2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure

Needs Survey and Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	Washington, DC 20460

Please verify or correct the following information:

	Check if Correct as Printed	Corrected Information

(Fill in only if preprinted information is missing or incorrect)

Name of System (Community): 	(

	Name of Contact:

Street Address:

City, State, and Zip: 	(

	Population Served (if seller, include population of systems sold to):	(

	Number of Connections (not including those in consecutive systems): 	(

	Total System Design Capacity:     ____________ MGD

Source Water Type (Ground, Surface/GWUDI, etc.): 	Check All That Apply:  (	 Ground 			(  Surface/GWUDI

	(	 Purchased Ground 			(  Purchased Surface/GWUDI

Ownership Type: 	Check All That Apply:	(	 Public 		 (  Investor-Owned or

	(	 Federal Government  		Private Non-Profit

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average X hours per response. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collected. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by person(s) to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPI, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1804A), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503.

State Use Only

Information provided for this survey can be requested by the public; however, EPA will not release the names and addresses of respondents. Also it is our experience that survey information is rarely requested. Source, Treatment, Storage, and Pumping Inventory

To ensure all potential source, treatment, and storage projects are considered, it may be helpful to complete some or all of this inventory table.  However, completion of this table is not required.

Source Water

Inventory	Needing Replacement	Needing Rehabilitation	New Infrastructure Needs

Total Number and Capacity of Existing Wells or Springs:

		Wells (including pumps) or Springs:

		Wells (including pumps) or Springs:

			Does your system have additional source water capacity needs to meet the needs of current users? (check one)

Yes ___	 No ___	______

Total Number and Capacity of Existing Surface Water Sources:          _____________________________	Existing Surface Water Intakes (excluding pumps):

		Existing Surface Water Intakes (excluding pumps):

         		If yes, how many additional sources are necessary?

Total Number and Capacity of Existing Pumps:

		Existing Pumps (but not wells): 		Existing Pumps (but not wells):

Existing Raw Water Pumps: 		Existing Raw Water Pumps:

	Treatment

Inventory	Needing Replacement	Needing Expansion/Upgrading or Rehabilitation	New Infrastructure Needs

For the sources identified above, enter the number of locations where the following treatment is applied:

	Disinfection (including booster

disinfection): 		Disinfection: 	 	Disinfection:		Does your system have additional treatment needs for provision of additional public health protection or for aesthetic concerns? (check one)

Yes ___ No ___

If yes, what additional treatment is necessary?

Filtration: 		Filtration:		Filtration:

	Chemical removal or addition:

		Chemical treatment: 		Chemical treatment:

	Storage and Pump Stations

Inventory	Needing Replacement	Needing Rehabilitation	New Infrastructure Needs

Total Number and Capacity of Existing Storage Tanks:

 		Number of Existing Elevated or Ground-Level Storage Tanks:

 	________________________	Number of Existing Elevated or Ground-Level Storage Tanks:

 	_________________________	Does your system have additional storage capacity and/or booster pumping needs to meet the needs of current users? (check one)

Yes 	   No 	_

If yes, how much additional finished water storage or booster pumping capacity is necessary?

Total Number and Capacity of Existing Booster Pump Stations:

		Number of Existing Booster Pump Stations:

	________________________	Number of Existing Booster Pump Stations:

	_________________________

	Source, Treatment, Storage, and Pumping Projects

Project

Number	Project Name	Type of Need

(List 1)	Reason for Need

(List 2)	New,

Replace,

Re-

Habilitate, Expand	Current

or

Future	Regulation

(List 3)

(if applicable)	Design Capacity (MG, MGD, kW)	Number Needed

(if applicable)	Cost Estimate

(if available)	Date of Cost Estimate

(Month/

Year)	Documen-

tation

(List 4)

Ex. 1	Replace Wells 3 and 8	R1	A1	R	C	4A	0.5	2	-	-	6, 10

Ex. 2	Rehab Treatment Plant and Booster Station	T10	A1,A6	H	F	1A	5.0	1 $6,027,000	12/05	4

1000

	1001

	1002

	1003

	1004

	1005

	1006

	1007

If you have more source, treatment, storage, or pumping projects check this box ( and continue on a supplemental sheet (included in this package or downloadable at www.DWNeeds.com). Project numbers for these types of projects are 1000-1999, and should be numbered in sequence.

EPA requires documentation of all projects provided.  Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes.

Use only existing documentation of cost.  We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates.

Transmission and distribution projects are the piping needs of a water system.  Projects for valves, hydrants, and meters that are not part of a transmission or distribution project listed in this table should be recorded in the table on page 7.

Transmission and Distribution Inventory

On the table below, please provide an estimate of the total feet or miles of pipe in your system, if possible.  Completion of this table is not required, but it may be helpful to ensure all potential transmission and distribution pipe projects are considered.

Note:  The total feet or miles or pipe in your system is required information if any pipe projects are submitted based solely on survey-generated documentation (documentation codes 10 or 11). ______________	Total feet or miles of pipe in system

	Total Pipe in System

 	<=6 inch

8-12 inch

15-42 inch

>=48 inch

PVC

Feet or miles

Amount of PVC by pipe size	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles

	% of total pipe

% of PVC currently in poor

condition or beyond useful life	 	%	 	%	 	%	 	%

Ductile Iron

Feet or miles

Amount of ductile iron by pipe size	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	  feet or miles	 	feet or miles

	% of total pipe

% of ductile iron currently in poor

condition or beyond useful life	 	%	 	%	 	%	 	%

Cast Iron

Feet or miles

Amount of cast iron by pipe size	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	  feet or miles	 	feet or miles

	% of total pipe

% of cast iron currently in poor

condition or beyond useful life	 	%	 	%	 	%	 	%

Asbestos Cement

Feet or miles

Amount of asbestos cement by pipe size	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles  	feet or miles	 	feet or miles

	% of total pipe

% of asbestos cement currently in poor condition or beyond useful life  	%	 	%	 	%	 	%

Other

Feet or miles

Amount of other by pipe size	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles	 	feet or miles

