Other Superfund Sites In September 2007, the NYSDEC demanded that the company investigate and remediate PCB contamination that may have migrated from a former CECONY service center facility in Flushing New York, into the adjacent Flushing River.
In April 2008, the company and the NYSDEC entered into a consent order under which the company agreed to implement a NYSDEC-approved investigation program for the Flushing River and, if deemed necessary by the NYSDEC to protect human health and the environment, to implement a NYSDEC-approved remediation program for any PCB contamination in the river attributable to the site.
In March 2011, the company submitted to the NYSDEC a report indicating that PCBs had migrated from the site to sediment in a portion of the river.
In August 2013, the NYSDEC selected a remedy that required the company to submit a remedial design report, remove contaminated sediment, restore the river bed with clean material, prepare a site management plan and implement institutional controls.
The final remedial design was submitted to and approved by the NYSDEC in 2017.
CECONY completed construction of the remedy during 2018.
In 2016, CECONY and another utility responded to a reported dielectric fluid leak at a New Jersey marina on the Hudson River associated with one or two underwater transmission lines, the New Jersey portion of which is owned and operated by the other utility and the New York portion of which is owned and operated by CECONY.
In 2017, after the marina owner had cleared substantial debris from its collapsed pier and rip rap material that it had previously placed over and in the vicinity of the underwater transmission lines in an attempt to shore up its failing pier, a dielectric fluid leak was found and repaired on one of the underwater transmission lines.
In August 2018, the EPA declared the leak response complete.
CECONY and the other utility are disputing whether to return the transmission lines to operation.
CECONY, the other utility and the marina owner are involved in litigation in federal court regarding response and repair costs, related damages, and the future of the lines.
In September 2018, FERC dismissed a complaint filed by the other utility in which it had requested that FERC order CECONY to cooperate with the other utility to remove all of the dielectric fluid from the transmission lines and remove the lines.
In October 2018, the other utility filed a request for rehearing at FERC with respect to its decision to dismiss the complaint.
CECONY expects that, consistent with the cost allocation provisions of its prior arrangements with the other utility for the transmission lines, the response and repair costs incurred by CECONY, the other utility and government agencies, net of any recovery from the marina owner, will be shared by CECONY and the other utility and that CECONY's share is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
CECONY is a PRP at additional Superfund sites involving other PRPs and participates in PRP groups at those sites.
The company generally is not managing the site investigation and remediation at these multiparty sites.
Work at these sites is in various stages, and investigation, remediation and monitoring activities at some of these sites can be expected to continue over extended periods of time.
The company believes that it is unlikely that monetary sanctions, such as penalties, will be imposed by any governmental authority with respect to these sites.
The following table lists each of the additional Superfund sites for which the company anticipates it may have liability.
The table also shows for each such site its location, the year in which the company was designated or alleged to be a PRP or to otherwise have responsibilities for the site (shown in the table under “Start”), the name of the court or agency in which proceedings for the site are pending and CECONY’s estimated percentage of the total liability for each site.
The company currently estimates that its potential liability for investigation, remediation, monitoring and environmental damages in aggregate for the sites below is less than $2 million.
Superfund liability is joint and several.
The company’s estimate of its liability for each site was determined pursuant to consent decrees, settlement agreements or otherwise and in light of the financial condition of other PRPs.
The company’s actual liability could differ substantially from amounts estimated.
## Table 0 ##
O&R Superfund The sites at which O&R has been asserted to have liability under Superfund include its manufactured gas sites and the Superfund sites discussed below.
There may be additional sites as to which assertions will be made that O&R
## Table 1 ##
O&R’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2018 compared with 2017 were
## Table 2 ##
(a) Revenues from New York gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause and a revenue decoupling mechanism, as a result of which, delivery revenues are generally not affected by changes in delivery volumes from levels assumed when rates were approved.
(b) After adjusting for weather and other variations, total firm sales and transportation volumes increased 2.4 percent in 2018 compared with 2017.
Operating revenues increased $17 million in 2018 compared with 2017 due primarily to the increase in gas purchased for resale ($13 million) and higher revenues from the New York gas rate plan ($12 million), offset in part by the reduction in other operating revenues resulting from the deferral as a regulatory liability of estimated net benefits for the 2018 period under the TCJA (see "Other Regulatory Matters" in Note B to the financial statements in Item 8) ($8 million).
Gas purchased for resale increased $13 million in 2018 compared with 2017 due to higher purchased volumes ($11 million) and unit costs ($2 million).
Other operations and maintenance expenses increased $8 million in 2018 compared with 2017 due primarily to higher pension costs ($6 million) and the reduction of a regulatory asset associated with certain site investigation and environmental remediation costs ($3 million), offset in part by lower healthcare costs ($1 million).
Depreciation and amortization increased $1 million in 2018 compared with 2017 due primarily to higher gas utility plant balances.
Taxes, other than income taxes increased $2 million in 2018 compared with 2017 due primarily to higher property taxes ($1 million) and state and local taxes ($1 million).
Taxes, Other Than Income Taxes Taxes, other than income taxes, increased $1 million in 2018 compared with 2017.
