[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 67121-67124]
[DOCID:fr20no06-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341; FRL-8057-1]

Implementation of the Pilot Voluntary Children's Chemical
Evaluation Program; Request for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comment on the implementation of the pilot
phase of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP).
VCCEP was designed to collect health effects, exposure, and risk
information on chemicals to which children are likely to be exposed,
and to make that information available to the public so the public may
better understand the potential health risks to children associated
with certain chemical exposures. EPA announced the program in December
2000 and the pilot began in 2001 when companies volunteered to sponsor
their chemicals under VCCEP. At what is approximately the midpoint in
the implementation of the pilot phase of VCCEP, EPA is preparing to
evaluate how well it is meeting its objectives for VCCEP. To this end,
EPA is seeking comments from participants and observers about the
operations and experience under the VCCEP pilot to this point. If
requested, EPA will hold a public meeting to take comment on the
implementation of the pilot phase of VCCEP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2007.
    Requests for a public meeting must be received on or before
December 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  To submit comments: Submit your comments, identified by
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341, by one of the
following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2006-0341. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC). The EPA/DC suffered structural
damage due to flooding in June 2006. Although the EPA/DC is continuing
operations, there will be temporary changes to the EPA/DC during the
clean-up. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room, which was temporarily closed
due to flooding, has been relocated in the EPA Headquarters Library,
Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334) in EPA West, located at 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. EPA visitors are required to show photographic
identification and sign the EPA visitor log. Visitors to the EPA/DC
Public Reading Room will be provided with an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times while in the EPA Building and returned to the
guard upon departure. In addition, security personnel will escort
visitors to and from the new EPA/DC Public Reading Room location. Up-
to-date information about the EPA/DC is on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    To request a public meeting: Submit your request, identified by
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341, to Catherine Roman by one of
the following methods:
     E-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: Catherine
Roman.
     Hand Delivery: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, EPA East, ATTN: Catherine Roman. Ask the reception desk to call
(202) 564-4780. Such deliveries should be made during normal working
hours, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Catherine Roman, Chemical
Control Division (7405M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of particular interest to those chemical manufacturers
(including importers) who produce or import chemical substances that
are subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), individuals or
groups concerned with chemical testing and children's health, and
animal welfare groups. Because other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at the estimate.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggested alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is requesting comment from stakeholders, interested parties,
and the general public on the implementation of the VCCEP pilot and is
also evaluating the progress of the VCCEP pilot toward meeting its
objectives. VCCEP was designed to collect health effects, exposure, and
risk information on chemicals to which children are likely to be
exposed, and to make that information available to the public so the
public may better understand the potential health risks to children
associated with certain chemical exposures, and to allow EPA and others
to evaluate the risks of these chemicals so that mitigation measures
may be taken as appropriate.
    EPA announced VCCEP in a December 26, 2000 Federal Register notice
(Ref. 1) and requested chemical manufacturers and importers to
participate in a VCCEP pilot by voluntarily committing to sponsor an
information collection on 23 chemicals. The VCCEP pilot is intended to
allow EPA to gain insight as to how best to design and implement VCCEP
in order to effectively provide the Agency and the public with the
means to understand the potential health risks to children associated
with exposure to chemicals to which children may be exposed. EPA
intends the VCCEP pilot to be the means of identifying efficiencies
which can be applied to the subsequent implementation of VCCEP.
    Several factors were considered in selecting the 23 chemicals for
the VCCEP pilot; they included substantial production/importation (one
million lbs. or more per year), presence in the environment, and
biomonitoring evidence of presence in humans. A detailed description of
the selection process used by EPA is in the document entitled
Methodology for Selecting Chemicals for the Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) Pilot (Ref. 2).
    The requested commitment for the VCCEP pilot was for Tier 1
information, with the potential for EPA to request participants to make
additional commitments to Tier 2 and Tier 3 information based on an
evaluation of the Tier 1 submission. As part of their Tier 1
commitments, sponsors were asked to include an expected submission date
that, as described in the December 2000 notice, is based on the amount
of time EPA considered necessary to gather the information (or perform
testing, if necessary) and prepare the assessments. Other guidance on
timeliness provided in the December 2000 notice included the following:
     Within 6 months from the publication of the December 2000
notice was the recommended deadline to commit to Tier 1.
     Within 4 months after announcing EPA's Data Needs Decision
was the recommended deadline to commit to upper tiers.
     Within 1 month after receiving a chemical assessment was
EPA's goal to make it publicly available on the VCCEP website.
    During 2001, 35 companies and 10 consortia voluntarily committed to
sponsor 20 of the 23 chemicals in the VCCEP pilot. Three of the twenty-
three chemicals were not sponsored and remain unsponsored. Also in
2001, EPA arranged for a third party, Toxicology for Excellence in Risk
Assessment (TERA), to organize and facilitate public Peer Consultation
meetings to evaluate the chemical assessments to be submitted by the
chemical sponsors. At a Peer Consultation meeting, a panel of
scientific experts with extensive and broad experience in toxicity
testing, exposure evaluation, or the specific chemical discuss the
chemical assessment and offer their opinions on its adequacy and
possible additional data needs. This discussion is held at a public
meeting where interested parties may also present comments. TERA
prepares a report summarizing the opinions expressed at the public
meeting and submits this report to EPA. EPA considers this report when
it reviews the chemical assessment prior to forming its decision
regarding additional data needs of the chemical.
    In terms of progress, by the end of August 2006, the VCCEP pilot
sponsors had submitted Tier 1 chemical assessments for 12 of the 20
chemicals; all 12 chemical assessments had been evaluated in public
Peer Consultation meetings; summary reports of the Peer Consultation
meetings for the 12

