[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32209-32210]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60184; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services

June 29, 2009.
    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 June 10, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or 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 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

    NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'') [sic], through its
wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities''), is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to revise the Listing Fees
applicable to Derivative Securities Products under NYSE Arca Rules
5.2(j)(3), 8.100, 8.200, 8.201, 8.202, 8.203, 8.204, 8.300, 8.500 and
8.600 on NYSE Arca, LLC (``NYSE Arca Marketplace''), the equities
facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The revised Fee Schedule is attached as
Exhibit 5 [sic]. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's
principal office 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
    NYSE Arca has determined to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to
revise the Listing Fee applicable to Derivative Securities Products
listed on the NYSE Arca Marketplace under Rules 5.2(j)(3) (Investment
Company Units), 8.100 (Portfolio Depositary Receipts), 8.200 (Trust
Issued Receipts), 8.201 (Commodity-Based Trust Shares), 8.202 (Currency
Trust Shares), 8.203 (Commodity Index Trust Shares), 8.204 (Commodity
Futures Trust Shares), 8.300 (Partnership Units), 8.500 (Trust Units),
and 8.600 (Managed Fund Shares). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
add a new provision to the Fee Schedule which states that in the case
where a sponsor, managing owner, general partner or equivalent
(collectively, the ``Sponsor'') is listing a new Derivative Securities
Product on the Exchange for the first time, the Sponsor will be charged
a one time consultation fee in the amount of $20,000.
    Under the current Fee Schedule for Derivative Securities Products,
the Listing Fee is $5,000 and the Annual Fees range between $2,000 and
$25,000 depending on the number of shares outstanding for each issue.
The current Listing and Annual Fees applicable to Derivative Securities
Products will remain unchanged and be applicable to all Sponsors of
Derivative Securities Products. The proposed consulting charge would
apply to all new Sponsors listing for the first time, a new Derivative
Securities Product. Therefore, existing issuers, issuing a new
Derivative Securities Product would not be charged the proposed
consulting fee.
    The Exchange believes that the imposition of this proposed one time
consulting charge to new Sponsors of new Derivative Securities Products
is necessary in order to adequately compensate the Exchange for all of
the additional Exchange resources dedicated to such new Sponsors, such
as the additional legal and business resources required to properly
advise novice Sponsors through the listing process. The Exchange
dedicates extensive time and resources to new Sponsors in the way of
conference calls, meetings, correspondences, etc., to educate such new
Sponsors about the listing and approval process, a process that veteran
Sponsors are already familiar with. The Exchange notes that the
proposed new Sponsor Fee is substantially below the initial listing fee
for issuers of traditional equity securities, e.g., common stock. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed consulting fee will enable
the Exchange to continue to provide new issuers with the level of
service necessary to successfully navigate an initial launch of a
Derivative Securities Product.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Arca believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) \4\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') [sic], in
general, and Section 6(b)(4) \5\ of the Act, in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its issuers and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \6\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it does not unfairly discriminate against new Sponsors given the
additional Exchange resources dedicated to such new Sponsors, such as
the additional extensive time, legal and business resources required to
properly advise novice Sponsors through the listing and approval
process.\7\ The Exchange believes that the proposed consulting fee is
reasonable, given the amount of resources dedicated by the Exchange to
new issuers of new Derivative Securities Products. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are equitable in
that they apply uniformly to all new issuers of new Derivative
Securities Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that
the proposed rule change does not unfairly discriminate against new
Sponsors vis-[agrave]-vis Sponsors who have previously listed
Derivative Securities Products or other first time issuers of other
securities listed on the Exchange because of the additional
extensive time, legal and business resources dedicated to new
Sponsors. Telephone call between Sharon Lawson, Senior Special
Counsel, and Terri Evans, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, and Sudhir Bhattacharyya, Vice President, NYSE Euronext
and Laura Morrison, Vice President, NYSE Euronext, June 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-NYSEArca-2009-52 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-2009-52. 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 the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at NYSE Arca's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-2009-52 and should be submitted
on or before July 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15900 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47499-47503]
[DOCID:fr06au10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM10-17-000]

Demand Response Compensation in Organized Wholesale Energy
Markets

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
Technical Conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is issuing a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) and Notice of
Technical Conference to provide additional opportunity for comment on
issues related to the March 18, 2010 NOPR, 75 FR 15362 (March 29,
2010), regarding the appropriate compensation to be paid to demand
response resources in organized wholesale electric markets administered
by Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations.
The Commission proposed an approach for compensating demand response
resources in order to improve the competitiveness of organized
wholesale energy markets and thus ensure just and reasonable wholesale
rates. The Supplemental NOPR seeks comment on whether the Commission
should adopt requirements related to two issues addressed in comments:
If the Commission were to adopt a net benefits test for determining
when to compensate demand response providers, what, if any,
requirements should apply to the methods for determining net benefits;
and what, if any, requirements should apply to how the costs of demand
response are allocated. The Commission invites all interested persons
to submit comments in response to the issues discussed herein.

DATES: A technical conference will be held at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, no
later than 45 days following the publication of this document in the
Federal Register. The exact date of the conference will be provided in
a subsequent Commission publication in the Federal Register.
    Comments on the NOPR will be due 30 days following the technical
conference announced herein. The Commission will announce the comment
close date in a subsequent publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any
of the following methods:
    Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. Documents created electronically
using word processing software should be filed in native applications
or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
    Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Hunger (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Helen Dyson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Technical
Conference

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Background...............................................           2
II. Net Benefits............................................           4
    A. The March NOPR.......................................           4
    B. Comments.............................................           5
    C. Discussion...........................................           8
III. Cost Allocation........................................           9
    A. Comments.............................................           9
    B. Discussion...........................................          12
IV. Technical Conference....................................          13
V. Comment Procedures.......................................          19
VI. Document Availability...................................          23