	% of total pipe

% of other currently in poor

condition or beyond useful life	 	%	 	%	 	%	 	%

Transmission and Distribution Projects

Project

Number	Project Name	Type of Need

(List 1)	Reason for Need

(List 2)	New,

Replace, or

Re-

Habilitate	Current

or

Future	Regulation

(List 3)

(if applicable)	Diameter of Pipe (Inches)	Length of

Pipe

(Feet)	Cost Estimate

(if available)	Date of Cost Estimate

(Month/Year)	Documen-

tation

(List 4)

Ex. 1	Cleaning and Lining Old Cast Iron Mains	M1	A1	H	C	4A	12	18,000	-	- 11

Ex 2	Replace Deteriorated Transmission Main	X2	A1	R	C	4A	24	20,000 $4,200,000	06/05	1

2000

	2001

	2002

	2003

	2004

	2005

	2006

	2007

If you have more transmission or distribution projects check this box ( and continue on a supplemental sheet (included in this package or downloadable at www.DWNeeds.com). Project numbers for transmission or distribution projects are 2000-2999, and should be numbered in sequence.

EPA requires documentation of all projects provided.  Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes.

Use only existing documentation of cost.   We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates.

Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies, Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, Water Meter, and Other Inventory

Although these needs may fit into the other categories of the questionnaire, projects for backflow prevention devices and assemblies, hydrants used to flush water mains, service line replacement, and other items such as valves and meters are recorded in this section to accommodate entries of multiple identical items on one line in the project table.

Record only projects that are not a part of another project (e.g., water main replacement projects will already include valves, hydrants and other appurtenances).

To ensure all potential projects are considered, it may be helpful to complete some or all of this inventory table.  However, completion of this table is not required.

Inventory	Needing Replacement	Needing Rehabilitation	New Infrastructure Needs

Total Number of Existing Valves (gate, butterfly, PRVs, altitude, etc.):

		Number of Valves:

		Number of Valves:

		Number of Valves:

Total Number of Existing Water Meters:

		Number of Water Meters:

		Number of Water Meters:

		Number of Water Meters:

Total Number of Existing Hydrants for Flushing Water Mains:

		Number of Hydrants for Flushing Water Mains:

		Number of Hydrants for Flushing Water Mains:

			Number of Hydrants for Flushing Water Mains:

Total Number of Lead Service Lines:

		Number of Lead Service Lines:

		Number of Lead Service Lines:

			Number of Lead Service Lines:

Total Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies:

		Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies:

		Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies:

			Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies:

Total Number of Other Items (generators, security components, well houses, computer hardware, etc.):

		Number of Other Items:

		Number of Other Items:

			Number of Other Items:

Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies, Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, Water Meter, and Other Projects

Please do not list any component that is included in a pipe replacement or rehabilitation project listed on the Transmission and Distribution Project Table.  If you listed any pipe replacement or rehabilitation project without a cost, EPA will assign a cost using a model that includes all these components.

Project

Number	Project Name	Type of Need

(List 1)	Reason for Need

(List 2)	New,

Replace, or

Re-

Habilitate	Current

or

Future	Regulation

(List 3)

(if applicable)	Size (Diameter in Inches)	Number Needed	Cost Estimate

(if available)	Date of Cost Estimate

(Month/Year)	Documen-

tation

(List 4)

Ex. 1	New valves to isolate sections of distribution	M5	A11	N	C	4A	12	16 -	-	11

Ex. 2	Replace Lead Service Lines	M2	A7	R	C	1D	-	100	$100,000	5/04	9, 11

3000

	3001

	3002

	3003

	3004

	3005

If you have more of these types of projects check this box ( and continue on a supplemental sheet (included in this package or downloadable at www.DWNeeds.com). Project numbers for these types of projects are 3000-3999, and should be numbered in sequence.

EPA requires documentation of all projects provided.  Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes.

Use only existing documentation of cost.  We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates.

Respondent Information

Please provide the following information in case we need to contact you for clarification or additional explanation of any of your responses.

Contact Person (Person who completed this questionnaire):

Signature:

Name (please print):

Title:

Mailing Address:

(Street Address)

Telephone Number:

Fax Number:

E-mail Address:

Best Time to Reach You:

If you have any questions, contact {State Contact} at {State Contact Phone Number} or e-mail to {State Contact E-Mail} or call the U.S. EPA toll-free Needs Survey Helpline at 1-888-XXX-XXXX.

CLOSING: Thank you for your help. Did you remember to:

	Attach all additional project tables to the questionnaire?

	Identify, by project number, available documentation for all needs and costs reported above?

	Put the questionnaire and the documentation in the pre-paid, pre-addressed Federal Express Pak provided and return this questionnaire 	and the documentation to the address below?  (See the pink enclosure for further return instructions.)

Jane Q. Official

Division of Water

State Environmental Department

One Capital Street

Capital, XX 99999

2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure

Needs Survey and Assessment

Instructions

Please take a few minutes to read through these instructions,

 the Lists of Codes (blue booklet), and the questionnaire before beginning.

What is the Purpose of the Survey?

The 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (Assessment) captures the 20-year (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2026) infrastructure needs of public water systems eligible for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) monies and reports those needs to Congress. The DWSRF provides low interest loans and other forms of financial assistance to water systems.

The results of this survey document the total national and state-specific infrastructure need for drinking water systems and are used to allocate DWSRF monies to the states for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Your participation is critical to the success of the survey and to your state’s DWSRF allotment.

How Does the Survey Work?

Approximately 3,500 of the 55,000 community water systems across the country have been selected to participate in the survey to report their 20-year need.

The needs of each participating system are extrapolated to represent the total need for each state.  State needs are summed to produce an estimate of the national need.

What is My Role?

Your role is to assess your water system’s infrastructure and record projects necessary to meet the needs of current water users over the next 20 years

Each project must be documented or described to show it would address a current or future water quality and/or quantity deficiency.  Whenever possible, please use existing documentation such as a capital improvements plan (CIP) or master plan.

If at all possible, please provide any existing project cost estimates.  However, do not generate a cost estimate for this survey.  If a project does not have a documented cost estimate, please provide design parameters (e.g., length and diameter of pipe needed) so EPA can model the costs.

 How Do I Identify Projects to Be Included?

