[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43742]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1179-020.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Integrated Marketplace Fourth Compliance Filing to be
effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2232-001.
    Applicants: Capital Energy LLC.
    Description: Amendment to 1 to be effective 6/21/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2450-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
    Description: New Smyrna Beach PPA--RS 218 (3rd Amendment) to be
effective 9/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2451-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC.
    Description: Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC MBR Filing to be
effective 7/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2452-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Attachment L Tariff Revisions to be effective 9/15/
2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2453-000.
    Applicants: Delaware City Refining Company LLC.
    Description: DCRC and PBF Change in Status Filing to be effective
7/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2454-000.
    Applicants: PBF Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: DCRC and PBF Change in Status Filing to be effective
7/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2455-000.
    Applicants: Hawks Nest Hydro LLC.
    Description: Hawks Nest Hydro LLC MBR Filing to be effective 7/17/
2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2456-000.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: IPL Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/27/
2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2457-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Errata re Order No. 792 Compliance Filing to be
effective 7/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2458-000.
    Applicants: Mesa Wind Power Corporation.
    Description: Mesa Wind Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Mesa Wind Power Corporation MBR Filing to be effective
7/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140717-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17616 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Chapter 5- Benefits RIA Comments

Substantive Concerns:

a) in general: i.e, akin to the discussion in the PM benefits chapter
that emphasized the sources of uncertainty,

b) associated with non-attainment – akin to discussion in the PM
benefits chapter regarding increasing uncertainty in achieving benefits
as the ‘controls’ being applied become theoretical (there were some
pie charts also showing the shift in which sectors were covered as
theoretical controls were added – is this the case for ozone also)?

c) please discuss uncertainties (e.g., feasibility of achieving
standards, uncertainty associated with PRB, etc.) associated with
benefits assumptions for monitor rollbacks.

2)  Please add a copy of the discussion regarding the baseline  (e.g.,
that ozone benefits are incremental to regs in full implementation or
whatever is the correct stmt and

that the PM co-benefits are incremental to assumptions of full
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).  This should come early in the
Chapter – maybe after 5.2 or as part of 5.1

1)  whenever the term ‘PM benefits’ is used, please change it to
‘PM co-benefits’

2)  Let’s make a decision re: use of ppm vs. ppb.  There are places,
e.g., page 40 where you switch between the two.

3) Please add “premature” before each use of the term “mortality.

4)  For pages pgs 40-42:  please insert ‘full’ or ‘partial’
before each use of the word ‘attainment’ for clarity.

5) We request that you treat each chapter as a new document from the
perspective of abbreviations and definitions of acronyms because some
readers will not be reading the entire document.

6) Page 2: footnote 1 – pls make separate footnotes for each document.

Clarify in the table name whether the numbers address ‘ozone only’
or ‘PM co-benefits only’ or ‘ozone and PM co-benefits’

For all PM tables, add a footnote indicating that these numbers are
incremental to  2006 PM NAAQS [this also needs to be added to the text
discussion]

For all PM tables, add a footnote as to whether these are assuming full
attainment of 0.084 and full attainment of 0.070 (or other std)

The footnotes are in lower case in the table and in upper case
underneath the tables. Pls be consistent.

Please adopt a convention for how many decimal places (one or none).
Dropping decimals for total column is fine, as long as there is a
consistent rounding convention.

; also change the title to read morbidity and welfare (or just remove
the ‘worker productivity’ estimate from this table and talk about it
separately (or in its own separate table).   Also, add footnote
explaining why no confidence intervals are provided.

Tables 5-19 an 5-20 are missing ‘units’

Table 5-2: has numbered and letter footnotes

Table 5-22: add several blank lines between each of the alternative
standards.

Table 5-21: last row

I have added a fuller discussion of uncertainty at the end of the
chapter. Please let me know if this is more consistent with what you
were looking for.

We used a precursor-specific benefit per ton estimate and so did not
make this assumption.

I have added this discussion.

Regarding welfare effects—please see e-mail from Bryan Hubbell dated
5/30. I have added new language describing how worker productivity was
estimated.

I have attached a separate write-up, to be either an appendix or a TSD,
that describes this approach. Traditionally, we do not include the
rollback write-up in the benefits chapter because this is really an air
quality modeling technique.

I have made these changes.

Incorporated edits except where noted below

Numbers may not sum due to rounding to 2 sig figs.

Incorporated edits except where noted below

See e-mail from Bryan Hubbell dated 5/30.

Did my best, but I can’t shrink the font much more before it becomes
completely illegible


                                     State
                      2012-2013  Proposed Budget (Tons)
                         2012-2013 Final Budget (Tons)
                               Difference (Tons)
                             Percentage Difference
Iowa
                                    16,532
                                    16,532
                                       0
                                      0%
Kansas
                                    13,536
                                      N/A
                                      --
                                      --
Michigan
                                    25,752
                                    28,041
                                     2,289
                                      9%
Missouri
                                    22,762
                                    22,762
                                       0
                                      0%
Oklahoma
                                    21,835
                                    36,567
                                    21,835
                                    14,732
                                       0
                                      67%
                                      0%
Wisconsin
                                    13,704
                                    14,784
                                     1,080
                                      8%

                                     State
                         2014  Proposed Budget (Tons)
                           2014 Final Budget (Tons)
                               Difference (Tons)
                             Percentage Difference
Iowa
                                    16,207
                                    16,207
                                       0
                                      0%
Kansas
                                    10,998
                                      N/A
                                      --
                                      --
Michigan
                                    24,727
                                    27,016
                                     2,289
                                      9%
Missouri
                                    21,073
                                    21,073
                                       0
                                      0%
Oklahoma
                                    21,835
                                    21,835
                                       0
                                      0%
Wisconsin
                                    13,216
                                    14,296
                                     1,080
                                      8%