chemical assessments were made available; and EPA had reviewed the Peer
Consultation reports and issued Data Needs Decisions for 6 of the 12
chemicals. EPA is in the process of developing Data Needs Decisions for
the remaining 6 chemicals.
     In its six Data Needs Decisions, EPA decided that additional data
were needed for three chemicals. A consortium of three companies
organized by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has agreed to proceed
to Tier 2 of the VCCEP pilot and sponsor the additional information
collection for one of the chemicals. The Tier 1 sponsor of the other
two chemicals with additional data needs informed the Agency that it
will not commit to participate in Tier 2 for those chemicals. For the
other three chemicals for which Data Needs Decisions have been issued,
EPA concluded that the Tier 1 assessments provide sufficient
information to adequately characterize the risk to children of exposure
to those chemicals, and EPA considers the evaluation of these three
chemicals to be completed for purposes of the VCCEP pilot. To summarize
the activity and progress of the VCCEP pilot through August 2006, the
table in this unit indicates how many chemicals have completed
successive stages in the VCCEP pilot:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of chemicals which
       Stages in the VCCEP  Process           have completed each stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor commitment to provide Tier 1        20
 information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 chemical assessment submitted        12 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 chemical assessment has gone         12
 through Peer Consultation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer Consultation report available          12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA issued a Data Needs Decision            6
(3 chemicals had Tier 2 data needs, 3
 chemicals did not have Tier 2 data
 needs.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received a sponsor commitment to provide    1
 Tier 2 information
OR                                          ............................
Agency informed it will not receive         2
 sponsor commitment to provide Tier 2
 information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As noted on the VCCEP website, the submission of chemical assessments
  for four chemicals (ethylbenzene, ethylene dichloride,
  perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene) has been delayed due to
  other commitments to develop the data as part of another effort or
  program.

    The most recent information on the progress of specific chemicals
in the VCCEP pilot is presented on the VCCEP website (http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep
). Since the Fall of 2001, EPA has kept the

public informed of activities in the VCCEP pilot through the VCCEP
website. The website describes VCCEP and how it was developed. It also
lists the chemicals and their sponsors, the date of sponsor commitments
to each tier, the submission dates of chemical assessments, the dates
of upcoming public Peer Consultation meetings, and the completion dates
of Peer Consultation reports and EPA's Data Needs Decisions. Most
importantly, the website makes the cited information available to the
public by providing links to the chemical assessments, the Peer
Consultation reports, and EPA's Data Needs Decisions.
    In terms of timeliness for EPA, TERA, and the sponsors meeting the
scheduled goals for the VCCEP pilot, the following observations are
made:
     All sponsors committed to Tier 1 by the 6-month deadline.
     As part of their Tier 1 commitments, the sponsors for 5 of
the 12 chemicals for which EPA has received a chemical assessment as of
August 2006, provided a projected submission date for their Tier 1
chemical assessment. The chemical assessment for only one of the five
chemicals (decabromodiphenyl ether) was received by EPA by the
projected submission date.
     Some of the projected submission dates originally provided
by the sponsors were subsequently revised at the request of the
sponsor, or due to TERA scheduling of Peer Consultation meetings.
     EPA made all the chemical assessments available on the
VCCEP website within 1 month of receipt.
     Although a recommended deadline for scheduling the Peer
Consultation meetings was not specified in the December 2000 notice,
the meetings for the 12 chemicals for which EPA has received a chemical
assessment as of August 2006 were held within an average of 2.4 months
of receiving the chemical assessment.
     Although a recommended deadline for TERA to issue its
report summarizing a Peer Consultation meeting was not specified in the
December 2000 notice, TERA issued its reports for the 12 chemicals for
which EPA has received a chemical assessment as of August 2006, within
an average of 4.1 months after each meeting.
     The notice announcing VCCEP (Ref. 1, p. 81714) stated that EPA
expected to evaluate the VCCEP pilot at 3 and 6 years after its
initiation. EPA chose not to conduct an evaluation at 3 years because a
sufficient number of chemicals had not gone through the public Peer
Consultation process and, as a consequence of this, there was
insufficient information to prepare a useful evaluation. Consequently,
EPA decided to conduct a single evaluation at a point 5 years,
approximately midway, into the program (i.e., 2006).

