.12 899 2.06 485 1.02 127 SCF 9/ 4 10/ 26, 2002 ( 7) 0.69 14493 NA

Background site sampled only during 2 nonconsecutive weeks 1. Acute MOE based on maximum 24 hr TWAs and 24 hour " agricultural" HEC as durations are similar. 2. Short term and intermediate term MOE are based on 8 wk. TWA ( i. e., mean of weekly means). 3. Chronic MOE based on short/ intermediate term exposures amortized for 180 days exposure per year.

<IP_ADDRESS> Exposures From Urban Background Ambient Air Monitoring In 2002, CARB added methyl bromide to its list of contaminants for which it routinely screens in its TAC program ( see http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ empm/ pubs/ tac/ monitoring. htm). The location of these monitoring stations, however, shifted from a potential " worst case", in season use situation as described in section <IP_ADDRESS> above to the following:

" The ARB has a network of stations that routinely monitor California's air for a variety of pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, metals, and other toxic air contaminants. In 2002, ARB began monitoring for two pesticides, Methyl bromide and 1,3 dichloropropene, every 12 days at approximately 20 stations in primarily urban areas throughout the State."

The following should also be considered ( see http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ aqd/ toxics/ toxuses. html): 51 " The toxics sampling network was designed to produce a statewide annual average to support the determination of a statewide risk assessment. Where fewer than 12 continuous months of data are present, we believe that it is seldom appropriate to calculate an annual average. Most of the toxic substances show some seasonal variation, and some substances differ by as much as two orders of magnitude between the high and low periods of the year. If a month's data are missing, the calculated average could be radically different from the real average, the average that would have been calculated had the missing month's data been available."

TAC monitoring sites are located throughout California in urban environments that include urban areas such as Long Beach, Burbank, Los Angeles, Fremont, Fresno, San Francisco and San Jose. [ Note: Long Beach is a major port facility that routinely uses methyl bromide for quarantine treatments of commodities and other items. The statistical summaries of the 2002/ 2003 CARB monitoring data are provided in Table 11.

They were taken directly from http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ toxics/ statepages/ mbrstate. html. Maximum values at each station were compared to acute HECs to estimate acute MOEs. Short and intermediateterm risks were estimated by comparing means to the short and intermediate term HECs. Means were selected for this analysis because they appear in most cases to be heavily influenced by the typical 6 to 8 week use season based on the relative contributions of a relatively small number of samples and that medians for most stations were reported as the level of detection. Medians from each location were used to calculate chronic MOEs. True chronic exposures ( continuous exposures > 6 months) in and around most of the monitored sites probably do not occur because the limit of detection ( ½ LOD or 0.015 ppb) has been reported as the median for approximately 75 percent of the stations for each year where there are data. These monitoring data indicate that exposure patterns track with seasonal use; therefore, shorter duration exposures are more prevalent which reflects the seasonal use of most methyl bromide in California.

No exposure levels reported by through the TAC program exceed HED's level of concern for any duration of exposure including acute ( all MOEs > 30), short, intermediate term ( all MOEs > 30), or chronic ( all MOEs > 100) exposures in an urban environment ( Table 11).

Table 11: Results of 2002 & 2003 California Ambient Monitoring In Urban Areas Site Year N Results of Annual MeBr Monitoring ( ppb)

Maximum Acute MOE! Mean Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Median Chronic MOE3 Statewide 2002 440 0.91 10989 0.042 23810 0.015 8667 2003 503 0.90 11111 0.040 25000 0.015 8667 Azusa 2002 27 0.14 71429 0.041 24390 0.03 4333 2003 28 0.16 62500 0.036 27778 0.015 8667 Burbank 2002 30 0.14 71429 0.031 32258 0.015 8667 2003 26 0.10 100000 NR  0.015 8667 Table 11: Results of 2002 & 2003 California Ambient Monitoring In Urban Areas Site Year N Results of Annual MeBr Monitoring ( ppb)

Maximum Acute MOE! Mean Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Median Chronic MOE3 52 Calexico 2002 29 0.11 90909 0.020 50000 0.015 8667 2003 30 0.33 30303 0.036 27778 0.015 8667 Chula Vista 2002 29 0.06 166667 0.021 47619 0.015 8667 2003 28 0.05 200000 NR  0.015 8667 El Cajon 2002 28 0.06 166667 0.020 50000 0.015 8667 2003 30 0.05 200000 0.021 47619 0.015 8667 Los Angeles 2002 21 0.14 71429 NR  0.03 4333 2003 29 0.10 100000 0.032 31250 0.015 8667 Long Beach 2002 25 0.11 90909 0.035 28571 0.015 8667 2003 27 0.13 76923 0.035 28571 0.04 3250 Riverside 2002 25 0.13 76923 NR  0.015 8667 2003 30 0.10 100000 0.028 35714 0.015 8667 Simi Valley 2002 26 0.91 10989 0.101 9901 0.05 2600 2003 31 0.90 11111 0.120 8333 0.015 8667 Bakersfield 2002 29 0.22 45455 0.058 17241 0.04 3250 2003 29 0.88 11364 0.080 12500 0.04 3250 Chico 2002 29 0.14 71429 0.026 38462 0.015 8667 2003 31 0.15 66667 0.022 45455 0.015 8667 Fremont 2002 27 0.05 200000 0.018 55556 0.015 8667 2003 30 0.11 90909 0.019 52632 0.015 8667 Fresno 2002 30 0.19 52632 0.049 20408 0.015 8667 2003 31 0.19 52632 0.055 18182 0.05 2600 Roseville 2002 29 0.11 90909 0.021 47619 0.015 8667 2003 31 0.03 333333 0.016 62500 0.015 8667 San Francisco 2002 15 0.08 125000 NR  0.015 8667 2003 31 0.015 666667 0.015 66667 0.015 8667 San Jose  4th Street 2002 8 0.09 111111 NR  NR

