			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 3, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below,
taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no
additional confirming order will be issued in these matters).

The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or
relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the
air transportation activities described.  Each application has either
been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot.  Therefore,
under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR
§§ 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be
dismissed.

Docket			Description of Application

OST-2002-12159	European Aviation Air Charter Limited, filed June 23,
2003.  Renew exemption, last granted June 24, 2002, to engage in charter
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between the
United Kingdom and the United States.  By Order 2003-7-27, we issued
European Aviation a foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the
authority at issue here.

OST-1999-6295	Lan Chile S.A., filed October 3, 2003.  Renew exemption,
last granted

October 24, 2001, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of
persons, property and mail between Chile and Seattle, Washington, and
Portland, Oregon, and to coterminalize that authority with its existing
authority to serve Los Angeles, California.  By letter dated October 6,
2003, Lan Chile stated that it did not intend to pursue this application
and that the application may be dismissed.

OST-1996-1286	Air Jamaica Limited, filed January 21, 2003  Renew
exemption, last granted February 15, 2002, to engage in scheduled
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between
Kingston and Montego Bay, Jamaica, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  By
Notice of Action Taken dated March 3, 2004, in Docket OST-2004-17040, we
granted Air Jamaica exemption authority which encompasses the authority
at issue here.

OST-2002-13230	Dairo Air Services Limited, d/b/a DAS Air Cargo, filed
October 10, 2003.  Foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled
foreign air transportation of property and mail between Uganda and the
United States.  On October 10, 2003, DAS Air Cargo filed a motion
withdrawing the subject request.

OST-2002-13231	Dairo Air Services Limited, d/b/a DAS Air Cargo, filed
October 10, 2003.  Exemption

	to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail
between

	Uganda and the United States.  On October 10, 2003, DAS Air Cargo filed
a motion withdrawing the subject request.

OST-95-547	Balkan Bulgarian Airlines, filed August 22, 1995, as amended.
 Foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air
transportation of persons, property and mail between a point or points
in Bulgaria, on the one hand, and New York and Detroit, on the other
hand, via Malta; and charters subject to Part 212 of the Department’s
rules.  Information available to the Department indicates that Balkan
Bulgarian Airlines has no plans to prosecute this application.

OST-95-450	Balkan Bulgarian Airlines, filed May 29, 1998.  Renew
exemption last granted June 4, 1997, and confirmed by Order 97-8-12, to
engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and
mail between Sofia, Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Detroit and New York,
on the other hand, via named intermediate points; and charters subject
to Part 212 of the Department’s rules.  Information available to the
Department indicates that Balkan Bulgarian Airlines has no plans to
prosecute this application.

OST-97-2403	Balkan Bulgarian Airlines, filed April 29, 1997.  Exemption
to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property
and mail between Sofia, Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Chicago,
Illinois, on the other hand, via Belgrade, Yugoslavia.  Information
available to the Department indicates that Balkan Bulgarian Airlines has
no plans to prosecute this application.

47474	Japan Air System Company, Ltd., filed March 21, 1991.  Foreign air
carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of
persons, property and mail between Tokyo, Japan, on the one hand, and
Honolulu, Hawaii, on the other hand; and charters subject to Part 212.
On March 1, 2004, Japan Air System filed a motion stating that it did
not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be
dismissed.

OST-2003-15058	Antonov Design Bureau, filed April 25, 2003.  Emergency
exemption from foreign air carrier permit and exemption conditions in
Order 90-8-16 (pertaining to services to Iraq), to the extent necessary
to permit Antonov to operate up to five one-way all-cargo charter
flights from Lake Charles, Louisiana, to points in Iraq, April 28-May
18, 2003, using AN-124 aircraft.  By letter dated July 3, 2003, Antonov
stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the
application may be dismissed.

47213	Air Foyle Limited, filed October 12, 1990.  Foreign air carrier
permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and
mail between the United Kingdom and the United States.  By letter dated
March 15, 2004, Air Foyle withdrew the subject request.

47214	Air Foyle Limited, filed September 21, 1992.  Renew exemption,
last issued October 4, 1991, in Order 91-10-11, to engage in charter
foreign air transportation of property and mail between the United
Kingdom and the United States.  By letter dated March 15, 2004, Air
Foyle withdrew the subject request.