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Congress gave EPA the authority to implement TSCA for the purpose
of protecting human health and the environment, in part, by requiring
testing and, if necessary, by restricting the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of certain chemical
substances. VCCEP is a voluntary program which focuses on collecting
information and developing data necessary to protect children from
risks associated with chemical substances to which they are likely to
be exposed. This notice seeks public involvement in a midpoint
evaluation of how the VCCEP pilot is meeting its objectives and the
overall objectives of VCCEP.

III. Request for Comment

    EPA is requesting comment from stakeholders, interested parties,
and the general public on the implementation of the VCCEP pilot, what
modifications might be made to make the VCCEP pilot run more
efficiently, and how well the VCCEP pilot is meeting the objectives of
VCCEP. The main objectives of VCCEP are:
     To collect exposure, hazard, and risk information on
chemicals to which children are likely to be exposed.
     To make the information available to the public so the
public may better understand the potential health risks to children
associated with certain chemical exposures.
    The Agency is particularly interested in receiving your feedback
with regard

to the list of questions in this Unit III. Commenters should not feel
that they must confine their comments to the following specific
questions, nor should they feel they must respond to any or all of the
questions. Commenters, however, should attempt to provide comments on
the aspects of the VCCEP pilot with which they have had experience and/
or have formed a definite opinion. To be most helpful in the Agency's
evaluation, please provide enough detail to explain or illustrate
conclusions that you have reached based on your experiences.
     Have the hazard, exposure, and risk assessments submitted
by the sponsors provided sufficient information to enable the Peer
Consultation panel to adequately evaluate these aspects as they relate
to children from the chemicals in question? Have the Data Needs
Assessments prepared by the sponsors been fair and unbiased?
     Has the Peer Consultation process been open, transparent,
timely, and useful as a forum for scientists and experts from various
stakeholder groups to exchange views on sponsors' assessments and
recommended data needs? How might it be improved?
     Has the Peer Consultation process been efficient? If not,
what improvements could be made?
     Has the Peer Consultation panel adequately considered both
toxicology and exposure information in developing its results?
     Does the Peer Consultation process provide a
scientifically rigorous and effective means for eliciting comments and
opinions from the assembled experts on the Peer Consultation panel and
those attending the public meeting, and for assisting EPA in developing
decisions?
     Have the communications related to the Peer Consultation
process, activities and outcomes been effective and have they
facilitated public understanding and use of the information generated
from this process?
     Should the time allowed for sponsor commitment remain the
same, i.e., 6 months to commit to Tier 1, and 4 months to commit to
subsequent Tiers? (The commitment period is the time for the sponsor to
decide whether to participate in VCCEP, form a consortium, and notify
the Agency.)
     How can the timeliness of activities under the VCCEP pilot
be improved? Should specific due dates be established for each step in
the process? If so, how should a missed due date be addressed?
     Should the sponsor be requested to commit to more than one
tier at a time? Is it better to run the VCCEP pilot with commitments at
each tier, i.e., three commitments, or to run the VCCEP pilot with two
commitments, i.e., to Tier 1 and to Tiers 2/3?
     Are there any ways in which EPA's contributions to the
VCCEP pilot's evaluation and data needs decision process could be
improved or made more effective?
     Has the VCCEP pilot made significant progress with respect
to its objectives?
     The VCCEP pilot was designed to ensure that health
effects, exposure, and risk information are made available to the
public to enable a better understanding of the potential health risks
to children associated with certain chemical exposures. Does the VCCEP
website provide easy access to and adequate explanation of the
information generated by the VCCEP pilot?
    Commenters should follow the guidance provided in Unit I.B. and
under ADDRESSES when preparing and submitting their comments.

IV. Comments Document

    EPA will prepare a Comments Document summarizing the comments
received in response to this notice and at a public meeting, if held.
The Comments Document will identify any common themes and will assist
EPA in determining what modifications might be made to make the program
run more efficiently and/or better meet the objectives of VCCEP.
Significant program modifications which the Agency is considering as a
result of this evaluation will be discussed with stakeholders before
implementing.
    At this time, once the Comments Document is complete, EPA expects
to make the Comments Document available to the public on the VCCEP
website. The Comments Document will not be published in the Federal
Register, nor will a notice of availability be published in the Federal
Register announcing its appearance on the VCCEP website. However, if
you provide your e-mail address, EPA will notify you by e-mail when the
Comments Document is available on the VCCEP website at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep
.

V. Public Meeting

    If there are requests to do so, EPA will hold a public meeting to
discuss and take comment on the implementation of the VCCEP pilot. To
request a public meeting, follow the directions under ADDRESSES.

