[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30224-30228]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0305]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Patuxent River, Solomons, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary special
local regulation for certain waters of the Patuxent River. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable
waters located at Solomons, MD, during a high-speed power boat racing
event on August 29, 2021. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the
Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0305 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Chesapeake Bay Power Boat Associationon, Inc. of Edgewater, MD,
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Chesapeake
Challenge/

Solomons Offshore Grand Prix from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 29, 2021.
The high-speed power boat racing event consists of approximately 60
participating high-performance offshore-type race boats of various
classes, 22 to 50 feet in length. The vessels will be competing in a
counter-clockwise direction along a marked 3.75-mile long course
located on the Patuxent River, between the Governor Thomas Johnson (MD
Route 4) Bridge and the West Patuxent Basin at U.S. Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, MD. Non-race day practice and testing will be conducted
in the waterway from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 28, 2021. Hazards from
the power boat racing event include risks of injury or death resulting
from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectator
vessels or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere
with the event. Additionally, such hazards include participants
operating near designated navigation channels, as well as operating
near approaches to local public boat ramps, private marinas and yacht
clubs, and waterfront businesses. The COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the power
boat races would be a safety concern for anyone intending to
participate in this event and for vessels that operate within specified
waters of the Patuxent River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
non-participants and transiting vessels before, during, and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish
special local regulations from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 29,
2021. The regulations would be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August
29, 2021. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the
Patuxent River bounded by a line connecting the following points: From
the shoreline at the entrance to Third Cove, at position latitude
38[deg]19'53.4'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'36.4'' W; thence south across
the Patuxent River to Town Point at latitude 38[deg]19'20.5'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'34.0'' W; thence east and south along the
shoreline to latitude 38[deg]18'59.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'40.2''
W; thence southeast across the entrance to Town Creek to Thorns Point
at latitude 38[deg]18'46.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'32.7'' W; thence
southeast along the shoreline to the U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent
River West Seaplane Basin Entrance at latitude 38[deg]17'35.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'00.2'' W; thence northeast to latitude
38[deg]18'01.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'39.0'' W; thence northwest to
Solomons Island Approach Light 3 at latitude 38[deg]19'11.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'01.8'' W; thence northwest to the shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]19'16.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'07.0'' W; thence west
and north along the shoreline to and terminating at the point of
origin. The regulated area is approximately 5,300 yards in length and
2,900 yards in width.
    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas
within the regulated area and their definitions. These areas include
``Race Area,'' ``Buffer Area'' and ``Spectator Area.''
    The proposed size of the regulated area is intended to ensure the
safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the
high-speed power boat racing event, scheduled to take place from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on August 29, 2021. The COTP and the Coast Guard Event PATCOM
would have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels
and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When
hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the
regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the
directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a person or vessel
fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from
the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Chesapeake Challenge/Solomons Offshore Grand Prix
participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be
required to get permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM before
entering the regulated area. Vessel operators would be able to request
permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by
contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would
be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM
deems it safe to do so. A vessel within the regulated area must operate
at safe speed that minimizes wake. A person or vessel not registered
with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols
would be considered a spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel
assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Official Patrols
enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and
channel 22A.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or
vessel would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to
operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated
area in a manner that would not endanger event participants or any
other craft. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable
channel while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels would
direct spectators to the designated spectator area. Only participant
vessels and official patrol vessels would be allowed to enter the race
area. The Coast Guard would publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated
area of the Patuxent River for 10 hours. This waterway supports mainly
recreational vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs during the
summer season. Although this regulated area extends across the entire
width of the waterway, the rule would allow vessels and persons to seek
permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic able to do
so safely would be able to transit the regulated area on the western
portion of the

waterway away from the event area as instructed by Event PATCOM. Such
vessels must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake and not loiter
within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the
safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area
for 10 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0305 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0305  Chessapeake Challenge-Solomons Offshore Grand Prix,
Patuxent River, Solomons, MD.

