Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

Vapor is not a tobacco product, and this proposal will unfairly force many people back to cigarettes and destroy small businesses.  These devices need to be regulated based on their individual merits, not what they kinda look like or remind you of.


EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONTHLY DAILY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Receiving Stream Flow > 0 CFS and < 0.5 CFS CBOD5 25 30 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 0.5 CFS and < 1 CFS CBOD5 45 50 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 1 CFS and < 3 CFS CBOD5 65 75 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 3 CFS CBOD5 135 150 1/ Week Grab The WLA allocation study, as indicated above, showed that relatively high concentrations of CBOD5 can be discharged into Sims branch during winter months without violating the instream water quality criteria. However, it is division's position that the entire assimilative capacity of a receiving stream should not be allocated to one source, particularly when the receiving stream segment ( Sims Branch, ID TN05130202007_ 0150) is impaired for " Organic enrichment/ Low DO." Furthermore, most surface water discharges must provide a minimum degree of treatment. For industries subject to a federal Effluent Limitation Guideline( s), the guideline will provide the minimum degree of treatment. In the absence of federal guidelines, Tennessee Rule 1200 4 5. 03: Effluent Limitations for Effluent Limited Segments states, in part:

"[ ] treatment units will be required to achieve as a minimum the following as maximum effluent limitations when such parameters are present as a result of processes causing the contamination or discharges: Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Addendum) NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 Page No. A 5 of A 8 ( 1) Municipal and domestic wastewater treatment plants Monthly Weekly Daily Paramete r Avg. ( mg/ l) Avg. ( mg/ 1) Max. ( mg/ 1)

BOD5 30 40 45 TSS 30 40 45 ( 2) Industrial wastewater treatment plants Parameter Daily Maximum Concentrations ( mg/ l)

Oil and Grease ( a) 30 ( b) No visible or floating oil or grease pH ( 6.0 to 9.0) * Suspended Solids 40 Settleable solids 0.5 ml/ l * In the case of biological treatment units, the daily maximum TSS may be 120 mg/ l.

The nature of the MNAA's treatment system and/ or effluent can not be classified in neither of the two above listed categories. However, these tables were included in this addendum to rationale to illustrate that technology based limits, as well as results of treatability studies, can be used in establishing effluent limitations for point source discharges. During the last two permit terms, the division requested monitoring of untreated and treated wastewater in order to evaluate efficiency of the wastewater treatment system. A comprehensive table with efficiency analysis is attached at the end of this addendum to rationale. Outfall 02A depicts CBOD5 concentrations in untreated, while Outfall 002 represents CBOD5 concentrations in treated wastewater. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Addendum) NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 Page No. A 6 of A 8 In the permit writer's BPJ, a subset of this data should be used to better represent treatment efficiency during winter, and under CBOD5 loading originating from deicing activities. It was difficult to ascertain incoming CBOD5 concentrations that positively correspond to application of deicing fluids. Instead, measurements not likely to be associated with deicing activities were excluded from the data set.

It should be noted that exclusion of relatively low incoming concentrations of CBOD5 (< 100 mg/ L) did not significantly change treatment system efficiency from the concentration or loading aspect. However, the resulting average concentrations of treated wastewater were increased. This, in the permit writer's BPJ, more accurately represents wastewater treatment performance under full pollutant load in winter period. Table B presents the recommended discharge permit limits for the Winter Period. The proposed daily maximum limitations were derived from monthly average limitations, using the ratio from Tennessee Rule 1200 4 5. 03 ( 30: 45 mg/ L, see table above), and based on established division practice applied to various biological wastewater treatment plants across the state. 92% 83%

Date 02A Maximum Concentration 002 Maximum Concentration efficiency efficiency 02A Maximum FLOW 02A Loading 002 Maximum FLOW 002 Loading mg/ L mg/ L mg/ L mg/ L MGD lb/ day MGD lb/ day 09/ 30/ 1996 524 14 42 86 0.50 2203 0.69 80 02/ 28/ 1997 190 58 15 31 0.50 799 0.24 114 01/ 31/ 1998 340 92 28 56 0.62 1755 0.98 749 02/ 28/ 1998 590 98 48 97 0.47 2308 0.97 789 03/ 31/ 1998 340 53 28 56 0.47 1330 1.52 672 04/ 30/ 1998 220 12 18 36 0.47 861 0.72 72 12/ 31/ 1998 3090 9 251 510 0.01 258 1.10 82 01/ 31/ 1999 1520 360 123 251 0.49 6212 1.15 3447 02/ 28/ 1999 133 14 11 22 0.51 561 0.57 66 11/ 30/ 1999 109 2 9 18 0.49 443 1.30 22 12/ 31/ 2000 1100 25 89 182 0.59 5413 0.50 104 01/ 31/ 2001 3110 104 252 513 0.44 11516 0.01 10 02/ 28/ 2001 488 21 40 81 0.49 2006 0.53 92 12/ 04/ 2002 1560 18 126 257 0.33 4293 0.04 6 02/ 13/ 2003 439 55 36 72 0.34 1248 0.34 156 02/ 21/ 2003 176 42 14 29 0.43 630 0.43 150 02/ 28/ 2003 318 142 26 52 0.41 1098 0.41 490 03/ 07/ 2003 528 80 43 87 0.24 1039 0.24 157 03/ 14/ 2003 249 19 20 41 0.02 31 0.02 2 Average 791 64 64 131 0.41 2316 0.62 382 92% Efficiency 83% Load eff. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Addendum) NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 Page No. A 7 of A 8 Table B: Recommended Effluent Limits for the Winter Period ( October   April)

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONTHLY DAILY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Receiving Stream Flow > 0 CFS and < 0.5 CFS CBOD5 25 38 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 0.5 CFS and < 1 CFS CBOD5 45 68 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 1 CFS and < 3 CFS CBOD5 65 98 1/ Week Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 3 CFS CBOD5 65 Report 1/ Week Grab Only one sample per month is recommended during the Summer Period as no deicing activity typically occurs during the Summer Period. However, the limits recommended for the Summer Period are much lower than those for the Winter Period. This is recommended because of the typically lower flows, higher air and water temperatures, and thus lower in stream DO concentrations found during the summer months. It is recommended that MNAA make every effort to prevent discharge when the flow of Sims Branch is below 0.5 cfs. However, permit limits are recommended to accommodate a situation requiring discharge during such a flow scenario.

MNAA does not have any significant source of BOD other than deicing activities, which only occur during the colder months of the year. Therefore, it is recommended that MNAA only be required to report concentrations when discharges occur when stream flows are above 1.5 cfs during the Summer Period. Table C presents the recommended discharge permit limits for the Summer Period.

Table C: Recommended Effluent Limits for the Summer Period ( May   October) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONTHLY DAILY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Receiving Stream Flow > 0 CFS and < 0.5 CFS* CBOD5 3 4.5 1/ Month Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 0.5 CFS and < 1 CFS CBOD5 6 9 1/ Month Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 1 CFS and < 1.5 CFS CBOD5 12 18 1/ Month Grab Receiving Stream Flow > 1.5 CFS CBOD5 Report Report 1/ Month Grab * Note: Permittee should make every effort to prevent discharge when the flow of Sims Branch is below 0.5 cfs. However, if discharge is necessary, these limits apply.

The WLA study has resulted in a calibrated model of Sims Branch capable of appropriately assessing the impact of the Outfall 002 discharge on the environment. The result is proposed permit limits based on real world data and the technological treatment capability of the treatment unit. The limits are both reasonable for MNAA as well as protective of the environment. VMJ Permit Addendum TN0064041. DOC Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Addendum) NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 Page No. A 8 of A 8 COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT UNIT EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 91% 83%