DISPOSITION

Action:  We dismiss the applications described above.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.

The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the
actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above
period unless within such period a petition for Department review is
filed or the Department gives

notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion.  The
filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed
items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to
the others.

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

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


EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 1 APPENDIX E. QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY, TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT: MERCURY WASTES, EVALUATION OF TREATMENT OF BULK ELEMENTAL MERCURY, FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 8, 2002 SUBMITTED TO: U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ARIEL RIOS BUILDING OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 SUBMITTED BY: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 11251 ROGER BACON DRIVE RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190 EPA CONTRACT NO. 68 W 98 025 WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 3 8 SAIC PROJECT NO. 06 0758   08 1373 000 QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 2 APPENDIX E. QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY Raw data from the analytical instrument is reported to the nearest one hundredth of a µ g/ L ( i. e., 0.01), and the calibration standards vary from 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L. Therefore, to avoid extrapolation outside of the calibration range, the reported detection limit is 0.50 µ g/ L and any sample that exceeds 40.00 µ g/ L is diluted and rerun. Based on the calibration standards and instrument measurement, raw data will have as few as 2 and as many as 4 significant figures. Reported results are rounded to 3 significant figures, which will be dropped to 2 significant figures when the result is less than 1.00 µ g/ L. This convention is carried through when data are reported as mg/ L, rather than µ g/ L. Several examples follow: 1) a raw data result of 3.45 µ g/ L is associated with a dilution factor of 1,000 and the result may be reported as 3,450 µ g/ L or 3.45 mg/ L; 2) a raw data result of 0.76 µ g/ L is associated with a dilution factor of 1,000 and the result may be reported as 760 µ g/ L or 0.76 mg/ L; and 3) a raw data result of 21.34 is associated with a dilution factor of 1,000 and the result may be reported as 21,300 µ g/ L or 21.3 mg/ L.

E. 1 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 01 549 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. Results of this review are provided in Table E 1.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999817. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range ( recovery was 101 % for the initial sample and 103 to 108 % for continuing samples), and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported value of 11.00 µ g/ L ( 110 % of the known value) is within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the initial sample dilution factors, 0.2 g of solid per 20 mL of digestion reagent and 20 mL of TCLP leachate per 20 mL of digestion reagent. Additional notes in the laboratory QC report indicate the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors of 1,000,000 for the solid samples and 100,000 for the TCLP leachate. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid samples ( 05A, 05A duplicate, 05A spike) and one of the TCLP leachates ( 01A, 01A duplicate, 01A spike) show acceptable precision ( ± 25 %) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %). EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 3 Table E 1 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 01 549 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

ICV 5.00 5.05 101 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.15 103 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.17 103 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.29 106 na na na CCV4 5.00 5.46 109 na na na CCV5 5.00 5.42 108 na na na LCS 10.00 11.00 110 na na na ICB unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown   0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.09 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown   0.10 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB5 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 01A na 1.71 na 6.65 100,000 171,000 01A duplicate na 1.60 na 100,000 160,000 01A spike 5.00 5.31 106 na na na 05A na 3.04 na   18.0 1,000,000 ( 3,040,000)

05A duplicate na 3.64 na 1,000,000 ( 3,640,000)

05A spike 5.00 5.32 106 na na na E. 2 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 03 491 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the total mercury and TCLP results were run in separate batches. Results of this review are provided in Table E 2.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999720 for the TCLP run and 0.999733 for the total mercury run. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits. QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 4 Table E 2 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 03 491 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

TCLP Run ICV 5.00 4.94 98.8 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.02 100 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.98 99.6 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.05 101 na na na LCS 10.00 9.55 95.5 na na na ICB unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.16 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.19 na na na < 0.50 01A na 11.28 na 0.18 10,000 113,000 01A duplicate na 11.26 na 10,000 113,000 01A spike 5.00 5.27 105 na na na Total Mercury Run ICV 5.00 5.20 104 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.06 101 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.00 100 na na na LCS 10.00 9.55 95.5 na na na ICB unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.10 na na na < 0.50 05A na 5.27 na 21.0 1,000,000 ( 5,270,000)

05A duplicate na 4.27 na 1,000,000 ( 4,270,000)

05A triplicate na 4.45 na na 1,000,000 ( 4,450,000)