    (a) Locations. All coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983. (1)
Regulated area. All navigable waters of the Patuxent River, within an
area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From the
shoreline at the entrance to Third Cove, at position latitude
38[deg]19'53.4'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'36.4'' W; thence south across
the Patuxent River to Town Point at latitude 38[deg]19'20.5'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'34.0'' W; thence east and south along the
shoreline to latitude 38[deg]18'59.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'40.2''
W; thence southeast across the entrance to Town Creek to Thorns Point
at latitude 38[deg]18'46.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'32.7'' W; thence
southeast along the shoreline to the U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent
River West Seaplane Basin Entrance at latitude 38[deg]17'35.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'00.2'' W; thence northeast to latitude
38[deg]18'01.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'39.0'' W; thence northwest to
Solomons Island Approach Light 3 at latitude 38[deg]19'11.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'01.8'' W; thence northwest to the shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]19'16.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'07.0'' W; thence west
and north along the shoreline to and terminating at the point of
origin. The race area, buffer area, and spectator area are within the
regulated area.
    (2) Race Area. The race area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 4,300 yards in length by 1,400 yards in width. The area
is bounded by a line commencing at the Solomons Research Pier at
position latitude 38[deg]19'02'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'04'' W, thence
south to latitude 38[deg]18'09'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'53'' W; thence
southwest to latitude 38[deg]18'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'25'' W,
thence northwest to latitude 38[deg]19'43'' N, longitude
076[deg]28'29'' W; thence northeast to latitude 38[deg]19'54'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'25'' W; thence southeast along the shoreline to
and terminating at the point of origin.
    (3) Buffer Area. The buffer area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 300 feet in all directions surrounding the entire race
area described in the preceding paragraph of this section. The area is
bounded by a line commencing at the shoreline at position latitude
38[deg]19'53'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'29'' W; thence southwest to
latitude 38[deg]19'43'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'33'' W, thence
southeast to latitude 38[deg]17'56'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'27'' W;
thence east to latitude 38[deg]18'07'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'49'' W,
thence north to latitude 38[deg]19'01'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'00'' W,
thence northwest to and then along the Solomons Research Pier to the
shoreline at latitude 38[deg]19'05.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'11.5''
W; thence west and north along the shoreline to and terminating at the
point of origin.
    (4) Spectator Area. The designated spectator area is a polygon in
shape measuring approximately 1,700 yards in length by 200 yards in
width. The area is bounded by a line commencing at position latitude
38[deg]19'08'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'12'' W; thence southwest to
latitude 38[deg]19'05'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'19'' W, thence
southeast to latitude 38[deg]18'20'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'49'' W;
thence northheast to latitude 38[deg]18'22'' N, longitude
076[deg]27'43'' W, thence northwest to the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Buffer Area is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the
race area within the regulated area described by this section. The
purpose of a buffer area is to minimize potential collision conflicts
with marine event participants or high-speed power boats and spectator
vessels or nearby transiting vessels. This area provides separation
between a race area and a specified Spectator Area or other vessels
that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated area established by
the special local regulations.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Race Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a race
area within the regulated area defined by this section.
    Event Patrol Commander or Event PATCOM means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the ``Chesapeake Challenge/Solomons
Offshore Grand Prix'' event, or otherwise designated by the event
sponsor as having a function tied to the event.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.
    Spectator Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a
spectator area within the regulated area defined by this part.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or Event PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated
area shall immediately comply with the directions given by the patrol.
Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard expelling the person or
vessel from the area, issuing a citation for failure to comply, or
both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM may
terminate the event, or a participant's operations at any time the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM believes it necessary
to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission
to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM,
and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and
channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must
enter the designated Spectator Area or pass directly through the
regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A
spectator vessel

must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated
area.
    (4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and remain within the race area.
    (5) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and transit directly through the buffer area, in order
to arrive at or depart from the race area.
    (6) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel
seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (7) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
federal, state, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on August 29, 2021.

    Dated: June 1, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-11883 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70402-70404]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-1-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; Comment Request for
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Commission Service Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the
process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission or FERC) is
coordinating the development of the following proposed Generic
Information Collection Request (ICR): FERC-153, ``Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Commission Service Delivery''
for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\1\ This notice
announces that FERC intends to submit this collection to OMB for
approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed
information collection. Following review of public comments received in
regard to this 60-day notice, FERC will issue a 30-day notice to
solicit additional public comments and will submit a Generic ICR to OMB
for review.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \2\ FERC also participated in the initial 60-day notice to
establish eligibility for the Generic Clearance process (75 FR
80542, 12/22/2010).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due December 12,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC17-1-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this

docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket
may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-153, Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Commission Service Delivery.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Type of Request: New generic information collection.
    Abstract: The proposed information collection provides a means to
garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient,
timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to
improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean data that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. This
collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between FERC and its customers and stakeholders. It will
also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of
program management. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such
as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy,
efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service
delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to
improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If
this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Commission's services will be unavailable.
    The Commission will only submit a collection for approval under
this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are non-controversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management
purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Commission (if
released, the Commission must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information);
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study.
    As a general matter, this information collection will not result in
any new system of records containing privacy information and will not
ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and
attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
considered private.
    This information collection is subject to the PRA. The Commission
generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and
the public is generally not required to respond to an information
collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information which
does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320. OMB
authorization for an information collection cannot be for more than
three years without renewal.
    Type of Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and households;
Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations; State,
Local, or Tribal government.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \4\ 1,500 hours = 90,000 minutes.