                           2012 Total Budget (Tons)
                                   Increase
Final CSAPR Ozone Season NOx Budget w/o Supplemental States
                                                                        495,314
                                      - -
Final CSAPR and Proposed Supplemental  Ozone Season NOx Budget *
                                                                        595,899
                                                                        100,585
Final CSAPR and Final Supplemental Ozone Season NOx Budget **
                                                                        614,000
                                                                        118,686
* Does not include proposed budget for Kansas

** Includes 2012 budget for Oklahoma (total would be 599,268 tons in 2013)

                           2014 Total Budget (Tons)
                                   Increase
Final CSAPR Ozone Season NOx Budget w/o Supplemental States
                                                                        466,298
                                      - -
Final CSAPR and Proposed Supplemental  Ozone Season NOx Budget *
                                                                        563,356
                                                                         97,058
Final CSAPR and Final Supplemental Ozone Season NOx Budget
                                                                        566,725
                                                                        100,427
* Does not include proposed budget for Kansas


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48856]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0380]

Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Event in the Captain of the Port
Detroit Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for an annual
fireworks event in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 9:15 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on August 18, 2012. This action is necessary and intended to
ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to,
during, and immediately after fireworks events. During the
aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon,
and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior
to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. During the
enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 18, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207; telephone (313) 568-
9508, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the
Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following date and times for
the following event:
    (1) Cheeseburger Festival Fireworks, Caseville, MI. The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(11) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 10
p.m. on August 18, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on August 18,
2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
August 19, 2012.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within this safety zone during the enforcement period is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the
safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port
Detroit. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain
of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted
on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard
will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF
radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.23 and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that this safety zone
need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or
she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission
to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: August 2, 2012.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2012-20002 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