05A spike 5.00 5.19 104 na na na The sample digestion log indicates the initial sample dilution factors, 0.2 g of solid per 20 mL of digestion reagent and 20 mL of TCLP leachate per 20 mL of digestion reagent. Additional notes in the laboratory QC report indicate the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors of 1,000,000 for the solid samples and 10,000 for the TCLP leachate. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid samples ( 05A, 05A duplicate, 05A spike) and one of the TCLP leachates ( 01A, 01A duplicate, 01A spike) show acceptable precision ( ± 25 %) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %). EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 5 E. 3 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 05 904 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. Results of this review are provided in Table E 3.

Table E 3. Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 05 904 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

ICV 5.00 4.95 99.0 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.85 97.0 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.83 96.6 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.87 97.4 na na na LCS 10.00 10.42 104 na na na ICB unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 08A na 6.60 na 1.65 1,000 6,600 08A duplicate na 6.71 na 1,000 6,710 08A spike 10.00 9.82 98.2 na na na A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.99995. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range ( recovery was 99.0 % for the initial sample and 96.6 to 97.4 % for continuing samples), and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported value of 10.42 µ g/ L ( 104 % of the known value) is within acceptable limits.

A sample digestion log identifies the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid samples ( 08A, 08A duplicate, 08A spike) shows acceptable precision ( ± 25 %) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 4 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 07 213 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the solids were run in a single batch and constant pH/ TCLP results were run in two batches. Results of this review are provided in Table E 4. QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 6 Table E 4. Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 07 213 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Solids ICV 5.00 4.99 99.8 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.67 93.4 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.94 98.8 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.94 98.8 na na na CCV4 5.00 4.88 97.6 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 34.51 85.0 na 97.1 L/ kg ( 3,350) ICB unknown 0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.07 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.14 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown   0.10 na na na < 0.50 10A na 9.07 na 8.25 913,000 ( 8,280,000) 10A duplicate na 9.85 na 917,000 ( 9,030,000) 10A spike 10.00 11.94 119 na na na Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.87 97.4 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.70 94.0 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.62 92.4 na na na LCS 10.00 9.16 91.6 na na na ICB unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 13A na 9.70 na 2.85 100 970 13A duplicate na 9.98 na 100 998 13A spike 10.00 9.36 93.6 na na na Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.90 98.0 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.92 98.4 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.14 103 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.45 109 na na na LCS 10.00 9.49 94.9 na na na ICB unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.16 na na na < 0.50 21A na 5.93 na 4.66 10 59.3 21A duplicate na 5.66 na 10 56.6 21A spike 40.00 21.30 107* na 2 42.6 * Percent recovery calculated with the reported value and true value, due to the dilution factor.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 7 acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999713 for the solid run and 0.999642 and 0.999632 for the constant pH/ TCLP runs. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the initial sample dilution factors, 0.2 g of solid per 20 mL of digestion reagent and 20 mL of TCLP leachate per 20 mL of digestion reagent. Additional notes in the laboratory QC report indicate the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the solid and leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid and leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 5 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 08 371 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the solids were run in two batches and constant pH/ TCLP results were run in two batches. Results of this review are provided in Table E 5.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999848 and 0.999613 for the solid runs and 0.99983 and 0.999668 for the constant pH/ TCLP runs. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the reagents used in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the solid and leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid and leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %). QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 8 Table E 5 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 08 371 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 5.05 101 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.22 104 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.35 107 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.05 101 na na na LCS 10.00 10.12 101 na na na ICB unknown 0.07 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.10 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.20 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 01A na 12.79 na 0.86 1 12.8 01A duplicate na 12.90 na 1 12.9 01A spike 5.00 4.20 84.0 na na na Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.86 97.2 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.08 102 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.05 101 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.91 98.2 na na na LCS 10.00 10.14 101 na na na ICB unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.09 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 29A na 2.34 na 11.8 1,000,000 2,340,000 29A duplicate na 2.08 na 1,000,000 2,080,000 29A spike 10.00 10.01 100 na na na EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 9 Table E 5. Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 08 371 ( Continued)

Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Solids ICV 5.00 5.25 105 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.39 108 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.91 98.2 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.91 98.2 na na na CCV4 5.00 4.74 94.8 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 36.99 93.9 na 100 L/ kg ( 3,700)