VI. Materials in the Docket

    An official docket was established for this VCCEP pilot evaluation
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341. The docket includes
information considered by EPA in developing this notice such as the
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments
received, and other information related to this action. In addition,
interested parties should consult documents that are referenced in the
documents that EPA has placed in the public docket, regardless of
whether these referenced documents are physically located in the public
docket. For assistance in locating documents that are referenced in
documents that EPA has placed in the public docket, but that are not
physically located in the docket, please consult the technical contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The public docket is
available for review as specified under ADDRESSES.
    1. EPA. Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program. Federal
Register (65 FR 81700, December 26, 2000) (FRL-6758-5). Available on-
line at: http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/pubs/ts00274d.pdf.

    2. EPA. Methodology for Selecting Chemicals for the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) Pilot. December 5, 2000.
Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/vccepmth.htm.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Child health.

    Dated: November 9, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E6-19574 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40348-40349]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-15-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-546); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-546, Certificated
Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due September 7,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12-15-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-546, Certificated Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0155.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-546 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission reviews the FERC-546 materials to decide
whether to determine an initial rate associated with an application for
a certificate under NGA Section 7(c). It reviews FERC-546 materials in
4(f) storage applications to evaluate market power and decide whether
to grant, deny, or condition market based rate authority for the
applicant. The Commission uses the FERC-546 information to monitor
jurisdictional transportation, natural gas storage, and unbundled sales
activities of interstate natural gas pipelines and Hinshaw \1\
pipelines. In addition to fulfilling the Commission's obligations under
the NGA, the FERC-546 enables the Commission to monitor the activities
and evaluate transactions of the natural gas industry, ensure
competitiveness, and improved efficiency of the industry's operations.
In summary, the Commission uses the FERC-546 information to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hinshaw pipelines are those that receive all out-of-state
gas from entities within or at the boundary of a state if all the
natural gas so received is ultimately consumed within the state in
which it is received, 15 U.S.C. 717(c). Congress concluded that
Hinshaw pipelines are ``matters primarily of local concern,'' and so
are more appropriately regulated by pertinent state agencies rather
than by FERC. The Natural Gas Act section 1(c) exempts Hinshaw
pipelines from FERC jurisdiction. A Hinshaw pipeline, however, may
apply for a FERC certificate to transport gas outside of state
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ensure adequate customer protections under section 4(f) of
the NGA;
     Review rate and tariff changes by natural gas companies
for the transportation of gas, natural gas storage services;
     Provide general industry oversight;
     And supplement documentation during its audits process.
    Failure to collect this information would prevent the Commission
from being able to monitor and evaluate transactions and operations of
interstate pipelines and perform its regulatory functions.
    Type of Respondents: Pipeline companies and storage operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\: The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                                           FERC-546: Certificated Rate Filings
                                                                  [Gas Pipeline Rates]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                        Average burden
                                                                    Number of       responses per    Total number of      hours per      Estimated total
                                                                   respondents       respondent         responses         response        annual burden
                                                                             (A)               (B)   (A) x (B) = (C)               (D)         (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline companies............................................                11                 1                11                40               440
Storage operators.............................................                 2                 1                 2               350               700
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                13                 2                13               N/A             1,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $78,669.97
[1,140 hours / 2,080 \3\ hours/year = 0.54807 * $143,540/year \4\ =
$78,669.97].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 2080 hours = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks (1 year).
    \4\ Average annual salary per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-546 per response is
$6,051.54 [$78,669.97 / 13 responses = $6,051.54/response].
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16631 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18753]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-31-000]

City of Springfield, Illinois, City Water, Light and Power;
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 24, 2011, The City of Springfield,
Illinois, City Water, Light and Power (CWLP), filed its proposed rate
schedule, which specified CWLP's cost-based revenue requirements for
Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service
supplied by five CWLP generating units, pursuant to the Open Access
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff of the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc, along with supporting testimony and
data.
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 April 14, 2011.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8028 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DRAFT NRG Oswego Harbor Power Bi-Weekly Impingement at Maximum Plant
Design Flow

Please Note: this is Unit-5 data Table and I assume columns of interest
to EPA relative to Raw IM data = :

 “Date”,  Collection Period” (maybe?), “Common Name”, and
“Total [i,e,, RAW] Number Collected”

Date	Collection Period	Time Start	Time End	Species Code	Common Name
Total Number Collected	Number Collected per 100m3 flow	Adjusted 	Total
by Collection Period

4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1	8

4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	614	Tessellated Darter 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	1	9:00	15:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	2	0.0004	2

	4/8/2006	2	15:00	21:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1	2

4/8/2006	2	15:00	21:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	3	21:00	3:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	3	0.0007	3	7

4/8/2006	3	21:00	3:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	2	0.0004	2

	4/8/2006	3	21:00	3:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2006	3	21:00	3:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1

	4/9/2006	4	3:00	9:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	2	0.0004	2	3