San Jose  Jackson St. 2002 6 0.05 200000 NR  NR

2003 31 0.23 43478 0.031 32258 0.015 8667 Stockton 2002 27 0.90 11111 0.144 6944 0.05 8667 2003 30 0.48 20833 0.088 11364 0.04 8667 Mexicali  Mexico 2002 19 0.10 100000 NR  0.015 8667 2003 17 0.07 142857 NR  0.015 8667 Table 11: Results of 2002 & 2003 California Ambient Monitoring In Urban Areas Site Year N Results of Annual MeBr Monitoring ( ppb)

Maximum Acute MOE! Mean Short and Intermediate Term MOE2 Median Chronic MOE3 53 Rosarito  Mexico 2002 25 0.05 200000 NR  0.015 8667 2003 30 0.14 71429 0.027 37037 0.015 8667 1. Acute MOEs based on maximum 24 hr TWAs and 24 hour " agricultural" HEC as durations are similar. 2. Short term and intermediate term MOE are based on the mean concentrations. 3. Chronic MOEs are based on the median concentration.

6.2 Bystander Risk Characterization Methyl bromide use to control pests in commodities that have established food tolerances can take many forms and by necessity results in a wide array of use situations. The situations can range from very small, infrequent batch processing to large scale, highly regimented processes that occur on a routine basis. The scale and frequency of such processes are dictated by the nature of the business of the users. Smaller scale users may be a local walnut producer in California while a large scale user may be a food processor or the USDA Plant Protection and Quarantine service at ports like Long Beach, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; or Miami, Florida. It is clear that along with this wide array of users that there is a great diversity of practices and equipment currently in use across the country. The objective of this assessment was to attempt to capture some of this diversity in the bystander risk assessments using the monitoring data and the PERFUM model. Risks from methyl bromide exposure in ambient air were also calculated using data from California focused on agricultural use areas in the season of use and also from urban centers. These data may not provide the most precise estimates of risks related to the commodity uses of methyl bromide but at this point they are the only known source of information for such calculations.

In the initial commodity assessment for methyl bromide ( please refer to D316326 at www. Regulations. gov under the methyl bromide docket EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123 for further information) the Agency generally based its calculations on the approaches used by the CADPR. This includes a tiered approach that calculated risks based on monitoring data and the use of the EPA's ISCST3 model for predicting downwind air concentrations and associated risks. The ISCST3 method is deterministic because it is based on the use of static meteorological conditions over an entire calculation period ( i. e., windspeed and atmospheric stability are constrained which is unrealistic) and it generally identified risks of concern. The Agency also used the highest possible emission terms in the previous assessment to establish what possible real world high end risk situations may be like ( i. e., emission values from the CADPR permit conditions for commodities were used). Additional analyses were not completed due to a lack of adequate use information. Based upon discussions with CADPR, it appears that these emissions estimates were loosely defined using monitoring data but they do establish an effective range of inputs for consideration that represent highly efficient ( i. e., low loss rate) chambers through what could be categorized as less than efficient facilities. [ Note: Based on various information sources, there are many possible novel technologies for scrubbing methyl bromide emissions from effluent streams. However, the Agency does not believe such systems to be able to readily implemented on a wide scale. Definitive emission reduction factors are also not available for such systems so they have not been quantitatively addressed in this assessment.] The goal of this current assessment was to provide a much broader characterization of the risks that could possibly be expected with the breadth of commodity treatment facilities across the country. This is 54 difficult given a lack of use information for all possible situations and the sparse nature of the monitoring data that only provides what can be described as situational snapshots of a few facilities in California. After release of the previous assessment, the Agency received a number of comments pertaining to the initial commodity assessment which was completed. Most of these revolved around use practices and the size and nature of the facilities as well as the commodities that were treated. Additionally, the Agency is continuously seeking additional information through venues such as the methyl bromide alternatives conference ( i. e., www. MBAO. ORG) and is actively engaged with USDA and the Plant Protection and Quarantine Service. With all of this newly identified information the Agency developed a series of refined modeling inputs that are described above ( Section <IP_ADDRESS>) in an attempt to bracket use situations across the country. Additionally, monitoring data were also used to directly calculate risks and ( in the form of the CADPR permit condition emission factors) to " groundtruth" the refined inputs. The new inputs indeed bracket what is known from the monitoring data. However, the monitoring data are limited in scope and the newly developed inputs, by definition, are intended to provide a much broader consideration of the industry. It is difficult to attempt to overlay how actual methyl bromide use practices for commodity treatments overlay with the grid of new inputs because, in general, there is a lack of appropriate information with which to attempt to complete such an effort. For this reason, the results of this assessment should be considered to represent general categories within the commodity treatment industry. These may include small, medium, and large facilities or facilities with highly refined use practices and efficient chambers or facilities that are less refined. As additional use information becomes available, further characterization can be completed and a more refined consideration of how risk estimates may be applied to various sectors of the commodity industry can be completed.

With regards to the detailed aspects of the modeling that has been completed for residential bystanders, the major change is that the Agency has moved from using the deterministic ISCST3 method to a distributional approach using PERFUM which has been recently modified to consider sources such as structures or chambers which would be anticipated in commodity treatments. The PERFUM model which was used in this assessment ( V2.1.2) is available at http:// www. sciences. com/ perfum/ index. html. Version 2.1.2 of PERFUM will eventually be placed on the Agency's website along with the older Version 1.1 http:// www. epa. gov/ opphed01/ models/ fumigant/. In previous assessments using PERFUM, multiple sources of weather information were used and in this case data from coastal locations in California ( i. e., Ventura) and Florida ( i. e., Tallahassee) were also used along with information from Flint Michigan. All analyses were completed but only the Ventura California weather results were summarized. It is clear that so many factors could potentially impact buffer distances that it was felt this was sufficient. [ Note: The additional PERFUM outputs are available and can be provided upon request.] The PERFUM modeling framework was subjected to an SAP review in 2004 where the general uncertainties associated with its use were discussed. Please refer to the SAP background documents and the SAP report for further information concerning these issues and the related use of PERFUM ( http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 2004/ index. htm). One other consideration is that PERFUM uses ISCST3 as its core processor as described above. Recently, the Agency recommended ( 40CFR51, Appendix W) that modelers begin to replace the use of ISCST3 with an upgraded dispersion model ( AERMOD). This recently occurred and 40CFR51 recommends a year transition period between new and outgoing systems. Additionally, the major upgrade from ISCST3 in AERMOD is that refined algorithms have been incorporated that better address the dispersion of buoyant plumes ( i. e., heated output streams which would naturally rise in the atmosphere such as power plant effluents) but methyl bromide emissions are thought to be non buoyant plumes ( i. e., because they are not heated like a power plant type effluent). Major changes in the algorithms for non buoyant plumes were not completed in 55 AERMOD so it is likely that risks predicted using either approach should not provide significantly different results. The Agency is continuing to investigate these possible differences and will consider them when interpreting the results of this assessment.