ICB unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 18A na 3.83 na 10.6 500,000 ( 1,920,000)

18A duplicate na 4.26 na 500,000 ( 2,130,000)

18A spike 10.00 9.69 96.9 na na na Solids ICV 5.00 5.06 101 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.93 98.6 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.89 97.8 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 3.54 89.8 na 1,000 L/ kg ( 3,540)

ICB unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown   0.08 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.09 na na na < 0.50 24A na 2.09 na 6.93 1,000,000 ( 2,090,000)

24A duplicate na 2.24 na 1,000,000 ( 2,240,000)

24A spike 10.00 9.69 96.9 na na na QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 10 E. 6 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 09 416 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the samples were run in three batches; two batches of constant pH and TCLP leachates and one batch of solid samples. Results of this review are provided in Table E 6.

Table E 6 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 09 416 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg / kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 5.05 101 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.22 104 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.28 106 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.29 106 na na na CCV4 5.00 5.20 104 na na na CCV5 5.00 5.26 105 na na na CCV6 5.00 5.27 105 na na na LCS1 10.00 10.65 107 na na na LCS2 10.00 10.31 103 na na na ICB unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.00 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 CCB5 unknown 0.18 na na na < 0.50 CCB6 unknown 0.13 na na na < 0.50 15A na 6.01 na 2.36 10 60.1 15A duplicate na 5.87 na 10 58.7 15A spike 40.00 20.45 102a na 2 40.9 18A na 10.79 na 2.29 1 10.8 18A duplicate na 11.04 na 1 11.0 18A spike 5.00 4.87 97.4 na na na EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 11 Table E 6 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 09 416 ( Continued)

Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg / kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.95 99.0 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.89 97.8 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.89 97.8 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.70 94.0 na na na LCS 10.00 11.15 112 na na na ICB unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.00 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.00 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 29A na 19.19 na 0.675 10 192 29A duplicate na 19.32 na 10 193 29A spike 10.00 10.01 100 na na na Solids ICV 5.00 5.24 105 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.16 103 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.22 104 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 38.02 96.4 na 100 L/ kg ( 3,800)

ICB unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 41A na 1.38 na 2.86 1,000,000 ( 1,380,000)

14A duplicate na 1.42 na 1,000,000 ( 1,420,000)

41A spike 40.00 20.16 101* na 2 40.3 * Percent recovery calculated with the reported value and true value, due to the dilution factor.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the three batch runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with acceptable correlation coefficients of 0.999997, 0.999632, and 0.999639. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 12 continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the reagents used in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the solid and leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for the leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 7 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 10 360 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. Results of this review are provided in Table E 7.

Table E 7 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 10 360 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

ICV 5.00 5.19 104 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.88 97.6 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.01 100 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.98 99.6 na na na LCS1 10.00 10.57 106 na na na LCS2 10.00 10.18 102 na na na ICB unknown 0.09 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.20 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.16 na na na < 0.50 01A na 4.26 na 5.69 1,000 4,260 01A duplicate na 4.51 na 1,000 4,510 01A spike 10.00 10.01 100 na na na 16A na 8.90 na 12.7 1 8.90 16A duplicate na 10.11 na 1 10.1 16A spike 5.00 5.45 109 na na na A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999705. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 13 acceptable range, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported value is within acceptable limits.

A sample digestion log identifies the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid samples shows acceptable precision ( ± 25 %) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 8 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 10 674 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the samples were run in three batches; two batches of constant pH and TCLP leachates and one batch of solid samples. Results of this review are provided in Table E 8.

Table E 8 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 10 674 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Constant pH leachates ICV 5.00 4.80 96.0 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.65 93.0 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.66 93.2 na na na LCS 10.00 8.95 89.5 na na na ICB unknown 0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 16A na 1.84 na 5.01 1 1.84 16A duplicate na 1.75 na 1 1.75 16A spike 5.00 4.92 98.5 na na na QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 14 Table E 8 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 10 674 ( Continued)

Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 5.14 103 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.94 98.8 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.97 99.4 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.96 99.2 na na na LCS 10.00 10.52 105 na na na ICB unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.13 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.13 na na na < 0.50 31A na 1.88 na 1.86 1 1.88 31A duplicate na 1.84 na 1 1.84 31A spike 5.00 4.33 86.6 na na na Solids ICV 5.00 4.99 99.8 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.99 99.8 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.92 98.4 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.98 99.6 na na na CCV4 5.00 4.95 99.0 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 35.19 89.3 na 100 L/ kg ( 3,520)