    Issued August 2, 2010.
    1. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) issued in this
proceeding on March 18, 2010 (March NOPR),\1\ the Commission proposed
to require Independent System Operators (ISOs) and Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTOs) \2\ with tariff provisions allowing
demand response \3\ resources \4\ to participate in wholesale energy
markets by reducing consumption of electricity from expected levels in
response to price signals, to pay those demand response resources, in
all hours, the market price of energy (also referred to as the
``locational marginal price'' or ``LMP'') for such reductions. In light
of matters elucidated in responsive comments to the March NOPR, the
Commission seeks additional comments on whether the Commission should
adopt requirements related to two issues: (1) If the Commission were to
adopt a net benefits test for determining when to compensate demand
response providers, what, if any, requirements should apply to the
methods for

determining net benefits; and (2) what, if any, requirements should
apply to how the costs of demand response are allocated. The Commission
also directs staff to hold a technical conference on these issues no
later than 45 days following publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. The exact date of the technical conference will be provided
in a subsequent notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Demand Response Compensation in Organized Wholesale Energy
Markets, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 15362 (March 29,
2010), 130 FERC ] 61,213 (March 18, 2010).
    \2\ The following RTOs and ISOs have organized wholesale
electricity markets: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM); New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO); Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO); ISO New England,
Inc. (ISO-NE); California Independent System Operator Corp. (CAISO);
and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP).
    \3\ Demand response means a reduction in the consumption of
electric energy by customers from their expected consumption in
response to an increase in the price of electric energy or to
incentive payments designed to induce lower consumption of electric
energy. 18 CFR 35.28(b)(4) (2010).
    \4\ Demand response resource means a resource capable of
providing demand response. 18 CFR 35.28(b)(5) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In the March NOPR, the Commission proposed to add section
35.18(g)(1)(v) to its regulations to establish a specific compensation
approach for demand response resources participating in organized
wholesale energy markets, i.e., the day-ahead and real-time markets
administered by ISOs and RTOs. Under the proposed section, each
Commission-approved ISO and RTO that has a tariff provision providing
for participation of demand response resources in its organized
wholesale energy market would pay demand response resources, in all
hours, the market price for energy, i.e., the LMP,\5\ for demand
reductions made in response to price signals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ LMP refers to the price calculated by the ISO or RTO at
particular locations or electrical nodes within the ISO or RTO
footprint and is used as the market price to compensate generators.
There are variations in the way ISOs and RTOs calculate LMP;
however, each method establishes the marginal value of resources in
that market. Nothing here or in the March NOPR is intended to change
ISO and RTO methods for calculating LMP.
    \6\ The proposed provision applies only to demand response
acting as a resource in organized wholesale energy markets. The
provision will not apply to demand response under programs that ISOs
and RTOs administer for reliability or emergency conditions, such
as, for instance, Midwest ISO's Emergency Demand Response; NYISO's
Emergency Demand Response Program; PJM's Emergency Load Response;
and ISO-NE's Real-Time 30-Minute Demand Response Program, Real-Time
and 2-Hour Demand Response Program, and Real-Time Profiled Response
Program. The provision also will not apply to compensation in
ancillary services markets, which the Commission has addressed
elsewhere. See, e.g., Wholesale Competition in Regions with
Organized Electric Markets, Order No. 719, 73 FR 64100 (Oct. 28,
2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. P 31,281 (2008) (Order No. 719).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Numerous comments were filed in response to the NOPR, many of
which support the proposed demand response compensation level.\7\
However, other comments support payment of LMP only when the benefits
of demand response compensation outweigh the costs of paying demand
response resources, as determined by some type of net benefits test.\8\
Still other comments argue that, in order to determine the justness and
reasonableness of the proposed compensation level, the corresponding
cost allocation must be considered.\9\ More specifically, these
comments raise concerns regarding how the costs associated with direct
payment of LMP for demand response will be allocated, or assigned,
within an ISO or RTO. Several commenters assert that the issues of cost
allocation and net benefits are inherently linked, so that the
Commission must address both issues together.\10\ Comments regarding
net benefits and cost allocation issues are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Comments of Illinois Citizens Utility Board at 2;
Comments of Industrial Energy Consumers of America at 3; Comments of
National Energy Marketers Association at 3-4; Comments of National
League of Cities; Comments of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
at 2; Comments of North America Power Partners at 4; Comments of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection at 5; Comments
of Price Responsive Load Coalition at 2; Comments of Schneider
Electric USA at 2; Comments of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. at 4; Comments
of Virginia Committee for Fair Utility Rates at 7.
    \8\ See generally, Comments of New York State Consumer
Protection Board; New England Consumer Advocates; Capital Power;
Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA); Exelon Corporation
(Exelon); PJM Power Providers Group; New England Conference of
Public Utility Commissioners (NECPUC); Maryland Public Service
Commission (Maryland Commission); New York State Public Service
Commission (New York Commission); NSTAR Electric Company; National
Grid USA (National Grid); PPL Parties; New England Public Systems;
Viridity Energy, Inc.; and Charles Cicchetti.
    \9\ Comments of ISO-NE at 39-40. See also, Comments of American
Electric Power Service Corp. at 6-10; Comments of CAISO at 6;
Comments of Consolidated Edison Company at 2; Comments of Hess
Corporation at 3; Comments of the Illinois Commerce Commission at
12; Comments of PJM at 8; Comments of Potomac Economics at 3;
Comments of Massachusetts Attorney General and Maine Public Advocate
at 11; Comments of Midwest ISO Transmission Owners at 5-6; Comments
of Midwest TDUs at 13; Comments of Edison Electric Institute at 5;
Comments of NECPUC at 12, 22; Comments of New England Consumer
Advocates at 11; Comments of RRI Energy, Inc. at 6; Comments of San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. at 3-4.
    \10\ As further addressed below, several commenters assert that
the costs of demand response compensation should be borne by only
those market participants determined to have benefitted from the
subject load reduction, as determined by some type of net benefits
test. See, e.g., Comments of ISO-NE at 5-6; Comments of NECPUC at
22; Comments of PJM at 12-14; Comments of PJM Power Providers Group
at 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Net Benefits

