Floor area of building	1,300 ft2 (118 m2)	56,700 ft2 (5,267 m2)	55,900 ft2 (196 m2)

Volume of building	12, 900 ft3 (300 m3)	567,000 ft3 (16,055 m3)	564,600 ft3 I16,000m3)

Air circulation rate	1,000 ft3/min (1,715 m3/hr)	54,300 ft3/min (93,167 m3/hr)

Air exchange with outside	0	9,345 ft3/min	1.0/hr air exchange rate with outside air

Air exchange rate	0.3/hr	0.3/hr	0.3/hr (non-infiltration mode)

1 The parameter values shown in this table are built into the AD version of the RISK model and are not accessible for editing or verification by the model user.  The information presented in this table was identified from EPA (2007c).

3.2	Model Predictions

The AD version of the RISK model simulates indoor air concentration of active ingredients for 100 hours after the HVAC system is turned on immediately following the treatment of HVAC system with diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.  The model was run for each of the three available building type scenarios (i.e., residential, commercial office building, and school).  In addition, each building type was run with two application rate scenarios:  500 and 1,000 ft2/gal.

Table 5 presents the average and peak indoor air concentrations for each building scenario and both application rates.  Peak and average concentrations are shown for the first 24 and 100 hours following application.  Table 5 also shows the time period in hours post-application during which the peak concentrations occurred.  Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the indoor air concentration of diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone as a function of time at the application rates of 500 and 1,000 ft2/gal during the first 24 hours following application.  With all building scenarios and application rates, diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone slowly rose to and declined from peak concentrations.  For example, in the residential building scenario with an application rate of 500 ft2/gal, the peak concentration occurred between approximately 27 and 35 hours after application.  This pattern may be attributable to the low vapor pressure (8.7E-7 mm Hg) of diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.

Table 5

Predicted Post-Application Air Concentrations of Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone

Building Scenario	Concentration in First 24 Hours (mg/m3)	Concentration in First 100 Hours (mg/m3)	Hours After Application of Peak Concentration1

	Average	Peak	Average	Peak

	Application Rate 500 ft2/gallon

Residence	2.51E-02	4.18E-02	3.16E-02	4.19E-02	27 - 35

Office Building	3.35E-03	4.29E-03	3.71E-03	4.29E-03	8 - 11

School	4.16E-03	5.33E-03	4.61E-03	5.33E-03	8 - 11

Application Rate 1,000 ft2/gallon

Residence	2.51E-02	4.18E-02	3.15E-02	4.18E-02	26 - 29

Office Building	3.35E-03	4.29E-03	3.70E-03	4.29E-03	8 - 10

School	4.16E-03	5.33E-03	4.60E-03	5.33E-03	8 - 11

1 Beginning and ending time periods are rounded to the nearest hour.

4.0	Post-application Exposure to Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone from HVAC Applications

Average daily doses (ADDs) of diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone were calculated based on the 100-hour average and peak exposure concentrations predicted by the RISK model (Table 5) and exposure factors obtained from EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1997) and EPA’s previous inhalation exposure assessment for MDF 200 (EPA 2007c).  The equation used to calculate ADDs is shown below:

ADD = (EC * IR * ED)/BW

Where:

EC 	= 	Exposure concentration predicted by the RISK model (mg/m3)

IR 	= 	Inhalation rate (m3/hr)

ED 	= 	Exposure duration (hr/day)

BW 	= 	Body weight (kg)

Inhalation rates used in the analysis were 0.5 m3/hr for adults in residential buildings, 1.0 m3/hr for adults in commercial office buildings, 0.4 m3/hr for children in residential buildings, and 0.8 m3/hr for children in school.  The exposure durations for the analysis were 16 hr/day in residential buildings and 8 hr/day in commercial office buildings or schools.  These inhalation rates and exposure durations are consistent with EPA’s inhalation exposure assessment for MDF 200 (EPA 2007c).  The assumed body weights were 70 kg for adults and 15 kg for children (i.e., the approximate mean weight of three year olds), which are values obtained from EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1997).  The ADDs for each building scenario and application rate are shown in Table 6.  ADDs were not calculated for children in office buildings or adults in schools.

Table 6

Average Daily Doses of Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone for Inhalation by Adults and

Children in Residential, Office, and School Buildings

Building Scenario	Adult	Child

	Average	Peak	Average	Peak

Application Rate 500 ft2/gallon

Residence	3.61E-03	4.78E-03	1.35E-02	1.79E-02

Office Building	4.24E-04	4.91E-04	na	na

School	na	na	1.97E-03	2.28E-03

Application Rate 1,000 ft2/gallon

Residence	3.60E-03	4.77E-03	1.34E-02	1.78E-02

Office Building	4.23E-04	4.90E-04	na	na

School	na	na	1.96E-03	2.27E-03

na = not applicable

Table 7 presents MOEs calculated by dividing the LOAEL for diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone (i.e., 2 mg/kg/day) by the ADDs shown in Table 7.  MOEs below the target MOE of 3,000 are shown in bold typeface.  MOEs for both adults and children, with both application rate scenarios (i.e., 500 and 1,000 ft2/gallon), are below the target MOE.  In addition, MOEs for children in schools are below the target MOE.

Table 7

MOEs for Adults and Children Exposed to Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone Following HVAC

System Treatment in Residential, Office, and School Buildings

Building Scenario	Adult	Child

	Average	Peak	Average	Peak

Application Rate 500 ft2/gallon

Residence	5.54E+02	4.18E+02	1.48E+02	1.12E+02

Office Building	4.71E+03	4.08E+03	na	na

School	na	na	1.02E+03	8.79E+02

Application Rate 1,000 ft2/gallon

Residence	5.55E+02	4.19E+02	1.49E+02	1.12E+02

Office Building	4.72E+03	4.08E+03	na	na

School	na	na	1.02E+03	8.80E+02

na = not applicable

5.	Uncertainties and Limitations

In all exposure assessments, there are uncertainties about the input data values used.  In addition the following uncertainties and limitations should be considered in using the exposure assessment results from this assessment.

Emission source modeling – The RISK model assumes that the carrier solvent for active ingredient is evaporated immediately, and that the emission is from the active ingredient itself as controlled by vapor pressure.  In reality, due to the fast wind speed inside air ducts, active ingredients and solvent (water in this case) most likely are carried into air at the same time and the peak concentration might arrive at an earlier time than the model predicts.