CFU/ 100ml LTAB01 7/ 26/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml LTAB01 8/ 23/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 17/ 95 78 CFU/ 100ml 26 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 27/ 95 26 CFU/ 100ml 24 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 27/ 95 49 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 24/ 95 63 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 22/ 95 26 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 26/ 95 35 CFU/ 100ml 18 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 24/ 95 33 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 21/ 95 34 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 25/ 95 41 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 23/ 95 23 CFU/ 100ml 19 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 27/ 95 120 CFU/ 100ml 78 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 18/ 95 CFU/ 100ml > MR, 6E2 570 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 22/ 96 300 CFU/ 100ml 78 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 20/ 96 400 CFU/ 100ml 64 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 18/ 96 17 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 22/ 96 50 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 22/ 96 CFU/ 100ml > MR, 6E2 CFU/ 100ml > MR, 6E2 LTEH02 7/ 15/ 96 36 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 5/ 96 52 CFU/ 100ml 75 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 16/ 96 15 CFU/ 100ml 8 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 21/ 96 42 CFU/ 100ml 45 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 18/ 96 150 CFU/ 100ml 160 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 16/ 96 29 CFU/ 100ml 17 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 27/ 97 54 CFU/ 100ml 39 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 19/ 97 50 CFU/ 100ml 39 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 13/ 97 60 CFU/ 100ml 250 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 19/ 97 8 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 23/ 97 140 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 22/ 97 40 CFU/ 100ml 13 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 27/ 97 540 CFU/ 100ml 410 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 23/ 97 23 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 20/ 97 10 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 17/ 97 220 CFU/ 100ml 180 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 22/ 97 92 CFU/ 100ml 29 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 21/ 98 150 CFU/ 100ml 31 CFU/ 100ml Page 42 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual LTEH02 2/ 23/ 98 22 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 17/ 98 61 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 20/ 98 29 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 18/ 98 11 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 15/ 98 76 CFU/ 100ml 76 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 28/ 98 16 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 17/ 98 51 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 28/ 98 9 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 20/ 98 6 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml H LTEH02 11/ 17/ 98 69 CFU/ 100ml 28 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 16/ 98 88 CFU/ 100ml 24 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 26/ 99 36 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 16/ 99 16 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 15/ 99 58 CFU/ 100ml 22 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 7/ 99 9 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 26/ 99 2 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 29/ 99 45 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 19/ 99 1 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 24/ 99 21 CFU/ 100ml 8 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 27/ 99 9 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 18/ 99 9 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 22/ 99 130 CFU/ 100ml 61 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 15/ 99 400 CFU/ 100ml 85 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 24/ 00 10 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 16/ 00 9 CFU/ 100ml 3 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 7/ 00 37 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 19/ 00 26 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 10/ 00 88 CFU/ 100ml TNTC, C 34 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 5/ 00 19 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 10/ 00 31 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 15/ 00 1 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 25/ 00 21 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 16/ 00 54 CFU/ 100ml 22 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 15/ 00 36 CFU/ 100ml 25 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 4/ 00 14 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 16/ 01 26 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 26/ 01 31 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 22/ 01 18 CFU/ 100ml 5 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 17/ 01 29 CFU/ 100ml 17 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 8/ 01 36 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 26/ 01 19 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 16/ 01 450 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 27/ 01 90 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 19/ 01 6 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 29/ 01 46 CFU/ 100ml 44 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 26/ 01 46 CFU/ 100ml 27 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 19/ 01 82 CFU/ 100ml 110 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 23/ 02 79 CFU/ 100ml 31 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 27/ 02 24 CFU/ 100ml 22 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 25/ 02 10 CFU/ 100ml 12 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 29/ 02 18 CFU/ 100ml 8 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 20/ 02 38 CFU/ 100ml 29 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 26/ 02 13 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 29/ 02 18 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 21/ 02 6 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 30/ 02 26 CFU/ 100ml 17 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 28/ 02 20 CFU/ 100ml 8 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 20/ 02 21 CFU/ 100ml 32 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 17/ 02 1000 CFU/ 100ml 510 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 28/ 03 170 CFU/ 100ml 96 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 26/ 03 7 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 24/ 03 35 CFU/ 100ml 44 CFU/ 100ml Page 43 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual LTEH02 4/ 23/ 03 12 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 19/ 03 4 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 24/ 03 2 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 22/ 03 8 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 27/ 03 4 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 9/ 23/ 03 7 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 10/ 28/ 03 17 CFU/ 100ml 34 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 11/ 18/ 03 650 CFU/ 100ml 690 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 12/ 16/ 03 39 CFU/ 100ml 100 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 1/ 26/ 04 39 CFU/ 100ml 80 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 2/ 17/ 04 970 CFU/ 100ml E 430 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 3/ 15/ 04 9 CFU/ 100ml 21 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 4/ 26/ 04 61 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 5/ 27/ 04 150 CFU/ 100ml 97 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 6/ 28/ 04 5 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 7/ 26/ 04 19 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml LTEH02 8/ 23/ 04 570 CFU/ 100ml 270 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 1/ 23/ 02 3 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 1/ 23/ 02 5 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 2/ 27/ 02 0 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 3/ 25/ 02 75 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 4/ 29/ 02 0 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 5/ 14/ 02 170 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 5/ 14/ 02 130 MPN/ 100g 130 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 5/ 20/ 02 2 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 6/ 10/ 02 130 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 6/ 26/ 02 14 CFU/ 100ml 29 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 7/ 8/ 02 210 MPN/ 100g 310 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 7/ 8/ 02 490 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 7/ 29/ 02 24 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 8/ 6/ 02 1100 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 8/ 21/ 02 1 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 9/ 16/ 02 1300 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 9/ 30/ 02 9 CFU/ 100ml 19 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 10/ 28/ 02 9 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 11/ 20/ 02 5 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 12/ 17/ 02 4 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 1/ 28/ 03 4 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 2/ 26/ 03 2 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 3/ 24/ 03 0 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 4/ 23/ 03 540 CFU/ 100ml 71 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 5/ 19/ 03 20 CFU/ 100ml 24 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 5/ 20/ 03 80 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 6/ 17/ 03 130 MPN/ 100g 1300 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 6/ 24/ 03 4 CFU/ 100ml 37 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 7/ 14/ 03 80 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 7/ 22/ 03 40 CFU/ 100ml 86 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 8/ 25/ 03 170 MPN/ 100g 940 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 8/ 27/ 03 350 CFU/ 100ml C 830 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 9/ 23/ 03 2300 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSJL01 9/ 23/ 03 8 CFU/ 100ml 90 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 10/ 28/ 03 54 CFU/ 100ml C 64 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 10/ 28/ 03 38 CFU/ 100ml C 74 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 11/ 18/ 03 200 CFU/ 100ml 970 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 12/ 16/ 03 14 CFU/ 100ml 