ICB unknown 0.05 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.03 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.10 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.23 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown 0.09 na na na < 0.50 39A na 4.36 na 18.1 100,000 ( 436,000)

39A duplicate na 5.23 na 100,000 ( 523,000)

39A spike 40.00 20.78 103* na 2 41.6 * Percent recovery calculated with the reported value and true value, due to the dilution factor. EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 15 A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the three batch runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with acceptable correlation coefficients of 0.999791, 0.999858, and0.999852. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the reagents used in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for the leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 9 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 10 676 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. Results of this review are provided in Table E 9.

Table E 9 Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 10 676 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

ICV 5.00 5.07 101 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.01 100 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.95 99.0 na na na LCS 10.00 10.18 102 na na na ICB unknown 0.04 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.02 na na na < 0.50 02A na 7.98 na 3.21 100 798 02A duplicate na 8.24 na 100 824 02A spike 10.00 10.01 100 na na na A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with an acceptable correlation coefficient of 0.999858. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 16 acceptable range, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported value is within acceptable limits.

A sample digestion log identifies the reagents in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors. The precision and accuracy summary provided for one of the digested solid samples shows acceptable precision ( ± 25 %) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 10 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 12 039 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the samples were run in two batches; one batch of constant pH and TCLP leachates and one batch of solid samples. Results of this review are provided in Table E 10.

A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the two batch runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with acceptable correlation coefficients of 0.999817 and 0.999755. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the reagents used in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for the leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).

E. 11 Laboratory QA/ QC for EEI Work Order 01 12 515 To assess the control of laboratory QA/ QC, a review was made of the instrument calibration curve, initial and continuing calibration samples ( ICV and ICCV), initial and continuing blank samples ( ICB and ICCB), laboratory control sample ( LCS), raw data sheets, sample digestion log, dilution factors, and precision and accuracy summary sheets. The raw data logs indicate that the samples were run in two batches; one batch of constant pH and TCLP leachates and one batch of solid samples. Results of this review are provided in Table E 11. EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 17 Table E 10. Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 12 039 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.85 97.0 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.93 98.6 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.96 99.2 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.88 97.6 na na na CCV4 5.00 4.95 99.0 na na na LCS 10.00 10.52 105 na na na ICB unknown 0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.00 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB4 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 04A na 2.01 na 16.1 1 2.01 0 4 A  duplicate na 1.71 na 1 1.71 04A spike 5.00 5.42 108 na na na Solids ICV 5.00 5.00 100 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.15 103 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.20 104 na na na CCV3 5.00 5.19 104 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 4.21 107 na 1,000 L/ kg ( 4,210)

ICB unknown 0.07 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.10 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.07 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 29A na 4.45 na 4.35 1,000,000 ( 4,450,000)

2 9 A  duplicate na 4.25 na 1,000,000 ( 4,250,000)

29A spike 40.00 21.23 106* na 2 42.46 * Percent recovery calculated with the reported value and true value, due to the dilution factor. QUALITY UALITY ASSURANCE SSURANCE/ Q / QUALITY UALITY CONTROL ONTROL SUMMARY UMMARY E 18 Table E 11. Laboratory QC Data for Mercury   EEI Work Order 01 12 515 Sample ID True mg/ L ( mg/ kg) Found mg/ L Percent Recovery RPD % Dilution Factor Reported Result mg/ L ( mg/ kg)

Constant pH/ TCLP leachates ICV 5.00 4.89 97.8 na na na CCV1 5.00 4.85 97.0 na na na CCV2 5.00 4.71 94.2 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.81 96.2 na na na LCS 10.00 9.89 98.9 na na na ICB unknown 0.06 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.02 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown   0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.02 na na na < 0.50 01A na 1.90 na 1.56 1,000 1,900 01A duplicate na 1.93 na 1,000 1,930 01A spike 40.00 21.29 108* na 2 42.6 30A na 1.50 na 0.00 100 150 30A duplicate na 1.50 na 100 150 30A spike 40.00 20.15 101* na 2 40.3 Solids ICV 5.00 5.22 104 na na na CCV1 5.00 5.09 102 na na na CCV2 5.00 5.19 104 na na na CCV3 5.00 4.93 98.6 na na na LCS ( 3,940) 37.51 95.2 na 100 L/ kg ( 3,750)