Date 02A Maximum Concentration 002 Maximum Concentration efficiency efficiency 02A Maximum FLOW 02A Loading 002 Maximum FLOW 002 Loading mg/ L mg/ L mg/ L mg/ L MGD lb/ day MGD lb/ day 09/ 30/ 1996 524 14 48 91 0.50 2203 0.69 80 11/ 30/ 1996 15 3 1 3 0.50 63 0.48 12 12/ 31/ 1996 12 10 1 2 0.50 50 0.50 42 02/ 28/ 1997 190 58 17 33 0.50 799 0.24 114 04/ 30/ 1997 18 4 2 3 0.32 48 0.33 11 06/ 30/ 1997 13 6 1 2 0.39 42 0.40 20 07/ 31/ 1997 28 6 3 5 0.30 70 0.39 19 08/ 31/ 1997 3 3 0 1 0.37 9 0.26 6 09/ 30/ 1997 14 5 1 2 0.53 61 0.31 13 10/ 31/ 1997 33 5 3 6 0.43 118 0.31 13 11/ 30/ 1997 84 3 8 15 0.28 198 0.39 10 12/ 31/ 1997 12 11 1 2 0.62 62 0.60 55 01/ 31/ 1998 340 92 31 59 0.62 1755 0.98 749 02/ 28/ 1998 590 98 54 103 0.47 2308 0.97 789 03/ 31/ 1998 340 53 31 59 0.47 1330 1.52 672 04/ 30/ 1998 220 12 20 38 0.47 861 0.72 72 05/ 31/ 1998 8 4 1 1 0.47 31 1.84 61 06/ 30/ 1998 2 2 0 0 0.53 9 2.14 36 10/ 31/ 1998 3 2 0 1 0.18 5 0.30 5 11/ 30/ 1998 31 6 3 5 0.03 9 0.36 18 12/ 31/ 1998 3090 9 280 539 0.01 258 1.10 82 01/ 31/ 1999 1520 360 138 265 0.49 6212 1.15 3447 02/ 28/ 1999 133 14 12 23 0.51 561 0.57 66 04/ 30/ 1999 57 4 5 10 0.40 190 1.16 39 11/ 30/ 1999 109 2 10 19 0.49 443 1.30 22 12/ 31/ 1999 17 3 2 3 0.57 81 1.09 27 03/ 31/ 2000 6 1 1 1 0.38 19 1.19 10 05/ 31/ 2000 4 4 0 1 0.48 16 0.75 25 11/ 30/ 2000 8 6 1 1 0.56 37 0.59 30 12/ 31/ 2000 1100 25 100 192 0.59 5413 0.50 104 01/ 31/ 2001 3110 104 282 543 0.44 11516 0.01 10 02/ 28/ 2001 488 21 44 85 0.49 2006 0.53 92 03/ 31/ 2001 90 10 8 16 0.35 262 0.54 45 04/ 30/ 2001 41 4 4 7 0.39 134 0.50 17 05/ 31/ 2001 7 5 1 1 0.48 28 0.64 27 11/ 20/ 2002 17 5 2 3 0.41 58 0.46 19 11/ 27/ 2002 2 5 0 0 0.08 1 0.16 7 12/ 04/ 2002 1560 18 142 272 0.33 4293 0.04 6 12/ 28/ 2002 35 39 3 6 0.14 41 0.10 33 01/ 03/ 2003 27 25 2 5 0.32 72 0.33 68 01/ 10/ 2003 61 20 6 11 0.14 72 0.13 21 01/ 15/ 2003 61 9 6 11 0.05 23 0.60 45 02/ 13/ 2003 439 55 40 77 0.34 1248 0.34 156 02/ 21/ 2003 176 42 16 31 0.43 630 0.43 150 02/ 28/ 2003 318 142 29 55 0.41 1098 0.41 490 03/ 07/ 2003 528 80 48 92 0.24 1039 0.24 157 03/ 14/ 2003 249 19 23 43 0.02 31 0.02 2 Average 335 30 30 58 0.38 975 0.61 170 91% eff 83% load eff. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 1 of R 28 RATIONALE __________________________________________________________________________

Metro Nashville Airport Authority NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0064041 Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee Permit Writer: Vojin Janjic I DISCHARGER Metro Nashville Airport Authority Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee Contact Person: Mr. Dewey Klahn 615 275 4501 Nature of Business: Airport facility serving the Middle Tennessee area.

SIC Code( s): 4581 ( Airports, Flying Fields, and Airport Terminal Services) Industrial Classification: Secondary Discharger Rating: Minor II PERMIT STATUS NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 issued 4/ 28/ 1995 NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 modified 8/ 30/ 1996 NPDES Permit No. TN0064041 expired 4/ 27/ 2000 Application for Renewal received 11/ 4/ 1999 Watershed Scheduling Environmental Assistance Center: Nashville Primary Longitude: 86 41 00 Primary Latitude: 36 08 10 Hydrocode: 5130202 Watershed Group: 5 Watershed Identification: Lower Cumberland Target Reissuance Date: 2000 Target Watershed Evaluation Date: 2005 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 2 of R 28 III FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( MNAA) discharges treated aircraft deicing fluid and storm water runoff from Outfall 002, overflow from South and North Ponds from Outfalls 003 and 004, and storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1 through S11 to Sims Branch at miles 1.8 to Mill Creek at mile 1.6 to the Cumberland River at mile 194.5 ( Outfall 002); Sims Branch at miles 1.9 and 2.0 ( Outfalls 003 and 004), McCrory Creek to Stones River at mile 5.8 ( Outfall SW1), Sims Branch to Mill Creek at mile 1.6 to the Cumberland River at mile 194.5 ( Outfalls SW2, SW3, SW4, SW5, & SW6); and Mill Creek to the Cumberland River at mile 194.5 ( Outfalls SW7, S10, & S11). Storm water runoff and spills from aircraft deicing and fueling areas are routed through four oil water separators into two detention basins, pumped to a treatment/ equalization basin, and ultimately discharged into Sims Branch at mile 1.8.

In the event of a large volume storm event, excess storm water runoff, groundwater infiltration and spills from aircraft deicing operations are routed directly into the Sims Branch at approximate miles 1.9 and 2.0 ( respectively, through Outfalls 003 and 004), from the South and North Ponds, bypassing the treatment/ equalization basin. It should be noted that MNAA now has the capability and permission to discharge treated effluent to Metro Nashville sanitary sewer system. Outfalls 003 and 004 will be comprised of the same water quality. The frequency of discharge from Outfall 004 is anticipated to be higher than discharges from Outfall 003. Therefore, Outfall 004 will be considered representative for both Outfalls 003 and 004.

The MNAA property is divided into ten storm water drainage areas, each discharging storm water runoff into the waters of the state. Due to the similar nature of the runoff, sampling will be required only at Outfalls SW1, SW2, and SW7. It should be noted that the runoff area served by Outfall 002 is physically located within the drainage area of Outfall SW2. Storm water runoff from the Stevens Aviation, Inc., Tennessee Air National Guard ( TANG) and American Airlines Fuel Storage Facility ( TN0063908) facilities are not a part of this permit; these facilities will be permitted separately ( TNR051762). Appendix 1 summarizes the facility discharges and receiving waters for Outfalls 002, SW1 through S11.

IV APPLICABLE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES There are no EPA effluent guidelines for the discharges from this facility. Standards of performance are therefore established in accordance with existing state regulations using available treatability information. The facility is one which has " storm water associated with industrial activity" under the storm water regulations in 40 CFR Part 122.26( b)( 14).

V PREVIOUS PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Appendix 2 lists the permit limitations and monitoring requirements as defined in the previous permit. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 3 of R 28 VI HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION During the previous permit term, there were no effluent limitations imposed on discharges from MNAA site. Consequently, facility's compliance history can not be properly evaluated. Nevertheless, some conclusions regarding effluent quality and its observed and/ or potential impact on the receiving stream can be made based on the data submitted during the previous permit term ( Appendix 3). As expected, reported concentrations of biodegradable substances measured at Outfall 002 coincide with the seasonal application of deicing fluids. Daily maximum values for Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day ( CBOD5) and Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) correlate well, as presented in the graph.

In a period from September 1996 to June 2001, for which the Outfall 002 data was reviewed, the COD to CBOD5 ratio was approximately 2.4. The average value of CBOD5 of 26.0 mg/ L, based on 54 sample results, with a standard deviation of 63, indicates that effluent from wastewater treatment plant is likely to impose significant loading onto the receiving stream. Based on this information, the Division has formulated a stream model to evaluate the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream. The model and its implications on the effluent limitations are discussed in the Rationale, Part VII: New Permit Limits and Monitoring Requirements ( see below).

Other parameters monitored during the term of the previous permit ( TSS, Oil and Grease, pH) also indicate presence of pollutants, albeit not at levels as detrimental to the 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Sep 96 Dec 96 Mar 97 Jun 97 Sep 97 Dec 97 Mar 98 Jun 98 Sep 98 Dec 98 Mar 99 Jun 99 Sep 99 Dec 99 Mar 00 Jun 00 Sep 00 Dec 00 Mar 01 Concentration [ mg/ L] CBOD5 Dmax COD Dmax Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 4 of R 28 receiving stream as CBOD5. A summary of the data reported on Discharge Monitoring Report forms during the previous permit term is summarized in Appendix 3.

VII NEW PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Proposed provisions in the permit for storm water discharges are taken from the Tennessee Storm Water Multi Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities, which include a storm water pollution prevention plan and, for some industries, storm water monitoring for industry specific pollutants. Any limits are based on EPA storm water effluent guidelines, if applicable, or by way of the permit writer's best professional judgment of other technologybased limit. If the technology based limit will allow violations of water quality instream, then a lower, water quality based limit is applied. Appendix 5 presents a summary of the new permit limits and monitoring requirements set forth in this permit.