The default residential scenario is based on EPA’s IAQ research house in North Carolina.  The house is a typical ranch style three bedroom house built in 1970s.  This house has a surface area 1,300 ft2 (118 m2) and a surface area of air ducts of 800 ft2 (74 m2).  The ratio of air duct area to the house surface area is two times higher than the value of 27%, which is recommended by a manual published by The California Energy Commission detailing California energy efficiency standards for low-rise residential buildings (CEC 2001 and DOE 1997).  Thus, the exposure assessment might be two times more conservative than an assessment based on a current house configuration.

EPA, 2007a.  “AMICAL Environmental Fate Data Based on Jim Breithaupt Power Point Presentation,” document provided by Siroos Mostaghimi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4, 2007.

EPA, 2007b. “AMICAL, Chemical Overview,” document provided by Siroos Mostaghimi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Document dated March 1, 2007.

EPA, 2007c.  “Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), MDF-200 (Part B),” memorandum to Marshall Swindell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Siroos Mostaghimi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 29, 2007.

EPA.  2006.  Antimicrobial Version Documentation (RISK).  Version 1.9.  Developed by Dr. Les Sparks of USEPA/NRMRL/ APPCD. Documentation of the model is available at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/iemb/risk.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/iemb/risk.htm

EPA.  1997.  Exposure Factors Handbook.  Volume I-II.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.  Washington, D.C.  EPA/600/P-95/002Fa

File:  C:\MyFiles\2007 reports\Amical\Risk Modeling\ Exposure Assessment for the use of Amical on HVAC systems.

	CC: RASSB Chemical Files

	        Siroos Mostaghimi, RASSB

APPENDIX C:

Calculation of DDAC Unit Exposure ValuesTable B-1:  DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values for Chemical Operators, Graders, Millwrights, Clean-up Crews, and Trim Saw Operatorsa

`

a

ž

°

*

,

1

2

4

=

>

O

S

_

a

ƒ

„

†

Œ

—

™

ž

¨

°

±

È

É

Ê

Ë

ç

è

"è

é

ê

û

ü

ý

2

ó

,

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

P

Q

R

S

V

W

n

o

p

Š

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

‘

’

®

¯

°

±

´

µ

Ñ

Ò

Ó

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

j

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

 ਀&䘋

Ø	@

Ø	@

@

Ø	@

Ø	@

ᄀ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː

ഀ׆Āﭕᄀ肄ㄖĤ葠

ഀ׆Āﭕᄀ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː

@

@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

	u

Ø	@

	u

Ø	@

Ø	@

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

㄀Ĥ

@

@

~

@

~

~

~

~

~

㓿ۖĀ̊x㨃昂Ĵ瑹䦊k

㓿ۖĀ̊x㨃昂Ĵ瑹䦊k

hª

B*

hª

㓿ۖĀ̊x㨃昂Ĵ瑹䦊k

hþ

hÇU

$

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

@

ༀ䂄ᄋ삄ㇴĤ葞ୀ葠摧冢Ý

愀Ĥ摧㛆:

옍)

@

옍)

̀Ĥ옍#

̀Ĥ옍#

@

 h{

 h{

옍)

옍

옍)

萏ୀ萑葞ୀ葠摧࿪¾ᨀ$옍)

옍)

h

h

h

" h

h

h

h

h

 h{

  h{

h

h

h

h

h

 h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

  h{

옍)

옍)

萏ୀ萑葞ୀ葠摧⪽sᨀ$옍)

옍)

&

\

?

@

X

Y

`

a

£

Â

ä

ü

ý

¡

¼

½

,ý

옍)

&

&

&

葞Ũ摧㹯

&

F

&

&

摧¿

  hŽL

  hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

@

@

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

hŽL

@

@

&

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

옍)

옍#

ဤ̤̀옍#

옍)

@

$

@

$

@

@

ဤ̤̀옍#

옍

옍)

옍)

 hS

h

Ff

&

@

h

 h

h

愀Ĥ摧ᆿø܀쐙쐚

옍)

  h

h

h

&

옍)

옍)

@

@

@

옍)

옍)

̀Ĥ옍)

␱愁Ĥ̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

@

@

@

@

 h

h

h

h

-

À

Û

h

h

 h

h

h

b

଀o

¶

·

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

gd

”ÿK

'·

yt

h

„Ð`„Ðgd

h

h

 h

 h

h

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

h

h

 h

h

kd

옍)

ž

μg/m3)	Potential exposured (mg/day)	Potential exposure (mg/day)	Air Concentrationb,c (μg/m3)	Potential exposured (mg/day)	Potential exposure (mg/day)	Air Concentrationb,c (μg/m3)	Potential exposured (mg/day)	Potential exposure (mg/day)	Air Concentrationb,c (μg/m3) Potential exposured (mg/day)	Potential exposure (mg/day)	Air Concentrationb,c (μg/m3)	Potential exposured (mg/day)

1	3.5	10.4	0.0808	3.05	2.90	0.0232	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.92	0.0233 68.3	2.99145	0.0239

2	6.11	2.80	0.0224	7.47	2.93	0.0234	1.98	12.3	0.0984	29.08	2.83	0.0226 0.720	2.78840	0.0223

3	6.07	2.79	0.0223	1.09	2.91	0.0233

8.03	15.6	0.1248	166	30.3	0.2424

4	46.37	2.82	0.0226	10.51	3.00	0.0240

	95.2	412	3.2960

5	0.94	2.93	0.0235	0.61	2.82	0.0226

	1.20	2.83585	0.0227

6	22.15	2.83	0.0227	0.98	2.85	0.0228

	0.260	2.80989	0.0225

7	21.45	2.77	0.0222	2.63	2.91	0.0233

	8	0.22	2.73	0.0218	5.23	2.85	0.0228

	9	0.44	2.77	0.0222	0.19	13.20	0.1056

	10	0.33	3.14	0.0251	1.47	2.89	0.0231

	11	0.29	2.88	0.0230	2.38	2.85	0.0228

	12

4.09	2.81	0.0225

	13

1.03	2.94	0.0235

	Arithmetic Mean	9.81	3.51	0.0281	3.13	3.68	0.0295	1.38	7.57	0.061	12.8 7.12	0.057	55.3	75.6	0.60