ICB unknown 0.01 na na na < 0.50 CCB1 unknown 0.07 na na na < 0.50 CCB2 unknown 0.09 na na na < 0.50 CCB3 unknown 0.08 na na na < 0.50 19A na 35.44 na 2.66 100,000 ( 3,540,000)

19A duplicate na 34.51 na 100,000 ( 3,450,000)

19A spike 40.00 37.12 92.8 na na na * Percent recovery calculated with the reported value and true value, due to the dilution factor. EVALUATION OF VALUATION TREATMENT OF REATMENT BULK ULK ELEMENTAL LEMENTAL MERCURY ERCURY E 19 A five point calibration curve was constructed with standard mercury concentrations of 0.50 to 40.00 µ g/ L for each of the two batch runs. Measurement of these standards produced a linear trend with acceptable correlation coefficients of 0.999547 and 0.999759. The initial and continuing calibration standards are within the acceptable range for both runs, and the initial and continuing blanks are all below the reporting detection limit of 0.50 µ g/ L. A laboratory control standard was run prior to analyzing the samples, and the reported values are within acceptable limits.

The sample digestion log indicates the reagents used in the initial dilution and how the samples achieved their final dilution factors for the leachate samples. The precision and accuracy summary provided for the leachate samples show acceptable precision ( ± 25%) and accuracy results ( 75   125 %).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71813]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4086-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2012.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29191 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23241-23242]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-100-000]

 Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on March 30, 2012, Floridian Natural Gas Storage
Company, LLC (FGS), 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4361, Houston, Texas
77002, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations to amend the certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorized in Docket No. CP08-13-000. Specifically, FGS seeks
authorization to, in the normal course of business, redeliver liquefied
natural gas to transporting vehicles provided by its customers, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Joan
Darby, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW., Washington, DC
20006, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.

Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: May 2, 2012.

    Dated: April 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9277 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14769-14772]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71690; File No. SR-MSRB-2014-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Consisting of Changes to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market
Access System, Real-Time Transaction Reporting System, and Short-Term
Obligation Rate Transparency System