Outfall 002 Limits on pH, Oil and Grease, and TSS for the wastewater treatment system discharge at Outfall 002 were derived from the previous NPDES permits and comply with maximum limits specified in Tennessee Rule 1200 4 5. 03( 2). Due to the impact of past discharges on Sims Branch, an additional requirement for monitoring minimum dissolved oxygen level ( per state water quality criteria for Fish and Aquatic Life) has been added to this outfall.

Flow Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD) and monitored at the time of sample collection. Monitoring of flow quantifies the load of pollutants to the stream.

pH According to the State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards [ Chapter 1200 4 3 .03( 3) ( b)], the pH for the protection of Fish and Aquatic Life shall lie within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 and shall not fluctuate more than 1.0 unit in this range over a period of 24 hours. The Tennessee Rule 1200 4 5. 03( 2), " Effluent Limitations for Effluent Limited Segments," establishes technology based limits for pH within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. Considering that the receiving stream will provide some buffering capacity, effluent limitation for pH will be retained in a range 6.0 to 9.0. The sample type will be grab.

Oxygen Depleting Substances The data submitted with the permit application indicated presence of high levels of Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day ( BOD5) in the facility's wastewater discharges. The majority of COD and BOD5 detected in the facility's effluent originates from deicing compounds handled at the site. Deicing compounds contain predominantly propylene glycol, blended with water, buffers, wetting agents and oxidation inhibitors ( required to prevent damage to aircraft aluminum and sensitive electronic systems) along with thickeners and other additives.

Deicing compounds, particularly propylene glycol, are considered readily biodegradable. Consequently, primary environmental impact of the MNAA's discharges from Outfall 002 is related to large amount of oxygen consumed by microorganisms during Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 5 of R 28 biodegradation of deicing compounds. This wastewater characteristic is commonly measured and expressed as a 5 day biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD5). Of particular importance for the MNAA discharges is the fact that a receiving stream ( Sims Branch) is on the 303( d) list for NOT supporting designated uses due to habitat alteration, siltation, organic enrichment/ D. O., and nonpriority organics. Recognized sources of pollutants in this segment of the receiving stream include, but are not limited to: channelization, land development, and industrial storm water runoff.

Based on a receiving stream tier determination, a great significance has to be placed on preventing addition of oxygen depleting pollutants into this already impacted waterbody. In the years leading up to the issuance of the current NPDES permit, MNAA consultants have conducted several intensive field studies and developed models of the receiving stream in order to suggest appropriate BOD5 limits. Unfortunately, the quality and type of data gathered, and consequent modeling and proposed limits, were not deemed acceptable and protective of the receiving stream. The effluent limitations proposed in the Draft NPDES permit were developed by the Division based on desktop modeling of the receiving stream.

The permittee had argued that the method used to develop the model the discharge and the receiving stream used little corroborative field data, making it too conservative in nature, which has resulted in overly stringent BOD5 effluent limitations for the MNAA. In other words, to be protective of the receiving stream, and in the absence of appropriate field data, the Division has used standard, conservative default model parameters in the model. The permittee further argued that if unable to remove sufficient BOD5 from the wastewater in the wastewater treatment basin, the MNAA would be at risk of violating discharge permit limits or be forced to divert the discharge to the Nashville sanitary sewer system and pay surcharges.

As a result of discussions and meetings both at the site and at the Division's office regarding development of appropriate effluent limitations, protective of the receiving stream, a Wasteload Allocation ( WLA) Study Workplan for Sims Branch was proposed and subsequently submitted on November 27, 2001. A properly conducted WLA and modeling study was prepared in order to generate a more accurate model of the receiving stream, and could yield greater effluent BOD5 limitations for the MNAA, while still be protective of the receiving stream.

The Division's Permit Section and Watershed Management Section have reviewed the proposed WLA study and approved it in its entirety. As described in the study, the MNAA will initiate a wasteload allocation and modeling study of Sims Branch in order to develop alternate effluent water quality limitations for the BNA storm water treatment pond discharge in the period of December 2001 through December 2003. The WLA study will, therefore, become a part of the new permit, and is included as Addendum I. In the meantime, all oxygen depleting pollutants ( CBOD5, NH4 N and D. O.) will be monitored on a report only basis.

Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD)

Similarly to the previous permit, there will be no effluent limitations established for COD in the new permit. The new permit limits are presented in tabular form in Appendix 5. These tables reflect the concentration limits, based on the average flow rates from the outfalls, necessary to maintain the protection of water quality in the receiving stream. Most of the parameters and the corresponding monitoring frequencies were retained from the previous permit. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 6 of R 28 Total Suspended Solids ( TSS)

Total Suspended Solids is a general indicator of the quality of a wastewater and will be limited in this permit. The State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards for the protection of Fish & Aquatic Life [ Chapter 1200 4 3. 03( 3) ( c)] state there shall be no distinctly visible solids, scum, foam, oily slick, or the formation of slimes, bottom deposits or sludge banks of such size or character that may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life in the receiving stream.

The permit writer's BPJ is that limit for TSS of 30 mg/ as a monthly average value will be protective of the water quality criteria in the receiving stream. Considering the seasonal nature of wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system, daily maximum effluent limitation for TSS will not be established during this permit term, it will be " report only." The sample type will be grab.

Oil and Grease The Division has determined that an oil and grease limitation is needed for this facility because of the potential of contamination from spills, leaks and other industrial activities present at the site. The limit for oil and grease is 15 mg/ l as a daily maximum concentration. This level can be accomplished where oil/ water separators are maintained, kept clean and are not overloaded. There should be less reliance upon the oil/ water separator( s) and/ or wastewater treatment plant as a solution and a greater reliance upon good management, operation and housekeeping practices to restrict pollution.

According to the State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards for the protection of Fish & Aquatic Life [ Chapter 1200 4 3. 03( 3) ( c)], there shall be no distinctly visible solids, scum, foam, oily slick, or the formation of slimes, bottom deposits or sludge banks of such size or character that may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life in the receiving stream.

The permit writer is selecting technology based limits for oil and grease of 15 mg/ L as a daily maximum concentration and 10 mg/ L as a monthly average concentration. In addition, the permit will contain language prohibiting visible floating scum, oil or other matter in the wastewater discharge. Sample type will be grab.

The following formulas are used to evaluate water quality protection:

Cm = QsCs + QwCw Qs + Qw where:

Cm = resulting in stream concentration after mixing Cw = concentration of pollutant in wastewater Cs = stream background concentration Qw = wastewater flow Qs = stream low flow Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 7 of R 28 to protect water quality:

Cw   ( SA) [ Cm ( Qs + Qw)  QsCs] Qw where ( SA) is the percent " Stream Allocation".

Calculations used to evaluate water quality protection have been done using a standardized worksheet, titled " Water Quality Based Effluent Calculations." Division policy dictates the following procedures in establishing these permit limits:

1. The critical low flow values are determined using USGS data:

Fish and Aquatic Life Protection 7Q10  Low flow under natural conditions 1Q10  Regulated low flow conditions Other than Fish and Aquatic Life Protection 30Q2  Low flow under natural conditions 2. Fish & Aquatic Life water quality criteria for certain Metals are developed through application of hardness dependent equations. These criteria are combined with dissolved fraction methodologies in order to formulate the final effluent concentrations.

3. For criteria that are hardness dependent, chronic and acute concentrations are based on a Hardness of 50 mg/ L and Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) of 10 mg/ L unless STORET or Water Supply intake data substantiate a different value. Minimum and maximum limits on the hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/ L and 400 mg/ L respectively.

4. Background concentrations are determined from the Division data base, results of sampling obtained from the permittee, and/ or obtained from nearby stream sampling data. If this background data is not sufficient, one half of the chronic " In stream Allowable" water quality criteria for fish and aquatic life is used. If the measured background concentration is greater than the chronic " In stream Allowable" water quality criteria, then the measured background concentration is replaced with the chronic " In stream Allowable" water quality criteria for the purpose of calculating the appropriate effluent limitation ( Cw). Under these circumstances, and in the event the " stream allocation" is less than 100%, the calculated chronic effluent limitation for fish and aquatic life should be equal to the chronic " In stream Allowable" water quality criteria. These guidelines should be strictly followed where the industrial source water is not the receiving stream. Where the industrial source water is the receiving stream, and the measured background concentration is greater than the chronic " Instream Allowable" water quality criteria, consideration may be given as to the degree to which the permittee should be required to meet the requirements of the water quality criteria in view of the nature and characteristics of the receiving stream.