A. The March NOPR

    4. In the March NOPR, the Commission proposed to require ISOs and
RTOs to pay LMP to demand response providers in all hours, but the
Commission also sought comment on, among other things, whether payment
of LMP should indeed apply in all hours and, if not, the criteria that
should be used for establishing the hours when LMP should apply.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ March NOPR, 130 FERC ] 61,213 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    5. As noted above, numerous commenters, primarily industrial
consumers and some consumer advocates, agree with the Commission's
proposal to pay LMP to demand response providers in all hours.\12\ They
argue that, regardless of the hour or season, all consumers share in
the benefits demand response resources provide, including lowering the
clearing price.\13\ They also argue that, regardless of the hour or
season, both demand response providers and generators provide a
comparable service in terms of balancing supply and demand and
therefore should be paid on a comparable basis, i.e., LMP.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Comments of Steel Manufacturers Association at 12;
Comments of Consumer Demand Response Initiative at 12; Comments of
Joint Consumer Advocates at 11-12.
    \13\ Comments of Alliance for Clean Energy New York at 2-3;
Comments of American Chemistry Council at 3; Comments of American
Forest & Paper Association at 3; Comments of Crane & Co. at 2-3;
Comments of Industrial Energy Consumers of America at 2; Comments of
Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania at 3; Comments of
Madison Paper Industries at 2-3.
    \14\ Comments of Steel Manufacturers Association at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. At the same time, a diverse group of commenters maintain that
paying LMP for demand response in all hours, including off-peak hours,
might not result in net benefits to customers, because the payments
might be substantially more than the savings created by reducing the
clearing price at that time.\15\ According to these commenters, net
benefits are most likely to be positive and greatest when the supply
curve is steepest, which typically occurs in highest-cost, peak
hours.\16\ Some commenters suggest that paying LMP in all hours might
make more difficult, and less accurate, the establishment of baselines
for measuring whether a demand response provider has, in fact,
responded.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comments of Capital Power Corporation at 5; Comments of PJM
Power Providers Group at 5.
    \16\ Comments of NECPUC at 13.
    \17\ Comments of ISO-NE at 32-33; Comments of California
Department of Water Resources at 11; Comments of National Grid USA
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Many commenters who oppose paying LMP in all hours for demand
response suggest approaches, or net benefits tests, for determining
when LMP should apply. These commenters state that the purpose of these
tests would be to determine the point at which the incremental payment
for demand response equals the incremental benefit of the reduction in
load; payment of LMP would apply only

up to that point.\18\ To achieve that end, some comments advocate a net
benefits trigger based on a particular price or period of hours.\19\
While some proposals would utilize a static bid threshold, such as $75/
MWh,\20\ other proposals would utilize a dynamic bid threshold, which
could be based upon fuel prices and heat rates of marginal
generation.\21\ Still other commenters urge compensating demand
response during an ISO- or RTO-defined period of critical high-cost
hours in which it is cost-effective to pay the full LMP.\22\ In
addition to advancing net benefits tests, some commenters suggest
implementation of an ISO- or RTO-developed mechanism to determine
whether a net customer benefit would occur in advance of dispatch.\23\
Some commenters, however, state that it would be difficult to prescribe
by regulation the hours in which demand response provides net benefits
because system conditions and load patterns change across seasons and
over time.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Comments of New England Consumer Advocates at 11; Comments
of NYSCPB at 5; Comments of National Grid at 4-5.
    \19\ For example, National Grid states that the threshold could
be triggered by a particular price on the supply offer curve at
which the additional cost of paying LMP to demand response resources
is most likely to be outweighed by LMP reductions in the wholesale
energy market as a result of the demand reductions produced by these
resources. Comments of National Grid at 6.
    \20\ Comments of the New York Commission at 10. According to the
New York Commission, a static bid threshold helps prevent demand
response providers from gaming the system by seeking compensation
for reducing electricity consumption for reasons other than market
prices, but can also limit participation in a demand response
program because prices might not exceed the threshold on a
consistent basis.
    \21\ Comments of National Grid at 6; Comments of the New York
Commission at 10; Comments of Viridity at 24.
    \22\ Comments of the Maryland Commission at 4-5.
    \23\ Comments of NYSCPB at 5.
    \24\ Midwest ISO Transmission Owners at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Discussion

    8. Due to matters raised in responsive comments to the March NOPR,
the Commission seeks further information regarding the net benefits
issue. Accordingly, the Commission seeks additional comments and
directs staff to hold a technical conference regarding various net
benefits tests.\25\ Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the
following issues, as well as any other issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As noted above, the exact date of the technical conference
will be provided in a subsequent notice and will be no later than 45
days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Some commenters address the need for a net benefits test.
Address why the Commission should adopt a net benefits test for
determining demand response compensation, and what the objectives of
any such test would be.
    (2) How to define benefits, including whether the benefits
associated with demand response should account only for lower market-
clearing prices in the day-ahead and real-time markets or should also
include consideration of operational benefits (e.g., lower reserve
requirements), societal benefits or another measure.
    (3) In addition to the payments received from the wholesale market,
what are the costs demand response providers and load serving entities
incur and should these be included for purposes of a net benefits test.
    (4) How to identify the beneficiaries of demand response, and how
the allocation of costs related to demand response compensation affect
the beneficiaries, if at all.
    (5) Whether any net benefits methodology adopted should be the same
for all ISOs and RTOs or whether the individual circumstances or
configuration of each ISO and RTO would support a different net
benefits methodology.
    (6) Proposed methodologies for implementing a net benefits test.
Comments also should consider whether a net benefits threshold should
be established up front based on static measures, such as a specific
price or number of peak hours, or established on a dynamic basis, such
as a price threshold based on a pre-set heat rate and daily updated
fuel price; and similarly, whether the net benefits should be an
explicit test run by the ISO or RTO either after bids have been
received or each hour prior to accepting demand response bids. Comments
should also describe the advantages and limitations of any proposed net
benefits methodologies.