Several factors also need to be considered in the interpretation of the results associated with the assessment of exposures from ambient air. It is clear from the characterization of the data provided by CARB and AMBI that some data represent highly targeted monitoring in agricultural regions during the season of use. Because of these criteria, the results should be considered conservative in nature for California agricultural regions. In addition, CARB has also developed monitoring data from its urban network which screens not only for methyl bromide but for other pollutants of concern such as persistent organic pollutants ( POPs) and volatile organic compounds ( VOCs). These data are intended to represent urban background levels. Some of these stations are located in the same communities where major commodity fumigations occur ( e. g., Long Beach CA) which should be considered in the interpretation of the results. One other issue that should be considered in the interpretation of the estimates for ambient air is that California has a number of restrictions and systems in place where the overall goal is to reduce environmental emissions from fumigant use. As such, it is difficult to quantify how the results presented above may apply to other regions of the country who do not have these types of programs in place. In summary, it is not clear how these data may directly relate to commodity uses. It should be noted that short and intermediate term risks in general were well below any level of concern for the Agency. Chronic risks based on the urban background levels were also well below any level of concern. The only ambient risks of concern were for the chronic estimates that were calculated using amortized seasonal values which is an uncertain process at best. It is also not clear how the seasonal estimates relate to commodity uses since they were collected in high agricultural use areas.

6.3 Residue Profile Sufficient residue chemistry data are available to conduct a reasonably reliable dietary exposure assessment. No additional residue chemistry studies are required, but the registrants must modify product labels so they are consistent with the residue studies ( see 40 CFR § 180.123).

For commodity fumigation uses, residues of both parent methyl bromide and inorganic bromide may be present. HED will not at this time separately assess the risks resulting from bromide ion in foods for the following reasons. First, parent methyl bromide is expected to be more toxic than bromide ion. Second, since methyl bromide is metabolized to bromide ion in mammals, it is likely that any toxic effects specific to the ion would have been observed in the available animal toxicity studies. Finally, bromide is ubiquitous in the environment. Distinguishing ubiquitous levels of bromide from those resulting from methyl bromide use will frequently not be possible. Therefore, HED recommends that commodity fumigation tolerances for inorganic bromide ( 40 CFR § 180.123) be revoked and replaced with tolerances for methyl bromide, per se ( see D304618, 2/ 8/ 06, T. Goodlow). 3aPAD/ cPAD = acute/ chronic Population Adjusted Dose = Acute or Chronic RfD FQPA Safety Factor 56 Enforcement Methods. The head space procedure of King et al. for determining methyl bromide has been forwarded to FDA for inclusion in PAM Vol. II. This method is adequate for data collection and would be suitable for tolerance enforcement on plant and processed food commodities. Analytical methods for secondary residues of methyl bromide in livestock commodities are not required.

Multi residue Method. FDA multi residue test methods are not applicable to methyl bromide. Protocols A and B are not applicable to monohalogenated alkanes. Although methyl bromide would be detectable in protocol C, residues would like not be recovered through any of the extraction techniques.

For more residue chemistry data considerations and tolerances, please refer to the residue chemistry chapter.

6.4 Acute and Chronic Food Dietary Exposure and Risk Methyl bromide acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII), 1994 1996 and 1998. Acute and chronic dietary risks for methyl bromide resulting from food intake were determined for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. The partly refined Tier 2 acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted for all supported ( currently registered and proposed) methyl bromide food uses. Both the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments for methyl bromide are based on anticipated residues derived from field trial and USDA monitoring data. Because methyl bromide is so volatile, HED assumed that residues in any food form that was heated would be zero. Use of minimal aeration time for methyl bromide treated commodities will likely overestimate residue levels and risks.

For all included commodities, the acute and chronic risks do not exceed HED's level of concern (< 100% PAD3) for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups ( Table 12). The acute dietary exposure estimate for females 13 49 years old, the highest exposed population subgroup is 2.4% of the aPAD. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for children ( 3 to 5 years old), the most highly exposed subgroup is 10% of the cPAD ( for details, see dietary assessment D304603, 2/ 21/ 06). All dietary exposure estimates are listed in Table 12 below. 57 Table 12. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Methyl Bromide Population Subgroup** Acute Dietary ( 95th% ile) Chronic Dietary aPAD mg/ kg/ day Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD cPAD mg./ kg/ day Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population 0.9 0.004169 < 1 0.022 0.000869 4.0 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.000939 < 1 0.000247 1.1 Children 1 2 years old 0.011300 1.3 0.002144 9.7 Children 3 5 years old 0.011771 1.3 0.002288 10 Children 6 12 years old 0.007208 < 1 0.001280 5.8 Youth 13 19 years old 0.003127 < 1 0.000551 2.5 Adults 20 49 years old 0.003253 < 1 0.000660 3.0 Females 13 49 years old 0.14 0.003369 2.4 0.000642 2.9 Adults 50+ years old 0.9 0.003573 < 1 0.000812 3.7 Although residues of the bromide ion may occur in food as a result of Methyl bromide use, these residues cannot be readily distinguished from background levels of bromide. Therefore, the dietary exposure assessment has been completed only for Methyl bromide, per se, which is expected to be the predominant contributor to dietary risk.