Each worksheet has fourteen ( 14) data columns, all of which may not be applicable to any particular characteristic constituent of the discharge. A description of each column is as follows:

Column 1: The " Stream Background" concentrations of the effluent characteristics. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 8 of R 28 Column 2: The " Chronic" Fish and Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria. For Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc, this value represents the criteria for the dissolved form at laboratory conditions. The Criteria Continuous Concentration ( CCC) is calculated using the equation:

CCC = ( exp { mC [ ln ( stream hardness) ] + bC } ) ( CCF)

CCF = Chronic Conversion Factor This equation and the appropriate coefficients for each metal are from Tennessee Rule 1200 4 3. 03 and the EPA guidance contained in The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating A Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion ( EPA 823 B 96 007, June 1996). Values for other metals are in the total form and are not hardness dependent; no chronic criteria exists for silver. Published criteria are used for non metal parameters.

Column 3: The " Acute" Fish and Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria. For Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc, this value represents the criteria for the dissolved form at laboratory conditions. The Criteria Maximum Concentration ( CMC) is calculated using the equation:

CMC = ( exp { mA [ ln ( stream hardness) ] + bA } ) ( ACF)

ACF = Acute Conversion Factor This equation and the appropriate coefficients for each metal are from Tennessee Rule 1200 4 3. 03 and the EPA guidance contained in The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating A Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion ( EPA 823 B 96 007, June 1996). Values for other metals are in the total form and are not hardness dependent; no acute criteria exists for Total Chromium. Published criteria are used for non metal parameters.

Column 4: The " Translator" converts the value for dissolved metal at laboratory conditions ( columns 2 & 3) to total recoverable metal at in stream ambient conditions ( columns 5 & 6). This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients found in The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating A Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion ( EPA 823 B 96 007, June 1996) and the equation:

Cdiss 1     =                           Ctotal 1 + { [ Kpo] [ ss( 1+ a)] [ 10 6] }

ss = in stream suspended solids concentration [ mg/ l]

Linear partition coefficients for streams are used for unregulated ( 7Q10) receiving waters, and linear partition coefficients for lakes are used for regulated ( 1Q10) receiving waters. For those parameters not in the dissolved form in columns 2 & 3 ( and all non metal parameters), a Translator of 1 is used. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 9 of R 28 Column 5: The " Chronic" Fish and Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria at in stream ambient conditions. This criteria is calculated by dividing the value in column 2 by the value in column 4.

Column 6: The " Acute" Fish and Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria at in stream ambient conditions. This criteria is calculated by dividing the value in column 3 by the value in column 4.

Column 7: The " Chronic" Calculated Effluent Concentration for the protection of fish and aquatic life. This is the Chronic limit.

Column 8: The " Acute" Calculated Effluent Concentration for the protection of fish and aquatic life. This is the Acute limit.

Column 9: The In Stream Water Quality Criteria for the protection of Human Health associated with the stream use classification of Organism Consumption ( Recreation).

Column 10: The In Stream Water Quality Criteria for the protection of Human Health associated with the stream use classification of Water and Organism Consumption. These criteria are only to be applied when the stream use classification for the receiving stream includes both " Recreation" and " Domestic Water Supply."

Column 11: The In Stream Water Quality Criteria for the protection of Human Health associated with the stream use classification of Domestic Water Supply.

Column 12: The Calculated Effluent Concentration associated with Organism Consumption.

Column 13: The Calculated Effluent Concentration associated with Water and Organism Consumption.

Column 14: The Calculated Effluent Concentration associated with Domestic Water Supply.

NOTE: The calculated chronic water quality effluent concentrations from Column 7 should be compared, individually, to the values calculated in Columns 12, 13, and 14 in order to determine the most stringent chronic permit limitations. The calculated acute water quality effluent concentrations from Column 8 should then be compared, individually, to values equal to two ( 2) times the values presented in Columns 12, 13, and 14 in order to determine the most stringent acute permit limitations. These water quality based limits should then be compared to any technology based ( CFR or Tennessee " Rules") effluent limitations, and/ or any previous permit limitations, for final determination of the permit limits. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 10 of R 28 Outfalls 003 and 004 Outfalls 003 and 004 are overflows from the South and North Ponds, respectively. These ponds are used to collect and route deicing fluids and storm water runoff to the wastewater treatment plant. In a case of an exceptionally large storm event, overflow from the ponds is routed directly into the receiving stream. Outfall 004 is expected to flow more frequently than Outfall 003 and will be comprised of similar water quality. Therefore, Outfall 004 will be considered representative for both Outfalls 003 and 004. Parameters to be monitored on a report only basis include flow, pH, CBOD5, COD, TSS and Oil and Grease.

Storm Water Outfalls ( SW1 through S11)

This facility is one which has storm water runoff associated with industrial activity, as defined in 40 CFR 122.26 ( b)( 14). Storm water runoff parameters to be monitored and reported were determined by comparing effluent limitations and monitoring requirements from the previous permit, the requirements from the Tennessee Storm Water Multi Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities ( TMSP), the data submitted on Discharge Monitoring Report ( DMR) forms, and the data contained in the application 2F submitted by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority facility.

There are no effluent guidelines for storm water discharges from the Metro Nashville Airport Authority facility. The previous permit did not have effluent limitations for the facility's storm water runoff. All parameters were monitored on a " Report" only basis. Similarly, the new permit will not establish effluent limitations, but will require reporting of effluent characteristics at storm water Outfalls SW1, SW2 and SW7. Nevertheless, a certain " cut off concentrations" will be established for each of the monitored parameters.

The Division is not assigning limits for these parameters at this time since it is the intent of the Division that the permittee institutes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) in order to minimize the discharge of these pollutants from storm water outfalls. It is the opinion of the Division that the best method for dealing with potential pollution associated with storm water discharges from the Metro Nashville Airport Authority facility is through implementation of an aggressive SWPPP, coupled with discharge monitoring to verify SWPPP effectiveness. Monitoring of storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1, SW2 and SW7 will be required for Flow, pH, Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD), Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) and Oil & Grease on semi annual basis.

In order to assist the permittee in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SWPPP, benchmark values developed for the Tennessee Storm Water Multi Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities are provided herein for comparison. These benchmark values ( cut off concentrations) were developed by the EPA and the State of Tennessee and are based on data submitted by similar industries for the development of the multi sector general storm water permit. The cut off concentrations are target values and should not be construed to represent permit limits. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 11 of R 28 Parameters of Concern Cut Off Concentration [ mg/ L]

pH ( range) 5.0  9.0 COD 120 Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) 200 Oil & Grease 15 Note: Sample values are from the Tennessee Storm Water Multi Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities, Rationale, Part III, Table III A: Parameter Benchmark Values.

Another provision incorporated in the previous permit was a " composite" sample type required for analysis of TSS and Oil and Grease. According to the U. S. EPA " NPDES Permit Writer's Manual" ( Office of Water, EPA 883 B 96 003, December 1996, Page 123), " grab" samples should be used when the quality and flow of the waste stream being sampled is not likely to change over time. Generally, for storm water runoff samples, a grab sample is considered adequate for effluents from holding ponds or other impoundments with a retention period of greater than 24 hours ( Instructions  EPA Form 3510 2F: Application for Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity, Item VII, General Instructions, Page I 3).

Nevertheless, the Division recognizes that a " first flush" sample would be the most accurate representation of the maximum daily value for various pollutants in the storm water runoff. Furthermore, storm water sampling requirements included in the TMSP require analysis of grab samples collected within the first 30 minutes ( or as soon thereafter as practical, but not to exceed one hour) of when the runoff or snowmelt begins discharging. Therefore, the sample type for all storm water runoff parameters in the new permit will be changed from " composite" to " grab." Every effort should be made to collect a " first flush" sample representative of the daily maximum values for sampled parameters.

The new permit will contain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) developed to regulate storm water runoff. This SWPPP is meant to ensure that runoff from the facility site is not a significant source of pollution to the receiving stream. The discharger will develop, document and maintain the SWPPP pursuant to the requirements as set forth in the TMSP, Sector S, " Storm water discharges from establishments and/ or facilities including airports, air terminals, air carriers, flying fields, and establishments engaged in servicing or maintaining airports and/ or aircraft ( generally classified under Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code 45) which have vehicle maintenance shops, material handling facilities, equipment cleaning operations or airport and/ or aircraft deicing/ anti icing operations," Part 3, " Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements." Those requirements are included in the ATTACHMENT I of this permit. The effectiveness of this SWPPP will be investigated after the results of the storm water runoff monitoring have been submitted. At that time, should the results so dictate, the Division maintains the authority to institute specific numeric limitations for the monitored parameters.

VIII BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS The discharge of treated wastewater from Outfall 002 may contain several different pollutants, the combined effect of which has a reasonable potential to be detrimental to fish and aquatic life. The Tennessee Water Quality Standards criteria stipulates that " The waters Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 12 of R 28 shall not contain toxic substances, whether alone or in combination with other substances, which will produce toxic conditions...".