III. Cost Allocation

A. Comments

    9. Comments concerning cost allocation essentially ask how the
proposed demand response compensation level will be funded.\26\ These
commenters argue that, if not structured correctly, demand response
compensation methodologies can increase, rather than decrease costs to
end-users.\27\ Some commenters further contend that requiring payment
of LMP for demand response will require ISOs and RTOs to reopen cost
allocation issues that have previously been settled based on varying
ISO- and RTO-specific demand response compensation levels.\28\
Additional commenters assert that demand response compensation and a
method for allocating the associated costs are so inextricably entwined
that the two issues must be simultaneously addressed as part of an
integrated demand response regime.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ISO-NE Comments at 5, 40; Comments of PJM at 8; Comments of
Potomac Economics at 3.
    \27\ Comments of Massachusetts Attorney General and Maine Public
Advocate at 11 (arguing that spreading the costs of demand response
over a smaller amount of load is cost-effective only so long as the
remaining load pays a lower price than it would have paid if the
demand response had not participated).
    \28\ Comments of Midwest TDUs at 13.
    \29\ Id.; Comments of ISO-NE at 4-5; Comments of Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) at 5; Comments of Charles Cicchetti at 26-27;
Comments of CAISO at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Another group of commenters endorse the position that demand
response compensation and cost allocation are necessarily related, but
they contend that resolution of cost allocation issues can await the
final rule on demand response compensation. These commenters maintain
that any cost allocation approach will depend on the outcome of the
final demand response compensation rule \30\ and, in any case, should
first be addressed through stakeholder discussions at the regional
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Comments of New England Consumer Advocates at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Several commenters advocate a specific approach or discuss the
pros and cons of alternative approaches for allocating the costs
associated with demand response compensation. Potential approaches
raised in comments include:
    (1) Allocating the costs across the entire relevant ISO or RTO
market, based upon the rationale that there are system-wide benefits to
demand response, including reducing the market price for energy.\31\
Conversely, some commenters argue that, while this approach might
increase the amount of demand response provided to the market, it might
also result in some market participants paying costs associated with
demand response for which they do not receive equivalent benefit.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Comments of NECPUC at 22.
    \32\ Comments of Midwest ISO Transmission Owners at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Allocating the costs to only the load-serving entity of record,
i.e., the load-serving entity that would have served the load providing
the demand response. According to commenters, this option assumes that
the deemed full benefit of demand response is only received by the
load-serving entity of record and that demand response does

not impact other load-serving entities across the ISO or RTO.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Comments of PJM at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Uplifting the costs locally to all load-serving entities within
the zone impacted by the demand response reduction, based on a load
ratio share. Commenters assert that this approach theoretically
allocates the cost of demand response compensation to only those load-
serving entities that benefitted from the demand response provided.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Comments of PJM at 14; Comments of NECPUC at 22; Comments
of Midwest ISO Transmission Owners at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Recovering the costs through a surcharge added to the LMP for
customers purchasing from the relevant energy market in the hour when
the demand response resource is committed or dispatched. The rationale
for this approach is that it allocates the costs of demand response
resource procurement on the basis of cost-causation, i.e., demand
response resource costs are allocated directly to those energy market
consumers who benefitted from the demand response resource provided. To
implement this proposal, an adjustment to the market price paid by
customers would be calculated.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Comments of NECPUC at 22, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Utilizing a hybrid approach, in a manner intended to minimize
cost impacts on final customers.\36\ Hybrid approaches include
splitting the costs between load-serving entities and transmission
owners,\37\ and allocating part of the costs to the demand response
provider's load-serving entity and part to all of the load-serving
entities in the zone where the load reduction occurred, based on a load
ratio share.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Comments of ISO-NE at 40.
    \37\ ISO-NE suggests charging the difference between LMP and the
generation (or ``G'') portion of the retail rate (i.e., LMP-G) to
the load-serving entity that is providing the energy, and charging
the remainder (i.e., ``G'') to network load, which would be billed
to transmission owners. Comments of ISO-NE at 5.
    \38\ As described by PJM, the ``[load-serving entity] of record
will receive a direct allocation of direct payments made for the
demand response MWh reduction multiplied by the difference between
the appropriate wholesale market price and the retail rate, and the
cost associated with the MWh reduction multiplied by the retail rate
allocated to all [load-serving entities] in the zone where the load
reduction occurred based on a load ratio share.'' Comments of PJM at
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Discussion

    12. From the comments received, issues concerning cost allocation
may be integrally related to the proposal relating to demand response
compensation, and we believe such issues should be explored further. In
addition, the diversity of comments relating to cost allocation leave
open the question of whether a singular cost allocation approach should
be determined by the Commission for all ISOs and RTOs or whether
differing cost allocation approaches should be developed regionally and
reviewed by the Commission on an ISO- and RTO-specific basis.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks additional comments on whether the
Commission should consider a generic approach to allocating the costs
of demand response compensation required by the final rule in this
proceeding, and if so, what approach the Commission should adopt. Such
issues also will be explored at the staff technical conference.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following issues, as
well as any other issues:
    (1) Whether standardizing demand response compensation among ISOs
and RTOs requires simultaneous standardization of a method for
allocating the costs associated with such compensation. In addition,
whether standardizing demand response compensation among ISOs and RTOs
requires consideration of corresponding settlements and other impacts
associated with the compensation mechanism.
    (2) If the Commission standardizes an approach for allocating the
costs associated with requiring payment for demand response, what type
of approach is appropriate. Comments should address the specific
approaches delineated above, and may address other broad principles the
Commission could use to determine the cost allocation method.
    (3) How the use of a net benefits test would affect the need for
and methodologies for determining cost allocation.

IV. Technical Conference

    13. The exact date of the Commission staff technical conference
directed herein will be provided in a subsequent notice and will be no
later than 45 days following publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. The conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are invited to participate
in the conference.
    14. Those interested in speaking at the conference should notify
the Commission by August 10, 2010 by completing an online form
describing the topics that they will address: http://www.ferc.gov/
whats-new/ registration/demand-RM10-17-000-speaker-form.asp. Due to
time constraints, we may not be able to accommodate all individuals
interested in speaking, so multiple persons sharing the same position
are encouraged to have one representative speak on their behalf. A
detailed agenda, including panel speakers, will be published at a later
date.
    15. The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of
the conference will be immediately available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. ((202) 347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). The transcript will
be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
Calendar of Events approximately one week after the conference.
    16. A free webcast of the technical conference directed herein will
be available. Anyone with Internet access interested in viewing this
conference can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating the appropriate event in the Calendar. The events
will contain a link to the applicable webcast option. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers the
option of listening to the conferences via phone-bridge for a fee. If
you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call
(703) 993-3100.
    17. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email 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>.
    18. Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.

V. Comment Procedures

    19. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due 30 days following the technical conference
announced above. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM10-17-000, and
must include the commenter's name, the organization the commenter
represents, if applicable, and the commenter's address.
    20. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-
PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
    21. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    22. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VI. Document Availability

    23. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    24. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    25. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Moeller is
concurring, in part and dissenting, in part with a separate
statement attached.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

MOELLER, Commissioner, concurring, in part and dissenting, in part:

    While I support the decision to supplement the record and convene a
technical conference, for the reasons set forth in my concurring and
dissenting statement on the NOPR that initiated this proceeding on
March 18, I continue to concur and dissent, in part.