Begin by referring to any planning documents available for your system.  Projects listed in your CIP or Master Plan are likely to be allowable needs.  You may also refer to the 2003 Needs Survey if your system participated.

Next, review your system inventory and consider projects that may not be included in your planning documents but that you are aware you will need to address within the next 20 years.  The inventory tables presented with each project table in the questionnaire are provided to help you identify your needs.

Use “List 1 - Type of Need” in the accompanying Lists of Codes (blue booklet) to help prompt you to consider the types of projects to be included.

Include projects for necessary new infrastructure, or to replace or rehabilitate existing infrastructure, or in the case of a treatment plant, to expand/upgrade the plant.

Current and Future Needs – Include projects that are needed now as well as projects that will be necessary over the next 20 years to address the needs of your existing customer base.  However, do not include projects to encourage future growth as discussed in the next section.

Include only one project to address any given piece of infrastructure.  For example, if you have a project for the construction of a tank, do not include the subsequent rehabilitation of that tank in 15 years.

Include only projects that have not yet begun construction.  If a project has begun construction as of January 1, 2007, do not include it.  You may, however, include future phases of a project if it will be built in phases.

What Types of Projects Should Not Be Included?

Projects or costs that are not SRF-eligible:

Projects solely for fire flow, fire protection, or ISA ratings

Projects solely to meet demand of expected future growth or to encourage future expansion or development that are not also necessary to meet the needs of existing customers

Projects for land acquisition not necessary for siting of an infrastructure component (e.g., land purchase to locate a tank would be eligible)

Projects for dams or raw water reservoirs

Projects or costs that are not for capital improvements:

Projects for studies or watershed control programs

Operations and maintenance needs/costs, laboratory analytical  costs, or sample collection

Costs associated with staff

Loan interest and fees

Projects that are not associated with public health protection:

Landscaping or other projects for appearance

If documentation implies a project is for one of the above reasons, but you are aware of additional reasons the project is needed, you may provide a signed statement clarifying why the project would address an allowable need.

How is the Questionnaire Organized?

The questionnaire consists of three separate tables on which projects are recorded. The tables address the categories of the type of projects listed below:

Source, Treatment, Finished or Treated Water Storage, and Pumping, Projects.

Transmission and Distribution Projects.

Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies, Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, Water Meters, and Other Projects.

The questionnaire also includes water system inventory tables accompanying each project table.  While NOT REQUIRED, completing these tables can help you to consider your system’s entire inventory and assess what parts of your system’s infrastructure may need improvement.

How Do I Provide Project Documentation?

Every project recorded on the questionnaire must be accompanied by documentation that discusses the reason the project is needed.  In addition, in order to assign a cost to a project, you must provide either an existing documented cost estimate or sufficient information for the project to be assigned a cost based on cost models.

Documentation Types - See List 4 in the List of Codes for specific types of documentation.  The two types of documentation are:

Independent – generated through a process independent of this survey (examples include a CIP, master plan, laboratory results, or bid tabulation).

Survey-generated – written by you or the state specifically for the purposes of this survey.  It must include project details such as age, condition, or associated problems.

Documentation of Need

Documentation must provide enough information to indicate that project is for an allowable need.  If an independent document is not available or does not specifically address why a project is needed, please provide a signed statement indicating why the project is needed (see example above).

Documentation of need must be less than 4 years old.  If you have documentation dated prior to January 1, 2003, please supplement this with a signed statement indicating whether the project is still needed, whether it started construction by January 1, 2007, and if it is still within its original scope.

Documentation of Cost

EPA needs either a cost estimate or enough information to model the cost of each project.

Cost estimates must be from independent documentation such as a CIP, master plan, or bid tabulation.  Please indicate the date the estimate was generated, and EPA will adjust for inflation to current year dollars.  Do not adjust costs yourself.

Cost estimates must be less than 10 years old (after January 1, 1997).

If there is no independent estimate of cost for a project, simply include the modeling parameters (design capacity in MG or MGD, length and diameter in feet and inches, and number needed) so EPA can estimate the cost.

How Do I Represent a Project on the Questionnaire?

Familiarize yourself with the Lists of Codes booklet and the questionnaire.

Pages 1 and 2 of the Instructions and Lists of Codes booklet have important information about the data collected on the questionnaire.

The questionnaire has examples of projects at the beginning of each table.

Enter a project title and the appropriate codes across each row for each project you have identified.

Document the need for all projects and any cost estimates that are recorded.  Identify each piece of documentation by the related project number.

Enclose the necessary documentation for each project with the completed questionnaire.

If you need additional pages for a table, they have been provided.  Make copies of blank sheets before beginning.

Project Examples and Helpful Hints

Project

Number	Project Name	Type of Need

(List 1)	Reason for Need

(List 2)	New,

Replace, or

Re-

Habilitate	Current

or

Future	Regulation

(List 3)

Diameter of Pipe (Inches )	Length of

Pipe

(Feet)	Cost Estimate

(if available)	Date of Cost Estimate

(Month/Year)	Documen-

tation

--       	--	11

2001	Replace Deteriorated Transmission Main	X2	A1	R	C	4A	24	20,000   $4,200,000 	06/05	1

Project

Number	Project Name	Type of Need

(List 1)	Reason for Need

(List 2)	New,

Replace,

Expand, Re-

Habilitate 	Current

or

Future 	Regulation

(List 3)

(if available )    	Design Capacity (MG, MGD, kW)	Number Needed

(if applicable)	Cost Estimate

(if available)	Date of Cost Estimate

(Month/

Year)	Documen-

tation

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE

 PAGE   8

Source Projects are all projects related to collecting and pumping raw water.  This includes wells, surface water intakes, springs, off-stream raw water storage, pumps, and well houses.

Treatment Projects are all projects related to disinfection, filtration, or other treatment processes for ground or surface water sources, or for treatment applied in the distribution system.

Storage and Pumping Projects are related to finished or treated water storage, and booster pump stations.

OMB No.: XXXX-XXXX

Approval Expires:  XX/XX/XX

Federal PWSID No.: XX0000000

Current Need – projects that are needed now, even if you may not be able to start immediately due to budget or other issues.