Since the permittee discharges to a stream with low critical flow conditions, there is a concern for toxicity effects of the discharge on the receiving stream which is relatively unknown. Biomonitoring will provide information relative to the toxicity of the discharge. Calculation of toxicity limits is as follows:

Qs + Qw DF =  = Dilution Factor Qw where Qw is a wastewater flow ( Qw = 0.2 MGD) and Qs is a receiving stream low flow ( 7Q10 0.0 MGD). Please refer to Appendix 1 for details regarding facility discharge and receiving stream. Therefore,

0.0 + 0.2 DF =  = 1 0.2 Since the calculated dilution factor is less than 500: 1, and assuming immediate and complete mixing, protection of the stream from acute effects requires:

Protection of aquatic life from acute effects requires:

100% LC50 of the wastewater must be >  = Lethal concentration DF X 0.3 100% LC50 of the wastewater must be >  = 333% ( effectively, 100%) 1.0 X 0.3 therefore, LC50 > 100 %

Therefore, WET testing will be required on 100% effluent. If toxicity is demonstrated in any of the effluent samples specified above, this will constitute a violation of this permit. The toxicity tests specified herein shall be conducted quarterly ( 1/ Quarter during which deicing had occurred) for Outfall 002 and begin no later than 60 days from the effective date of this permit. The details regarding biomonitoring methodology can be found in Part III of the permit.

IX ANTIDEGRADATION Tennessee's Antidegradation Statement is found in the Rules of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Chapter 1200 4 3. 06. This statement outlines the criteria for the two types of high quality waters. Outstanding National Resource Waters ( ONRWs), as designated by the Water Quality Control Board, are commonly referred to as Tier 3 waters. Other high quality waters, as identified by the Division, are commonly referred to as Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 13 of R 28 Tier 2 waters. Other surface waters not specifically identified and/ or designated as high quality are referred to as Tier 1 waters. Some Tier 1 waters may be identified by the Division as not meeting existing criteria and appear on a list of impaired waters per Section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act.

The Division has made a stream tier determination of the receiving waters ( Sims Branch) associated with the subject discharge( s) and has found the receiving stream to be neither a Tier 2 nor Tier 3 water. Additionally, this water appears on the 303( d) list for NOT supporting designated uses due to habitat alteration, siltation, organic enrichment/ D. O., and nonpriority organics. Recognized sources of pollutants include, but are not limited to: channelization, land development, and industrial storm water runoff. The discharge from MNAA's Outfall 002 may contain significant amounts of oxygen depleting pollutants. The Division, therefore, considers the potential for degradation to the receiving stream from this discharge to be considerable. Consequently, the number of parameters as well as the frequency of monitoring will be increased in order to ensure comprehensive and consistent protection of designated uses of Sims Branch.

X PERMIT DURATION The proposed limitations meet the requirements of Section 301( b)( 2)( A), ( C), ( D), ( E), and ( F) of the Clean Water Act as amended. It is the intent of the Division to organize the future issuance and expiration of this particular permit such that other permits located in the same watershed and group within the State of Tennessee will be set for issuance and expiration at the same time. In order to meet the target reissuance date for the Lower Cumberland watershed and following the directives for the Watershed Management Program initiated in January, 1996, the permit will be issued for a 3 year term. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 14 of R 28 APPENDIX 1 FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS OUTFALL 002 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 º 40' 29" 36 º 08' 18" Mile 1.8 of Sims Branch to mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 0.200 Wastewater treatment plant STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 efflunet: non process wastewater FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( fueling and de icing activities) and ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 contaminated storm water runoff STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.200 TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALLS 003 & 004 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 40 24 36 08 10 Miles 1.9 and 2.0 of Sims Branch to mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE variable Overflow: non process wastewater STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 ( fueling and de icing activities) and FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 storm water runoff ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION Variable TOTAL DISCHARGE Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 15 of R 28 APPENDIX 1 FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS OUTFALL SW1 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 39 28 36 08 25 Mile 3.5 of McCrory Creek to Mile 5.8 of Stones River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 3192* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION Variable TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALL SW2 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 40 38 36 08 29 Sims Branch to Mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 960* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 16 of R 28 APPENDIX 1 FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS OUTFALL SW3 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 40 48.3 36 08 30.1 Sims Branch to Mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 206* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALL SW4 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 05.7 36 08 33.1 Sims Branch to Mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 12* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALL SW5 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 45.3 36 08 33.9 Sims Branch to Mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 78* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 17 of R 28 APPENDIX 1 FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS OUTFALL SW6 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 58.6 36 08 28.5 Sims Branch to Mile 1.6 of Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 24* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALL SW7 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 54 36 08 10 Unnamed tributary to Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 492* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 18 of R 28 APPENDIX 1 FACILITY DISCHARGES AND RECEIVING WATERS OUTFALL S10 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 23.4 36 05 42.5 Unnamed tributary to Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 272* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE OUTFALL S11 RECEIVING STREAM LONGITUDE LATITUDE DISCHARGE ROUTE 86 41 18.4 36 05 39.4 Unnamed tributary to Mill Creek to Mile 194.5 of the Cumberland River FLOW DISCHARGE ( MGD) SOURCE 246* Storm water runoff STREAM LOW 3Q20 1Q20 7Q10 FLOW ( CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( MGD) 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Total area drained [ acres] STREAM USE CLASSIFICATIONS ( WATER QUALITY)

FISH RECREATION IRRIGATION LW& W DOMESTIC X X X X INDUSTRIAL NAVIGATION 0.000 TOTAL DISCHARGE Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 19 of R 28 APPENDIX 2 PREVIOUS PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PERMIT LIMITS OUTFALL 002 Effluent from Treatment Basin EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. TYPE FLOW Report ( MGD) * Report ( MGD) * Continuous Recorder pH ** Report 1/ Month Grab CBOD5   Report  1/ Month Grab COD   Report  1/ Month Grab TSS   Report  1/ Month Grab OIL & GREASE   Report  1/ Month Grab DISSOLVED OXYGEN** Report 1/ Month Grab TEMPERATURE Report effluent temperature [ deg. C] 1/ Month*** Grab * Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD)

** Analyses shall be performed within 15 minutes following sample collection.

*** Report effluent temperature for the first 12 months after the effective date of the permit modification only.

Note: See Part III, Sections D, E, & F for additional requirements PERMIT LIMITS INTERNAL MONITORING POINT 02A Influent to Treatment Basin EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. TYPE FLOW  Report ( MGD) * 1/ Month Instantaneous pH ** Report 1/ Month Grab CBOD   Report  1/ Month Grab TSS   Report  1/ Month Grab OIL & GREASE   Report  1/ Month Grab DISSOLVED OXYGEN** Report 1/ Month Grab * Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD)

** Analyses shall be performed within 15 minutes following sample collection.

Note: See Part III, Sections D, E, & F for additional requirements Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 20 of R 28 APPENDIX 2 PREVIOUS PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PERMIT LIMITS OUTFALL SW1  Storm Water ( 3192 acres)

OUTFALL SW2  Storm Water ( 960 acres)

OUTFALL SW3  Storm Water ( 492 acres)

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. TYPE ***

FLOW  Report ( MGD) * Semi annual Estimate pH ** Report Semi annual Grab**** COD   Report  Semi annual Grab**** TSS   Report  Semi annual Composite***** OIL & GREASE   Report  Semi annual Composite*****

* An estimate of discharge flow shall be made using on site measurements of the amount of rainfall, duration of the rainfall, and the drainage area of the outfall. Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD).

** pH analyses shall be performed within 15 minutes following sample collection.

*** Samples shall be collected within 30 minutes of initiation of flow during a storm event that is greater than 0.25 inches, and that occurs at least 72 hours after any previous storm event with rainfall of 0.1 inches or greater.

**** Grab samples shall be collected in the first 30 minutes of a storm event discharge.

***** A composite sample shall consist of three separate grab samples taken at equal intervals( as practicable during the storm event) that have been recombined and then tested.