Minimum	0.22	2.73	0.0218	0.19	2.81	0.0225	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.83 0.0226	0.260	2.79	0.0223

Maximum	46.4	10.4	0.081	10.51	13.2	0.106	1.98	12.3	0.098	29.1	15.6	0.125 166	412	3.30

a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut Lumber (Phase III)” is the study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al., 1999, MRID 455243-04).

b.	The inhalation LOD was not provided for chemical operators, graders, trim saw operators, millwrights, or the clean-up crew.  Therefore, the LOD provided for the diptank operator (5.6 (g) was used for these positions.  Residues less than the LOD were adjusted to 1/2 LOD.

c.	The inhalation limit of detection was converted to μg/m3 using the following equation: air concentration (μg/m3) = 5.6 (g/ [average flow rate (L/min) * sampling duration (480 min) * 1000 L/m3.  Data was obtained from Bestari et al (1999). Average flow rate of air was collected from where that particular volunteer was.

d.	DDAC air concentrations were converted to inhalation exposure (mg/day) using the following equation: Air concentration ((g/m3) x inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x Conversion factor (1 mg/1000 (g) x sample duration (8 hours/day)

Table C-2:  Normalization of DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values for Diptank Operators a

Worker ID	Mill number	Sample Time (min)	DDAC

Conc. in

Diptank

(%)	Gloves	Dermal Body Exposureb (mg)	Hand Exposureb (mg)	Total Dermal Exposure (mg)	Normalized Total Dermal Unit Exposurec

(mg/ 1 % solution)	Air Conc.d (mg/m3)	Inhalation Exposuree (mg) Normalized Inhalation Unit Exposurec

(mg /1% solution)

M7P1A	7	480	0.64	Rubber	0.5	3.44	3.94	6.16	0.003	0.024	0.0375

M7P1B	7	480	0.64	Rubber	0.32	2.02	2.34	3.66	0.003	0.024	0.0375

M8P4A	8	408	0.42	Rubber	0.04f	1.34	1.38	3.29	0.003	0.024	0.057

M8P4B	8	480	0.42	Rubber	0.04f	0.5	0.54	1.29	0.003	0.024	0.057

M8P7	8	480	0.42	Cotton	0.03	0.04	0.07	0.17	0.003	0.024	0.057

M11P9A	11	395	0.63	Leather	0.15	3.33	3.48	5.52	0.003	0.024	0.0381

M11P9B	11	480	0.63	Leather	0.1	0.45	0.55	0.87	0.003	0.024	0.0381

Arithmetic Mean	0.17	1.59	1.76	2.99	0.0030	0.0240	0.046

Standard Deviation	0.18	1.39	1.53	2.32	0.0000	0.0000	0.0103

Median	0.10	1.34	1.38	3.29	0.0030	0.0240	0.0381

Geometric Mean	0.10	0.83	0.99	1.86	0.0030	0.0240	0.045

90%tile	0.39	3.37	3.66	5.78	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

Maximum	0.50	3.44	3.94	6.16	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

 a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut Lumber (Phase III)” is the study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al., 1999, MRID 455243-04).

b.	DDAC concentration that was detected in the monitoring study (MRID #455243-04).

c.	Normalization of DDAC data for percent ai treatment.  Normalized Unit Exposure (mg/1% ai solution) = Exposure (mg DDAC) / concentration in diptank solution (% DDAC)

d.	All inhalation residues were <LOD (5.6 μg or 0.0056 mg/m3). 1/2 LOD was used in all calculations (0.003 mg/m3). Air Concentration (mg/m3) = 5.6 μg / (~2 L/min flow rate x ~480 min) x 1000 L/m3 conversion x 0.001 μg/mg = 0.003 mg/m3

e.	Inhalation exposure (mg) = air concentration (mg/m3) x inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x sample duration (8 hours/day).

f.	Residues were <LOD for dermal samples M8P4A, M8P4B.  Sample size of ~11,231 cm2 x <0.007 μg/cm2 = LOD of 0.079 mg.  ½ LOD reported (i.e. 0.04 mg)

 PAGE  36

 PAGE  64


Farm ID # _______________

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Enterprise Budget Work Sheets Methyl Bromide Tomatoes  Ruskin Palmetto  Fall  Double Crop Yield Cartons Per Acre  Tomato Cartons Per Acre  Cucurbits IFAS Average 1,350 600 Farm Information Cost Information IFAS Farm Information Acre Carton Acre Carton Pre Harvest Production Costs:

Fertilizer 701.21 Fumigant 573.75 Crop Protection Materials 1,343.91 Transplants/ Seeds 332.30 Stakes 32.00 Plastic String 120.00 Plastic Mulch/ Irrigation Tubing 294.00 Frost Protection Machinery: Irrigation 403.53 Non irrigation 701.99 Plastic Mulch/ Drip Tape Disposal 198.42 Scounting 35.00 Labor Costs: Tractor Drivers 411.79 Direct Labor 410.17 Miscellaneous 30.00 Interest 330.98 Fixed Costs: Land Cost 300.00 Supervision 1,208.97 Overhead 1,511.64 Total Pre Harvest Production Costs: 8,939.66 $ 4.58 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

Harvesting 2,119.50 $ 1.09 $ # DIV/ 0!

Packing, Selling & Related Overhead 5,145.00 $ 2.64 $ # DIV/ 0!