15 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 1/ 26/ 04 10 CFU/ 100ml 20 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 2/ 17/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 16 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 3/ 15/ 04 160 CFU/ 100ml 46 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 4/ 26/ 04 72 CFU/ 100ml 33 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 5/ 26/ 04 85 CFU/ 100ml 200 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 6/ 28/ 04 72 CFU/ 100ml C 80 CFU/ 100ml MSJL01 7/ 26/ 04 19 CFU/ 100ml 32 CFU/ 100ml Page 44 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual MSJL01 8/ 23/ 04 4 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 16/ 95 330 MPN/ 100g 270 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 5/ 16/ 95 2400 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 13/ 95 220 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 13/ 95 49 MPN/ 100ml 33 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 10/ 95 490 MPN/ 100g 7900 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 10/ 95 280 MPN/ 100ml 79 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 7/ 95 50 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 7/ 95 230 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 6/ 95 1300 MPN/ 100g 3500 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 6/ 95 34 MPN/ 100ml 14 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 7/ 96 230 MPN/ 100g 40 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 5/ 7/ 96 2 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 18/ 96 79 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 6/ 18/ 96 80 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 29/ 96 4 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 7/ 29/ 96 110 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 26/ 96 70 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 26/ 96 49 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 24/ 96 490 MPN/ 100g 81 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 24/ 96 23 MPN/ 100ml 17 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 6/ 97 4 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 5/ 6/ 97 80 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 4/ 97 17 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 6/ 4/ 97 170 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 21/ 97 490 MPN/ 100g 110 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 21/ 97 7 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 18/ 97 790 MPN/ 100ml 13 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 18/ 97 1300 MPN/ 100g 90 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 15/ 97 230 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MSSM05 9/ 15/ 97 310 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 11/ 98 33 MPN/ 100ml 130 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 11/ 98 700 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 23/ 98 130 MPN/ 100ml 14 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 23/ 98 330 MPN/ 100g 130 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 22/ 98 23 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 7/ 22/ 98 330 MPN/ 100g 3300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 20/ 98 49 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 8/ 20/ 98 790 MPN/ 100g 270 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 15/ 98 17 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 15/ 98 230 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 10/ 19/ 98 8 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 5/ 17/ 99 170 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 5/ 17/ 99 4900 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 14/ 99 7000 MPN/ 100g 2800 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 14/ 99 230 MPN/ 100ml 23 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 12/ 99 7000 MPN/ 100g 22000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 12/ 99 2400 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 10/ 99 22000 MPN/ 100g 3500 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 10/ 99 790 MPN/ 100ml 33 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 8/ 99 130 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 9/ 8/ 99 3300 MPN/ 100g 790 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 10/ 19/ 99 30 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 5/ 15/ 00 33 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 5/ 15/ 00 MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL 490 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 7/ 00 23 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 6/ 7/ 00 1400 MPN/ 100g 130 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 17/ 00 1100 MPN/ 100g 2300 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 17/ 00 130 MPN/ 100ml 49 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 14/ 00 35000 MPN/ 100g 22000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 14/ 00 180 MPN/ 100ml 79 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 26/ 00 4900 MPN/ 100g Page 45 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual MSSM05 9/ 26/ 00 170 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 10/ 23/ 00 13 MPN/ 100ml 17 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 22/ 01 490 MPN/ 100g 190 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 5/ 22/ 01 49 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 25/ 01 22 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 6/ 25/ 01 790 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 24/ 01 3300 MPN/ 100g 13000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 24/ 01 170 MPN/ 100ml 7 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 20/ 01 110 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 8/ 20/ 01 3500 MPN/ 100g 1700 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 16/ 01 33 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MSSM05 9/ 16/ 01 11000 MPN/ 100g 1700 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 10/ 22/ 01 5 MPN/ 100ml 6 MPN/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 14/ 02 21 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 14/ 02 54000 MPN/ 100g 11000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 10/ 02 3300 MPN/ 100g 35000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 10/ 02 7900 MPN/ 100g 35000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 10/ 02 0 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 8/ 02 170 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 7/ 8/ 02 96 CFU/ 100ml 40 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 6/ 02 2300 MPN/ 100g 240 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 6/ 02 77 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 16/ 02 7900 MPN/ 100g 23000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 16/ 02 8 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 10/ 28/ 02 940 CFU/ 100ml 8 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 19/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 20/ 03 20 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 5/ 20/ 03 0 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 17/ 03 23 CFU/ 100ml 10 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 17/ 03 2300 MPN/ 100g 17000 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 6/ 24/ 03 14 CFU/ 100ml 230 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 14/ 03 80 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MSSM05 7/ 14/ 03 0 CFU/ 100ml 3 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 22/ 03 9 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 25/ 03 170 MPN/ 100g 1700 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 8/ 25/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 27/ 03 270 CFU/ 100ml 35 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 9/ 23/ 03 3500 MPN/ 100g 3500 MPN/ 100g MSSM05 9/ 23/ 03 700 CFU/ 100ml 420 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 10/ 28/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 1/ 26/ 04 0 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 2/ 17/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 3/ 15/ 04 2 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 4/ 26/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 5/ 26/ 04 0 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 6/ 28/ 04 6 CFU/ 100ml 11 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 7/ 26/ 04 2 CFU/ 100ml 26 CFU/ 100ml MSSM05 8/ 23/ 04 41 CFU/ 100ml 17 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 16/ 95 170 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 16/ 95 230 MPN/ 100ml 49 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 6/ 13/ 95 50 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 13/ 95 79 MPN/ 100ml 7 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 7/ 10/ 95 7 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 10/ 95 790 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 7/ 95 490 MPN/ 100g 360 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 7/ 95 70 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 9/ 6/ 95 8 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 9/ 6/ 95 50 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 6/ 96 94 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 5/ 6/ 96 170 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 18/ 96 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 18/ 96 330 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL Page 46 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual MTEC01 7/ 30/ 96 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 30/ 96 80 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 26/ 96 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 8/ 26/ 96 130 MPN/ 100g 790 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 25/ 96 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 9/ 25/ 96 130 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 4/ 21/ 97 40 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 5/ 97 63 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 5/ 5/ 97 230 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 4/ 97 49 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 4/ 97 50 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 22/ 97 MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 22/ 97 14 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 22/ 97 220 MPN/ 100g 140 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 23/ 97 220 MPN/ 100g 1100 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 18/ 97 490 MPN/ 100g 110 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 18/ 97 17 MPN/ 100ml 4 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 9/ 15/ 97 790 MPN/ 100g 140 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 15/ 97 79 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 10/ 28/ 97 20 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTEC01 5/ 11/ 98 170 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 