The values for the population with the highest risk for each type of risk assessment are bolded.

6.5 Water Exposure/ Risk Pathway Estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) for methyl bromide were modeled using PRZMEXAMS for surface water. Florida strawberry field use resulted in the highest surface water concentration of 357 µ g/ L for use in acute assessments and 1.0 µ g/ L for chronic assessment. Groundwater concentration was not estimated for methyl bromide because the model used for estimating groundwater concentration, SCIGROW, has limited capability to model vapor phase transport of methyl bromide to groundwater. Based on the data base of pesticides in groundwater ( U. S. EPA, 1992), 2 wells in California ( out of 20,429 wells monitored in Florida, California, and Hawaii) had methyl bromide levels from 2.5  6.4 µ g/ L. The maximum concentration for ground water is used for both acute and chronic assessments. Values are reported in Table 13 below.

Table 13. Estimated and monitoring data for MeBr and bromide ion in surface water and groundwater Chemical Surface Water ( µ g/ L) Groundwater ( µ g/ L) Acute Cancer/ chronic MeBr 357a 1.0a 6.4b a Based on 1 in 10 year exceedance probability ( 0.10). Values reflect output from PRZM/ EXAMS multiplied by the percent crop area applied ( 0.87) for Florida Strawberry scenario. b Recommended estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) values for acute and chronic for groundwater ( monitoring data) Table 13. Estimated and monitoring data for MeBr and bromide ion in surface water and groundwater Chemical Surface Water ( µ g/ L) Groundwater ( µ g/ L) Acute Cancer/ chronic 58 7.0 Aggregate Risk Assessment Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. The aggregate assessments consider exposure from both food and drinking water ( see section 7.1 below). HED did not estimate aggregate risks for short and intermediate term exposures because of the way bystander exposures have been estimated in this assessment. The results for these assessments, presented above, represent risks at various distances downwind from treated areas ( e. g., farm fields) or from highly targeted ambient air monitoring studies. Since buffer zone distances or other mitigation approaches are still undefined, the appropriate bystander exposure estimates for aggregating with food and water have not yet been determined.

7.1 Acute and Chronic Aggregate Risk Assessments Acute and chronic aggregate risks for methyl bromide resulting from food and water were determined for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. Food exposures and either EDWCs from modeled values for surface water sources or groundwater sources as the drinking water source were included. Analyses were conducted for all supported ( currently registered and proposed) methyl bromide food uses, and are based on anticipated residues derived from field trial and USDA monitoring data.

For the acute aggregate assessments, females 13 49 years old were the most highly exposed subgroup. At the 95th percentile of exposure, the estimated food and water exposure for females 13 49 years old utilized 2.5% and 13% of the aPAD for ground water and surface water sources, respectively. See Tables 14 and 15 for acute aggregate risks.

For the chronic aggregate assessments, children 3 5 years old were the most highly exposed subgroup. The estimated food and water exposure for children 3 5 years old utilized 11% of the cPAD for both ground water and surface water sources. See Tables 14 and 15 for chronic aggregate risks.

Table 14. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Methyl Bromide Incorporating Surface Water as a Drinking Water Source Population Subgroup** Acute Dietary ( 95th% ile) Chronic Dietary EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population 357 0.020732 2.3 1.0 0.000890 4.0 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.069891 7.8 0.000316 1.4 Table 14. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Methyl Bromide Incorporating Surface Water as a Drinking Water Source Population Subgroup** Acute Dietary ( 95th% ile) Chronic Dietary EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD 59 Children 1 2 years old 0.034553 3.8 0.002175 9.9 Children 3 5 years old 0.031361 3.5 0.002317 11 Children 6 12 years old 0.021637 2.4 0.001300 5.9 Youth 13 19 years old 0.016559 1.8 0.000566 2.6 Adults 20 49 years old 0.018523 2.1 0.000680 3.1 Females 13 49 years old 0.018562 13 0.000661 3.0 Adults 50+ years old 0.017040 1.9 0.000833 3.8 The values for the population with the highest risk for each type of risk assessment are bolded.

Table 15. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Methyl Bromide Incorporating Ground Water as a Drinking Water Source Population Subgroup** Acute Dietary ( 95th% ile) Chronic Dietary EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD EDWC ( µ g/ L) Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population 6.4 0.004296 < 1 6.4 0.001004 4.6 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.001847 < 1 0.000689 3.1 Children 1 2 years old 0.011542 1.3 0.002344 11 Children 3 5 years old 0.012009 1.3 0.002475 11 Children 6 12 years old 0.007274 < 1 0.001410 6.4 Youth 13 19 years old 0.003292 < 1 0.000648 2.9 Adults 20 49 years old 0.003389 < 1 0.000786 3.6 Females 13 49 years old 0.003537 2.5 0.000767 3.5 Adults 50+ years old 0.003728 < 1 0.000945 4.3 The values for the population with the highest risk for each type of risk assessment are bolded.

8.0 Cumulative Risk Assessment and Characterization Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to methyl bromide and any other substances and methyl bromide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore, for the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that methyl 60 bromide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

9.0 Occupational Exposure Data indicate that worker exposures generally exceed HED's level of concern for all scenarios considered when no respiratory protection is used. HED also considered the use of either air purifying respirators ( APRs) and self contained breathing apparatus ( SCBA) with varied results. Generally, the trends in the results were similar for acute and short/ intermediate term durations. Chronic exposures were always of concern for all tasks regardless of whether or not respiratory protection is used.