                                  Estimated Annual Burden for Generic Clearance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of                      Average burden
                                  Number of     responses per   Total number      minutes per      Total burden
                                 respondents     respondent     of responses        response           hours
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =                (4)     (3) * (4) =
                                                                          (3)                                (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Clearance............          15,000               1          15,000                  6       \4\ 1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall 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 to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-
up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services
to provide information.

    Dated: October 5, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24600 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57798-57801]
[DOCID:fr22se10-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0465]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study: Effect of Promotional Offers in
Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Advertisements on Consumer
Product Perceptions

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the Experimental Study: Effect of
Promotional Offers in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print
Advertisements on Consumer Product Perceptions. This study is designed
to investigate the impact of the presence of coupons offering purchase
incentives such as free-trial offers, discounts, and money-back
guarantees on consumers' perceptions of product risks and benefits in
direct-to-consumer (DTC) print ads.\1\ Notice of proposed information
collection for this project was previously published in the Federal
Register of December 15, 2008 (73 FR 76034). This notice is being
republished due to significant revisions in the burden and study
design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
provides FDA with authority to regulate prescription drug
advertisements that are false or misleading, the FD&C Act does not
provide FDA with the authority to regulate the pricing of
prescription drugs. Thus, FDA is merely interested in studying the
effects, if any, of the presence of various promotional offers in
DTC advertisements on consumers' perceptions of product risks and
benefits, and recognizes that it does not actually regulate the
dollar or other incentive amount of coupons, price incentives, or
rebate offers with respect to how they affect the price of
prescription drugs or biological products.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of information by November 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency
requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal
agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning
each proposed collection of information before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is
publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth
in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study: Effect of Promotional Offers in Direct-to-Consumer
(DTC) Prescription Drug Print Advertisements on Consumer Product
Perceptions--New