Future Need – projects that you know will be necessary over the next 20 years, but are not needed immediately (example: a currently operational storage tank that will require rehabilitation in 15 years).

Future Growth – projects associated with encouraging growth or based on speculative growth - these are not allowable.

DRAFT version 8/4/06

What is a “need?”

For the purposes of the Assessment, a “need” is a project related to installation or major rehabilitation of capital infrastructure required now or within the next 20 years to continue to provide safe drinking water to your consumers.  Infrastructure needs are those that will preserve the physical integrity of the water system and protect public health.

What am I asked to do?

Read all materials

Identify 20-year project needs from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2026

Record projects and identify documentation

Send completed survey and documentation to the state by March 2, 2007 or call the state to make other arrangements.

Some project types require independent documentation of need (such as a CIP, Master Plan, or laboratory results):

New Surface Water Sources

New Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells

New Treatment Plants

Replacement of an Existing Treatment Plant

Expansion/Upgrade of an Existing Treatment Plant

Example of Survey-generated Documentation:

“Project 1006 is for a new well to replace the existing well.  The existing well was drilled in 1957.  It has never had any major work done other than replacing the pump.  It has lost production capacity substantially due to iron build up on the screen.  In addition, subdivision development with on-site septic systems in the area of the well has compromised the source’s water quality.  We need to replace this well with a new source in the northeast section of town.”

How do I submit large pieces of documentation?

If you’re using a large document such as a CIP, you may submit the entire document or make copies of the pertinent pages.

If you choose to send only pertinent pages, be sure to include a copy of the front page with the document title and date.

Please mark up the documentation indicating where each project is discussed.  Use tabs, highlighters or simply write the project number in the margin of each applicable page.

An electronic version of this questionnaire package and other materials that may be useful for completing the questionnaire, such as a complete dictionary of types of need, are available for downloading at   HYPERLINK "http://www.2007needs.com"  www.DWNeeds.com .

Also, if you have questions, please call your state's Assessment contact or the toll-free Assessment Helpline at 1-800-xxx-xxxx.  All contact information is provided on the last page of the questionnaire.

Descriptive project name is used.

Modeling parameters provided when available, even if cost is also provided.

Cost and date of cost provided.  Date allows cost to be updated to 1/07 dollars by EPA.

The appropriate codes or where to find them are identified in each column.

Two wells at 0.5 MGD capacity each need to be rehabilitated and the cost will be modeled.

All applicable types of documentation recorded.

The appropriate codes or where to find them are identified in each column.

Two reasons for need are recorded; more than one code can be used.

More than one type of need may be appropriate, but only if cost is provided.

Regulation code is recorded when applicable, or 4A is used if none apply.


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2208-2209]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ06-1-000]

Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 22, 2005, Southwest Transmission
Cooperative, Inc. (SWTC) tendered for

filing revision to its Open Access transmission Tariff in order to
update its rates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-283 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 873-875]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31605]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71214; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-146]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Eliminate the Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order Tier, Add a New
Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, and Make Other Changes Relating to
Open Orders

December 31, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 19, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate
the Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Order Tier, add a new
Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, and make other changes relating to
open orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes on January
2, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to eliminate the
MPL Order Tier, add a new Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, and make
other changes relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to
implement the changes on January 2, 2014.
    Currently, the Exchange provides a $0.0020 per share credit for ETP
holders, including Market Makers, that execute an Average Daily Volume
(``ADV'') of providing MPL orders during the month that is 0.0775% or
more of the U.S. Consolidated ADV (``US CADV''). When the Exchange
proposed the MPL Order Tier credit, the Exchange expected it to
incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional MPL orders on the
Exchange; \4\ however, the credit has not had the intended effect.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the MPL Order Tier. The
$0.0015 per share credit would remain in place for the Tier 1, Tier 2,
and Basic rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69926 (July 3,
2013), 78 FR 41154 (July 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is proposing a new Routable Order Cross-Asset
Tier. Under the Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, ETP Holders, including
Market Makers, that (1) provide liquidity of 0.40% or more of the US
CADV during the billing month across all Tapes, (2) maintain a ratio
during the billing month across all Tapes of executed provide liquidity
that is eligible to route away from the Exchange (``Routable Orders'')
to total executed provide liquidity of 65% or more, (3) execute an ADV
of provide liquidity during the billing month across all Tapes that is
equal to at least the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's May 2013 provide
liquidity across all Tapes