March 11, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 28, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as
changing fees imposed by the MSRB under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The implementation date of the proposed rule
change will be April 1, 2014. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
relating to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access system
(``EMMA''), Real-time Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS''), and
Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency System (``SHORT System'') (the
``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change consists of (i) fee
increases for the MSRB's Real-Time Transaction Data Subscription
Service, Comprehensive Transaction Data Subscription Service, and SHORT
System subscription service; (ii) revisions to the EMMA, RTRS, and the
SHORT System facilities language to clarify or otherwise provide that
the MSRB may waive fees for these subscription services for non-profit
organizations (including institutions of higher education) and for
organizations providing, at no out-of-pocket charge to the MSRB,
services or products to the MSRB for internal or public use or
dissemination on EMMA on terms agreeable to the MSRB; (iii) revisions
to the EMMA Continuing Disclosure Service facilities language to
clarify that a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization
(``NRSRO'') for which such service or product fees are waived could,
nevertheless, be treated as having agreed to provide credit rating and
related information to the MSRB on terms that qualify for the display
of that information on EMMA; and (iv) revisions to the RTRS Historical
Transaction Data Product facilities language to clarify that the
purchase price of the product does not include sales tax, as required
by Virginia state law, in order to harmonize the language for that
product with the existing language of the EMMA, SHORT, and other RTRS
facilities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2014-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB 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
    RTRS is a facility for the collection and dissemination of
information about transactions occurring in the municipal securities
market. RTRS and its Real-Time Transaction Data Subscription Service
provide a real-time stream of data representing municipal securities
transaction reports made by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities
dealers to RTRS for an annual subscription fee of $10,000.\4\ The MSRB
proposes to increase the annual subscription fee for the Real-Time
Transaction Data Subscription Service from $10,000 to $11,000,
effective April 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63340 (Nov. 18,
2010), 75 FR 72850 (Nov. 26, 2010), File No. SR-MSRB-2010-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another component of RTRS is the MSRB Comprehensive Transaction
Data Subscription Service (the ``Comprehensive Service''), which
consists of three trade reports: Transaction data one business day
after the trade (T+1), transaction data five business days after the
trade (T+5), and transaction data 20 business days after the trade
(T+20). The MSRB proposes to increase the annual subscription fee for
the Comprehensive Service from $5,000 to $5,500, effective April 1,
2014.
    The SHORT System is a facility of the MSRB for the collection and
dissemination of information about securities bearing interest at
short-term rates. Currently, these securities consist of auction rate
securities and variable-rate demand obligations. The MSRB makes the
information and documents collected by the SHORT System available
through a subscription service, which is available for an annual fee of
$10,000.\5\ The MSRB proposes to increase the annual subscription fee
for the SHORT System subscription service from $10,000 to $11,000,
effective April 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SHORT System subscription service became effective
September 30, 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62993
(Sept. 24, 2010), 75 FR 60488 (Sept. 30, 2010), File No. SR-MSRB-
2010-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has not increased the cost of either the Real-Time
Transaction Data Subscription Service or the Comprehensive Service
since January 2011, and has not increased the cost of the SHORT System
subscription service since its inception in 2010. The SEC and Congress,
as noted below, have recognized the need for the MSRB to charge
commercially reasonable fees for automated subscription-based feeds.
Currently, the Real-Time Transaction Data Subscription Service
generates revenue of approximately $540,000 annually, the Comprehensive
Service generates revenue of approximately $185,000 annually, and the
SHORT System subscription service generates revenue of approximately
$120,000 annually. The MSRB believes that incremental increases under
the proposed rule change are commercially reasonable and notes that,
even with the proposed increases, such fees would cover only a portion
of the RTRS and SHORT System operating costs.
    The MSRB proposes to revise the EMMA, RTRS, and the SHORT System
facilities language to clarify, add to and harmonize the provisions
pertaining to the waiver of fees for subscription services or products
for non-profit organizations (including institutions of higher
education) and for organizations providing, at no out-of-pocket charge
to the MSRB, services or products to the MSRB for internal or public
use or dissemination on EMMA on terms agreeable to the MSRB. Currently,
the facilities language for most of the products and services provides
that the MSRB can, in its discretion, waive certain fees for non-profit
organizations, but the effectuating language is inconsistent across the
facilities.
    The MSRB believes that waivers of fees are potentially appropriate
for non-profit organizations and organizations

that provide, at no out-of-pocket charge, services or products to the
MSRB for its internal or public use or dissemination on EMMA. Non-
profit organizations generally have a charitable or otherwise public
purpose, and the MSRB likewise has a public purpose. In addition, the
ability to waive fees can facilitate the MSRB's receipt of services or
products at no out-of-pocket charge to be used by the MSRB to advance
its public mission. This waiver ability is consistent with the policy
already embodied in the existing facilities language on the MSRB's
granting of waivers. The proposed rule change would clarify, add to and
conform the facilities language consistent with this view. Further, the
MSRB proposes an amendment to the EMMA Continuing Disclosure Service to
clarify that an NRSRO can be treated, notwithstanding the MSRB
providing access to such NRSRO to any of the MSRB's subscription
products or services at either a reduced or no charge, as agreeing to
provide credit rating and related information to the MSRB on terms that
qualify for the display of that information on EMMA.
    The MSRB also proposes to revise the RTRS Historical Transaction
Data Product facilities language to include language pertaining to the
purchase price in order to harmonize the RTRS Historical Transaction
Data Product facility with the existing language of the EMMA, SHORT,
and other RTRS facilities. Currently, the EMMA, SHORT, and other RTRS
facilities provide that the purchase price of a product does not
include sales tax, as required by Virginia state law, and that the
purchase price is a one-time charge for each facility and will not
include any future additions for enhancements that may be added to the
data for each facility. The proposed rule change would add this
provision to the RTRS Historical Transaction Data Product facility in
conformity with the other analogous facilities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\6\ which requires, in pertinent part, that the Board's rules
shall ``provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal
securities dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such
reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to
defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering the
Board.'' The proposed rule change provides for reasonable fees to
partially offset costs associated with operating and administering the
Board, including operating RTRS and the SHORT System and producing and
disseminating transaction reports to subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act,\7\ which provides that the
MSRB ``shall not be prohibited from charging commercially reasonable
fees for automated subscription-based feeds or similar services, or for
charging for other data or document-based services customized upon
request of any person, made available to commercial enterprises,
municipal securities market professionals, or the general public,
whether delivered through the Internet or any other means, that contain
all or part of the documents or information, subject to approval of the
fees by the Commission under Section 19(b)'' of the Act.\8\ Implicit
within the authority to charge fees, is the ability to waive fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(3)(B)(ii).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66866 (Apr. 26,
2012), 77 FR 26063 (May 2, 2012), File No. SR-MSRB-2012-02;
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66865 (Apr. 26, 2012), 77 FR
26061 (May 2, 2012), File No. SR-MSRB-2012-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The fee increases would apply
equally to all market participants that choose to subscribe to the
services (unless waived by the MSRB), and those who choose not to
subscribe may view the same information for free on the EMMA web
portal.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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)(A)(ii) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml; or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2014-02 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2014-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2014-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05754 Filed 3-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6950-6951]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 13075-000]