Philip D. Moeller,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010-19376 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38856-38857]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17256]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0557; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-15]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Scottsboro, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Scottsboro,
AL, by updating the airport name to Highland Medical Center Heliport,
(formerly Jackson County Hospital), and updating the geographic
coordinates of the heliport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg., Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-
(800)-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No.
FAA-2017-0557; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-15, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Highland Medical Center Heliport,
Scottsboro AL, to support IFR operations at the heliport.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted
in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2017-0557; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-15.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,

air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 6-mile radius of
Highland Medical Center Heliport, Scottsboro, AL, by recognizing the
heliport's name change, (formerly Jackson County Hospital), and
adjusting the geographic coordinates of the heliport to coincide with
the FAAs aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO AL E5 Scottsboro, AL [Amended]

Scottsboro Municipal--World Field Airport, AL
    (Lat. 34[deg]41'19'' N., long. 86[deg]00'21'' W.)
Highland Medical Center Heliport, Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 34[deg]39'45'' N., long. 86[deg]02'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Scottsboro Municipal--Word Field
Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 037[deg] bearing from
Scottsboro Municipal--World Field Airport extending from the 6.5-
mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4
miles each side of the 218[deg] bearing from Scottsboro Municipal--
Word Field Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11 miles
Southwest of the airport; and that airspace within a 6-mile radius
of the point in space (lat. 34[deg]39'45'' N., long. 86[deg]02'48''
W.) serving Highland Medical Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 8, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-17256 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63292-63293]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC12-1-000.
    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower VI LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Blue
Canyon Windpower VI LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1439-004; EL09-32-004.
    Applicants: New Brunswick Power Generation Corporation.
    Description: New Brunswick Power Generation Corporation submits
compliance filing, et al.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4013-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC., Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: PJM Interconnection,LLC. submits tariff filing per:
ComEd files clarification re Patzin's statements, to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4475-001.
    Applicants: Rockland Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Rockland Wind Farm LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment to be effective 10/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4478-001.
    Applicants: White Creek Wind I, LLC.
    Description: White Creek Wind I, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
White Creek Wind I, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 9/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4498-001.
    Applicants: Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 9/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4499-001.
    Applicants: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC.
    Description: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 9/
12/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4507-001.
    Applicants: Canastota Windpower, LLC.

    Description: Canastota Windpower, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Canastota Windpower, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 9/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4739-000.
    Applicants: Aspire Capital Management, LLC.
    Description: Aspire Capital Management, LLC submits notice of
cancellation, et al.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110930-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-14-000.
    Applicants: Oceanside Power LLC.
    Description: Oceanside Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Amended Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-16-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1166R14 Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority NITSA NOA
to be effective 9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-17-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of Letter Agreement Coram
Project to be effective 12/10/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-18-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Balancing Authority Area Operations
Coordination Agreement to be effective 10/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-19-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Upper Peninsula Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: BAAOCA between UPPCO and WEPCO to be effective 10/
4/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-21-000.
    Applicants: Agua Caliente Solar, LLC.
    Description: Agua Caliente Solar, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority and Associated
Waivers to be effective 12/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111004-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

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

    Dated: October 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26276 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65685-65689]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3552]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Experimental Study of
Cigarette Warnings

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title ``Experimental Study of Cigarette Warnings.'' Also include the
FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Experimental Study of Cigarette Warnings

OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    The Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) amends the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to grant FDA authority to regulate the
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect
the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 201 of
the Tobacco Control Act amends section 4 of the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) (15 U.S.C. 1333) to require FDA to
issue regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative
health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements
specified in subsection 4(a)(1) of the FCLAA. Section 202(b) of the
Tobacco Control Act further amends section 4 of the FCLAA by adding
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through
notice and comment rulemaking, may adjust the text of any of the label
requirements if the Secretary finds that such a change would promote
greater public understanding of the risks associated with the use of
tobacco products.
    In the Federal Register of June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36628), FDA issued
a final rule entitled ``Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and
Advertisements,'' which specified nine images to accompany new textual
warning statements for cigarettes. Although the rule was scheduled to
become effective 15 months after it issued, a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia held, on August 24, 2012, that
the rule in its current form violated the First Amendment. In a letter
to Congress on March 15, 2013, the Attorney General reported FDA's
intention to undertake research to support a new rulemaking consistent
with the Tobacco Control Act. Various phases of research have been
underway since 2013. The next phase of the research includes the study
proposed here, which is an effort by FDA to collect data concerning
responses to health warnings placed on cigarette packages and
advertisements for cigarettes.
    The health risks associated with the use of cigarettes are
significant and far-reaching. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of
preventable disease and death in the United States and is responsible
for more than 480,000 deaths per year. Smoking causes more deaths each
year than human immunodeficiency virus, illegal drug use, alcohol use,
motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents combined (Ref.
1). In addition to lung cancer, heart disease, and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, smoking also causes numerous other serious health
conditions including several types of cancer, premature birth, low
birth weight, respiratory illnesses, clogged arteries, reduced blood
flow, diabetes, and vision conditions such as age-related macular
degeneration and cataracts (Ref. 2).
    Approximately 37.8 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes (Ref. 3)
and 8.6 million Americans have at least one serious illness caused by
smoking cigarettes (Ref. 4). Results from the 2016 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health demonstrate that, each day in the United States,
more than 2,300 youth under age 18 smoke their first cigarette, and
nearly 400 youth become daily cigarette smokers (Ref. 5). If the
current trajectory of smoking rates continues, 5.6 million children
alive today will die prematurely as a result of smoking (Ref. 2).
Providing the public with accurate information regarding the health
consequences of cigarette use is critical in achieving FDA's mission to
protect the public health.
    This Experimental Study of Cigarette Warnings is a voluntary online
experiment. The purpose of the study is to assess whether new cigarette
health warnings increase public understanding of the negative health
consequences of cigarette smoking. The study will collect data from
various groups of consumers, including adolescent current cigarette
smokers aged 13 to 17 years, adolescent non-smokers who are susceptible
to initiation of cigarette smoking aged 13 to 17 years, young adult
current cigarette smokers and non-smokers aged 18 to 24 years, and
older adult current cigarette smokers and non-smokers aged 25 years and
older. The results will inform the Agency's efforts to implement the
mandatory color graphics to accompany health warning label statements
as required by section 4 of FCLAA.
    Study Overview: In this study, adolescent current cigarette
smokers, adolescent non-smokers who are susceptible to initiation of
cigarette smoking, young adult current cigarette smokers and non-
smokers, and older adult current cigarette smokers and non-smokers will
be recruited from an existing internet panel of more than 1.2 million
people and screened for inclusion into the study. Participants who meet
the inclusion criteria will be randomized into 1 of 17 conditions. In
each condition, respondents will view one cigarette warning. In the 16
treatment conditions, participants will view 1 cigarette health
warning, containing a textual warning statement