    Regulatory Background--Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research
relating to health information. Section 903(d)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to
drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions
of the FD&C Act.
    FDA regulations require that an advertisement that makes claims
about a prescription drug include a ``fair balance'' of information
about the benefits and risks of the advertised product, in terms of
both content and presentation (21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(ii)). In part, ``[a]n
advertisement for a prescription drug is false, lacking in fair
balance, or otherwise misleading* * * if it [c]ontains a representation
or suggestion, not approved or permitted for use in the labeling, that
a drug is better, more effective, useful in a broader range of
conditions or patients* * *safer, has fewer, or less incidence of, or
less serious side effects or contraindications than has been
demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical
experience* * *whether or not such representations are made by
comparison with other drugs or treatments, and whether or not such a
representation or suggestion is made directly'' (21 CFR
202.1(e)(6)(i)). Further, the regulations state that an advertisement
may be misleading if it ``[u]ses headline, subheadline, or pictorial or
other graphic matter in a way that is misleading'' (21 CFR
202.1(e)(6)(xviii)).
    Advertisements that draw attention to the name of the product but
do not make representations about the product's indication(s) or dosage
recommendations are called reminder advertisements. As a general
matter, reminder ads may mention the proprietary and established name
of the product and (optionally) contain information about the product's
ingredients, dosage form, quantity, price, and manufacturer (21 CFR
202.1(e)(2)(i)). Other written, printed, or graphic information is not
prohibited in reminder ads as long as that information does not make a
representation or suggestion relating to the product beyond those
permitted.
Rationale. A topic of ongoing interest for consumer product
manufacturers and retailers is the use of consumer-oriented sales
promotions such as free trial offers, discounts, money-back guarantees,
rebates, and sweepstakes. Coupon promotions are widely used in many
product categories, including prescription drugs.
    Prior research has demonstrated that the type of promotion offered
can affect how consumers respond to the promotion.\2\ For example, a
price incentive may not only act as an economic incentive to buy the
product, but may also artificially enhance consumers' perceptions of
the product's quality.\3\ In cases where consumers can readily test the
performance of the products (termed ``experience'' goods\4\), this
misperception is quickly corrected through the consumer's use of the
product. However, because prescription drugs are both more complex and
riskier than simpler experience products, misperceptions before product
use are a serious concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See for example, deGroot, I.M., G. Antonides, D. Read, et
al., ``The Effects of Direct Experience on Consumer Product
Evaluation,'' Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3), 509-519, 2009;
DelVecchio, D., D.H. Henard, and T.H. Freling, ``The Effect of Sales
Promotion on Post-Promotion Brand Preference: A Meta-Analysis,''
Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 203-213, 2006; Mico, C.C. and T.G.
Chowdhury, ``The Effect of Message's Regulatory Focus and Product
Type on Persuasion,'' Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
18(2), 181-190, 2010.
    \3\ LeClerc, F. and J.D.C. Little, ``Can Advertising Copy Make
FSI Coupons More Effective?,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4),
473-484, 1997.
    \4\ Wolk, A. and C. Ebling, ``Multi-Channel Price
Differentiation: An Empirical Investigation of Existence and
Causes,'' International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2),
142-150, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Price incentives may mislead consumers because consumers may use
the incentives as cues about product quality. For example, if length of
warranty is strongly believed to be a good predictor of quality, then
consumers may perceive a product as higher quality when a long warranty
is present than when one is not present.\5\ Thus, price incentives may
have the potential to act as an ``inference rule'' (or heuristic\6\)
and, when present, they may preempt consumers from thinking carefully
about the product information contained in the advertisement (i.e.,
fully elaborating on the information). This could result in either
favorable or unfavorable beliefs about the product.\7\ If the
promotional offer is used as a mental heuristic in such a way as to
result in a misleading impression of the product, however, this raises
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Johar, G.V. and C.J. Simmons, ``The Use of Concurrent
Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences,'' Journal of Consumer
Research, 26(4), 307, 2000.
    \6\ Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A. Eagly, ``Heuristic and
Systematic Proocessing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context,''
1989; In J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought
(chapter 7, p. 212-252), Guilford Press: New York; Bettman J.R.,
M.F. Luce, and J.W. Payne, ``Constructive Consumer Choice
Processes,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217, 1998.
    \7\ Alba, J.W. and H. Marmorstein, ``The Effects of Frequency
Knowledge on Consumer Decision Making,'' Journal of Consumer
Research, 14(1), 14-25, 1987; Inman, J.J., L. McAlister, and W.D.
Hoyer, ``Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?,'' Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(1), 74-81, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It may be possible to encourage more thorough processing of
information and reduce reliance on heuristics through the inclusion of
additional information designed to qualify and be processed at the same
time as the claim in question. For example, disclosures (statements
that qualify, limit, or explain a particular claim) are intended to be
an information remedy to combat potential deception.\8\ Research is
mixed on the