TOTAL COST: 16,204.16 $ 8.31 $  $ # DIV/ 0! Farming Costs:

dwcgi 15181 1081177212 160899000. xls August 3, 2003


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999  999 river eckert banded. killifish age01 1975 4 . river eckert black. bullhead age01 1975 8 . river eckert black. crappie age01 1975 149 . river eckert bluegill age01 1975 602 . river eckert bluntnose. minnow age01 1975 224 . river eckert brook. silverside age01 1975 190 . river eckert brook. stickleback age01 1975 53 . river eckert brown. bullhead age01 1975 2 . river eckert brown. bullhead age01 1975 26 . river eckert carp age01 1975 24 . river eckert channel. catfish age01 1975 181 . river eckert common. shiner age01 1975 1 . river eckert fathead. minnow age01 1975 59 . river eckert golden. redhorse age01 1975 24 . river eckert goldfish age01 1975 1 . river eckert green. sunfish age01 1975 46 . river eckert johnny. darter age01 1975 5 . river eckert largemouth. bass age01 1975 36 . river eckert logperch age01 1975 6 . river eckert northern. pike age01 1975 12 . river eckert northern. redbelly. dace age01 1975 1 . river eckert pumpkinseed age01 1975 62 . river eckert rock. bass age01 1975 2 . river eckert rosyface. shiner age01 1975 5 . river eckert sand. shiner age01 1975 10 . river eckert shorthead. redhorse age01 1975 3 . river eckert smallmouth. bass age01 1975 3 . river eckert spotfin. shiner age01 1975 18 . river eckert spottail. shiner age01 1975 263 . river eckert white. crappie age01 1975 7 . river eckert white. sucker age01 1975 57 . river eckert yellow. bullhead age01 1975 97 . river eckert yellow. perch age01 1975 2 . river eckert cyprinus. carpio larvae 1975 . 34,211 river eckert pimephales. notatus larvae 1975 . 173,684 river eckert cyrinidae larvae 1975 . 21,053 river eckert cyrinidae larvae 1975 . 23,684 river eckert catostomus. commersoni larvae 1975 . 5,263 river eckert ictalurus. natalis larvae 1975 . 5,263 river eckert ictalurus. punctatus larvae 1975 . 102,632 river eckert ambloplites. rupestris larvae 1975 . 2,632 river eckert lepomis. cyanellus larvae 1975 . 2,632 river eckert centrarchidae larvae 1975 . 5,263 river eckert centrarchidae larvae 1975 . 10,526 river eckert centrarchidae larvae 1975 . 10,526 river eckert centrarchidae larvae 1975 . 2,632 river eckert ethestoma. nigrum larvae 1975 . 5,263 river eckert percina. spp larvae 1975 . 5,263 river eckert percidae larvae 1975 . 73,684 river eckert percidae larvae 1975 . 13,158 river eckert unknown. fish larvae 1975 . 2,632 river eckert cyprinus. carpio egg 1975 . 236,301 river eckert unknown. fish egg 1975 . 13,699 notes qc dummy dummy RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer, numbers match entry sheet, but uncertain if extrap. Method is correct RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer RM 35902; Table J 2 & annual total from pg 4 lefer date species imp extrap. factor extrap. imp source qc month Sep 75 carp 4 0.6625 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 75 Sep 75 bluntnose. minnow 80 0.6625 121 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Oct 75 Sep 75 white. sucker 14 0.6625 21 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 Sep 75 yellow. bullhead 7 0.6625 11 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 Sep 75 brown. bulhead 1 0.6625 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 Sep 75 channel. catfish 15 0.6625 23 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 Sep 75 brook. silverside 36 0.6625 54 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 Sep 75 pumpkinseed 1 0.6625 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 Sep 75 bluegill 45 0.6625 68 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 Sep 75 black. crappie 2 0.6625 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 Oct 75 spottail. shiner 12 0.657258065 18 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 Oct 75 sand. shiner 5 0.657258065 8 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 Oct 75 bluntnose. minnow 2 0.657258065 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 Oct 75 yellow. bullhead 1 0.657258065 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Oct 75 channel. catfish 8 0.657258065 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Oct 75 brook. silverside 11 0.657258065 17 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Oct 75 green. sunfish 1 0.657258065 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Oct 75 bluegill 12 0.657258065 18 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 spottail. shiner 45 0.975694444 46 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 bluntnose. minnow 2 0.975694444 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 yellow. bullhead 2 0.975694444 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 channel. catfish 11 0.975694444 11 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 brook. silverside 26 0.975694444 27 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 green. sunfish 2 0.975694444 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 bluegill 12 0.975694444 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 largemouth. bass 1 0.975694444 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 white. crappie 1 0.975694444 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Nov 75 black. crappie 1 0.975694444 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 carp 1 0.959005376 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 spottail. shiner 45 0.959005376 47 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 rosyface. shiner 1 0.959005376 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 bluntnose. minnow 3 0.959005376 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 yellow. bullhead 10 0.959005376 10 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 brown. bullhead 9 0.959005376 9 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 channel. catfish 14 0.959005376 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 brook. silverside 29 0.959005376 30 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 green. sunfish 3 0.959005376 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 pumpkinseed 1 0.959005376 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 bluegill 74 0.959005376 77 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 largemouth. bass 3 0.959005376 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Dec 75 black. crappie 17 0.959005376 18 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 carp 1 0.93938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 spottail. shiner 8 0.93938172 9 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 bluntnose. minnow 6 0.93938172 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 yellow. bullhead 6 0.93938172 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 brown. bullhead 2 0.93938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 channel. catfish 11 0.93938172 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 brook. silverside 9 0.93938172 10 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 green. sunfish 2 0.93938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 bluegill 11 0.93938172 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 largemouth. bass 1 0.93938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jan 76 black. crappie 6 0.93938172 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 northern. pike 2 0.754910714 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 carp 2 0.754910714 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 spottail. shiner 8 0.754910714 11 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 rosyface. shiner 1 0.754910714 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 bluntnose. minnow 2 0.754910714 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 fathead. minnow 2 0.754910714 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 white. sucker 1 0.754910714 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 black. bullhead 1 0.754910714 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 yellow. bullhead 11 0.754910714 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 brown. bullhead 1 0.754910714 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 channel. catfish 30 0.754910714 40 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 brook. silverside 21 0.754910714 28 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 brook. stickleback 9 0.754910714 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 green. sunfish 7 0.754910714 9 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 pumpkinseed 2 0.754910714 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 bluegill 31 0.754910714 41 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 largemouth. bass 14 0.754910714 19 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 black. crappie 11 0.754910714 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Feb 76 logperch 1 0.754910714 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 northern. pike 2 0.83938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 carp 2 0.83938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 common. shiner 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 spottail. shiner 25 0.83938172 30 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 rosyface. shiner 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 spotfin. shiner 4 0.83938172 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 sand. shiner 2 0.83938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 northern. redbelly. dace 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 bluntnose. minnow 34 0.83938172 41 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 fathead. minnow 23 0.83938172 27 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 white. sucker 24 0.83938172 29 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 golden. redhorse 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 yellow. bullhead 13 0.83938172 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 brown. bullhead 4 0.83938172 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 channel. catfish 18 0.83938172 21 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 banded. killifish 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 brook. silverside 13 0.83938172 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 brook. stickleback 34 0.83938172 41 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 rock. bass 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 green. sunfish 12 0.83938172 14 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 pumpkinseed 4 0.83938172 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 bluegill 180 0.83938172 214 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 largemouth. bass 9 0.83938172 11 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 white. crappie 3 0.83938172 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 black. crappie 50 0.83938172 60 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 yellow. perch 2 0.83938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Mar 76 logperch 3 0.83938172 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 northern. pike 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 goldfish 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 spottail. shiner 22 1.039583333 21 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 bluntnose. minnow 2 1.039583333 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 fathead. minnow 3 1.039583333 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 white. sucker 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 golden. redhorse 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 yellow. bullhead 4 1.039583333 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 brown. bullhead 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 channel. catfish 13 1.039583333 13 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 banded. killifish 2 1.039583333 