Note: Storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1, SW2, & SW7 is considered to be representative of storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1 through SW7 and SW9 through S11. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 21 of R 28 APPENDIX 3 HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION Parameter Code Maximum Concentration Minimum Concentration Average Amount Maximum Amount Outfall 002 mg/ L mg/ L mg/ L lb/ day or MGD BOD5 StdDev 268    BOD5 Max 730    BOD5 Average 159    BOD5 Count 8    CBOD5 StdDev 60    CBOD5 Min 1    CBOD5 Max 360    CBOD5 Average 26    CBOD5 Count 57    COD StdDev 90 0.2   COD Min 3 8.9   COD Max 540 9.3   COD Average 67 9.1   COD Count 57 57   D. O. StdDev 5.8 2.2   D. O. Min 10 5   D. O. Average 15 9.1722   D. O. Count 65 65   Flow StdDev   0.194 0.431 Flow Max   1.125 2.137 Flow Average   0.254 0.606 Flow Count   65 65 Oil and Grease StdDev 7.3    Oil and Grease Max 39    Oil and Grease Average 6.5    Oil and Grease Count 65    pH Min 5 6.4   pH Max 90 9.5   pH Count 65 65   TSS StdDev 24.8    TSS Max 150    TSS Average 29.2    TSS Count 65    Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 22 of R 28 APPENDIX 3 HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION Parameter Code Average Concentration Maximum Concentration Minimum Concentration Average Amount Maximum Amount IMP 02A mg/ L mg/ L MGD MGD CBOD5 StdDev  651.8    CBOD5 Min  1    CBOD5 Max  3110    CBOD5 Average  257.0    CBOD5 Count  50    D. O. StdDev   2.2   D. O. Min   0.7   D. O. Max   10.7   D. O. Average   5.0   D. O. Count   57   Flow StdDev    0.136 0.133 Flow Min    0.051 0.010 Flow Max    0.291 0.619 Flow Average    0.208 0.425 Flow Count    57 57 Oil and Grease StdDev  57    Oil and Grease Min  1    Oil and Grease Max  410    Oil and Grease Average  14    Oil and Grease Count  57    pH StdDev  0.41    pH Min  7.00    pH Max  9.10    pH Count  57.00    TSS StdDev  350.2    TSS Min  1.0    TSS Max  2472.0    TSS Average  71.0    TSS Count  57.0    Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 23 of R 28 APPENDIX 3 HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION Parameter Code Date Maximum Maximum Amount Outfall SW1 mg/ L MGD COD 10/ 31/ 1996 23 COD 4/ 30/ 1997 22 COD 10/ 31/ 1997 20 COD 4/ 30/ 1998 20 COD 10/ 31/ 1998 8 COD 4/ 30/ 1999 25 COD 10/ 31/ 1999 < 10 COD 4/ 30/ 2000 19 COD 10/ 31/ 2000 7 COD 4/ 30/ 2001 16 Flow 10/ 31/ 1996 73.5 Flow 4/ 30/ 1997 2.6 Flow 10/ 31/ 1997 0.3 Flow 4/ 30/ 1998 0.15 Flow 10/ 31/ 1998 0.13 Flow 4/ 30/ 1999 0.3 Flow 10/ 31/ 1999 0.22 Flow 4/ 30/ 2000 13.5 Flow 10/ 31/ 2000 0.972 Flow 4/ 30/ 2001 10.712 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1996 2 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1997 3 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1997 1 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1998 < 1 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1998 < 1 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1999 < 1 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1999 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2000 6 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 2000 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2001 < 5 pH 10/ 31/ 1996 6.9 pH 4/ 30/ 1997 7.8 pH 10/ 31/ 1997 7.2 pH 4/ 30/ 1998 8.1 pH 10/ 31/ 1998 7.6 pH 4/ 30/ 1999 6.8 pH 10/ 31/ 1999 7 pH 4/ 30/ 2000 7.3 pH 10/ 31/ 2000 7.2 pH 4/ 30/ 2001 7.7 TSS 10/ 31/ 1996 30 TSS 4/ 30/ 1997 2 TSS 10/ 31/ 1997 11 TSS 4/ 30/ 1998 1 TSS 10/ 31/ 1998 7 TSS 4/ 30/ 1999 6 TSS 10/ 31/ 1999 3 TSS 4/ 30/ 2000 21 TSS 10/ 31/ 2000 3 TSS 4/ 30/ 2001 9 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 24 of R 28 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 25 of R 28 APPENDIX 3 HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION Parameter Code Date Maximum Concentration Maximum Amount Outfall SW2 mg/ L MGD COD 10/ 31/ 1996 27 COD 4/ 30/ 1997 13 COD 10/ 31/ 1997 23 COD 4/ 30/ 1998 9.5 COD 10/ 31/ 1998 15 COD 4/ 30/ 1999 27 COD 10/ 31/ 1999 < 10 COD 4/ 30/ 2000 COD 10/ 31/ 2000 29 COD 4/ 30/ 2001 43 Flow 10/ 31/ 1996 22.1 Flow 4/ 30/ 1997 0.77 Flow 10/ 31/ 1997 0.15 Flow 4/ 30/ 1998 0.05 Flow 10/ 31/ 1998 0.014 Flow 4/ 30/ 1999 12.9 Flow 10/ 31/ 1999 1.08 Flow 4/ 30/ 2000 Flow 10/ 31/ 2000 0.656 Flow 4/ 30/ 2001 5.655 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1996 2 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1997 4 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1997 9 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1998 < 1 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1998 < 1 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1999 < 5 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1999 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2000 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 2000 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2001 < 5 pH 10/ 31/ 1996 7.8 pH 4/ 30/ 1997 7.6 pH 10/ 31/ 1997 7.1 pH 4/ 30/ 1998 8 pH 10/ 31/ 1998 8 pH 4/ 30/ 1999 7.7 pH 10/ 31/ 1999 7.9 pH 4/ 30/ 2000 pH 10/ 31/ 2000 7.6 pH 4/ 30/ 2001 7.6 TSS 10/ 31/ 1996 5 TSS 4/ 30/ 1997 2 TSS 10/ 31/ 1997 4 TSS 4/ 30/ 1998 5 TSS 10/ 31/ 1998 2 TSS 4/ 30/ 1999 46 TSS 10/ 31/ 1999 3 TSS 4/ 30/ 2000 TSS 10/ 31/ 2000 10 TSS 4/ 30/ 2001 6 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 26 of R 28 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 27 of R 28 APPENDIX 3 HISTORICAL MONITORING AND INSPECTION Parameter Code Date Maximum Concentration Maximum Amount Outfall SW7 mg/ L MGD COD 10/ 31/ 1996 25 COD 4/ 30/ 1997 23 COD 10/ 31/ 1997 20 COD 4/ 30/ 1998 < 20 COD 10/ 31/ 1998 COD 4/ 30/ 1999 < 20 COD 10/ 31/ 1999 < 10 COD 4/ 30/ 2000 17 COD 10/ 31/ 2000 < 5 COD 4/ 30/ 2001 29 Flow 10/ 31/ 1996 11.3 Flow 4/ 30/ 1997 0.0015 Flow 10/ 31/ 1997 0.05 Flow 4/ 30/ 1998 0.1 Flow 10/ 31/ 1998 Flow 4/ 30/ 1999 0.08 Flow 10/ 31/ 1999 0 Flow 4/ 30/ 2000 1.1 Flow 10/ 31/ 2000 0.323 Flow 4/ 30/ 2001 0.798 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1996 1 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1997 < 1 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1997 3 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1998 5 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1998 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 1999 < 1 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 1999 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2000 < 5 Oil and Grease 10/ 31/ 2000 < 5 Oil and Grease 4/ 30/ 2001 < 5 pH 10/ 31/ 1996 8.2 pH 4/ 30/ 1997 7 pH 10/ 31/ 1997 7.1 pH 4/ 30/ 1998 7.9 pH 10/ 31/ 1998 pH 4/ 30/ 1999 6.5 pH 10/ 31/ 1999 6.8 pH 4/ 30/ 2000 7.5 pH 10/ 31/ 2000 7 pH 4/ 30/ 2001 7.6 TSS 10/ 31/ 1996 70 TSS 4/ 30/ 1997 6 TSS 10/ 31/ 1997 9 TSS 4/ 30/ 1998 6 TSS 10/ 31/ 1998 TSS 4/ 30/ 1999 5 TSS 10/ 31/ 1999 30 TSS 4/ 30/ 2000 13 TSS 10/ 31/ 2000 22 TSS 4/ 30/ 2001 9 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 28 of R 28 Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 29 of R 28 APPENDIX 4 NEW PERMIT LIMITS PERMIT LIMITS OUTFALL 002 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. TYPE FLOW Report ( MGD) * Report ( MGD) * 1/ Week Instantaneous pH** Range 6.0  9.0 1/ Week Grab COD   Report  1/ Week Grab TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( TSS) 30.0  Report  1/ Month Grab OIL & GREASE 10.0  15.0  1/ Month Grab DISSOLVED OXYGEN ( D. O.) Reprt Minimum Value 1/ Week Grab TEMPERATURE, Effluent Report Effluent Temperature 1/ Week Grab NITROGEN, AMMONIA TOTAL Report  Report  1/ Week Grab RECEIVING STREAM FLOW *** 1/ Week Grab 48 HR LC50 Survival, Reproduction, & Growth in 100% Effluent **** Composite *****