plus 40%, and (4) are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
provides an ADV of manual (i.e., non-electronic) executions (as defined
in footnote 5 of the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule) \5\ on NYSE Arca
Options (excluding mini options, qualified contingent cross orders, and
strategy trades) across all account type ranges of at least 1.5% of
total Customer equity and ETF option ADV as reported by the Options
Clearing Corporation would qualify for a $0.0032 per share credit for
Routable and non-Routable Orders that provide liquidity in Tape A and C
securities and a $0.0027 per share credit for Routable and non-Routable
Orders that provide liquidity in Tape B securities. The Exchange notes
that the proposed credits would provide an alternative way to qualify
for the current Routable Order Tier credit of $0.0032 for Tape A and
Tape C securities and an alternative way to qualify for the current
Tape B Step Up Tier credit of $0.0027 for Tape B securities that are
offered by the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange also proposes to make
conforming changes to the Tape B Adding Tier, Tape B Step Up Tier, Tape
C Step Up Tier, and Tape C Step Up Tier 2 to specify that ETP Holders
and Market Makers that qualify for the proposed Routable Order Cross-
Asset Tier would not additionally qualify for those tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As provided in footnote 5 in the NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule, manual executions exclude certain electronic transactions.
Specifically, a manual order that executes in part against one or
more electronic orders or quotes resting on the NYSE Arca Options
Consolidated Book prior to executing against interest in the NYSE
Arca Options Trading Crowd would be considered a manual transaction
order for the entire order. A manual order that executes entirely
against one or more electronic orders or quotes resting on the
Consolidated Book would be considered an electronic transaction for
the entire order. In either case, the contra-side electronic order
or quote would be considered an electronic transaction. In order to
be considered a manual transaction, all manual orders must be
entered into NYSE Arca Options' Electronic Order Capture System.
Manual orders that are entered into an order entry device approved
by NYSE Arca Options and contemporaneously recorded into the
Electronic Order Capture System are also considered manual
transactions.
    \6\ The $0.0027 per share credit for executions of Tape B
securities under the Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier is the same
credit that ETP Holders would receive if they qualified for both the
Tier 1 ($0.0023) and Tape B Step Up Tier ($0.0004) credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend footnote 1 in the Fee
Schedule to eliminate the restriction that credits will not be applied
to open orders (e.g., ``Good Till Cancelled'' or ``GTC'' Orders)
executed after the trading date on which they were entered. The
Exchange is eliminating the restriction to encourage more orders to be
submitted and enhance liquidity on the Exchange.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\8\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the MPL Order Tier is
reasonable because it has generally not incentivized ETP Holders to
submit additional liquidity in MPL orders as intended.\9\ The Exchange
believes that removal of the MPL Order Tier is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be eliminated for all ETP
Holders. The Exchange also believes that eliminating the MPL Order Tier
is reasonable and equitable because ETP Holders can still receive a
$0.0015 credit for MPL orders that provide liquidity under the Tier 1,
Tier 2, and Basic rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to add the new Routable
Order Cross-Asset Tier is reasonable because it would provide firms
with an alternative way in which to qualify for the current Routable
Order Tier credit of $0.0032 for Tape A and Tape C securities and an
alternative way to qualify for the current Tape B Step Up Tier credit
of $0.0027 for Tape B securities through equity and options orders,
thereby encouraging increased trading activity on both the NYSE Arca
equity and option markets. The Exchange believes that the thresholds
that it has set for qualifying for the new tier are reasonable because
they are based in part on the qualifications for the existing Routable
Order Tier. The Exchange believes that lowering the ratio for Routable
Orders from 75% in the current Routable Order Tier to 65% in the
proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier is reasonable because under
the proposed tier, ETP Holders would be required to meet an additional
threshold in options volume in order to qualify for the credit. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset
Tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders
that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP
Firm would continue to have the opportunity to qualify for the same
levels of credit pursuant to either the Routable Order Tier or the Tier
1 and Tape B Step Up Tier. The Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for an ETP
Holder or Market Maker that qualifies for the proposed Routable Order
Cross-Asset Tier to not be eligible for the Tape B Adding Tier, Tape B
Step Up Tier, Tape C Step Up Tier, or Tape C Step Up Tier 2 because the
ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify for these specified tiers
would already receive the benefit of a lower fee or an equal or
incrementally higher credit for such executions that add liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to include Tape B
securities within the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier because
it would encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange in such
securities. The Exchange further believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to apply the same qualifying thresholds to Tape
B securities as would apply to Tape A and Tape C securities, but to
apply a lower credit for Tape B securities (i.e., $0.0027 compared to
$0.0032), because existing pricing on the Exchange for Tape B
Securities is often different from Tape A and Tape C Securities, with
different credits and fees.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the restriction on open
orders in footnote 1 and making credits available to open orders that
execute after the day that they are entered is reasonable because it
may encourage more open orders to be submitted, which may enhance
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change to footnote 1 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all ETP Holders would have the opportunity to earn credits for
open orders that do not execute on the day entered.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. In particular, the removal of the MPL Order
Tier will not impose a burden on competition because the tier will be
removed in its entirety and generally has not encouraged liquidity on
the Exchange, as intended. The proposal to add the new Routable Order
Cross-Asset Tier will not place a burden on competition because ETP
Holders that are not affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm can
still qualify to receive the same proposed credits pursuant to the
other existing tiers discussed above. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change to footnote 1 will not impose a burden on competition
but rather will create an incentive to submit open orders to the
Exchange, thereby promoting competition. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
promotes a competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-146 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-146. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-146 and should
be submitted on or before January 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31605 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39964-39968]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0464] (formerly Docket No. 2005N-0403)

Draft Guidance for Industry on Providing Regulatory Submissions
in Electronic Format--Drug Establishment Registration and Drug Listing;
Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Providing
Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Drug Establishment
Registration and Drug Listing.'' This draft guidance document
establishes a Pilot Program for industry to voluntarily submit drug
establishment registration and drug listing information in an
electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive. The
document provides guidance on what required and FDA-recommended
information related to drug establishment registration and drug listing
to submit and on how to electronically prepare and submit the
information to FDA.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comments on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance,
including comments regarding proposed collection of information, by
September 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Office of Critical Path Programs (HF-18), Office of the
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
the office in processing your requests.