The use of an APR reduces exposure levels by a factor of 10 and the use of SCBA reduces exposure levels by a factor of 10,000. [ Note: There are commercially available APR cartridges that have been evaluated or recommended for reducing exposure levels of methyl bromide, see the technical bulletin 146 for cartridge 60928 at www. 3M. com for more information.] Respirators would be the most practical protective equipment choice for reducing exposures for most workers. The use of SCBA is not normally deemed to be a viable option. It is not from a lack of capability, but SCBA is too difficult to handle logistically and too costly to implement as an exposure reduction tool in most circumstances. However, in certain situations such as industrial treatments, HED believes that SCBA may represent a viable option for reducing exposures for a limited number of workers. Even with the high rate of protection associated with these devices, results were varied and exposures ( especially of a chronic nature) were still of concern for certain tasks associated with industrial and residential settings.

The occupational tasks commonly associated with the use of methyl bromide along with the corresponding risks are described below for each use sector considered ( i. e., commodity and industrial uses). [ Note: Industrial facility occupational tasks are included in this assessment since they reflect the types of jobs that would be associated with methyl bromide uses on commodities in larger facilities such as grain and rice mills.]

9.1 Commodity Fumigations Job tasks that would be expected with typical commodity fumigations include:

a) Applicator b) Aerator: opens doors or tarp to begin aeration. c) Post Fumigation commodity workers Table 16 indicates risks are of concern for all scenarios associated with commodity fumigation activities for all exposure durations if no respiratory protection is used ( MOE < 30 for acute & short/ intermediateterm and MOE < 100 for chronic). As a result, HED evaluated how the use of an OVR ( PF 10) would impact worker risks. Risks for the majority of commodity fumigation workers who use the air purifying respirator ( PF 10) still exceed HED's level of concern; however, short and intermediate term risks for 61 forklift drivers and line workers who use the purifying respirator ( PF 10) do not exceed HED's level of concern ( MOE > 30). Chronic exposures are of concern ( MOE< 100) for all durations regardless of whether or not respirators are used but the population of chronically exposed individuals is expected to be small compared to all handlers of methyl bromide. The data upon which this analysis is based are presented and summarized in the previous assessment for methyl bromide; no modifications have been made to the exposure results so the data have not been presented herein ( please refer to D316326 at www. Regulations. gov under the methyl bromide docket EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123 for further information; Appendix V: Occupational Risks Associated With Commodity Fumigations).

Table 16: Commodity MeBr Application Workers Exposure and Risk.

Scenario Number of ND Samples Duration of Maximum Sample Result Sample time ( minutes) Max. Conc. 1 Monitored PF10 Resp. Acute MOE Mean Conc. 1 Monitored PF10 Resp. Short and Intermediateterm MOE Chronic MOE Based On Mean Conc.

Commodity Applicators ( N= 39) 1 5 minutes 3 and 614 12 2.5 2.0 2 < 1 1.2 25 0.20 22 3 Commodity Venting ( n= 30) 9 5 minutes 3 and 585 33 < 1 2.3 2 < 1 3.3 9 0.23 19 2 Forklift Driver ( n= 27) 0 15 minutes 10 and 536 0.80 38 0.17 26 3 0.080 375 0.017 259 32 Line Workers ( 89) 4 37 minutes 14 and 621 7.9 4 0.55 8 1 0.79 38 0.055 80 10 1. Concentrations are measured in ppm. For HECs used to calculated risks for each duration, see Table 4/ page 15.

9.2 Industrial Fumigations Job tasks that would be expected with typical industrial fumigations include:

a) Remote Application b) Canister application c) Aeration Table 17 indicates risks are of concern for all scenarios associated with industrial fumigation activities for all exposure durations if no respiratory protection is used ( MOE < 30 for acute & short/ intermediateterm and MOE < 100 for chronic). As a result, HED evaluated how the use of an OVR ( PF 10) would impact worker risks. Additionally, SCBA ( PF 10,000) were also considered as it is believed that these represent a possible risk mitigation measure for certain workers involved in industrial fumigations. For remote applicators, only acute duration risks are reduced to levels of no concern when air purifying respirators ( PF 10) are used; risks for other durations still exceed HED's level of concern. When SCBA is used ( i. e., for canister openers and venters), acute and short/ intermediate term risks are not of concern ( MOE> 30). Chronic exposures are of concern ( MOE< 100) for all durations regardless of whether or not respirators are used but the population of chronically exposed individuals is expected to be small compared to all handlers of methyl bromide. The data upon which this analysis is based are presented and summarized in the previous assessment for methyl bromide; no modifications have been made to the 62 exposure results so the data have not been presented herein ( please refer to D316326 at www. Regulations. gov under the methyl bromide docket EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123 for further information; Appendix W: Occupational Risks Associated With Industrial Fumigations).

Table 17: MeBr Industrial Applicators Exposures and Risks.

Scenario Number of ND Samples Duration of Maximum Sample Result Sample time Max. Conc. 1 Monitored PF10 Resp.* Acute MOE Mean Conc. 1 Monitored PF10 Resp.* Short and Intermediateterm MOE Chronic MOE Based On Mean Conc.

Remote Applicator ( n= 10) 3 9 0.35 to 101 6.5 5 2.6 2 < 1 0.65 46 0.26 17 2 Cannister Opener ( n= 13) 1 5 5 to 91 6100 < 1 1100 < 1 < 1 0.62 48 0.11 40 5 Aerator/ Venter ( n= 32) 7 19 6 to 406 9500 < 1 590 < 1 < 1 0.95 32 0.059 75 9 * For remote applicator, a PF 10 respirator is generally used for mitigation. For the others SCBA is generally used and has a 10,000 protection factor associated with it.

1. Concentrations are measured in ppm. For HECs used to calculated risks for each duration, see Table 4/ page 15.

10.0 Data Needs and Label Requirements 10.1 Toxicology None at this time.

10.2 Residue Chemistry Based upon the available residue data and/ or changes in data requirements, HED is recommending changes to use directions. The recommended label amendments are listed in the Reregistration of Methyl bromide: Product and Residue Chemistry Chapters to the Reregistration Eligibility Document ( DP Barcode D271583; C. Olinger memo date February 22, 2002).