California Wave Energy Partners I, LLC; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and
Comments

January 30, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13075-000.
    c. Date filed: November 9, 2007.
    d. Applicant: California Wave Energy Partners I, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Centerville OPT Wave Energy Park.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean in
Humboldt County, California, southwest of the town of Eureka. The
project uses no dam or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Charles F. Dunleavy, California Wave
Energy Partners I, LLC, 1590 Reed Road, Pennington, NJ 08534, (609)
730-0400, and Dr. George W. Taylor, California Wave Energy Partners I,
LLC, 1590 Reed Road, Pennington, NJ 08534,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-13075-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1) 40
to 80 Wave Energy Converter (WEC) units such as the PowerBuoy [reg]
technology unit having a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts, (2)
a proposed underwater transmission line from the proposed project to
the shore, which will connect with a local distribution line, and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual
generation of 61.320 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local
utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

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

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2113 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49325]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2769-000]

PGR 2021 Lessee 7, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
PGR 2021 Lessee 7, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 15, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18907 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14364-14365]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0254]

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast
Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for two
events, the Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race on May 19, 2018 and May
20, 2018, and the NAS Patuxent River Air Show from May 31, 2018 through
June 3, 2018, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways
during these events. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth
Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for each event.
During the enforcement periods, the Coast Guard patrol commander or
designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels in the regulated area.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the
Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race regulated area listed in item b.21 in
the Table to Sec.  100.501 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 19, 2018
and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 20, 2018; the regulations in 33
CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the NAS Patuxent River Air Show
regulated area listed in item b.18 in the Table to Sec.  100.501 from
7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day from May 31, 2018 through June 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-
576-2674, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard was notified by the Cambridge Power Boat Racing
Association, Inc. on January 30, 2018, through submission of a marine
event application, that due to a scheduling change, a change of dates
is necessary to the dates previously published in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) for the annually scheduled Cambridge Classic
Powerboat Race, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of
the event is changed to May 19, 2018 and May 20, 2018. The Coast Guard
will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the
Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race regulated area from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. on May 19 and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 20, 2018. Our
regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Sec.  100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the
Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race, which encompasses portions of
Hambrooks Bay and the Choptank River, at Cambridge, MD.
    The Coast Guard was notified by NAS Patuxent River on February 14,
2018 through submission of a marine event application that, due to a
scheduling change, a change of dates is necessary to the dates
previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the
biennially scheduled NAS Patuxent River Air Show, as listed in the
Table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of the event is changed to from May
31, 2018 through June 3, 2018. The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the NAS Patuxent River Air Show
regulated area from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day from May 31, 2018
through June 3, 2018. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth
Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.501, specifies the location of the
regulated area for the NAS Patuxent River Air Show, which encompasses
portions of the Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay, at Patuxent River,
MD.
    This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during these events. As specified in Sec.
100.501(c), during the enforcement periods, the Coast Guard patrol
commander or designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the
movement of all vessels in the regulated area. Vessel operators may
request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by
contacting the Coast Guard patrol commander on VHF-FM channel 16.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
100.501(f) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of
enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide
notification of these enforcement periods on scene and via the Local
Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: March 29, 2018.
Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-06824 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P