4/9/2006	4	3:00	9:00	609	Fantail Darter 	1	0.0002	1

	4/22/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

4/22/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

4/22/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

4/23/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

5/6/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

5/6/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

5/6/2006	3	22:00	4:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1	1

5/7/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

5/20/2006	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1	1

5/20/2006	2	16:00	22:00	617	Yellow Perch 	2	0.0004	2	4

5/20/2006	2	16:00	22:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1

	5/20/2006	2	16:00	22:00	596	Pumpkinseed 	1	0.0002	1

	5/20/2006	3	22:00	4:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	3

5/20/2006	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	5/21/2006	4	4:00	10:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

6/3/2006	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1	1

6/3/2006	2	16:00	22:25	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	1

6/3/2006	3	22:25	4:05	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

6/4/2006	4	4:05	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

6/19/2006	1	10:00	16:00	289	Alewife 	2	0.0004	2	2

6/19/2006	2	16:00	22:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	3

6/19/2006	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	6/19/2006	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	6/19/2006	3	22:00	4:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1	6

6/19/2006	3	22:00	4:00	289	Alewife 	5	0.0011	5

	6/20/2006	4	4:00	10:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

6/20/2006	4	4:00	10:00	289	Alewife 	1	0.0002	1

	7/1/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/1/2006	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1	1

7/1/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/1/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

Date	Collection Period	Time Start	Time End	Species Code	Common Name
Total Number Collected	Number Collected per 100m3 flow	Adjusted 	Total
by Collection Period

7/15/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/15/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/15/2006	3	22:00	4:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	2	0.0004	2	2

7/16/2006	4	4:00	10:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

7/16/2006	4	4:00	10:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	7/29/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/29/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

7/29/2006	3	22:00	4:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

7/29/2006	3	22:00	4:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1

	7/30/2006	4	4:00	10:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	1

8/12/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

8/12/2006	2	16:00	22:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1	2

8/12/2006	2	16:00	22:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1

	8/12/2006	3	22:00	4:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	1

8/13/2006	4	4:00	10:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	1

8/26/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

8/26/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

8/27/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

8/27/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/9/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	1

9/9/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/9/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/10/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/23/2006	1	10:00	16:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1	1

9/23/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/23/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

9/24/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

10/7/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	1

10/7/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

10/8/2006	3	22:00	4:00	289	Alewife 	1	0.0002	1	1

10/8/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

10/21/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

10/21/2006	1	10:00	16:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1

	10/21/2006	2	16:00	11:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

11/4/2006	1	11:00	17:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1	6

11/4/2006	1	11:00	17:00	575	White Perch 	2	0.0004	2

	11/4/2006	1	11:00	17:00	598	Bluegill 	2	0.0004	2

	11/4/2006	1	11:00	17:00	294	Gizzard Shad 	1	0.0002	1

	11/4/2006	2	17:00	23:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	4

11/4/2006	2	17:00	23:00	294	Gizzard Shad 	2	0.0004	2

	11/4/2006	2	17:00	23:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	11/5/2006	3	23:00	5:00	294	Gizzard Shad 	1	0.0002	1	1

11/5/2006	4	5:00	11:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

Date	Collection Period	Time Start	Time End	Species Code	Common Name
Total Number Collected	Number Collected per 100m3 flow	Adjusted 	Total
by Collection Period

11/18/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

11/18/2006	1	10:00	16:00	289	Alewife 	1	0.0002	1

	11/18/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

11/19/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

11/19/2006	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

12/2/2006	1	10:00	16:00	617	Yellow Perch 	7	0.0031	7	12

12/2/2006	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0004	1

	12/2/2006	1	10:00	16:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	2	0.0009	2

	12/2/2006	1	10:00	16:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1

	12/2/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1

	12/2/2006	2	16:00	22:00	617	Yellow Perch 	3	0.0007	3	9

12/2/2006	2	16:00	22:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	4	0.0009	4

	12/2/2006	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	12/2/2006	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	4	0.0009	4	14

12/2/2006	3	22:00	4:00	575	White Perch 	3	0.0007	3

	12/2/2006	3	22:00	4:00	617	Yellow Perch 	7	0.0016	7

	12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1	17

12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	575	White Perch 	3	0.0007	3

	12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	446	Stonecat	1	0.0002	1

	12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	960	Goby 	6	0.0013	6

	12/3/2006	4	4:00	10:00	617	Yellow Perch 	5	0.0011	5

	12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	5	0.0022	5	32

12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	617	Yellow Perch 	3	0.0013	3

	12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0004	1

	12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0004	1

	12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	7	0.0031	7

	12/16/2006	1	10:00	16:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	15	0.0067	15

	12/16/2006	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	2	0.0004	2	3

12/16/2006	2	16:00	22:00	289	Alewife 	1	0.0002	1

	12/17/2006	4	4:00	10:00	294	Gizzard Shad 	2	0.0004	2	5

12/17/2006	4	4:00	10:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	2	0.0004	2

	12/17/2006	4	4:00	10:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	12/30/2006	1	10:00	16:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