The principal components of taxes, other than income taxes, were:
Cross-border outstandings to countries in which we do business which amounted to at least 1% of our consolidated total assets were as follows as of December 31:
## Table 3 ##
The total cross-border outstandings presented in the table represented 12%, 9% and 11% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
There were no crossborder outstandings to countries which totaled between .75% and 1% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2007.
Aggregate cross-border outstandings to countries which totaled between .75% and 1% of our consolidated total assets at December 31, 2006, amounted to $1.05 billion (Canada) and at December 31, 2005, amounted to $1.86 billion (Belgium and Japan).
Capital Regulatory and economic capital management both use key metrics evaluated by management to ensure that our actual level of capital is commensurate with our risk profile, is in compliance with all regulatory requirements, and is sufficient to provide us with the financial flexibility to undertake future strategic business initiatives.
Regulatory Capital Our objective with respect to regulatory capital management is to maintain a strong capital base in order to provide financial flexibility for our business needs, including funding corporate growth and supporting customers’ cash management needs, and to provide protection against loss to depositors and creditors.
We strive to maintain an optimal level of capital, commensurate with our risk profile, on which an attractive return to shareholders will be realized over both the short and long term, while protecting our obligations to depositors and creditors and satisfying regulatory requirements.
Our capital management process focuses on our risk exposures, our capital position relative to our peers, regulatory capital requirements and the evaluations of the major independent credit rating agencies that assign ratings to our public debt.
The Capital Committee, working in conjunction with the Asset and Liability Committee, referred to as ‘‘ALCO,’’ oversees the management of regulatory capital, and is responsible for ensuring capital adequacy with respect to regulatory requirements, internal targets and the expectations of the major independent credit rating agencies.
The primary regulator of both State Street and State Street Bank for regulatory capital purposes is the Federal Reserve Board.
Both State Street and State Street Bank are subject to the minimum capital requirements established by the Federal Reserve Board and defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991.
State Street Bank must meet the regulatory capital thresholds for ‘‘well capitalized’’ in order for the parent company to maintain its status as a financial holding company.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Site</td><td>Location</td><td>Start</td><td>Court orAgency</td><td>% of TotalLiability</td></tr><tr><td>Cortese Landfill</td><td>Narrowsburg, NY</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>6.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Curcio Scrap Metal</td><td>Saddle Brook, NJ</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>100.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Metal Bank of America</td><td>Philadelphia, PA</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>1.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Global Landfill</td><td>Old Bridge, NJ</td><td>1988</td><td>EPA</td><td>0.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Borne Chemical</td><td>Elizabeth, NJ</td><td>1997</td><td>NJDEP</td><td>0.7%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">For the Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>Variation</td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues</td><td>$249</td><td>$232</td><td>$17</td></tr><tr><td>Gas purchased for resale</td><td>86</td><td>73</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Other operations and maintenance</td><td>72</td><td>64</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Taxes, other than income taxes</td><td>31</td><td>29</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Gas operating income</td><td>$39</td><td>$46</td><td>$-7</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Thousands of Dt Delivered</td><td colspan="4">Revenues in Millions (a)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">For the Years Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">For the Years Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Description</td><td>December 31, 2018</td><td>December 31, 2017</td><td>Variation</td><td>Percent Variation</td><td>December 31, 2018</td><td>December 31, 2017</td><td>Variation</td><td>Percent Variation</td></tr><tr><td>Residential</td><td>9,860</td><td>8,296</td><td>1,564</td><td>18.9%</td><td>$140</td><td>$115</td><td>$25</td><td>21.7%</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>2,190</td><td>2,184</td><td>6</td><td>0.3</td><td>26</td><td>24</td><td>2</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Firm transportation</td><td>9,950</td><td>9,873</td><td>77</td><td>0.8</td><td>78</td><td>74</td><td>4</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><td>Total firm sales and transportation</td><td>22,000</td><td>20,353</td><td>1,647</td><td>8.1(b)</td><td>244</td><td>213</td><td>31</td><td>14.6</td></tr><tr><td>Interruptible sales</td><td>3,746</td><td>3,771</td><td>-25</td><td>-0.7</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>-1</td><td>-14.3</td></tr><tr><td>Generation plants</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>-8</td><td>-88.9</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>959</td><td>896</td><td>63</td><td>7.0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other gas revenues</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-2</td><td>11</td><td>-13</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>26,706</td><td>25,029</td><td>1,677</td><td>6.7%</td><td>$249</td><td>$232</td><td>$17</td><td>7.3%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>$5,951</td><td>$5,531</td><td>$2,696</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>4,565</td><td>—</td><td>1,463</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>3,567</td><td>1,519</td><td>1,441</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>992</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>2,944</td><td>2,696</td><td>4,217</td></tr><tr><td>Total cross-border outstandings</td><td>$17,027</td><td>$9,746</td><td>$10,809</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the percent change in cross-border outstandings in the uk between 2006 and 2007?
Answer: 0.07594
Reasoning program: subtract(5951,5531), divide(#0,5531)