CBOD5 Report  Report  1/ Month Grab CBOD5 Report  Report  1/ Week Grab * Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD). ** pH analyses shall be performed within fifteen ( 15) minutes of sample collection. *** Receiving stream flow is based on a 24 hour average value. Receiving stream flow will be measured at a location, and using methods approved by the Division. **** To be conducted once in each quarter ( Jan Mar; Apr Jun; Jul Sep; Oct Dec) during which aircraft deicing is/ has occurred. ***** See Part III for methodology. Report ( CFS)

Summer ( May 1 through September 30)

Winter ( October 1 through April 30) Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 30 of R 28 APPENDIX 4 New Permit Limits PERMIT LIMITS OUTFALL 004 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. *** TYPE FLOW Report ( MGD) * Report ( MGD) * 1/ Month Estimate pH** Report 1/ Month Grab CBOD5   Report  1/ Month Grab COD   Report  1/ Month Grab TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( TSS)   Report  1/ Month Grab OIL & GREASE   Report  1/ Month Grab * Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD). ** pH analyses shall be performed within fifteen ( 15) minutes of sample collection. *** Once per month, or once per occurrence, whicever is less frequent. Metro Nashville Airport Authority ( Rationale) NPDES Permit TN0064041 Page R 31 of R 28 APPENDIX 4 New Permit Limits VMJ TN0064041. doc PERMIT LIMITS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING MONTHLY DAILY REQUIREMENTS EFFLUENT AVG. CONC. AVG. AMNT. MAX. CONC. MAX. AMNT. MSRMNT. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) ( mg/ l) ( lb/ day) FRQNCY. TYPE ***

FLOW Report ( MGD) * Report ( MGD) * Semi annual Estimate pH ** Report Semi annual Grab CBOD5   Report  Semi annual Grab COD   Report  Semi annual Grab TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( TSS)   Report  Semi annual Grab OIL & GREASE   Report  Semi annual Grab *

** pH analyses shall be performed within fifteen ( 15) minutes of sample collection.

*** OUTFALL SW1  Storm Water ( 3,192 acres) OUTFALL SW2  Storm Water ( 960 acres) OUTFALL SW7  Storm Water ( 492 acres)

The permittee shall provide the date and duration ( in hours) of the qualifying storm event( s) sampled; rainfall measurements or estimates ( in inches) of the storm event that generated the sampled runoff; the duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable ( greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of the total volume of the discharge sampled. Flow shall be reported in Million Gallons per Day ( MGD).

Samples shall be collected within 30 minutes of initiation of flow during a storm event that is greater than 0.1 inches, and that occurs at least 72 hours after any previous storm event with rainfall of 0.1 inches or greater.

Note: Storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1, SW2, & SW7 is considered to be representative of storm water runoff from Outfalls SW1 through S11.


[Federal Register: January 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4426]
[DOCID:fr26ja09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OA08-62-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
FERC Staff Attendance

January 15, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that on January 16, 2009 members of its staff will participate
in a teleconference to be conducted by the California Independent
System Operator (CAISO) regarding the CAISO's 2009 transmission plan.
Further information and documents for the teleconference can be
obtained at: http://www.caiso.com.
    Sponsored by the CAISO, this teleconference is open to all market
participants, and Commission staff's participation is part of the
Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. This meeting may discuss matters
at issue in the above captioned docket.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0233 or Maury Kruth at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0275.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1473 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Total Arsenic Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Total Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method	Total Concentration Result	Units	Total Non-Detect Indicator	Total Detection Limit mg/kg	Total Detection Limit Data Qualifier	Description

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	arsenic	actual

12	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #3	N	arsenic	actual

12	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #4	N	arsenic	actual

7.9	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #5	N	arsenic	actual

9.1	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #1	N	arsenic	actual

10	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	arsenic	actual

8.7	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #3	N	arsenic	actual

15	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #4	N	arsenic	actual

14	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #5	N	arsenic	actual

25	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #6	N	arsenic	actual

16	mg/kg

50	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-4	N	arsenic	actual

10	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-4	N	arsenic	actual

8.2	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-6	N	arsenic	actual	Method 6020	18	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-7	N	arsenic	actual

7.9	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-3	N	arsenic	actual	Method 6020	15	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-1	N	arsenic	actual

20	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	arsenic	actual

9.2	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	arsenic	actual

10	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	arsenic	actual

12	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-7	N	arsenic	actual

24	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	4.9	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	7.2	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	6.1	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	7.2	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	2.4	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N	arsenic actual	Method 6020	6.2	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N	arsenic actual

1.8	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N	arsenic actual

2.5	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N	arsenic actual

2.7	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N	arsenic actual

4.5	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N	arsenic actual

2.5	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	arsenic	actual

2	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	arsenic	actual

2.5	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-02	N	arsenic	actual

3	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-03	N	arsenic	actual

3.3	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-04	N	arsenic	actual

1.5	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	arsenic	actual

1.7	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4103788/255-008 - RB-4	N	arsenic	actual

1.1	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU<PHONE_NUMBER>-007 - RB-3	N	arsenic	actual

0.94	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-002 - RB-3-Dup	Y	arsenic	actual

1.2	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-003 - RB-1	N	arsenic	actual

0.68	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4117098/255-004 - RB-2	N	arsenic	actual

1	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-1	N	arsenic	actual

18	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-3	N	arsenic	actual

10	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-4	N	arsenic	actual

12	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-6	N	arsenic	actual

8.1	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-7	N	arsenic	actual

22	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

n 	47

	MAXIMUM	25

	MEAN	8.532340426

	MEDIAN	7.9

	Std. Dev.	6.56543459

	90th Percentile	18

	50th Percentile	7.9


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9429-9430]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04434]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0126]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, at Vancouver, WA.
The deviation is necessary to accommodate maintenance and replacement
of various bridge components. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during maintenance
activities.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on March 5, 2018 to 4
p.m. on March 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0126 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF, bridge owner, requested that the BNSF
Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain in the
closed-to-navigation position to marine vessel traffic for maintenance
and component replacement activities. The BNSF Swing Bridge provides 39
feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the
closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the BNSF Swing
Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not
open for maritime traffic as listed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Time/date start            Time/date end            Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 a.m. Mar 5, 2018..........  4 p.m. Mar 5, 2018..  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 6, 2018..........  4 p.m. Mar 6, 2018..  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 7, 2018..........  4 p.m. Mar 7, 2018..  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 8, 2018..........  4 p.m. Mar 8, 2018..  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 9, 2018..........  4 p.m. Mar 9, 2018..  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 12, 2018.........  4 p.m. Mar 12, 2018.  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 13, 2018.........  4 p.m. Mar 13, 2018.  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
8 a.m. Mar 14, 2018.........  4 p.m. Mar 14, 2018.  span in the closed-
                                                     to-navigation
                                                     position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subject bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. The
bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times.
    Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels
ranging from large ships to commercial tug and tow vessels to
recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing
vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-
navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to
open for emergencies during this closure period if a one hour notice is
given except on March 6, 2018 and March 8, 2018, and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. We contacted known river
users, and requested objections to reschedule BNSF's maintenance
period. We have not received any objections to this deviation. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 8, 2018.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-04434 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10058-10059]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4334-017]

EONY Generation Limited; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With The Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 4334-017.
    c. Date filed: January 28, 2021.
    d. Applicant: EONY Generation Limited (EONY).
    e. Name of Project: Philadelphia Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Indian River, in the Village of Philadelphia in
Jefferson County, New York. The project does not occupy any federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Franz Kropp, Director, Generation, EONY, 7659
Lyonsdale Road, Lyons Falls, NY 13368;<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 7498.
Murray Hall, Manager, Generation, EONY, 7659 Lyonsdale Road, Lyons
Falls, NY 13368;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Emily Carter at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: March 29, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the project name and
docket number on the first page: Philadelphia Hydroelectric Project (P-
4334-017).
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. Project Description: The existing Philadelphia Hydroelectric
Project consists of (1) a 65-acre reservoir at a normal maximum water
surface elevation of 475.4 feet; \1\ (2) two concrete dams joined by an
island and designated as the east diversion dam, which is 60 feet long
and 2 to 3 feet high with a crest elevation of 474.4 feet, and topped
with 1.2-foot-high flashboards, and the west diversion dam, which has
two sections totaling approximately 30 feet long and 10.4 feet high
with a crest elevation of 475.4 feet; (3) a 45-foot-long non-overflow
section that includes a reinforced concrete intake structure; (4) a
377-foot-long, 9.5-foot-diameter concrete penstock; (5) a 54.5-foot-
long by 30-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse; (6) one 3.645-
megawatt horizontal Kaplan-type turbine-generator unit; (7) trashracks
with 2.5-inch clear spacing; (8) a 4,160-volt, approximately 50-foot-
long buried transmission line; (9) a switchyard; and (10) appurtenant
facilities. The average annual generation was 10,092,492 kilowatt-hours
for the period from 2016 to 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All elevations are in National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EONY currently operates the project in run-of-river mode and
discharges a minimum flow of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) into the
project's 1,250-foot-long bypassed reach to project aquatic resources.
    As part of the license application, EONY filed a settlement
agreement entered into between itself, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. As part of the settlement agreement, EONY proposes to:
(1) Continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode; (2)