12/30/2006	2	16:00	22:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

12/31/2006	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

12/31/2006	4	4:00	10:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/13/2007	1	10:00	16:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/13/2007	2	16:00	22:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/14/2007	3	22:00	4:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/14/2007	4	4:00	10:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/27/2007	1	10:00	16:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

1/27/2007	2	16:00	22:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	2

1/27/2007	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	1/27/2007	3	22:00	4:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1	2

1/27/2007	3	22:00	4:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1

	1/28/2007	4	4:00	10:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1	1

Date	Collection Period	Time Start	Time End	Species Code	Common Name
Total Number Collected	Number Collected per 100m3 flow	Adjusted 	Total
by Collection Period

2/9/2007	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	5	0.0011	5	13

2/9/2007	1	10:00	16:00	591	Rock Bass 	2	0.0004	2

	2/9/2007	1	10:00	16:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	2/9/2007	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	5	0.0011	5

	2/9/2007	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	4	0.0009	4	6

2/9/2007	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	2/10/2007	3	22:00	4:00	591	Rock Bass 	2	0.0004	2	18

2/10/2007	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	2/10/2007	3	22:00	4:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	9	0.0020	9

	2/10/2007	3	22:00	4:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	5	0.0011	5

	2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	4	0.0009	4	10

2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1

	2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1

	2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	575	White Perch 	1	0.0002	1

	2/10/2007	4	4:00	10:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	2	0.0004	2

	2/24/2007	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	2	0.0004	2	5

2/24/2007	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	3	0.0007	3

	2/24/2007	2	16:00	22:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	1	0.0002	1	5

2/24/2007	2	16:00	22:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	2/24/2007	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	2/24/2007	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	2/25/2007	3	22:00	4:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

2/25/2007	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	23	0.0052	23	39

3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	9	0.0020	9

	3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	591	Rock Bass 	1	0.0002	1

	3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	390	Spottail Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	461	Trout Perch 	1	0.0002	1

	3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1

	3/6/2007	1	10:00	16:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	3	0.0007	3

	3/6/2007	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	5	0.0011	5	12

3/6/2007	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	7	0.0016	7

	3/7/2007	3	22:00	4:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	1	0.0002	1	6

3/7/2007	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	4	0.0009	4	4

3/7/2007	3	22:00	4:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	1	0.0002	1	1

3/7/2007	4	4:00	10:00	960	Goby 	4	0.0009	4	7

3/7/2007	4	4:00	10:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1

	3/7/2007	4	4:00	10:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	2	0.0004	2

	3/24/2007	1	10:00	16:00	600	Smallmouth Bass 	2	0.0004	2	4

3/24/2007	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	2	0.0004	2

	3/24/2007	2	16:00	22:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1	1

3/25/2007	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1	1

3/25/2007	4	4:00	10:00	NA	NA	0	0.0000	0	0

Date	Collection Period	Time Start	Time End	Species Code	Common Name
Total Number Collected	Number Collected per 100m3 flow	Adjusted 	Total
by Collection Period

4/7/2007	1	10:00	16:00	960	Goby 	5	0.0011	5	14

4/7/2007	1	10:00	16:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	7	0.0016	7

	4/7/2007	1	10:00	16:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1

	4/7/2007	1	10:00	16:00	865	Mottled Sculpin 	1	0.0002	1

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	617	Yellow Perch 	1	0.0002	1	25

4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	960	Goby 	5	0.0011	5

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	2	0.0004	2

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	7	0.0016	7

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	394	Spotfin Shiner 	1	0.0002	1

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	531	Banded Killifish 	1	0.0002	1

	4/7/2007	2	16:00	22:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	8	0.0018	8

	4/8/2007	3	22:00	4:00	340	Central Mudminnow 	1	0.0002	1	19

4/8/2007	3	22:00	4:00	960	Goby 	6	0.0013	6

	4/8/2007	3	22:00	4:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	7	0.0016	7

	4/8/2007	3	22:00	4:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	2	0.0004	2

	4/8/2007	3	22:00	4:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	3	0.0007	3

	4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	562	Threespine Stickleback 	7	0.0016	7	23

4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	617	Yellow Perch 	4	0.0009	4

	4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	289	Alewife 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	335	Rainbow Smelt	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	960	Goby 	1	0.0002	1

	4/8/2007	4	4:00	10:00	381	Emerald Shiner 	9	0.0020	9

Appendix D


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4431-4435]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61388; File No. SR-BX-2010-001]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Registered Representative Fee and Options Regulatory Fee