10.3 Occupational and Residential Exposure The assessment of occupational and residential risks associated with the use of methyl bromide is complex. There was a significant amount of data available but additional data are still required. These include both occupational monitoring of various workers in different industry sectors and data to better assess exposures in the general population. The types of data, guideline citations, and examples of the scenarios which need to be addressed are presented below. Final determination of the scenarios should be made in consultation with the Agency.

OPPTS Guideline 875.1400  Inhalation exposure for applicators ( indoors) 63 Commodity  ( e. g., Fumigators, Material Handlers, Aerators) Industrial  ( e. g., Fumigators, Material Handlers, Aerators) 64 OPPTS Guideline 875.2500  Inhalation exposure for postapplication workers Commodity  ( e. g., forklift drivers, sorters, packagers) Industrial  ( e. g., line workers, forklift drivers)

Requirements For Special Studies Meteorological Data For Probabilistic Modeling Purposes Product Use Information By Major Use Region, Frequency, Application Parameters ( e. g., rate, amounts treated, data, application equipment and emission control technologies used)

Measurements of indoor air concentrations for residences in proximity of treated facilities.


[Federal Register: March 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11280]
[DOCID:fr06mr06-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53384; File No. SR-PCX-2005-135]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exposure of Orders in the
PCX Plus Crossing Mechanism

February 27, 2006.
    On December 22, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to reduce the exposure period in the Crossing Mechanism
of the PCX Plus System (``PCX Plus'' or ``System'') from 10 seconds to
3 seconds. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on January 23, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53133 (January 17,
2006), 71 FR 3598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PCX rules provide that a PCX Broker may not facilitate orders or
cross two orders, using the System's Crossing Mechanism, unless it
enters into the System the terms of each order that is to be included
as part of a Cross Order,\4\ pursuant to PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(A). Both
facilitation crosses and non-facilitation crosses are executed in the
same manner in PCX Plus. Upon entry into PCX Plus, the System will
evaluate the terms of the Cross Order and, after accepting the Cross
Order, will execute the cross in accordance with PCX Rule
6.76(c)(2)(B). Among other conditions, Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B) currently
requires a 10-second exposure period in which OTP Holders and OTP Firms
may enter orders to trade against the side of the Cross Order that has
been designated as the Exposed Order.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
shorten the duration of this exposure period, as set forth in PCX Rule
6.76(c)(2)(B)(i)(a) and PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B)(ii)(b),\6\ from 10
seconds to 3 seconds. The Exchange represents that all market
participants on the PCX utilize electronic trading systems that monitor
all updates to the PCX market, including changes resulting from orders
being entered into the Crossing Mechanism, and can automatically
respond based upon pre-set parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See PCX Rule 6.76(c)(1)(A), which defines ``Cross Order''
for the purposes of PCX Rule 6.76(c) as ``two orders with
instructions to match the identified buy-side with the identified
sell-side at a specified price (the ``Cross Price'').''
    \5\ See PCX Rule 6.76(c)(1)(D), which defines ``Exposed Order''
as follows: ``the buy or sell side of a Cross Order that has been
designated by a PCX Broker as the side to be exposed to the market
and that is eligible for execution against all trading interest.
Public Customer orders will always be deemed to be the Exposed Order
in a Cross Order. In the case of a Cross Order involving a non-
customer on both the buy side and sell side, the PCX Broker must
designate one side of the Cross Order as the Exposed Order.''
    \6\ PCX Rules 6.76(c)(2)(B)(i) and 6.76(c)(2)(B)(ii) govern the
execution of Cross Orders when the Cross Price is between the Best
Bid and Offer (``BBO'') and when it is at the BBO, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act \7\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange,\8\ and in particular with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act.\9\ The Commission believes that, in the electronic
environment of PCX Plus, reducing the exposure period to 3 seconds
could facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while providing
participants in PCX Plus with an adequate opportunity to compete for
those orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-135) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3113 Filed 3-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39319-39322]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62425; File No. SR-EDGA-2010-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing
Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc.

June 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2010, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 establish its initial fees and rebates
applicable to Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a)
and (c). The Exchange intends to implement this rule proposal
immediately upon commencement of its operations as a national
securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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
    On March 12, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') approved EDGA Exchange, Inc.\4\ (the ``Exchange'')
Form 1 application under the Act, which sought registration as a
national securities exchange pursuant to Section 6 of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EDGX Exchange, Inc. will file a separate fee schedule with
the Commission.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (approving File No. 10-194).
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') was also approved as an exchange, and
will file a separate 19b-4 filing with its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA Exchange proposes to implement a fee schedule applicable to
use of the Exchange commencing on the date it begins operating as a
national securities exchange. The Exchange currently intends to
commence operations as a national securities exchange on July 2, 2010.
Please find below a description of the fees and rebates that the
Exchange intends to impose under the initial, proposed fee schedule.

(i) Rebates for Removing Liquidity

    For securities priced $1.00 and over, the Exchange is proposing to
rebate $0.0002 per share for executions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. For securities priced less than $1.00, there is no rebate/
charge to remove liquidity. However, the removal rate on EDGA is
proposed to be contingent on the attributed MPID adding (including Non-
Displayed Orders \6\) and/or routing a minimum average daily share
volume, measured monthly, of 50,000 shares on EDGA. Any attributed MPID
not meeting the aforementioned minimum is proposed to be charged: (i)
$0.0030 per share for removing liquidity from EDGA; and (ii) 0.20% of
dollar value for stocks priced less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in EDGA Rule 11.5(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the month of July 2010 only, the 50,000 average daily volume
threshold will be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which
shall be the sum of the daily consolidated volumes for each Exchange-
traded symbol for all days that such symbol is traded on the Exchange
during the month of July and the denominator of which shall be the
monthly consolidated volume for all Exchange-traded symbols during the
month of July. This calculation adjusts this volume threshold during
the month of July when trading is being phased into the Exchange from
Direct Edge's ECN and reflects the portion of the volume that occurs on
the Exchange during the month.
    Upon a Member's request, the Exchange will aggregate share volume
calculations for wholly owned affiliates on a prospective basis.
    The rebates for removing liquidity will apply to securities traded
on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges that are listed
on: (A) the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''); (B) regional exchanges,
such as NYSE Arca Equities (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE Alternext US
(``NYSE Alternext,'' formerly the American Stock Exchange); and (C) the
NASDAQ Stock Market (``Nasdaq'') (``Tape A Securities'', ``Tape B
Securities'' and ``Tape C Securities'', respectively, and collectively,
``All Tapes'').