accompanied by a concordant color graphic depicting the negative health
consequences of smoking described in the statement. In the control
condition, participants will be randomized to view one of the four
current Surgeon General's warnings, representing the current state of
cigarette warnings in the United States. In all conditions,
participants will view their assigned warnings both on a mock cigarette
package and in a mock cigarette advertisement, presented in a
randomized order.
    There will be three sessions. During Session 1, participants will
complete a baseline assessment about their beliefs about the negative
health consequences of cigarette smoking. Next, they will be exposed to
the stimuli (i.e., the warning based on condition assignment) and
complete a set of items assessing (a) if the information presented in
the warning was new; (b) self-reported learning from the warning; (c)
if the warning was easy to understand; (d) if the warning was perceived
to be a fact or an opinion; (e) if the warning was informative; (f) if
the warning grabbed their attention; and (g) if the warning made them
think about the health risks of cigarette smoking. During Session 2 (1
to 2 days after Session 1), participants will be exposed to the same
stimuli again (i.e., the warning based on condition assignment from
Session 1) and complete a set of items assessing beliefs about the
negative health consequences caused by cigarette smoking. During
Session 3 (approximately 14 days after Session 2), participants will
complete a delayed post-test on beliefs about the negative health
consequences caused by cigarette smoking and items assessing recall of
the warning.
    Prior to the main data collection, 2 sequential pretests, each with
50 participants, will take place to ensure correct programming of
Session 1 and to identify any issues with the study design and
implementation.
    Study outcomes include comparisons to assess the extent to which
exposure to new cigarette health warnings, relative to the text-only
Surgeon General's warnings, provide new information, increase self-
reported learning, change beliefs about the negative health
consequences of cigarette smoking, increase thinking about the risks of
smoking, and the extent to which the warnings are informative, easy to
understand, factual, attention grabbing, and recalled.
    In the Federal Register of September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48625), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received six unique comment submissions.
Four submissions were PRA related, and some included multiple comments.
    (Comment) One commenter stated that it's important to educate and
reinforce the facts surrounding the dangers of smoking.
    (Response) FDA agrees that it is important to provide the public
with accurate information about the risks associated with the use of
tobacco products. The purpose of this study is to assess whether new
cigarette warnings increase public understanding of the negative health
consequences of smoking.
    (Comment) One comment urged FDA to move forward to complete the
proposed consumer research study as soon as possible to facilitate the
prompt promulgation of a rule to require new warnings on cigarette
packages and in cigarette advertisements. The comment also stated that
FDA must take every available opportunity to minimize delays that may
be attributable to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    (Response) FDA agrees that it is important to complete this study
and promulgate a rule in accordance with the statutory mandate laid out
by Congress. FDA is following the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act and its associated timelines.
    (Comment) One comment stated that, as designed, the proposed study
does not help FDA satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment
because FDA has failed to consider less-burdensome alternatives and
because FDA has not identified a ``substantial'' interest that this
current iteration of a cigarette health warnings rule serves.
    (Response) As stated previously, the purpose of the proposed study
is to assess whether new cigarette health warnings increase public
understanding of the negative health consequences of smoking. FDA
further notes that this notice is respecting a proposed study, the
results of which, if used in a future rulemaking, would be provided
along with other evidence in a future notice of proposed rulemaking and
subject to public comment at that time.
    (Comment) FDA received two comments that asked FDA to provide more
detail about the design of the proposed study to allow for meaningful
public comments. One commenter also stated that FDA must provide
additional information for public comment, including details of the
protocol, inclusion criteria for screening study participants,
questionnaire, and the text and color graphics the agency proposes to
test.
    (Response) FDA notes in response to this comment that the proposed
study and copies of the instruments used to collect this information
are described in detail as part of the overall information collection
request submitted to OMB for review.
    (Comment) One comment provided a published scientific study and
suggested that focusing on the presence of certain features of the
warnings might provide more robust evidence about the effectiveness of
warning labels rather than a comparison of a single pictorial message
to a text-only message.
    (Response) FDA appreciates the submission of the published study;
however, it focuses on outcomes not relevant to the study FDA proposes
here. The proposed study examines how new cigarette health warnings
provide new information, increase self-reported learning, change
beliefs about the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking,
and increase thinking about the risks of smoking.
    (Comment) One comment stated that the cigarette health warnings
should be compared relative to the new text-only warning statements
rather than the current, familiar text-only Surgeon General's warnings.
    (Response) FDA disagrees. First, Section 201 of the Tobacco Control
Act amends section 4 of FCLAA to require FDA to issue regulations that
require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of
smoking to accompany the textual label statements. Second, FDA believes
that the comparison to the current Surgeon General's warnings is the
most appropriate comparison for the purposes of this proposed study.
This comparison will allow for investigation of the potential effect of
implementing new cigarette health warnings compared to the current
state of warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements, which the
commenter recognizes are ``familiar.''
    (Comment) One comment recommended that certain demographic (e.g.,
age, socioeconomic status) and other (e.g., nicotine dependence among
smokers) factors should be evaluated during the course of this study.
    (Response) FDA disagrees. The purpose of this proposed study is to
assess whether new cigarette health warnings increase public
understanding of the negative health consequences of smoking, not the
mechanisms for such changes. Some basic sub-group analyses will be
performed by age group; however, the primary analyses will focus on
whether new cigarette health warnings increase public understanding