January 20, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') proposes to amend the Fee
Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to
institute a new transaction-based ``Options Regulatory Fee'' and
eliminate registered representative fees. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Exchange's Internet Web site
at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/, and on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change is based on a filing previously submitted
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') that was effective
upon filing.\5\ The Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Fee Schedule to
institute a new transaction-based ``Options Regulatory Fee'' and
eliminate registered representative fees. Each Options Participant that
registers an options principal and/or representative who is conducting
business on BOX is assessed a registered representative fee (``RR
Fee'') based on the action associated with the registration. There are
annual fees as well as initial, transfer and termination fees. RR Fees
as well as other regulatory fees collected by the Exchange were
intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs.\6\ Prior to recent rule changes by other options
exchanges, such as CBOE, NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') and the
International Securities Exchange (``ISE''), all options exchanges,
regardless of size, charged registered representative fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58817 (October 20,
2008), 73 FR 63744 (October 27, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-105) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Registered Representative Fee and an Options Regulatory Fee).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57152 (January 15,
2008), 73 FR 3767 (January 22, 2008) (SR-BSE-2007-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current RR Fee is not equitable. The
options industry has evolved to a structure with many more Internet-
based and discount brokerage firms. These firms have few registered
representatives and thus pay very little in RR Fees compared to full
service brokerage firms that have many registered representatives.
Further, due to the manner in which RR Fees are charged, it is possible
for a BOX Options Participant to restructure its business to avoid
paying these fees altogether. A firm can avoid RR Fees by terminating
its Options Participant status and sending its business to BOX through
another separate BOX Options Participant, even an affiliated firm that
has many fewer registered representatives. If firms terminated their
Options Participant status to avoid RR Fees, the Exchange would suffer
the loss of a source of funding for its regulatory programs. More
importantly, the regulatory effort the Exchange expends to review the
transactions of each type of firm is not commensurate with the number
of registered representatives that each firm employs.
    In order to address the inequity of the current regulatory fee
structure and to offset more fully the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs pertaining to BOX, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the current RR Fee for BOX Options Participants and adopt an
Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') of $0.0030 per contract, with a
minimum one-cent charge per trade.\7\ This fee would be assessed by the
Exchange to each BOX Options Participant for all options transactions
executed or cleared by the Options Participant that are cleared by The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e.,
transactions that clear in the customer account of the Options
Participant's clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the marketplace of
execution. In other words, the Exchange would impose the ORF on all
options transactions executed by a BOX Options Participant, even if the
transactions do not take place on BOX.\8\ The ORF would also be charged
for transactions that are not executed by a BOX Options Participant but
are ultimately cleared by a BOX Options Participant. In the case where
a BOX Options Participant executes a transaction and a BOX Options
Participant clears the transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the
BOX Options Participant who executed the transaction. In the case where
a non-BOX Options Participant executes a transaction and a BOX Options
Participant clears the transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the
BOX Options Participant who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A fee similar to the RR fee may still apply to those BOX
Options Participants that also conduct business on the NASDAQ OMX BX
equities trading platform. Any such fees may be found at http://
www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing. NASDAQ OMX BX will
not charge the applicable annual RR renewal fee for the 2010
calendar year. See NASDAQ OMX Equity Regulatory Alert 2009-
17. In some instances, the Exchange will refund certain RR fees
collected through the CRD system from BOX Options Participants that
do not conduct business on NASDAQ OMX BX equities trading platform.
    \8\ The ORF would apply to all customer orders executed by a BOX
Options Participant on BOX. Exchange rules require each BOX Options
Participant to submit trade information in order to allow the
Exchange to properly prioritize and match orders and quotations and
report resulting transactions to the OCC. See BOX Rules Chapter V,
Section 15. The Exchange represents that it has surveillances in
place to verify that BOX Options Participants comply with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the ORF would replace RR Fees, which relate to a BOX
Options Participant's options customer business. Further, RR Fees
constituted the single-largest fee assessed that is related to BOX
customer trading activity (in that BOX generally does not charge
customer transaction fees),\9\ and the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as
customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to BOX Options Participants' activities
supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a
BOX Options Participant. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are
the same regardless of whether a BOX Options Participant executes a
transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The
Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing
surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, frontrunning,
contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.\10\ These
activities span across multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under BOX's Take or Make fee structure, customer trading may
generate Make fees, but these fees are not specifically related to
customer activity and are offset by equal Take credits. Therefore,
Make fees are not intended to directly raise funds for Exchange
programs, including regulatory.
    \10\ The Exchange also participates in The Options Regulatory
Surveillance Authority (``ORSA'') national market system plan and in
doing so shares information and coordinates with other exchanges
designed to detect the unlawful use of undisclosed material
information in the trading of securities options. ORSA is a national
market system comprised of several self-regulatory organizations
whose functions and objectives include the joint development,
administration, operation and maintenance of systems and facilities
utilized in the regulation, surveillance, investigation and
detection of the unlawful use of undisclosed material information in
the trading of securities options. The Exchange compensates ORSA for
the Exchange's portion of the cost to perform insider trading
surveillance on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF will cover the costs
associated with the Exchange's arrangement with ORSA.