Applicable Flags \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The following rebates and fees apply to orders in securities
priced $1.00 and over. For securities priced less than $1.00, there
is no rebate/charge to remove liquidity, subject to the contingency
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders in Tapes B and C Securities that remove liquidity from
the EDGA book, a rebate of $0.0002 per share is proposed, as described
above, and this situation yields Flag ``N.'' For orders in Tape A
Securities that remove liquidity from the EDGA book, a rebate of
$0.0002 is proposed, as described above, and this situation yields Flag
``W.'' Again, this rebate is contingent on the attributed MPID meeting
the criteria described above.
    For orders that remove liquidity from LavaFlow ECN, a charge of
$0.0029 per share is proposed and this situation yields Flag ``U.''
However, if a Member posts an average of 100,000 shares or more per day
using a ROLF strategy (yielding Flag ``M''), then said Member's fee
when routed to LavaFlow decreases to $0.0023 per share (yielding Flag
``U''). The latter rate reflects a pass-through of the LavaFlow ECN
fee. A ROLF strategy sweeps the EDGA book and the remainder routes to
LavaFlow.
    For orders that remove liquidity in the Pre-Opening \8\ and Post-
Closing \9\ Sessions in securities on all Tapes, a rebate of $0.0002
per share is also proposed. Again, this rate is contingent on the
attributed MPID meeting the criteria described above. This situation
yields Flag ``6.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(q).
    \9\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Standard Fees for Adding Liquidity

    For securities priced $1.00 and over, the Exchange is proposing to
charge $0.0002 per share for executions that add liquidity to the
Exchange. For securities priced less than $1.00, there is no charge/
rebate to add liquidity. The charge for adding liquidity will apply to
securities traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges that are Tape A Securities, Tape B Securities, and Tape C
Securities.

Applicable Flags \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The following rebates and fees apply to orders in
securities priced $1.00 and over.
    For securities priced less than $1.00, there is no rebate/charge
to add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders in Tape B Securities that add liquidity to the EDGA
book, a charge of $0.0002 per share is proposed, as described above,
and this situation yields Flag ``B.'' For orders in Tape A Securities
that add liquidity to the EDGA book, a charge of $0.0002 per share is
proposed, as described above, and this situation yields Flag ``V.'' For
orders in Tape C Securities that add liquidity to the EDGA book, a
charge of $0.0002 per share is proposed, as described above, and this
situation yields Flag ``Y.''
    For those orders that add liquidity on EDGX via an EDGA-originated
ROUC order type, it is proposed that there be a rebate of $0.0025 per
share. An ROUC order type sweeps the EDGA book, then other
destinations, then Nasdaq OMX BX, then NYSE, and the remainder posts to
EDGX. This situation would yield Flag ``P.'' For those orders that add
liquidity on LavaFlow ECN, a rebate of $0.0024 per share is proposed
and this situation would yield Flag ``M.'' However, if a Member posts
an average of 100,000 shares or more using a ROLF routing strategy,
yielding flag M, then such Member's fee, when removing liquidity from
LavaFlow, will decrease to $0.0023 per share and yield flag U, as
described above. For orders that add liquidity in the Pre-Opening and
Post-Closing Sessions in Tapes A & C Securities, a charge of $0.0002
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``3''). For those orders that add
liquidity in the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions in Tape B
securities, a charge of $0.0002 per share is also proposed (yielding
Flag ``4'').
    The Exchange believes that this fee structure is equitable in that
it applies uniformly to all Members and provides lower fees for higher
volume thresholds, resulting from lower administrative costs.
Destination-specific fees are also based, in part, on fees charged by
other market centers.

(iii) Routing Charges

    The Exchange proposes to charge the routing charges described
below. All charges by the Exchange for routing are applicable only in
the event that an order is executed. In other words, there is no charge
for orders that are routed away from the Exchange but are not filled.
In connection with routing of orders away from the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to charge $0.0029 per share for securities priced
$1.00 and over and 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction
\11\ for securities priced less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This charge applies in all cases, except when (i) routing
to the NYSE, where securities priced under $1.00 are charged $0.0021
per share when removing liquidity; (ii) when routing to Nasdaq BX
and removing liquidity in Tapes A & C Securities, where securities
priced under $1.00 are charged 0.10% of the dollar value of the
transaction; and (iii) when routing to Nasdaq and removing liquidity
in securities on all Tapes, securities priced under $1.00 are
charged 0.20% of the dollar value of the transaction. These fees are
proposed to be indicated by footnote number 3 being appended to the
``C,'' ``J,'' ``L,'' and ``2'' flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For destination specific orders, the following fees/rebates are
proposed to apply to all securities priced $1 and over.\12\ For orders
that are routed to Nasdaq using the INET order type, and remove
liquidity in Tape B Securities, a charge of $0.0030 per share is
proposed (yielding Flag ``2''). For securities routed