of the negative health consequences of smoking in the sample overall.
    (Comment) One comment urged FDA to consider previous research that
has shown that use of ``graphical'' warnings can produce an opposite
effect to the desired outcome.
    (Response) In our research to develop, test, and revise the content
of new cigarette health warnings, we considered communication best
practices, including minimizing unintended consequences and potential
reactance to the warnings. Additionally, given the purpose and design
of the proposed study, unintended consequences would be evident if the
control warnings showed greater gains on outcomes compared to the
warnings in the treatment conditions.
    (Comment) One comment recommended that the study design include
pre/post measures of risk perceptions to evaluate whether the cigarette
health warnings meaningfully increase likely pre-existing high levels
of incoming risk perceptions.
    (Response) FDA declines to make such a change. The purpose of this
proposed study is to assess whether new cigarette warnings increase
public understanding of the negative health consequences of smoking,
not whether such warnings increase risk perceptions. The focus of the
study is on the specific health conditions that are the focus of the
warning statements and their accompanying color graphics depicting the
negative health consequences of smoking, not on the perception of
overall risks of smoking.
    (Comment) One comment indicated that the sample size for each
condition appears to be small.
    (Response) FDA disagrees. The sample size for this study was
determined by a comprehensive statistical power analysis, taking into
account the study design, planned analyses to be conducted, and
potential study attrition. Based on its statistical power analysis, FDA
is confident that the study will have sufficient sample sizes to detect
meaningful effects.
    (Comment) One comment stated that the proposed study's methodology
suffers from selection bias. Specifically, the commenter stated that
the proposed study is a voluntary online experiment, uses sampling
methodology that may limit generalizability of outcomes to the broader
U.S. population, and appears to lack corrective measures such as the
ability to identify factors that contribute to participant drop out.
    (Response) Although the large sample for this study is not truly
nationally representative, FDA has made efforts to ensure that the
demographics of participants in the study population closely mirror
those of national estimates to ensure a better representation.
Additionally, the sample size calculation and study analysis account
for the potential of attrition over the multiple time points (i.e.,
study sessions).
    (Comment) One comment asserted that the study questions create a
serious risk of bias. Specifically, the commenter stated that FDA's
broad description of the questions to be asked in the study suggests
that they are deliberately crafted to support a ``pre-ordained''
result, namely, that the warnings would increase public understanding
of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking.
    (Response) FDA disagrees. There is no pre-ordained result. The
questions used in this study were selected from prior studies on
similar topics, including cigarette warnings. Some questions have been
slightly edited to fit the specific content of the warnings to be
tested, but the question instructions and question stems have not
changed. The study questions are face valid (i.e., it is clear they
measure what they are intended to measure). Additionally, the study
questions have previously been shown to produce a range of responses,
indicating that they do not produce demand characteristics (i.e., study
participants do not respond to the items with what they think the
researchers want to hear).
    (Comment) One comment stated that FDA will need to avoid question-
order bias.
    (Response) FDA agrees that it is important to avoid question-order
bias in this proposed study. In many sections of the study instrument,
the order of questions is randomized specifically to avoid question-
order bias. In other sections of the study instrument, the order was
determined by starting with more general and then moving on to more
specific items to avoid bias. In designing the survey, FDA ensured that
the item order follows established models of information processing and
attention.
    (Comment) One comment raised a number of concerns that the study
protocols do not appear to adequately mimic real-world conditions
because cigarette smokers would not be exposed to only a single warning
(but rather they would be exposed to all of them over time); the study
asks participants to specifically focus on the warnings, which will
likely overestimate their effects; in the real world, consumers would
rarely view both cigarette packaging and advertisements at the same
time; the study does not measure whether consumers would get used to
the warnings after viewing them repeatedly over a long period of time;
and the study's 14-day gap between Sessions 2 and 3 gives participants
time to do their own research about the risks of cigarettes, which
could overstate any effects that cigarette health warnings might have.
    (Response) FDA disagrees with these assertions. The procedures
proposed for the current study provide a greater number of exposures
(and thus closer to real-world conditions) and use a longer follow-up
time than many similar studies (Ref. 6).
    The Tobacco Control Act requires that the cigarette health warning
label statements with accompanying color graphics be displayed both on
cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements; therefore, exposure
to the warnings on both formats provides an appropriate assessment of
the impact of the warnings.
    Finally, if warnings in certain conditions prompt study
participants to seek health information in the 14-day follow-up period,
thus resulting in greater understanding of the negative health
consequences of cigarette smoking, such an effect would only strengthen
findings that the warnings are working as intended and provide further
evidence that the study mimics real world conditions in which consumers
could seek additional information about the negative health
consequences of smoking. Participants' health beliefs will be assessed
at all three study sessions, thus allowing for comparison of the effect
both immediately after exposure as well as after a delay.
    (Comment) One comment recommended that FDA consider assessing
comprehension of the new warnings objectively (i.e., evaluating recall
of specific content, evaluating comprehension of disease risk) rather
than participants indicating only that they learned (i.e., ``self-
reported learning from the warning'').
    (Response) FDA agrees that it is important to assess comprehension
of the new warnings objectively. The proposed study contains these
items, in addition to other measures.
    (Comment) One comment stated that FDA should prioritize measuring
the impact of the warnings on behavior (e.g., quit intentions among
cigarette smokers, initiation intentions among non-users) over concepts
such as whether the warning is informative or grabs attention.
    (Response) The purpose of the proposed study is to assess whether
new cigarette health warnings increase

public understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette
smoking. The study does not focus on behavior.
    (Comment) One comment stated that the study does not appear to
include meaningful pretesting.
    (Response) FDA disagrees with this assertion. As explained
previously, the items in this proposed study were selected from prior
studies on similar topics, including cigarette warnings. Additionally,
the specific language used in the warning statements has been
extensively tested in multiple qualitative studies and a large
quantitative study conducted by FDA. The findings from those studies
informed the development of warning statements, revisions to those
statements, and the questions used to assess participant reactions
(e.g., beliefs) about the warnings.