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

    The Exchange believes the initial level of the fee is reasonable
because it relates to the recovery of the costs of supervising and
regulating BOX Options Participants. The Exchange believes the amount
of the ORF is fair and reasonably allocated because it is a closer
approximation to the Exchange's actual costs in administering its
regulatory program.
    The ORF would be collected indirectly from BOX Options Participants
through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The
Exchange expects that BOX Options Participants will pass-through the
ORF to their customers in the same manner that firms pass-through to
their customers the fees charged by Self Regulatory Organizations
(``SROs'') to help the SROs meet their obligations under Section 31 of
the Exchange Act.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of BOX Options
Participants, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities.\11\ The Exchange believes that revenue
generated from the ORF will cover the substantial majority of the
Exchange's regulatory costs related to the BOX market. At present, RR
Fees make up the largest part of the Exchange's total options
regulatory fee revenue, however, the total amount of BOX specific
regulatory fees collected by the Exchange is significantly less than
the regulatory costs incurred by BOX on an annual basis. The Exchange
notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to BOX Options
Participant compliance with options sales practice rules have been
allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not designed to
cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As stated above, the RR Fees collected by the Exchange were
originally intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the
Exchange's regulatory programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other BOX regulatory
fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.
The Exchange expects to monitor BOX regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on an annual basis. If the Exchange determines BOX regulatory
revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange would adjust the ORF by
submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange would
notify BOX Options Participants of adjustments to the ORF via a
Regulatory Information Circular.
    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitably allocated
because it would be charged to all BOX Options Participants on all
their customer options business. The Exchange believes the proposed ORF
is reasonable because it will raise revenue related to the amount of
customer options business conducted by BOX Options Participants, and
thus the amount of Exchange regulatory services those BOX Options
Participants will require, instead of how many registered
representative a particular BOX Options Participant employs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange expects that implementation of the proposed
ORF will result generally in many traditional brokerage firms paying
less regulatory fees while Internet and discount brokerage firms
will pay more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a fully-electronic exchange without a trading floor, the amount
of resources required by the Exchange to surveil non-customer trading
activity is significantly less than the amount of resources the
Exchange must dedicate to surveil customer trading activity. This is
because surveilling customer trading activity is much more labor-
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than surveilling non-customer trading activity, which tends
to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., market
maker) of its regulatory program.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by BOX Options Participants and their
associated persons with the Exchange Act and the rules of the Exchange
and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants
(including non-BOX Options Participants) trading on the Exchange. The
Exchange cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at
and evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the
Exchange's market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at
and evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance
for position limit violations, manipulation, frontrunning and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations.\13\ Also,
the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a
consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') system in order to surveil
BOX Options Participant activities across markets.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2
agreement allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities
relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring
exercise declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and
Large Option Position Report reviews. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56941 (December 11, 2007).
    \14\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\15\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the Exchange Act requirement
that it have coordinated surveillance with markets on which security
futures are traded and markets on which any security underlying
security futures are traded to detect manipulation and insider
trading.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \16\ See Exchange Act Section 6(h)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having BOX Options Participants direct their trades to other
markets in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their
fair share of regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across
markets then BOX Options Participants would send their orders to the
least cost, least regulated exchange. Other exchanges could impose a
similar

fee on their member's activity, including the activity of those members
on BOX.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that CBOE currently assesses an options
regulatory fee similar to the one proposed herein, which fee is also
assessed on the trading activity of a CBOE member on BOX. Similar
regulatory fees have also recently been assessed by PHLX (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133 (December 9, 2009), 74 FR
66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100)); and ISE (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR
67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-105)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee
\18\ and the CBOE's ORF.\19\ While the Exchange does not have all the
same regulatory responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that,
like the CBOE, its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to
BOX Options Participants' activities, irrespective of where their
transactions take place, supports a regulatory fee applicable to
transactions on other markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the
ORF would apply only to a BOX Options Participant's customer options
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
    \19\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
January 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. In
particular, the Exchange believes the ORF is objectively allocated to
BOX Options Participants because it would be charged to all BOX Options
Participants on all their transactions that clear as customer at the
OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by
assessing higher fees to those BOX Options Participants that require
more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer
options business they conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has addressed the funding of an SRO's regulatory
operations in the Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation \22\ and
the release on the Fair Administration and Governance of Self-
Regulatory Organizations.\23\ In the Concept Release, the Commission
states that: ``Given the inherent tension between an SRO's role as a
business and a regulator, there undoubtedly is a temptation for an SRO
to fund the business side of its operations at the expense of
regulation.'' \24\ In order to address this potential conflict, the
Commission proposed in the Governance Release rules that would require
an SRO to direct monies collected from regulatory fees, fines, or
penalties exclusively to fund the regulatory operations and other
programs of the SRO related to its regulatory responsibilities.\25\ The
Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that will
approximately be equal to BOX's regulatory costs, which is consistent
with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release'').
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004) (``Governance Release'').
    \24\ Concept Release at 71268.
    \25\ Governance Release at 71142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \27\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would
otherwise further the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-001 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-BX-2010-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 No. SR-BX-2010-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1604 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P