to Nasdaq using the INET order type and that remove liquidity in Tape A
& C Securities, a charge of $0.0030 per share is proposed (yielding
Flag ``L''). The INET order type sweeps the EDGA book and removes
liquidity from Nasdaq, if the order is marketable, or posts on Nasdaq,
if the order is non-marketable. Members routing an average daily volume
(``ADV''): (i) Less than 5,000,000 shares will be charged $0.0030 per
share, as described above; (ii) equal to or greater than 5,000,000
shares but less than 20,000,000 shares will be charged Nasdaq's best
removal tier rate per share; (iii) equal to or greater than 20,000,000
shares but less than 30,000,001 shares will be charged Nasdaq's best
removal tier rate--$0.0001 per share; and (iv) equal to or greater than
30,000,001 shares will be charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate--
$0.0002 per share. The rates, in all cases, are calculated for shares
removed from Nasdaq. The Exchange believes that this fee structure is
equitable in that it applies uniformly to all Members and provides
higher rebates for higher volume thresholds, resulting from lower
administrative costs. Destination-specific fees are also based, in
part, on fees charged by other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For securities priced below $1.00, a standard routing
charge of 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction
applies, except when routing to the NYSE, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those orders routed to Nasdaq that add liquidity, a rebate of
$0.0020 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``A''). For orders routed
to Nasdaq OMX BX in Tape A and C Securities and that remove liquidity,
a rebate of $0.0001 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``C''). For
orders routed or re-routed to NYSE and that remove liquidity, a charge
of $0.0021 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``D'').\13\ This charge
also applies to securities priced less than $1.00. For orders routed to
NYSE that add liquidity, a rebate of $0.0013 per share is proposed
(yielding Flag ``F''). For orders routed to NYSE Arca in Tape A & C
Securities that remove liquidity, a charge of $0.0030 per share is
proposed (yielding Flag ``G''). For orders routed to EDGX Exchange,
Inc., a charge of $0.0029 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``I'').
For orders routed to Nasdaq that remove liquidity, a charge of $0.0030
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``J''). For orders routed to the
BATS Exchange (``BATS'') using a ROBA order type, a charge of $0.0025
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``K''). A ROBA order type sweeps
the EDGA book and routes to BATS Exchange as an immediate or cancel
(IOC) order, with the remainder being cancelled if there is no
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This charge, instead of the standard 0.30% of the dollar
value of the transaction described above, also applies to securities
priced less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders using the ROUQ or ROUC order types, a charge of $0.0020
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``Q''). A ROUQ order type sweeps
the EDGA book, then routes to other destination centers. A ROUC order
type sweeps the EDGA book, then other destination centers, then Nasdaq
OMX BX, then NYSE, and the remainder posts to EDGX. For any orders that
are re-routed by EDGA, a charge of $0.0030 per share is proposed
(yielding Flag ``R''). For Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders \14\
(yielding Flag ``S''), a charge of $0.0033 per share is proposed. For
orders that are routed and no other flag applies, a standard charge of
$0.0029 per share applies, as discussed above (yielding Flag ``X'').
For orders that are routed using the ROUZ order type, a charge of
$0.0010 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``Z''). A ROUZ order type
sweeps the EDGA book before interacting with solicited orders on a
price/time priority basis. For orders routed during the Pre-Opening and
Post-Closing Sessions, a charge of $0.0030 per share applies (yielding
Flag ``7''). For orders that are routed using the ROUD or ROUE order
types, a charge of $0.0020 is proposed (yielding Flag ``T''). A ROUD
order sweeps the EDGA book before being routed to other destination
centers. A ROUE order type sweeps the EDGA book, then other destination
centers, and any remainder routes to other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As defined in EDGA Rule 11.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differences between the fees charged for routing to specific
market centers and routing of specific order types described above are
due to different cost structures at the various market centers to which
orders may be routed and other factors. Similarly, lower transaction
fees at other destination centers permit the Exchange to charge lower
routing fees for orders routed to such venues. Because the Exchange
incurs additional costs and performs additional services in connection
with the routing of Directed ISOs, it charges a higher routing fee for
such orders. Finally, because the Exchange believes that a uniform
routing fee for all other orders routed away from the Exchange (other
than those described above) provides Members with certainty as to
transaction costs, it proposes to charge a standard routing fee of
$0.0029 per share, as described above, for such orders, rather than
further differentiating routing fees that it charges to Members.

Other Charges and Flags

    For Non-Displayed Orders, a charge of $0.0010 per share is proposed
and this situation yields Flag ``H.'' However, this rate is contingent
upon the Member adding greater than 1,000,000 shares on a daily basis,
measured monthly. It is proposed that Members not meeting this minimum
will be charged $0.0030 per share. For the month of July 2010 only, the
1,000,000 monthly share volume threshold will be multiplied by a
fraction, the numerator of which shall be the sum of the daily
consolidated volumes for each Exchange-traded symbol for all days that
such symbol is traded on the Exchange during the month of July and the
denominator of which shall be the monthly consolidated volume for all
Exchange-traded symbols during the month of July. This calculation
adjusts this volume threshold during the month of July when trading is
being phased into the Exchange from Direct Edge's ECN and reflects the
portion of the volume that occurs on the Exchange during the month.
    For customer internalization (i.e, same MPID),\15\ there is no
charge nor rebate because the fees for removing liquidity would be
offset by the rebate received for adding liquidity. This situation
yields Flag ``E.'' During the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing sessions,
there are also no charges nor rebates, but this situation yields Flag
``5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This occurs when two orders presented to the Exchange from
the same Member (i.e, MPID) are presented separately and not in a
paired manner, but nonetheless inadvertently match with one another.
Members are advised to consult Rule 12.2 respecting fictitious
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders that execute during the Nasdaq opening cross (NOOP), it
is proposed that these orders will be charged $0.0005 per share and
yield Flag ``O.'' However, this fee is proposed to be capped at $10,000
per month per Member, which is a pass-through of Nasdaq's opening cross
cap.
    For Direct Edge opening transactions, where Members match with each
other at the midpoint of the national best bid/offer (``NBBO'') during
EDGA's opening process, IPO, or post-halt, a flag of ``OO'' is proposed
and there is no rebate nor charge.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\17\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and

other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates
are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members and provide
higher rebates for higher volume thresholds, resulting from lower
administrative costs. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and therefore continue
to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to
direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues. Finally,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rates further the objectives of
Regulation NMS by promoting competition and granting fair and equal
access to all exchange participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is 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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGA-2010-04 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-EDGA-2010-04. 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,\20\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGA-2010-04 and should be submitted on or before July 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16566 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P