The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the Office
of Critical Path Programs at<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance
document.
    Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Lonnie Smith, Office of Critical Path
Programs (HF-18), Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51276), FDA
issued a proposed rule that would revise part 207 (21 CFR part 207)
(hereinafter referred to as ``the 2006 proposed rule''). This rule,
when finalized, will fully implement electronic drug establishment
registration and drug listing. Subsequent to the publication of the
proposed rule, the U.S. Congress enacted the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Public Law 110-85) .
FDAAA amended section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 360) (at section 510(p)) to explicitly require the
electronic submission by domestic and foreign establishments of
registration and listing information (including the submission of
updated information) required under section 510 of the act, unless the
Secretary of Health and Human Services grants a request for a waiver if
use of electronic means is not reasonable for the person requesting the
waiver. FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion and does not
intend to take action to enforce this electronic submission
requirement, but rather intends to pilot voluntary electronic
submission during a transition period. To assist in complying with this
new statutory provision, and to test FDA systems for processing such
submissions, FDA is announcing a voluntary Pilot Program for
electronically submitting drug establishment registration and drug
listing information and the availability of a draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic
Format--Drug Establishment Registration and Drug Listing.''
    The information collected during drug establishment registration
and drug listing information is fundamental to many processes FDA uses
for protecting the public health, including surveillance for serious
drug adverse reactions, inspection of facilities used for drug
manufacturing and processing, and monitoring drug products imported
into the United States. Comprehensive, complete, up-to-date information
is critical for conducting these activities with efficiency and
effectiveness. Electronic drug establishment registration and drug
listing using computer systems to automate this process will lead to
significant improvements in the timeliness and accuracy of the
information over a paper-based system. This automation can be
accomplished most efficiently and effectively when the information is
provided in a standardized format using defined terminology.
    FDA is adopting the use of extensible markup language (XML) files
in a standard Structured Product Labeling (SPL)\1\ format as the
standard format for the exchange of drug establishment registration and
drug listing information. Information in a properly created SPL file
can be processed in minutes. In addition, the use of SPL files with
defined terminology will facilitate the receipt of more precise and
accurate information than was the case with paper submissions. Timely
and accurate product information will enhance FDA's efforts to help
ensure the integrity of the drug supply and protect the public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SPL standard is a Health Level Seven, Inc., standard for the
exchange of product information using extensible markup language
(XML).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft guidance explains how to transition from submitting the
required information on paper\2\ to submitting the required information
using the SPL standard, an electronic format that FDA can process,
review, and archive. The draft guidance also describes how to
voluntarily submit additional useful, but not required, information
that currently is often included by industry in paper submissions. The
draft guidance, along with accompanying technical documents made
available on FDA's Website\3\, describes how to electronically create
and submit SPL files using a defined terminology for drug establishment
registration and drug listing information (including labeling as
specified under Sec.  207.25) required under section 510 of the act and
part 207.\4\ In addition to comments on the draft guidance, FDA also is
requesting comments on the adequacy and usefulness of the technical
documents that are available on FDA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Drug establishment registration and drug listing information
is currently submitted in paper format using Form FDA 2656
(Registration of Drug Establishment/Labeler Code Assignment), Form
FDA 2657 (Drug Product Listing), and Form FDA 2658 (Registered
Establishments' Report of Private Label Distributors). These forms
are currently available at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/
fdaforms/fdaforms.html.
    \3\ These technical documents are currently available at http://
www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/spl.html.
    \4\ Under section 351(j) of the Public Health Service Act, the
act and regulations issued under the act apply to biological
products. However, this guidance document does not apply to
establishment registration and product listing information required
solely under 21 CFR parts 607, 807, and 1271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With publication of the guidance, FDA is launching a voluntary
Pilot Program that will enable industry to begin submitting drug
establishment registration and drug listing information in electronic
format. FDA plans to complete the voluntary Pilot Program and begin
receiving drug establishment registration and drug listing information
only electronically and in SPL format (including labeling) beginning
June 1, 2009, unless a waiver is granted. Based on comments received on
the draft guidance and information obtained during the voluntary Pilot
Program, FDA intends to issue a final guidance before June 1, 2009.
    FDA is still in the process of considering comments submitted on
the 2006 proposed rule. FDA intends to revise, reissue, or revoke any
final guidance as appropriate, to ensure consistency with the final
rule.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the
electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug
listing. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person
and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach
may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments
are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets

Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (the PRA),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or
sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)
and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that
members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day
notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of
information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To
comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have a practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate,
and other forms of information technology.
    Title: Draft Guidance for Industry on Providing Regulatory
Submissions in Electronic Format--Drug Establishment Registration and
Drug Listing.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information are foreign and domestic owners and operators of
establishments that engage in the manufacture, preparation,
propagation, compounding, or processing (which includes, among other
things, repackaging and relabeling) of a drug or drugs\5\ and that are
not exempt under section 510(g) of the act or subpart B of part 207
(registrants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Means both human, including biological products, and animal
drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reporting Burden

    The draft guidance describes how to electronically create and
submit SPL files using defined terminology for establishment
registration and drug listing information (including labeling). Most
information is already required to be submitted under section 510 of
the act, section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, and part 207.
    Drug establishment registration and drug listing information and
updates to such information, required under part 207, and certain
additional recommended information are currently submitted in paper
form using Form FDA 2656 (Registration of Drug Establishment/Labeler
Code Assignment), Form FDA 2657 (Drug Product Listing), and Form FDA
2658 (Registered Establishments Report of Private Label Distributors)
(collectively referred to as FDA Forms; 72 FR 67733, November 30,
2007).
    In addition to the information collected by the FDA Forms (72 FR
67733, November 30, 2007), the draft guidance addresses electronic
submission of other required information as follows:
     For registered foreign drug establishments, the name,
address, and phone number of its U.S. agent (Sec.  207.40(c));
     The name of each importer that is known to the
establishment (the U.S. company or individual in the United States that
is an owner, consignee, or recipient of the foreign establishment's
drug that is imported into the United States. An importer does not
include the consumer or patient who ultimately purchases, receives, or
is administered the drug, unless the foreign establishment ships the
drug directly to the consumer or the patient) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of
the act); and
     The name of each person who imports or offers for import
(the name of each agent, broker, or other entity, other than a carrier,
that the foreign drug establishment uses to facilitate the import of
their drug into the United States) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the act).
    FDA also is recommending the voluntary submission of the following
additional information, when applicable:
     To facilitate correspondence between foreign
establishments and FDA, the e-mail address for the U.S. agent, and the
telephone number(s) and e-mail address for the importer and person who
imports or offers for import their drug;
     In providing the labeling as specified under Sec.  207.25,
for manufacturers with a Web site for voluntary reporting of adverse
drug reactions, the manufacturer's telephone number and URL address
that appear on the label under 21 CFR 201.57(a)(11);
     A site-specific D-U-N-S[reg] Number\6\ for each entity
(e.g., the registrant, establishments, U.S. agent, importer);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A D&B[reg] D-U-N-S[reg] Number is a unique nine-digit
sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and
keeping track of over 100 million business worldwide. Submitting the
site-specific D-U-N-S[reg] Number for an entity would provide by
reference to the number certain business information for that
entity, e.g., address, parentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The NDC product code for the source drug that is repacked
or relabeled;
     A reference drug if used as a basis for the strength of
the listed drug;
     Distinctive characteristics of certain listed drugs, i.e.,
the flavor, the color, and image of the actual solid dosage form; and
     Registrants may indicate that they view as confidential
the registrant's business relationship with an establishment, or an
inactive ingredient.
    In addition to the collection of information, there is additional
burden for the following activities:
     Preparing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the
electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug
listing information;
     Creating the SPL file, including accessing and reviewing
the technical specifications and instructional documents provided by
FDA (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/spl.html);
     Reviewing and selecting appropriate terms and codes used
to create the SPL file (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/oc/
datacouncil/spl.html);
     Obtaining the digital certificate used with FDA's
electronic submission gateway (ESG) and uploading the SPL file for
submission (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/esg/default.htm); and
     Requests for waivers from the electronic submission
process as described in the draft guidance.