provide a minimum flow in the bypassed reach of 28 cfs; \2\ (3) install
seasonal trashracks with 1-inch spacing; (4) implement a Trashrack
Operations and Maintenance Plan, a Bat and Eagle Protection Plan, an
Invasive Species Management Plan, and an Impoundment Drawdown and
Cofferdam Plan; and (5) implement several improvements to an existing
fishing platform to make it accessible to persons with disabilities,
including the addition of an accessible parking space, an associated
access aisle and access route from the accessible parking space to the
fishing platform, and modifications to the railing surrounding the
fishing platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EONY determined that the proposed 28-cfs minimum flow would
not result in incremental losses of generation compared to the
current condition because the field measurement of the existing
minimum flow was approximately 28 cfs, which accounted for
flashboard leakage and was most likely present during the term of
the existing license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., license application) 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 (P-
4334). 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 FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)--March 2021
Request Additional Information--March 2021
Issue Acceptance Letter--June 2021
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--July 2021
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--September 2021
Issue Scoping Document 2--October 2021
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--October 2021

    q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: February 11, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03271 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28369-28370]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12890]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80940; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exposure Periods of the MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism and
Solicitation Mechanism

June 15, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On April 25, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend MIAX Options Rule 515A
to modify the exposure periods of the Exchange's Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism from 500
milliseconds to a time period designated by the Exchange of no less
than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 5,
2017.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. 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. 80570 (May 1, 2017),
82 FR 21288 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    PRIME is a process by which a Member \4\ may electronically submit
for execution an order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'')
against principal interest, and/or an Agency Order against solicited
interest.\5\ When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency
Order for auction processing, a Request for Responses (``RFR'')
detailing the option, side, size, and initiating price is sent to all
subscribers of the Exchange's data feeds. Currently, the RFR period
lasts for 500 milliseconds, unless it is concluded early.\6\ The
Exchange proposes to revise the RFR response period to permit the
Exchange to designate a specific time within a range of no less than
100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 515A.
    \6\ A PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Auction will conclude at the
sooner of: (1) Upon receipt of an unrelated order (in the same
option as the Agency Order) on the opposite side of the market from
the RFR responses, that is marketable against either the National
Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO''), the initiating price, or the RFR
responses; (2) upon receipt of an unrelated order (in the same
option as the Agency Order) on the same side of the market as the
RFR responses, that is marketable against the NBBO; (3) upon receipt
of an unrelated limit order (in the same option as the Agency Order)
on the opposite of the market from the Agency Order that improves
any RFR response; (4) any time an RFR response matches the NBBO on
the opposite side of the market from the RFR responses; (5) any time
there is a quote lock in the subject option on the Exchange pursuant
to Exchange Rule 1402; or (6) any time there is a trading halt in
the option on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 515A.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that its proposal is consistent with
exposure periods permitted in similar mechanisms on other options
exchanges. See Notice, supra note 3, at 21288 & n.6; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76301 (October 29, 2015), 80 FR
68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (establishing an exposure
period for the Nasdaq BX's options price improvement mechanism
(``PRISM'') of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1
second); 77557 (April 7, 2016), 81 FR 21935 (April 13, 2016) (SR-
Phlx-2016-40) (amending the exposure period for the Nasdaq Phlx's
Price Improvement XL (``PIXL'') to be no less than 100 milliseconds
and no more than 1 second); 79733 (January 4, 2017), 82 FR 3055
(January 10, 2017) (SR-ISE-2016-26) (amending the exposure period
for the Nasdaq ISE's Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') to be no
less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second); and 80738
(May 22, 2017), 82 FR 24417 (May 26, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-029)
(amending the exposure periods for the CBOE's Automated Improvement
Mechanism (``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'') to
be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, 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).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, given the electronic nature of the
PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism and the ability of Members to
respond within the proposed exposure periods, modifying each of the
exposure periods from 500 milliseconds to a time designated by the
Exchange of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second
could facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while continuing to
provide market participants with an opportunity to compete to trade
with the exposed order by submitting responses to the auctions.
According to the Exchange, numerous Members have the capability to and
do respond within a 100 millisecond exposure period or less.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 21289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To substantiate that its members can receive, process, and
communicate a response back to the Exchange within 100 milliseconds,
the Exchange states that it surveyed all Members that responded to an
auction broadcast in the period beginning November 2016 and ending
January 2017 (the ``review period'').\12\ According to the Exchange,
each Member it surveyed indicated that they can receive, process, and
communicate a response back to the Exchange within 100
milliseconds.\13\ In addition, the Exchange states that it reviewed all
responses received in PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Auctions from its
Members for the review period, and its review indicated that
approximately 90% of responses were submitted within 100
milliseconds.\14\ Furthermore, with regard to the impact of the
proposal on system capacity, the Exchange states that it has analyzed
its capacity and represents that it has the necessary systems capacity
to handle the potential additional traffic associated with the
additional transactions that may occur with the

implementation of the proposed reduction response time duration to no
less than 100 milliseconds.\15\ The Exchange also represents that its
system will be able to sufficiently maintain an audit trail for order
and trade information with the reduction in the response timer.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id. at 21289-90.
    \16\ See id. at 21290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that
market participants should continue to have opportunities to compete to
trade with the exposed order by submitting responses to the PRIME and
PRIME Solicitation Mechanism within an exposure period of no less than
100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second.\17\ Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the Exchange's
proposal is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission notes that the ability to designate such an
exposure time period is consistent with the rules of other options
exchanges. See supra note 7. See also NASDAQ Phlx Rule
1080(n)(ii)(A)(4), NASDAQ BX Options Rules Chapter VI, Section
9(ii)(A)(3), Nasdaq ISE Rule 716, Supplementary Material .04, Nasdaq
ISE Rule 723(c)(1), CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(C), and CBOE Rule
6.74B(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2017-16) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12890 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 55037]
[DOCID:fr20se06-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

    Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-4(b) and (c); SEC File No. 270-264; OMB Control No.
3235-0341.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-4(b) and (c) (17 CFR 240.17Ad-4) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is used to document when
transfer agents are exempt, or no longer exempt, from the minimum
performance standards and certain recordkeeping provisions of the
Commission's transfer agent rules. Rule 17Ad-4(c) sets forth the
conditions under which a registered transfer agent loses its exempt
status. Once the conditions for exemption no longer exist, the transfer
agent, to keep the appropriate regulatory authority (``ARA'') apprised
of its current status, must prepare, and file if the ARA for the
transfer agent is the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(``BGFRS'') or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''), a
notice of loss of exempt status under paragraph (c). The transfer agent
then cannot claim exempt status under Rule 17Ad-4(b) again until it
remains subject to the minimum performance standards for non-exempt
transfer agents for six consecutive months. The ARAs use the
information contained in the notice to determine whether a registered
transfer agent qualifies for the exemption, to determine when a
registered transfer agent no longer qualifies for the exemption, and to
determine the extent to which that transfer agent is subject to
regulation.
    The BGFRS receives approximately twelve notices of exempt status
and six notices of loss of exempt status annually. The FDIC receives
approximately eighteen notices of exempt status and three notices of
loss of exempt status annually. The Commission and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (``OCC'') do not require transfer agents to
file a notice of exempt status or loss of exempt status. Instead,
transfer agents whose ARA is the Commission or OCC need only to prepare
and maintain these notices. The Commission estimates that approximately
sixteen notices of exempt status and loss of exempt status are prepared
annually by transfer agents whose ARA is the Commission. Similarly, the
OCC estimates that the transfer agents for which it is the ARA prepare
and maintain approximately fifteen notices of exempt status and loss of
exempt status annually. Thus, a total of approximately seventy notices
of exempt status and loss of exempt status are prepared and maintained
by transfer agents annually. Of these seventy notices, approximately
forty are filed with an ARA. Any additional costs associated with
filing such notices would be limited primarily to postage, which would
be minimal. Since the Commission estimates that no more than one-half
hour is required to prepare each notice, the total annual burden to
transfer agents is approximately thirty-five hours. The average cost
per hour is approximately $30. Therefore, the total cost of compliance
to the transfer agent community is $1,050.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 11, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15586 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P