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
           Activity                Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden     Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses    per response \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult--Screener for pretest...             456               1             456  0.03 hours (2                 14
                                                                                minutes).
Adult--Pretest................              68               1              68  0.20 hours (12                14
                                                                                minutes).
Adult--Screener for main data           51,054               1          51,054  0.03 hours (2              1,532
 collection.                                                                     minutes).
Adult--Main data collection (3           7,460               1           7,460  0.42 hours (25             3,133
 sessions).                                                                      minutes).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Adult Hours.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................           4,693
Adolescent--Screener for                   410               1             410  0.03 hours (2                 12
 pretest.                                                                        minutes).
Adolescent--Pretest...........              32               1              32  0.20 hours......               6
                                                                                (12 minutes)....
Adolescent--Screener for main           29,487               1          29,487  0.03 hours (2                885
 data collection.                                                                minutes).
Adolescent--Main data                    2,300               1           2,300  0.42 hours (25               966
 collection.                                                                     minutes).
(3 sessions)..................
Total Adolescent Hours........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................           1,869
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden Hours........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................           6,562
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ The hours per response are rounded to two decimal places.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research
that is similar to this proposed study (OMB control number 0910-0848).
Screening potential participants for the 2 pretests will occur with 866
respondents (456 adults and 410 adolescents) identified and recruited
through the internet panel. Participants will complete the screening
questionnaire through an email invitation. This brief screening will
take an average of 2 minutes (0.03 hours) per respondent. If, based on
this screening, participants qualify for the study, they will be
automatically directed to begin the pretest. As previously mentioned,
each of the 2 pretests conducted will consist of 50 respondents (34
adults and 16 adolescents in each) (100 total) during a single session
and, we estimate an average of 12 minutes (0.20 hours) per respondent.
    Screening potential participants for the main data collection will
occur with 80,541 respondents (51,054 adults and 29,487 adolescents)
identified and recruited through the same internet panel as used for
the pretests. Participants will complete the screener questionnaire
through an email invitation. This brief screening will take an average
of 2 minutes (0.03 hours) per respondent. If, based on this screening,
participants qualify for the study, they will be directed to begin
Session 1. Recent national estimates of the numbers of adolescent
current cigarette smokers, adolescents who are susceptible to
initiation of cigarette smoking, young adult current cigarette smokers,
and older adult current cigarette smokers informed the estimates of
14.6 percent qualification rate for adults and 7.8 percent
qualification rate for adolescents. Applying these estimates and other
assumptions from previous experience conducting similar studies to the
number of adolescents and adults to be screened results in the desired
sample size for the main data collection of 9,760 participants, of
which 7,460 will be adults and 2,300 will be adolescents. The three
sessions of the main data collection will take an average of 12 minutes
(0.20 hours) for Session 1, 8 minutes (0.13 hours) for Session 2, and 5
minutes (0.08 hours) for Session 3, for a total of an estimated 25
minutes (0.42 hours) per respondent. The total estimated burden for the
data collection is 6,561 hours (4,692 hours for adults + 1,869 hours
for adolescents).

I. References

    The following references are on display at the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. Murphy, S.L., J. Xu, K.D. Kochanek. ``Deaths: Final Data for
2010''. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61(4):37-41, 2013.
    2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ``The Health
Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the
Surgeon General.'' Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office
on Smoking and Health; 2014.
    3. Jamal, A., E. Phillips, A.S. Gentzke, et al. ``Current
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults--United States, 2016''. MMWR
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67:53-59, 2018.
    4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ``Cigarette
Smoking-Attributable Morbidity--United States, 2000''. MMWR
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(35):842-844, 2003
    5. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). See Table 4.10A in ``2016 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health: Detailed Tables.''

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA,
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality; 2017.
    6. Noar, S.M., Hall, M.G., Francis, D.B., et al. ``Pictorial
Cigarette Pack Warnings: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies''.
Tobacco Control, 25:341-354, 2016.

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-27658 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 37939]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16529]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d), SEC File No. 270-793, OMB
Control No. 3235-0738

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10)
and (d) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) implement Exchange Act sections
13(n)(5)(G) and (H), which conditionally require security-based swap
data repositories (SDRs) registered with the Commission to make
security-based swap data available to certain regulators and other
authorities. The rules in part would condition this access to data on
the regulators and other authorities entering into memoranda of
understanding or other arrangements with the Commission to address the
confidentiality of the data made available. The rules further would
require SDRs to create and maintain records regarding such data access.
In addition, certain regulators or other authorities that are not
otherwise designated by statute or rule may submit applications to the
Commission requesting that they be deemed eligible to access the
relevant security-based swap data.
    Implementation of the statutory data access provisions--including
the confidentiality condition and the Commission's authority to
designate entities to access such information--will facilitate
regulatory oversight of the security-based swap market and its
participants, including oversight of systemic and other risks
associated with the market. Implementation also will promote compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to
compliance with the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.
    Commission Staff estimates that the total annual burden associated
with Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) is 35,700 hours and $400,000,
calculated as follows:
    Commission staff estimates a total of 30 regulators or other
authorities will enter into confidentiality arrangements with the
Commission to obtain access to security-based swap data pursuant to
these provisions. On average, each of those recipients of data is
expected to expend 500 hours in connection with negotiating these MOUs
or other arrangements, for a one-time aggregate burden of 15,000 hours,
with no associated ongoing burdens. This equates to 5,000 hours per
year when annualized over three years.
    Commission staff estimates that a total of 21 regulators or other
authorities (that otherwise are not identified by statute or the rules
as being eligible for access) may request that the Commission determine
that they be able to access such security-based swap data. On average,
each of those entities is expected to expend 40 hours in connection
with such requests, for a one-time aggregate burden of 840 hours, with
no associated ongoing burdens. This equates to 280 hours per year when
annualized over three years.
    Commission staff also estimates that a total of 10 SDRs may be
expected to incur systems-related costs associated with setting up
access to security-based swap data for regulators and other
authorities. On average, each of those entities is expected to expend
7,800 hours in connection with providing such connectivity, for a one-
time aggregate burden of 78,000 hours, with no associated no ongoing
burdens associated with this requirement. This equates to 26,000 hours
when annualized over three years.
    In addition, Commission staff estimates that a total of 10 SDRs may
incur costs associated with notifying the Commission when the SDR
receives the first request for security-based swap data from a
particular entity. On average, each of those SDRs is expected to expend
150 hours in connection with this notice requirement (based on each SDR
providing 300 notices, at half-hour per notice), for a one-time
aggregate burden of 1,500 hours, with no associated ongoing burdens.
This equates to 500 hours per year when annualized over three years.
    Commission staff estimates that a total of 10 SDRs may incur costs
associated with the requirement that they maintain records of all
information related to initial and subsequent requests for data access.
On average, compliance with this provision is expected to require 360
hours initially and 280 hours annually per SDR, for a total burden of
3,600 hours initially and 2,800 hours annually across ten SDRs. This
equates to 4,000 hours per year when annualized over three years.
Commission staff further estimates that those SDRs each will require
$40,000 annually in connection with that requirement, for a total cost
of $400,000 annually across ten SDRs.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16529 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P