11/ 98 8 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 6/ 23/ 98 790 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 23/ 98 7 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 7/ 21/ 98 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 21/ 98 110 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 19/ 98 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 8/ 19/ 98 20 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 15/ 98 20 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 15/ 98 5 MPN/ 100ml 7 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 10/ 19/ 98 280 MPN/ 100ml 13 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 17/ 99 130 MPN/ 100g 62 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 17/ 99 17 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 6/ 14/ 99 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 14/ 99 230 MPN/ 100g 140 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 12/ 99 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 12/ 99 130 MPN/ 100g 1700 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 9/ 99 24000 MPN/ 100g 11000 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 9/ 99 1700 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 9/ 7/ 99 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 9/ 7/ 99 20 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTEC01 10/ 19/ 99 13 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 15/ 00 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 5/ 15/ 00 70 MPN/ 100g 110 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 5/ 00 5 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 5/ 00 50 MPN/ 100g 700 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 17/ 00 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 17/ 00 80 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 15/ 00 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 8/ 15/ 00 20 MPN/ 100g 210 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 25/ 00 40 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 25/ 00 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 10/ 23/ 00 5 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 22/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 5/ 22/ 01 490 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 25/ 01 70 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 6/ 25/ 01 20 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 23/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 7/ 23/ 01 50 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 20/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTEC01 8/ 20/ 01 20 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 17/ 01 4 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL Page 47 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual MTEC01 9/ 17/ 01 130 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 10/ 22/ 01 33 MPN/ 100ml 5 MPN/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 14/ 02 MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL 220 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 5/ 14/ 02 110 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 6/ 11/ 02 50 MPN/ 100g 700 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 6/ 11/ 02 20 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 7/ 8/ 02 490 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 7/ 8/ 02 4 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 8/ 5/ 02 790 MPN/ 100g 40 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 8/ 5/ 02 5 CFU/ 100ml 3 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 9/ 16/ 02 50 MPN/ 100g 1300 MPN/ 100g MTEC01 9/ 16/ 02 79 CFU/ 100ml 7 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 10/ 28/ 02 190 CFU/ 100ml 100 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 19/ 03 2 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 1/ 26/ 04 5 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 2/ 17/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 14 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 3/ 15/ 04 21 CFU/ 100ml 400 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 4/ 26/ 04 9 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 5/ 27/ 04 92 CFU/ 100ml 150 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 6/ 28/ 04 6 CFU/ 100ml 13 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 7/ 26/ 04 2 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTEC01 8/ 23/ 04 4 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 19/ 98 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 8/ 19/ 98 170 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 5/ 17/ 99 90 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTLD03 5/ 17/ 99 5 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 6/ 14/ 99 80 MPN/ 100g 220 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 14/ 99 4 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 12/ 99 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 7/ 12/ 99 490 MPN/ 100g 260 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 9/ 99 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 8/ 9/ 99 230 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 7/ 99 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 9/ 7/ 99 50 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 10/ 19/ 99 130 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 5/ 15/ 00 33 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 5/ 15/ 00 50 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 5/ 00 1300 MPN/ 100g 1300 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 5/ 00 490 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 17/ 00 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 7/ 17/ 00 20 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 15/ 00 540 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 8/ 15/ 00 230 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 25/ 00 110 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 25/ 00 140 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 25/ 00 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 9/ 25/ 00 8 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 10/ 23/ 00 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 5/ 21/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 21/ 01 170 MPN/ 100g 70 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 5/ 21/ 01 330 MPN/ 100g 130 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 5/ 21/ 01 5 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 6/ 26/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 6/ 26/ 01 220 MPN/ 100g MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL MTLD03 6/ 26/ 01 17 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 6/ 26/ 01 80 MPN/ 100g 140 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 24/ 01 80 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 24/ 01 13 MPN/ 100ml 8 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 24/ 01 130 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 24/ 01 13 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 22/ 01 MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 8/ 22/ 01 2 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL Page 48 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual MTLD03 8/ 22/ 01 230 MPN/ 100g 90 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 22/ 01 70 MPN/ 100g 330 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 17/ 01 6 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 9/ 17/ 01 80 MPN/ 100g 80 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 17/ 01 20 MPN/ 100g 20 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 17/ 01 5 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 10/ 22/ 01 33 MPN/ 100ml MPN/ 100ml 2 < MDL MTLD03 10/ 22/ 01 8 MPN/ 100ml 2 MPN/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 13/ 02 18 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 13/ 02 14 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 13/ 02 70 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 11/ 02 7900 MPN/ 100g 13000 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 11/ 02 13 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 6/ 11/ 02 5 CFU/ 100ml 0 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 8/ 02 170 MPN/ 100g 340 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 8/ 02 5 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 8/ 02 12 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 5/ 02 50 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 5/ 02 170 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 5/ 02 11 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 5/ 02 14 CFU/ 100ml 5 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 9/ 16/ 02 50 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 16/ 02 80 MPN/ 100g 230 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 16/ 02 41 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 9/ 16/ 02 45 CFU/ 100ml 5 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 10/ 28/ 02 64 CFU/ 100ml 40 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 19/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml 39 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 19/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml 26 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 19/ 03 40 MPN/ 100g 50 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 5/ 19/ 03 40 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 16/ 03 40 MPN/ 100g 240 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 16/ 03 70 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 6/ 24/ 03 16 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 14/ 03 MPN/ 100g 20 < MDL 200 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 14/ 03 110 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 7/ 22/ 03 1 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 25/ 03 170 MPN/ 100g 170 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 25/ 03 170 MPN/ 100g 700 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 8/ 27/ 03 4 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 9/ 23/ 03 130 MPN/ 100g 110 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 23/ 03 20 MPN/ 100g 490 MPN/ 100g MTLD03 9/ 23/ 03 2 CFU/ 100ml 6 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 10/ 28/ 03 34 CFU/ 100ml C 52 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 1/ 26/ 04 8 CFU/ 100ml 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 2/ 17/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 3/ 15/ 04 2 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 4/ 26/ 04 9 CFU/ 100ml 1 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 5/ 27/ 04 6 CFU/ 100ml 4 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 6/ 28/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 9 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 7/ 26/ 04 210 CFU/ 100ml C 2 CFU/ 100ml MTLD03 8/ 23/ 04 1 CFU/ 100ml 3 CFU/ 100ml Qualifiers < MDL  Analytical result less than the method detection limit.