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 brook. silverside 6 1.039583333 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 brook. stickleback 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 green. sunfish 7 1.039583333 7 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 pumpkinseed 51 1.039583333 49 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 bluegill 125 1.039583333 120 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 white. crappie 3 1.039583333 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 black. crappie 18 1.039583333 17 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Apr 76 logperch 1 1.039583333 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 spottail. shiner 66 0.932795699 71 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 rosyface. shiner 1 0.932795699 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 bluntnose. minnow 2 0.932795699 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 fathead. minnow 11 0.932795699 12 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 white. sucker 4 0.932795699 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 golden. redhorse 18 0.932795699 19 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 black. bullhead 2 0.932795699 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 yellow. bullhead 6 0.932795699 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 brown. bullhead 3 0.932795699 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 channel. catfish 7 0.932795699 8 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 banded. killifish 1 0.932795699 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 brook. silverside 1 0.932795699 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 rock. bass 1 0.932795699 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 green. sunfish 2 0.932795699 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 pumpkinseed 2 0.932795699 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 bluegill 33 0.932795699 35 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer May 76 black. crappie 26 0.932795699 28 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 carp 1 1.034027778 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 spottail. shiner 4 1.034027778 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 spotfin. shiner 4 1.034027778 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 bluntnose. minnow 15 1.034027778 15 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 fathead. minnow 4 1.034027778 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 white. sucker 1 1.034027778 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 golden. redhorse 3 1.034027778 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 shorthead. redhorse 2 1.034027778 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 black. bullhead 1 1.034027778 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 yellow. bullhead 13 1.034027778 13 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 brown. bullhead 3 1.034027778 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 channel. catfish 2 1.034027778 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 brook. silverside 1 1.034027778 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 green. sunfish 5 1.034027778 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 bluegill 4 1.034027778 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jun 76 johnny. darter 2 1.034027778 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 northern. pike 5 0.967741935 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 carp 8 0.967741935 8 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 spotfin. shiner 2 0.967741935 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 bluntnose. minnow 10 0.967741935 10 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 fathead. minnow 4 0.967741935 4 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 shorthead. redhorse 1 0.967741935 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 black. bullhead 2 0.967741935 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 yellow. bullhead 10 0.967741935 10 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 channel. catfish 3 0.967741935 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 brook. silverside 1 0.967741935 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 pumpkinseed 1 0.967741935 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 largemouth. bass 1 0.967741935 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 black. crappie 1 0.967741935 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Jul 76 johnny. darter 3 0.967741935 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 northern. pike 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 carp 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 spottail. shiner 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 spotfin. shiner 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 bluntnose. minnow 14 0.83938172 17 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 black. bullhead 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 yellow. bullhead 2 0.83938172 2 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 brown. bullhead 1 0.83938172 1 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Aug 76 channel. catfish 4 0.83938172 5 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 spottail. shiner 2 0.331944444 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 spotfin. shiner 2 0.331944444 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 fathead. minnow 2 0.331944444 6 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 channel. catfish 6 0.331944444 18 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sep 76 smallmouth. bass 1 0.331944444 3 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sampling hours/ month days/ mo hr/ month extrap. factor source QC 477 30 720 0.6625 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 489 31 744 0.657258065 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 702.5 30 720 0.975694444 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 713.5 31 744 0.959005376 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 698.9 31 744 0.93938172 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 507.3 28 672 0.754910714 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 624.5 31 744 0.83938172 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 748.5 30 720 1.039583333 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 694 31 744 0.932795699 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 744.5 30 720 1.034027778 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 720 31 744 0.967741935 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 624.5 31 744 0.83938172 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer 239 30 720 0.331944444 RM# 35902 Table I 2 lefer Sum of extrap. imp species Total banded. killifish 4.187247 black. bullhead 7.693864 black. crappie 148.5177 bluegill 602.3486 bluntnose. minnow 224.1048 brook. silverside 189.6934 brook. stickleback 53.38987 brown. bulhead 1.509434 brown. bullhead 25.87455 carp 23.60215 channel. catfish 181.464 common. shiner 1.191353 fathead. minnow 58.75553 golden. redhorse 24.35138 goldfish 0.961924 green. sunfish 46.11047 johnny. darter 5.034184 largemouth. bass 35.51843 logperch 5.860643 northern. pike 12.35197 northern. redbelly. dace 1.191353 pumpkinseed 62.20246 rock. bass 2.263399 rosyface. shiner 4.630806 sand. shiner 9.990068 shorthead. redhorse 2.967517 smallmouth. bass 3.012552 spotfin. shiner 17.9169 spottail. shiner 263.2018 white. crappie 7.484742 white. sucker 57.26641 yellow. bullhead 96.57904 yellow. perch 2.382706 ( blank) Grand Total 2183.611 Number of eggs & larvae entrained x 10 3 species stage 11 Sep 75 01 Oct 75 15 Oct 75 03 Nov 75 02 Dec 75 11 Dec 75 cyprinus. carpio larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 pimephales. notatus larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 cyrinidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 cyrinidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 catostomus. commersoni larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 ictalurus. natalis larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 ictalurus. punctatus larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 ambloplites. rupestris larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 lepomis. cyanellus larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 centrarchidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 centrarchidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 centrarchidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 centrarchidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 ethestoma. nigrum larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 percina. spp larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 percidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 percidae larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 unknown. fish larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 cyprinus. carpio eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 unknown. fish eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 total larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 total eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jan 76 18 Feb 76 18 Mar 76 07 Apr 76 11 Apr 76 14 Apr 76 17 Apr 76 22 Apr 76 25 Apr 76 28 Apr 76 01 May 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 May 76 11 May 76 14 May 76 19 May 76 23 May 76 26 May 76 29 May 76 03 Jun 76 08 Jun 76 11 Jun 76 16 Jun 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 23 5 5 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 2 16 4 6 25 13 29 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 8 19 Jun 76 24 Jun 76 29 Jun 76 02 Jul 76 07 Jul 76 10 Jul 76 15 Jul 76 20 Jul 76 23 Jul 76 28 Jul 76 11 Aug 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9 3 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 4 13 4 6 0 0 18 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Aug 76 sum extrap. ent source QC 0 13 34,211 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 66 173,684 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 8 21,053 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 9 23,684 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 2 5,263 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 2 5,263 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 39 102,632 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 1 2,632 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 1 2,632 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 2 5,263 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 4 10,526 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 4 10,526 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 1 2,632 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 2 5,263 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 2 5,263 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 28 73,684 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 5 13,158 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 1 2,632 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 69 236,301 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 4 13,699 RM 35902, Table J 2 lefer 0 190 500,000 RM 35902, pg 4 lefer 0 73 250,000 RM 35902, pg 4 lefer Losses data for the Eckert Station ( Michigan). Cooling water source: Grand River Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 2/ 2003 Notes: Impingement annual total is slightly off from the number presented in RM# 35902, pg 3 ( 2,151 in document versus 2,184 from extrapo Impingement data was extrapolated to an annual estimate using the number of sampling hours per month & the total number of hours Entrainment data was extrapolated to an annual estimate using the totals provided on pg. 4 of RM 35902.