B. Burden Estimates

    Reporting Burden--The estimates for the number of respondents,
annual frequency per response, and total annual responses indicated in
table 1 of this document are based on our current estimates of the
number of registrants and the number of submissions using the FDA Forms
(OMB Control No. 0910-0045). FDA estimates that it would take an
additional 2 hours per response (in addition to the estimated 2.5 hours
per

response for registering, labeler code requests, listing, and providing
updates to the information approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0045)
for the collection of information not currently submitted using the FDA
Forms, and to create and upload the SPL file. FDA anticipates that the
hours per response will decrease over time due to the flexibility of
submitting information for registering multiple establishments or
listing multiple drugs in one SPL file instead of submitting individual
FDA Forms, and increasing familiarity with the use of the standards and
terminology for creating the SPL file.
    In certain cases, if it is unreasonable to expect a person to
submit registration and listing information electronically, FDA may
grant a waiver from the electronic format requirement. Because
registrants will only need a computer and access to the Internet, FDA
envisions few instances in which electronic submission of registration
and listing information will not be reasonable for the person
requesting the waiver and, thus, is estimating that FDA would grant one
waiver annually. We estimate that a one-time burden for requesting a
waiver would be an hour of time for a mid-level manager to draft,
approve, and mail a letter.
    Recordkeeping Burden--In table 2 of this document, FDA estimates
that 3,295 (39 + 3,256) respondents would expend a one-time burden of
approximately 40 hours in preparing, reviewing, and approving an SOP
for creating and uploading the SPL file; and an estimated 1 hour
annually to maintain the SOP as needed.
    FDA estimates the information collection burden, in addition to
that approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0045 as follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
   Activity        Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New                            39                 14.72                574                  2              1,148
 registrations
 , including
 new labeler
 code requests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual updates              3,256                  2.99              9,735                  2             19,470
 of
 registration
 information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New drug                    1,567                  6.57             10,295                  2             20,590
 listings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New listings                  146                 10.06              1,469                  2              2,938
 for private
 label
 distributors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June and                    1,677                 11.21             18,799                  2             37,598
 December
 updates of
 all drug
 listing
 information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver                          1                  1                     1                  1                  1
 requests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                81,745
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                               Table 2.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual
     Activity        Recordkeepers    per Recordkeeping       Records       Hours per  Record     Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time                       3,295                  1              3,295                 40            131,800
 preparation of
 SOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOP maintenance                3,295                  1              3,295                  1              3,295
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                135,095
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

C. Costs Associated with Electronic Submission

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs
associated with the transition from paper to electronic submissions. To
create an SPL file and submit it to FDA, a registrant would need the
following tools: A computer, appropriate software, access to the
Internet, knowledge of terminology and standards, and access to FDA's
Electronic Submission Gateway (ESG).
    Registrants (and most individuals) have computers and Internet
access available for their use. If a business does not have an
available computer or access to the Internet, free use of computers and
Internet are usually available at public facilities, e.g., a community
library; or they may request a waiver from submitting the information
electronically.
    Software is necessary to create a ``document.'' The SPL file or
``document'' may be created internally by a business with experience
with SPL, or a business may use a user-friendly software (XForms)\7\
available at no cost for industry use. In addition to the software, FDA
also provides technical assistance, and other resources, terminology,
and data standards regarding SPL files.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/xforms.html.
    \8\ See http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/spl.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the SPL file is created, the registrant would upload the file
through the ESG. A digital certificate is needed to use the ESG. The
digital certificate binds together the owner's name and a pair of
electronic keys (a public key and a private key) that can be used to
encrypt and sign documents. However, a small fee of up to $20.00 is
charged for the digital certificate and the registrant may need to
renew the

certificate not less than annually. FDA is not calculating this small
fee as cost of doing business because it is less than or equal to the
biannual courier costs the registrant incurs for paper submissions.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, http://www.fda.gov/cber/
guidelines.htm, http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance.html, and
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-15801 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: August 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 49694-49695]
[DOCID:fr22au08-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2004-19621]

Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which provides an assessment of
the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
regulation of residue resulting from the shipping of dry cargo on the
Great Lakes. We request your comments on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before September 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2004-19621 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), please contact Mr. Greg
Kirkbride, U.S Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Dry Cargo Residue
Discharges in the Great Lakes. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2004-19621), and give the reason
for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by
electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your
comments and material by only one means. We recommend that you include
your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number
in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission. If you submit them by mail or
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments and FEIS: To view the comments and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) go to http://www.regulations.gov
at any time. Enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2004-19621)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' If you do not have access to
the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides an
assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed regulation of residue resulting from the shipping of dry cargo
on the Great Lakes. The preferred alternative would amend Coast Guard
regulations in accordance with an existing policy that allows the
discharge of nontoxic and nonhazardous bulk dry cargo residues in
limited areas in the Great Lakes, with new requirements for
recordkeeping and new designated special areas where discharges would
be prohibited. The USCG has the authority to regulate such discharges
on the Great Lakes under Section 623 of Public Law 108-293.