> 6E1  Analytical result greater than 60, result is an estimate due to mis dilution of sample.

> 6E2  Analytical result greater than 600, result is an estimate due to mis dilution of sample.

> MR  Analytical result greater than the measurable range, result is an estimate.

C  Sample exhibited confluent growth.

E  Analytical result is an estimate.

H  Sample analyzed after expiration of analytical holding time.

TA  Text available.

Page 49 of 50 Data Reviewed and Approved for Release 09/ 17/ 2004 by Scott Mickelson, Senior Water Quality Project Manager King County DNRP Marine and Sediment Assessment Group King County Intertidal Marine Water Bacteria Data January 1995 through August 2004 Locator Collected Fecal Coliform Units MDL Qual Enterococcus Units MDL Qual TNTC  Too numerous to count. Sample result is an estimate.

Page 50 of 50


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 73254]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29841]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76468; SR-ISEGemini-2015-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Corporate
Transaction Involving Its Indirect Parent

November 18, 2015.
    On October 30, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (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 and
restate certain corporate governance documents in connection with a
proposal to remove Eurex Frankfurt AG as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream
owner of the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76416 (Nov. 10,
2015), 80 FR 71876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 2015, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-ISEGemini-2015-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29841 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63039-63040]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the countywide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2021, will be increased.

DATES: This adjustment applies to major disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In assessing damages for area designations
under 44 CFR 206.40(b), FEMA uses a countywide per capita indicator to
evaluate the impact of the disaster at the county level. FEMA will
adjust the countywide per capita impact indicator under the Public
Assistance program to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita
impact

indicator to $4.10 for all disasters declared on or after October 1,
2021.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 5.3 percent for the 12-month period
that ended in August 2021. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 14, 2021.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters)

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-24752 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58270-58272]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0205; FRL-9467-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Copper
Smelters (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 20,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0205, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0205, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1850.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0476.
    ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on November 30, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while submission is pending at OMB. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Copper Smelters were proposed on April
20, 1998 (63 FR 19582), and on June 26, 2000 (65 FR 39326),
respectively. These standards apply to any existing, reconstructed, or
new primary copper smelters. The affected sources are each copper
concentrate dryer, each smelting furnace, slag cleaning vessel, each
copper converter department, and the entire group of fugitive emission
sources.
    Affected owners and operators are required to meet specific
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in order to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the rule. A primary
copper smelter is only subject to the regulation if it is a major
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emitting or has the potential
to emit any single HAP at the rate of 10 tons or more per year or any
combination of HAP at the rate of 25 tons or more per year.
    Owners and operators must submit notification reports upon the
construction, reconstruction, or modification of any primary copper
smelter. Also, required is a one-time-only initial notification for new
and reconstructed sources. The respondents are required to submit an
annual performance test for each control device, and a semiannual
summary report to EPA. Respondents subject to the final rule are
required to prepare and maintain on site two site-specific operating
plans: 1) a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and 2) a fugitive dust
control plan. Owners or operators of primary copper smelters facilities
subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and
retain the file for at least five years following the date of such
measurements, maintenance reports, and records.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information estimated to average 196
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Primary copper smelters.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
    Frequency of Response: Monthly, semiannually, annually, and
initially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8,837.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $855,477, which includes $847,257 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and

$8,220 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or
cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This situation is due to
two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and not anticipated to change over the next three years;
and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative, or non-
existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.
There is, however, an increase in the estimated burden cost as
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The
increase is not due to any program changes. The change in burden cost
is due to the use of the most updated labor rates.

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-24110 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 LAWRENCE COUNTY, KENTUCKY Lawrence County is south of the Huntington Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located to the south of Boyd County and to the southwest of Huntington, West Virginia. The Big Sandy River forms its eastern border.

EPA s June 29, 2004 proposal on appropriate designations for Kentucky included Lawrence County as nonattainment based on the following criteria:

  EPA indicates that Lawrence County has significant SO x, and NO x emissions from a power plant and its close proximity to the violating MSA monitors.

Emissions Data Lawrence County, Kentucky, was not discussed in Kentucky s February recommendations. Based on the original guidance from U. S. EPA in April 2003, states were required to review possible emissions contributions for counties within an MSA boundary, if a monitor within the MSA was in violation of the PM2.5 standard. Later, EPA suggested that states look outside the MSA boundaries if there was the possibility that emissions from a county outside the MSA were having a significant impact on monitors within the MSA. It is also important to note that EPA also used the 2001 NEI data which provided different data than the data EPA had recommended that states use. The 2001 NEI data, nor the methodology used in the calculations for that inventory have been made available to states for review.

However, in EPA s June 29, 2004, letters to states, EPA looked outside the original MSA boundaries to determine if large emissions contributions from adjacent areas were having an impact on PM2.5 levels in many of the areas. Specifically, in the Huntington Ashland metropolitan area, EPA has also recommended that Adams, Gallia, and Scioto Counties in Southeastern Ohio and Lawrence County, Kentucky, also be included as nonattainment areas due to the emissions of SOx, NOx, and PM.

Adams and Gallia Counties alone contribute 80% of all SOx within the counties EPA has recommended as nonattainment for PM2.5. By comparison, Lawrence County emits only 15% of SOx emissions from the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. A similar comparison can be made with both NOx and PM. Lawrence County s NOx and PM emissions rank at 11% of the total EPA recommended areas. In a detailed review of EPA s recommended nonattainment areas, Lawrence County ranks consistently at less than or equal to 15% of combined emissions contributions within EPA s proposed nonattainment boundaries. See Figures 1 4 below. 2 Figure 1 Ashland Area SOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Scioto, OH 1% Lawrence, OH 0%

Cabell, WV 1% Wayne, WV 0% Boyd, KY 3% Lawrence, KY 15% Adams, OH 34% Gallia, OH 46%

Figure 2 Ashland Area NOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Scioto, OH 3% Lawrence, OH 2% Lawrence, KY 11% Adams, OH 27% Gallia, OH 33%

Cabell, WV 14% Wayne, WV 3% Boyd, KY 7% 3 Figure 3 Ashland Area PM Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Lawrence, OH 3% Scioto, OH 4% Cabell, WV 9% Wayne, WV 2% Boyd, KY 9% Lawrence, KY 11% Adams, OH 24% Gallia, OH 38%

Figure 4 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 T o n s P e r Y e a r Adams, OH Gallia, OH Lawrence, OH Scioto, OH Cabell, WV Wayne, WV Boyd, KY Lawrence, KY EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Emissions 2001 PM SOx NOx VOC NH3 Carbon Crustal 4 Additional Emission Reductions in Lawrence County, Kentucky A factor not taken into account, either in the 1999 nor 2001 NEI data sets, was the implementation of NO x controls at the Big Sandy Power Plant in Lawrence County. In 2003, NO x emissions were dropped substantially by the installation of SCR on Unit # 2 and over Fire Air Technology employed on Unit # 1. The operation of these control technologies was responsible for 2,880 ton reduction in NO x emissions during the summer ozone season, which includes the quarters where Kentucky typically records the highest PM2.5 levels. The implementation of these controls at that facility even further reduces the potential emission contribution to monitors in question in Southeastern Ohio and West Virginia.