QC Checked entry worksheets against the source documents. Checked the losses worksheet against the pivot tables. I am uncertain if the impingement extrapolation calculation is correct. Ent. Extraploation makes sense. M. Lefer 12/ 8/ 03, 3/ 18/ 04. apolation). urs per month.


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 63884-63887]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63086; File No. SR-MSRB-2010-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to
the Continuing Disclosure Service of the MSRB's Electronic Municipal
Market Access System (EMMA[supreg])

October 13, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On May 20, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the continuing
disclosure service of the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access
system (``EMMA'') to provide for the posting of credit rating
information on the EMMA public Web site. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2010.\3\ The
Commission received two comment letters regarding the MSRB's proposed
rule change.\4\ The MSRB responded to these comment letters in a letter
dated September 16, 2010.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62175 (May 26,
2010), 75 FR 30892.
    \4\ See letter from Deven Sharma, President, Standard & Poor's
Ratings Services (``S&P''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 22, 2010 (``S&P Letter'') and letter from
Susan Gaffney, Director, Federal Liaison Center, Government Finance
Officers Association (``GFOA''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 23, 2010 (``GFOA Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Ernesto A. Lanza, General Counsel, MSRB, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 16, 2010
(``MSRB Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of Proposal

    The proposed rule change would amend the EMMA continuing disclosure
service to provide for the posting of

credit rating information on the EMMA public Web site. If and to the
extent that one or more Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating
Organizations (``NRSRO'') has agreed to provide credit rating and
related information regarding municipal securities to the MSRB, at no
charge, through an automated data feed for dissemination on the EMMA
Web site, the EMMA Web site would display such credit rating and
related information along with any documents and identifying
information relating to the applicable municipal security otherwise
displayed on the EMMA Web site. Currently, such other documents or
information may include official statements, advance refunding
documents, continuing disclosure documents, transaction price data,
interest rate reset information, and identifying information relating
to a specific municipal security.
    Under the proposed rule change, credit rating and related
information normally would be posted within 15 minutes of successful
transmission to the MSRB during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Eastern time, and any such information successfully transmitted outside
of the MSRB's normal business hours would be posted as soon as
practicable. The MSRB stated that under the proposed rule change it
shall have no obligation to supplement, modify or confirm credit rating
and related information received by it through an NRSRO's automated
data feed based on information available from any other source,
including but not limited to any such information made publicly
available by an NRSRO by any means other than its automated data feed.
    In the MSRB Letter responding to comments, the MSRB requested that
the proposal be approved with a revised effective date to be announced
by the MSRB in a notice published on the MSRB Web site, which date
shall be no later than one year after Commission approval of the
proposal and shall be announced no later than five business days before
the effective date. The MSRB stated that the revised effective date
would provide additional time for any NRSRO that has not yet determined
to participate in the EMMA ratings initiative to work with the MSRB to
develop appropriate mechanisms to minimize potential threats to
intellectual property rights and other commercial interests.\6\ The
MSRB stated that the additional three month period also would provide
any such NRSRO with a further opportunity to provide the MSRB with
access to its automated data feed for development and testing purposes
with a view to potentially making such NRSRO's ratings information
available for display upon launch of the EMMA ratings initiative should
such NRSRO reconsider its participation in the EMMA ratings initiative
prior to such launch.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See MSRB Letter, at 7.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comment Letters and Commission Findings