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States
Coast Guard.
 [FR Doc. E8-19525 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


SDMS DocID 155853

COKER'S SANITATION SERVICE LANDFILLS SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE *
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

I .
SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.
Memorandum to Mr. Bob King from Mr. Anthony A.
Fuscaldo, re: Transmittal of the Site Safety Plan,
7/28/80. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>04. The Work Plan instructions
and the Site Safety Plan are attached.
2.
Memorandum to Mr. Bob King from Mr. Anthony A.
Fuscaldo, re: Postponement of the planned site visit,
7/30/80. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>05.
3.
Report: Site Inspection of Coker's Landfill No. 1,
prepared by NUS Corporation, 9/28/84. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>65.
4.
Report: Site Inspection of Coker's Landfill No. 3,
prepared by NUS Corporation, 9/28/84. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>82.
5.
Report: Site Inspection of Coker's Landfill No. 2
prepared by NUS Corporation, 10/1/84<PHONE_NUMBER>68.
6.
Report: Site Inspection/Sampling of Coker's Landfill
#1, Cheswold, Delaware, prepared by Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (undated). P.<PHONE_NUMBER>06.
*
Administrative Record File available 1/3/90, updated
8/21/90, 12/6/90, and 6/23/04.
Note: Company or organizational affiliation is identified in
the index only when it appears in the file.

II.
REMEDIAL ENFORCEMENT PLANNING
1.
Administrative Order on Consent in the Matter of:
Coker's Sanitation Site, Cheswold, DE, Nabisco Brands,
Inc., East Hanover, New Jersey, Reichhold Chemicals,
Inc., White Plains, New York, and Rapid American
Corporation, New York, New York, 12/29/87. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>21.

Ill. REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING

1.
Pages blank due to duplication. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>21.
2.
Report: Coker's Landfills. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Work Plan, prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., 9/87.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>10.
3.
Memorandum to Mr. Mike Bass from Mr. Daniel K.
Donnelly, U.S. EPA, re: Cyanide Report for Coker's
Sanitation, 4/15/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>14. A memorandum
detailing water sample results is attached.
4.
Memorandum to Mr. Mike Bass from Mr. Daniel K.
Donnelly, U.S. EPA, re: Analytical Reports for Coker's
Sanitation, 6/27/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>18. Two memoranda
detailing the analyses are attached.
5.
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist, prepared by NUS
Corporation, 6/29/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>68.
6.
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist, prepared by NUS
Corporation, 7/8/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>88.
7.
Memorandum to Ms. Carla Dempsey from Ms. Patricia J.
Krantz, U.S. EPA, re: Region III CLP Data QA Review
for Coker's Sanitation, 8/9/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>09. A
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist is attached.
8.
Memorandum to Ms. Carla Dempsey from Ms. Patricia J.
Krantz, U.S. EPA, re: Region III CLP Data QA Review
for Coker's Sanitation, 8/9/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>68. A
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist is attached.
9.
Memorandum to Ms. Carla Dempsey from Ms. Patricia J.
Krantz, U.S. EPA, re: Region III CLP Data QA Review
for Coker's Sanitation, 8/9/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>41. A
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist is attached.
10.
Memorandum to Ms. Carla Dempsey from Ms. Patricia J.
Krantz, U.S. EPA, re: Region III CLP Data QA Review
for Coker's Sanitation, 8/19/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>73. A
Data Validation Evaluation Checklist is attached.
11.
Report: Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills,
Cheswold, Delaware, prepared by U.S. Public Health
Service, 11/14/88. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>77.

12.
Report: The Coker Sanitation Services Site. Final
Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I. prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., 11/3/89. P.
300678-300945.
13.
Report: The Coker Sanitation Services Site. Final
Remedial Investigation Report. Volume II - Appendices.
prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
11/3/89. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>99.
14.
Report: The Coker Sanitation Services Site, Final
Remedial Investigation Report, Volume III Endangerment
Assessment, prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., 11/3/89. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>87
15.
Letter to Mr. Joseph Hardman, DNREC, from Ms. Lesley
Brunker, U.S. EPA, re: Request for list of state
regulations, 12/14/89. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>88.
16.
Transmittal sheet for telefax to Ms. Lesley Brunker
from Mr. Tom Andersen, State of Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, re:
ARAR's, 12/29/89. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>91. A list of
potential ARAR's for the State of Delaware is attached,
17.
Memorandum to Coker's Sanitation Services Site File
from Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, re: Evaluation of
additional exposure scenarios for Coker's Sanitation
Site, 7/27/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>92.
18.
Memorandum to Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, from Dr.
Roy L. Smith, U.S. EPA, re: Risk estimates assuming
residential future use scenario at Coker's Site,
8/1/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>05.
19.
Report: Final Feasibility Study Report, prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., 7/90.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>76.
20.
Letter to Ms. Jane Briggs, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental Control, from Ms.
Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, re: Transmittal of the
Proposed Plan for Coker's Sanitation Service Site,
8/6/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>77.
21.
Letter to Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Jane
Biggs, Delaware Department of Natural Resources, re:
Summary of comments on the draft Proposed Plan, 8/9/90.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>80.

22.
Letter to Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Jane
Biggs, Delaware Department of Natural Resources, re:
Evaluation of the draft Final Feasibility Study,
8/16/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>83. A memorandum on the review
of the Feasibility Study is attached.
23.
Memorandum to File, from Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA,
re: Comments on the review of the Feasibility Study
and Proposed Plan, 8/16/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>84.
24.
Memorandum to File, from Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA,
re: Resolution reached on all issues, 8/17/90. P.
301985-301985.
25.
Letter to Ms. Lesley Brunker, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Jane
Biggs, Delaware Department of Natural Resources, re:
Comments on the Final Feasibility Study, 8/17/90. P.
301986-301990. A water table map and a cross section
map are attached.
26.
U.S. EPA, Proposed Plan for Coker's Sanitation,
(undated). P.<PHONE_NUMBER>04.
27.
Record of Decision, Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills, 9/28/90. P.<PHONE_NUMBER>82.
28.
Five-Year Review Report, Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfill Site, Kent County, Delaware, 5/25/04.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>03.

V.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE/IMAGERY
1.
Press Release from EPA Environmental News entitled,
"EPA Issues Consent Order to Three Respondents for Work
at the Cokers [sic] Landfill Superfund Site," 1/5/88.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>01.
2.
Report: Community Relations Plan. Coker's Sanitation
Site. Cheswold. Kent County. Delaware, prepared by
Ebasco Services, Inc., 3/8/88.
P.<PHONE_NUMBER>19.


[Federal Register: August 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 39315]
[DOCID:fr06au09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1488-000]

Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

July 30, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Black Bear Hydro Partners application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 19, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18794 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P