Additional Regional/ National Controls The implementation of new federal rules to decrease the amount of sulfur in both gasoline and diesel fuel will significantly decrease the amount of SO2 in the entire area. Because of the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, in 2007, new clean engines operating on 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur program, by 2006 average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower.

Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

The first phase of compliance under the CAIR rule to reduce both SO2 and NOx emissions would be required by 2010, allowing substantial emission reductions in the area, by the proposed attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Monitoring Data and Trends As can been seen in Figure 7 below, the speciation data from Kentucky s Ashland speciation monitor indicates that sulfate and organic carbon are the major components of the PM2.5 values. In Figure 1 above and Figure 8 below,

Lawrence County, Kentucky, contributes only 15% of the SO2 in the area, and only 10% of the organic carbon in the area of EPA proposed nonattainment counties. 5 Figure 7 Ashland Speciation Data 12/ 9/ 01  12/ 11/ 03 Average Concentration ( µ g/ m ³ )

Elemental carbon 4% Crustal component 3%

Organic carbon 28% Ammonium 10% Sulfate 32% Nitrate 7% Other 16%

Figure 8 Ashland Area Carbon Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Lawrence, KY 10% Adams, OH 20%

Gallia, OH 30%

Lawrence, OH 4% Scioto, OH 5% Cabell, WV 18% Wayne, WV 4% Boyd, KY 9%

As EPA notes in its June 29, 2004 letter, the monitor located in Boyd County shows attainment with the PM2.5 standard, with a 2001 2003 design value of 14.9 µ g/ m 3. In addition to showing attainment with the standard, the annual 6 concentrations continue to show a downward trend as depicted in Figure 9 below, which utilized data from the year 2000 through April 2004.

Figure 9 Ashland Area PM 2.5 Trend Utilizing Most Current Available Data 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year A n n u a l A r i th m e t i c M e a n ( m ic r o g r a m s / c u b i c m e t e r )

Boyd, KY Carter, KY Cabell, WV Lawrence, OH Scioto, OH Lawrence County does not have a monitor, however, the PM2.5 levels throughout the entire region have been steadily decreasing over the last four years. Monitored levels have decreased by 11% in Boyd County, 17% in Carter County, 12% in Cabell County, WV, 17% in Lawrence County, OH, and 30% in Scioto County, OH ( See Figure 10 below). 7 Figure 10 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Boyd, KY Carter, KY Cabell, WV Lawrence, OH Scioto, OH Decline in PM Values for Ashland Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2003 shows decrease of 11% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 17% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 17% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 30%

Conclusions Based on the factors discussed above, Kentucky believes that Lawrence County, Kentucky should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

  Kentucky believes that EPA s use of the weighted emissions scoring approach was skewed. EPA did not include adjacent county emissions in the total emissions being analyzed for the area. If the emissions from the entire area under review were used, vs just those within the MSA, a very different result in the weighted emissions scores would have occurred. Lawrence County would not have the potential to significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels within the region.

  PM2.5 levels continue to decline throughout the entire region. From a review of all monitors in the region, an average 17% decline in PM2.5 levels has occurred from 2000 through 2003. Every monitor in the region is currently showing values well within attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard using 2002 through 2004 data. 8   Substantial NO x emission reductions have already occurred from the installation of controls at the Big Sandy Power Plant in Lawrence County.

  Additional emission reductions on a national and regional level will provide substantial benefits in the region. The anticipated sulfur reductions due to the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) will further lower pollutant levels within this region.

To have this county designated nonattainment would invoke additional, substantial, and unnecessary requirements on local government planning agencies. Substantial local NO x emission reductions from Lawrence County have already occurred. Drastic emission reductions are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area. In addition reductions anticipated by the CAIR provisions, and the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 Standard, lead to the conclusion that Lawrence County, Kentucky, should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 Standard.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32643-32644]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14322-000]

Corbett Water District; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14322-000.
    c. Date filed: May 14, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Corbett Water District.
    e. Name of Project: Corbett Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would utilize existing diversions from the
North and South Forks of Gordon Creek which currently serve a municipal
water supply system approximately 15 miles east of Portland, in
Multnomah County, Oregon. A portion of the project would be located on
federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: James Jans, Corbett Water District, 36120 E.
Historic Columbia River Hwy., P.O. Box 6, Corbett, OR 97019-0006.
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Ken Wilcox,<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: July 15, 2013.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Corbett Project would consist of the following features: (1)
The existing 10-inch-diameter, 2-mile-long buried steel pipeline from
the North Fork diversion structure; (2) the existing 10-inch-diameter,
2-mile-long buried ductile iron pipeline from the South Fork diversion
structure; (3) a new 10-kilowatt Turgo turbine; (4) a small new
building housing the turbine, induction motor generator, and controls
constructed atop an existing filter pond influent diversion structure;
and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project's power would be used to
offset power needs at the water treatment plant. The project is
estimated to generate about 8.4 megawatt-hours annually. The project
would be located on both private and federal lands.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp 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 Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate (e.g., if scoping is waived, the
schedule would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency and/or Additional Information Request--July 2013
Issue Notice of Acceptance--August 2013
Issue Scoping Document--August 2013
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--October 2013
Commission issues EA--February 2013