A. Discussion of Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule
change filed by the MSRB; the MSRB responded to these comments. GFOA
strongly supported the proposed rule change stating that ``we believe
that there is nothing more relevant than making credit ratings
available in one location, where the public can access the information
quickly, efficiently, and at no cost to them.'' \8\ GFOA believed that
all members of the public should have access to ratings information at
the CUSIP level and that posting ratings information on EMMA at no
charge to the public would create a ``level playing field'' for all
investors and eliminate a two-tier system that unfairly allows
institutional and sophisticated investors to more easily access
information about a security than other investors.\9\ While GFOA
recognized that rating agencies ``have every right to copyright their
written analysis, rationale and other derivative products,'' GFOA also
believed that the rating agencies ``should not be able to withhold the
basic conclusion of a rating from open distribution through the EMMA
system.'' \10\ GFOA stated that the proposed rule ``simply serves to
take what already is public information and directs it to one
location,'' which would be ``something that is a true benefit to
investors and the public.'' \11\ GFOA further stated that having the
rating agencies provide ratings information directly to EMMA is a more
efficient way of disseminating information to investors, noting that
issuers may not be aware of rating changes at the moment they
occur.\12\ GFOA believed that the MSRB and the credit rating agencies
currently have adequate technical expertise, portals and systems to
send feeds to EMMA at little cost to the rating agencies or the
MSRB.\13\ Lastly, GFOA believed that the MSRB should have safeguards in
place to ensure that a rating is assigned to the correct CUSIP and a
procedure in place that would quickly identify and correct any
inaccuracies and notify investors of an incorrect rating.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See GFOA Letter, at 1.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See GFOA Letter, at 2.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&P, an NRSRO, supported the MSRB's goal of encouraging
transparency, but believed that the ``[p]roposal's assumption that
NRSROs may, or should, provide credit rating and related information
regarding municipal securities to the MSRB, at no charge, is
commercially untenable and does not appropriately account for the value
of the NRSROs' intellectual property.'' \15\ In addition, S&P believed
that including credit rating and related information on the EMMA public
Web site would offer only limited incremental value to investors in
municipal securities given the extensive disclosure requirements to
which NRSROs are already subject.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See S&P Letter, at 1.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&P believed that the Commission's NRSRO requirements provide for
an appropriate level of disclosure and expressed concern that the
proposed rule change ``does not specify the scope of the `credit and
related information' regarding municipal securities that the MSRB would
expect to be provided by the NRSROs.'' \17\ S&P expressed concern that
to the extent the credit rating and related information expected to be
provided by NRSROs pursuant to the proposed rule change would extend
beyond the disclosure currently required by the Commission's NRSRO
rules, S&P was concerned that such information may not be sufficiently
tailored to meet the needs of retail investors.\18\ S&P further stated
that existing disclosure is sufficient to enable investors to access
S&P's ratings and effectively evaluate the quality of their ratings
relative to the credit ratings produced by other NRSROs.\19\ S&P
believed that the benefits of the proposed rule change to investors in
municipal securities would not outweigh the burdens that it would
impose on NRSROs that voluntarily provided such information.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See S&P Letter, at 5.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded to these comments by stating that it agreed with
GFOA that the EMMA ratings initiative would provide substantial
benefits to retail investors and would represent a significant increase
in the level of investor protection provided by the MSRB's information
systems and

marketplace rules.\21\ The MSRB stated that under the proposed rule
change, each NRSRO ultimately determines the scope of the credit rating
and related information to be provided through EMMA.\22\ The EMMA Web
site would display the same automated data feed provided to other
subscribers to the NRSRO's information.\23\ The MSRB indicated that
``it is difficult to understand how displaying on the EMMA Web site
information an NRSRO also makes available to other information
services, which in turn make them available to their users, would
result in such information being insufficiently tailored or otherwise
problematic for the needs of retail investors.'' \24\ The MSRB stated
that S&P's reference to information required to be disclosed under the
Commission's NRSRO rules correctly reflects that the purpose of such
information is, at least in part, to allow market participants to
evaluate the relative quality of the various NRSROs' credit
ratings.\25\ However, the MSRB noted that the display of ratings
information on the EMMA Web site ``serves an entirely different
purpose--that is, to provide investors with access to material
information about municipal securities from NRSROs, not to provide a
means by which investors can determine which NRSRO does its job the
best.\26\ The MSRB further noted that the ``material information that
would be displayed to EMMA Web site users would be precisely the same
as the information that each NRSRO has determined is appropriate to be
included in its automated data feed, thus suggesting that this is
precisely the information that NRSROs believe is relevant for investors
to have.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See MSRB Letter, at 3.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ See MSRB Letter, at 3-4.
    \24\ See MSRB Letter, at 4.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&P expressed concern that ``the [p]roposal does not adequately
address how proprietary information that is provided to the MSRB would
be protected'' and noted that making its ratings information available
on EMMA would lessen its ability to enforce its rights against end-
users of the EMMA portal as against users of its own Web site.\28\ GFOA
stated that any ``written communication about the rating to a public
bond issuer creates a `public record' of that issue that must be
disclosed and is certainly material.'' \29\ GFOA believed that ``the
proposed rule simply serves to take what already is public information
and direct it to one location * * * something that is a true benefit to
investors and the public.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See S&P Letter, at 3.
    \29\ See GFOA Letter, at 1.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded to these comments by stating that a significant
portion of the information that would be displayed through the EMMA
ratings initiative is already available on the EMMA Web site in
official statements and material event notices provided under Rule
15c2-12 under the Exchange Act \31\ in connection with ratings
changes.\32\ The MSRB stated that it was ``sensitive to the fact that
such electronic display could raise concerns regarding intellectual
property rights if appropriate measures are not instituted to limit the
ability of EMMA Web site users to use data in a way that is
inconsistent with such rights.'' \33\ The MSRB plans to ``display
credit ratings at the individual security level and not in a fashion
that would allow a user to view, copy or print credit ratings on a
market-wide basis.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \32\ See MSRB Letter, at 5.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change also would not
provide for inclusion of credit ratings and related information
obtained from NRSROs in its subscription products.\35\ S&P expressed
concerns that the MSRB could later amend the proposal to include such
information in a subscription service.\36\ In response, the MSRB stated
that it has no current plans to do so and noted that any such amendment
would be subject to the same rulemaking process as this proposal.\37\
The MSRB also noted that any NRSRO choosing to participate in the
ratings initiative could include appropriate limitations or conditions
on its agreement to participate in regard to future redissemination of
credit rating information through a subscription service.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See S&P Letter, at 4.
    \37\ See MSRB Letter, at 5.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that it has experience working with information
vendors to protect their intellectual property rights and expressed a
willingness to work with any NRSRO to provide it with the necessary
comfort that the risk of misuse of its proprietary interests can be
appropriately minimized.\39\ Additionally, the MSRB expressed
confidence that ratings information could be displayed through the EMMA
Web site without creating a significant adverse effect on the financial
interests of NRSROs.\40\ The MSRB believed that the proposal ``might in
fact indirectly result in greater public interest in other products
offered by the NRSROs.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See MSRB Letter, at 6.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&P believed that the proposal ``fails to recognize NRSROs'
legitimate commercial needs and does not appreciate the significant
negative effect on revenue that the provision of proprietary
information at no cost would have on NRSROs.'' \42\ S&P also
characterized the ratings initiative as ``commercially untenable''
without compensation from the MSRB.\43\ The MSRB responded that each
individual NRSRO must ``make its own assessment of the advisability of
providing its credit rating information to the MSRB for display on the
EMMA Web site.'' \44\ However, the MSRB noted its belief that
displaying ratings on the EMMA Web site should not have any more
appreciable negative effect on NRSROs than displaying such information
on their own respective Web sites.\45\ The MSRB stated that it if the
proposal is approved by the Commission, the MSRB would proceed with
such launch even if one or more of the NRSROs elects not to
participate.\46\ However, the MSRB ``would be open to continuing a
dialogue with any NRSRO that chooses not to participate in the initial
launch of the EMMA ratings initiative so that, should such NRSRO choose
later to determine to participate, the MSRB could more quickly
incorporate such NRSRO's information alongside of credit rating
information of any NRSROs that have participated since such launch.''
\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See S&P Letter, at 4.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ See MSRB Letter, at 7.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the comment letters and the
MSRB's response to the comment letters and finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.\48\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,\49\