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12889 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21178]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08339]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0672; FRL-9909-42-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri for the
purpose of incorporating administrative changes to the Missouri rule
entitled, ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills''. EPA is proposing to
approve this SIP revision based on EPA's finding that the rule is as
stringent as the rule it replaces and fulfills the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the protection of the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in St. Louis.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
May 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2013-0672, by mail to Craig Bernstein, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Bernstein, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse comments
because the revisions are administrative and consistent with Federal
regulations. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of
this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the
subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-08339 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 123 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38137-38138]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2101-000]

Fern Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Fern Solar
LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying
rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 9, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13714 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 6, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-5528

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROFRISCO, S.A. de C.V.
                                 Date Filed:  January 20, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  January 21, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>          DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  February 6,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 6, 2004, through
February 6, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a
数楴楴湯映牯爠癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩
湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠
⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭
搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

=


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19682-19683]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2018-0018]

Asbestos in General Industries Standard; Extension of the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Standard on
Asbestos in General Industries.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2018-0018) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal
information, in the public docket, which may be available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates.
    For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following sections describe who uses the information collected
under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of
these requirements are to help employers monitor worker exposure to
asbestos, to take action to reduce worker exposure to the PEL, to
monitor worker health, and to provide workers with information about
their exposures and the health effects that may result from their
occupational involvement with asbestos, and provide access to these
records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, the affected workers, and designated representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to
protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection, and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Asbestos in
General Industries (29 CFR 1910.1001). The agency is requesting an
adjustment decrease in 10,125 hours to 10,124 hours, a difference of 1
hour. This decrease is due to the agency's use of a new method for
rounding burden hours.
    OSHA is additionally requesting an adjustment increase capital
costs increased by $84,900 (from $957,660 to $1,042,560). This
adjustment is related to the transition of contractor housekeeping
employee notifications from supervising employees to contracted
employees and annual changes in estimated occupation and wage rates.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Asbestos in General Industries Standard (29 CFR 1910.1001).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0133.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 121.
    Number of Responses: 30,269.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,124.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $1,042,560.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax), if your comments, including
attachments are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (3) by hard copy. All comments,
attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2018-0018). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for information about materials not available from the website, and for
assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020
(85 FR 58393).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-06796 Filed 3-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32617-32619]
[DOCID:fr06jn06-75]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53903; File No. SR-ISE-2005-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and
2 Relating to Complex Order Execution

May 31, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 4, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the

proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the ISE. The ISE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and
2 to the proposal on February 1, 2006, and April 20, 2006,
respectively.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaced the initial filing and Amendment
No. 1 in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend ISE Rule 722, ``Complex
Orders,'' with respect to complex order execution. The text of the
proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
    Rule 722. Complex Orders.
    (a) no change.
    (b) Applicability of Exchange Rules. Except as otherwise provided
in this Rule, complex orders shall be subject to all other Exchange
Rules that pertain to orders generally.
    (1) Minimum Increments. Bids and offers on complex orders may be
expressed in any decimal price, and the [option] leg(s) of a [stock-
option] complex order may be executed in one cent increments,
regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the
individual [options] legs of the order. [Complex orders expressed in
net price increments that are not multiples of the minimum increment
are not entitled to the same priority under subparagraph (b)(2) of this
Rule as such orders expressed in increments that are multiples of the
minimum increment.]
    (2) Complex Order Priority. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule
713, a complex order, as defined in paragraph (a) of this Rule, may be
executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without
giving priority to bids or offers established in the marketplace that
are no better than the bids or offers comprising such total credit or
debit; provided, however, that if any of the bids or offers established
in the marketplace consist of a Public Customer limit order, the price
of at least one leg of the complex order must trade at a price that is
better than the corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace by at
least one minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 710. Under the
circumstances described above, the option leg of a stock-option order,
as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this Rule, or SSF-option
order as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this Rule, has
priority over bids and offers established in the marketplace by Non-
Customer orders and market maker quotes that are no better than the
price of the options leg, but not over such bids and offers established
by Public Customer Orders. The option legs of a stock-option order as
defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), or SSF-option order as defined
in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), consisting of a combination order with
stock or single stock futures, as the case may be, may be executed in
accordance with the first sentence of this subparagraph (b)(2).
    (3) through (5) no change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to allow the legs of an options-only complex
order to be executed in penny increments. Currently under ISE Rule 722,
the options leg of a stock-option order may be executed in penny
increments, but the legs of an options-only complex order must be
executed at the standard trading increments. The Exchange proposes to
allow the legs of all complex orders to trade in penny increments. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors
with flexibility in pricing the complex orders and create more
opportunities for complex orders to receive an execution.
    Under ISE Rule 722, a complex order may be executed at a total
credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to
bids or offers established in the marketplace that are no better than
the bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that
if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of
a Public Customer limit order, the price of at least one leg of the
complex order must trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace. While the Exchange
proposes to allow the legs of complex orders to be executed in penny
increments, it does not propose to change the existing requirement that
to have priority over Public Customer limit orders, at least one leg of
the complex order must trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace by at least one minimum
trading increment.\4\ Thus, Public Customer limit orders will maintain
their existing priority under ISE Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A minimum trading increment is defined in ISE Rule 710,
``Minimum Trading Increments,'' as $0.05 if the options contract is
trading at less than $3.00 and $0.10 if the options contract is
trading at or above $3.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in that the proposed
rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove \5\ impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest in that it will provide
investors with more flexibility in pricing complex orders and increase
the opportunity for complex orders to be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2005-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2005-49. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2005-49 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8717 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P