which provides that MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Commission's view, the inclusion of credit rating and
related information provided by NRSROs agreeing to provide such
information for display on the EMMA Web site should serve to promote
the statutory mandate of the MSRB to protect investors and the public
interest. Although credit rating information is just one of many
factors to consider in making an investment decision and in evaluating
the credit worthiness and value of existing municipal securities
holdings, the proposed rule change would make such information more
easily accessible on an equal basis to all participants in the
municipal securities market, including in particular retail investors
in municipal securities who do not normally have access to information
services customarily used by professional market participants. The
proposal will become effective on a date to be announced by the MSRB in
a notice published on the MSRB Web site, which date shall be no later
than October 13, 2011 and shall be announced no later than five usiness
days before the effective date.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\50\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2010-03), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26177 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29509-29510]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12635-002--New York]

Moriah Hydro LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mineville Energy
Storage Project and Intention To Hold Public Meetings

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for license for the proposed Mineville Energy
Storage Project (FERC No. 12635) and has prepared a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the project. The proposed project would be
located in a decommissioned

subterranean mine complex in the Town of Moriah, Essex County, New
York. No federal lands would be occupied by project works or located
within the project boundary.
    The draft EIS contains staff's evaluations of the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for licensing the proposed Mineville
Energy Storage Project. The draft EIS documents the views of
governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian
tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the draft EIS is available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's
website 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    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.
    All comments must be filed by August 19, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at 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. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-12635-002.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are
invited to attend public meetings that will be held to receive comments
on the draft EIS. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization input, while the evening meeting is
primarily for public input. All interested individuals and entities may
attend one or both of the public meetings. The times and locations of
the meetings are as follows:

Daytime Meeting

    Date and Time: Tuesday, July 30, at 10:00 a.m. (Local Time).
    Location: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Region 5 Sub-Office, Conference Room A, 232 Golf Course Road,
Warrensburg, New York 12885.

Evening Meeting

    Date and Time: Tuesday, July 30, at 7:00 p.m. (Local Time).
    Location: Moriah Central School Auditorium, Moriah Central School,
39 Viking Lane, Port Henry, New York 12974.
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meetings will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
These meetings are posted on the Commission's calendar located at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other
related information.
    For further information, please contact Christopher Millard at
(202) 502-8256 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13342 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0287; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Northern Virginia Reasonably Available Control Technology Under the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This SIP revision consists
of a demonstration that the Virginia portion (Cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park; Counties of
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William) of the
Washington-DC-MD-VA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area meets the
requirements of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) set forth
by the Clean Air Act (CAA).  These requirements are based on:
Certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Virginia’s SIP
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) are based on the currently available
technically and economically feasible controls, and that they continue
to represent RACT for the 8-hour implementation purposes; a negative
declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the Virginia
portion of the Washington-DC-MD-VA area for certain control technology
guideline (CTG) categories; and a new RACT determination for a specific
source.  This action is being taken under the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication.

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0287.  All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11702), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The NPR proposed
approval of the requirements of RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  EPA
received no comments on the proposal to approve Virginia’s SIP
revision.  The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia on October 23, 2006.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

Virginia’s SIP revision contains the requirements of RACT set forth by
the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Virginia’s SIP revision is
consistent with the process in the Phase 2 Rule preamble, and satisfies
the requirements of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.  Virginia’s SIP revision satisfies the 8-hour RACT requirements
through (1) certification that previously adopted RACT controls in
Virginia’s SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and continues to represent RACT for the 8-hour
implementation purposes; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that
no facilities exist in the Virginia portion of the Washington-DC-MD-VA
area for the applicable CTG categories; and (3) a new RACT determination
for a single source.  Other requirements of Virginia’s 8-hour RACT and
the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here.  No public comments were received on the NPR.

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity.  The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed.  Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations.  Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents
or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney
General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va.
Code Sec. 10.1-1198,  precludes granting a privilege to documents and
information “required by law,” including documents and information
(required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization
or approval,” since Virginia must (enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts. . . .”   The opinion concludes that
“[r]egarding ( 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information
needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs
could not be privileged because such documents and information are
essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to
maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ([t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,(  any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil
penalty.  The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that
the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of
any Federally authorized programs, since (no immunity could be afforded
from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.(

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program
consistent with the Federal requirements.  In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA,
including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce
the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any
state enforcement effort.  In addition, citizen enforcement under
section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.

IV.	Final Action

EPA is approving the 8-hour RACT as a revision to the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s SIP.  Virginia’s SIP revision contains the requirements
of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  This SIP
revision was submitted on October 23, 2006.

V.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.  For that
reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
CAA; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, pertaining to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s RACT
provisions under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

_June 5, 2009______
__________/s/__________________

Dated:                             		   		William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator,

Region III.

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart VV ( Virginia

2.  In Section 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry for RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS- Virginia portion of the
Washington-DC-MD-VA area at the end of the table to read as follows:

( 52.2420  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(e)* * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable geographic area	State
submittal date	EPA approval date	Additional

explanation

*                    *                      *                   *
           *                 *                    *

RACT under the 8-Hour ozone NAAQS	Virginia portion of the
Washington-DC-MD-VA area 	10/23/06	[Insert Federal Register] publication
date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

 PAGE

 PAGE  9