effectiveness of disclosures, particularly those that take the form of
a disclaimer.\9\ However, there may be other ways to add information
that is effective in changing processing. One possibility is including
specific information about a prescription drug product's efficacy from
labeling. This information may act as a signal with regard to the
quality of the information (good or bad). By extension, this signal may
affect the use of processing heuristics. Depending on the type of
signal and the extent to which consumers process the signal, full
elaboration of the product information may be enhanced (as use of
heuristics decreases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FTC (Federal Trade Commission) (1983), Federal Trade
Commission policy statement on deception, appended to Cliffdale
Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984), Available at http://
www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm, Last accessed September 8,
2010; Hoy, M.G and M.O. Lwin, ``An International Perspective of
Online Disclosure Information: A Comparison of Banner Ad Disclosures
from United States, United Kingdom and Singapore Websites,'' Journal
of Consumer Policy, 31, 327-347, 2008.
    \9\ See, for example, France, K.R. and P.F. Bone, ``Policy
Makers' Paradigms and Evidence From Consumer Interpretations of
Dietary Supplement Labels,'' Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 27-
51, 2005; Mason, M.J., D.L. Scammon, and X. Fang, ``The Impact of
Warnings, Disclaimers and Product Experience on Consumers'
Perceptions of Dietary Supplements,'' Journal of Consumer Affairs,
41(1) 74-99, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumers vary in their reactions to promotions such as coupons and
researchers and economists have proposed a number of explanations for
why some consumers are sensitive to these tactics. Two such traits are
``price consciousness'' and ``belief in the price-quality
relationship.'' Price consciousness is defined as the degree to which
the consumer focuses exclusively on paying low prices. Belief in the
price-quality relationship is defined as the degree to which one
believes a higher price indicates superior quality.\10\ A broader trait
of ``value consciousness'' has also been used. This trait involves
assumptions about the construct of perceived value and its relationship
(a ratio) with the constructs of perceived quality and perceived price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Garretson, J.A. and S. Burton, ``Highly Coupon and Sale
Prone Consumers: Benefits Beyond Price Savings,'' Journal of
Advertising Research, 43, 162-172, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While promotions have been extensively studied in the context of
package goods, information on their effects in DTC prescription drug
ads is limited. One relevant study\11\ found that a free-trial offer in
a DTC ad for a high cholesterol drug resulted in more favorable
perceptions of the product and the ad (both rated as good/bad,
favorable/unfavorable, and pleasant/unpleasant), perceptions of the
product and greater intentions to ask about the product. No differences
were found in terms of perceived product risk. However, the study did
not measure perceptions of product risk and benefit separately, or
comprehension of risk and benefit information. Additionally, no attempt
was made to control for factors that may predispose individuals toward
coupon use nor was the study conducted with the target population (high
cholesterol sufferers). The current study will expand on this initial
study by investigating a variety of promotional offers, recruiting a
wider range of the target audience from malls and online, measuring
traits that may predispose individuals to be susceptible to coupon
influence, and by exploring the effects of disclosures on the
processing of product information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Bhutada, N.S., C.L. Cook, and M. Perri, ``Consumer
Responses to Cupons in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of
Prescription Drugs,'' Health Marketing Quarterly, 26, 333-346, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current study will examine what effect, if any, the presence of
promotional offers in DTC prescription drug ads have on the following:
(1) Consumers' perceptions of product risks and benefits, (2)
comprehension of product risks and benefits, and (3) strongly held
beliefs that may act as potential moderators. The study will also
explore ways in which additional contextual information can be used to
enhance processing of the product information in the advertisement.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Because FDA does not have the authority to regulate
prescription drug pricing we will not examine prescription drug
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design Overview
    This study will examine type of promotional offer (for example,
free trial offer; money off cost; money back guarantee; buy one, get
one free; and no offer) in three types of drug advertisements
(prescription drug reminder ad, prescription drug full product ad, and
over-the-counter (OTC) drug ad\13\) in a medium prevalence medical
condition (defined as 10 percent prevalence in the adult U.S.
population). The study will be administered in two modes, online and
mall-intercept, in order to assess the effects of mode on study
results. The following table illustrates the design; the specific
promotional offers examined will be determined through pretesting. This
study is experimental in method: participants will be randomly assigned
to condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Prescription drug full product advertisements contain
information about both benefits and risks, whereas prescription drug
reminder advertisements do not contain this information. OTC drug
advertisements contain benefit information but not risk information,
thus making it a good choice for an experimental comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Study Design

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Type of Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Full Product                            Reminder                                 OTC
     Promotional Offer  (examples)     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free trial offer                                   Online               Mall             Online               Mall             Online               Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy one, get one free                              Online               Mall             Online               Mall             Online               Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money off cost                                     Online               Mall             Online               Mall             Online               Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money back guarantee                               Online               Mall             Online               Mall             Online               Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control: No offer                                  Online               Mall             Online               Mall             Online               Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose to conduct a supplementary exploratory study to
examine the influence of additional information as a form of context.
The supplementary study will examine the effect of some forms of
qualifying context in a full product prescription drug ad. This
supplementary study will examine type of context (for example,
additional information about product risks, additional information
about product benefits, additional information

about both risks and benefits, and no additional information) in three
different promotional offers (money back guarantee and two others) in a
medium prevalence medical condition (defined previously). This
supplemental study will be conducted online. One type of offer examined
will be money back guarantee; we will choose the other two types of
promotional offers based on the results of the main study. The exact
wording of the qualifying context to be examined will be determined
through pretesting. This study is experimental in method: Participants
will be randomly assigned to condition.
Supplementary Study Design

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Type of Offer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Context      Money Back       Offer 2  To be     Offer 3  To be
   (examples)        Guarantee          determined         determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional       .................  .................  .................
 information
 about risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional       .................  .................  .................
 information
 about efficacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional       .................  .................  .................
 information
 about efficacy
 and risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control: No      .................  .................  .................
 Context
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interviews are expected to last no more than 20 minutes. A total of
10,000 participants will be involved in the pretesting and two phases
of the study. This will be a one time (rather than annual) collection
of information.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                No. of       Annual Frequency     Total Annual      Hours per
      21 CFR Section          Respondents      per Response         Responses       Response       Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretests                             1,000                   1             1,000           .33               330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main study: online                   3,750                   1             3,750           .33             1,238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main study: mall intercept           2,250                   1             2,250           .33               743
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary study                  3,000                   1             3,000           .33               990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                               10,000  ..................  ................  ............             3,301
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23632 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44769-44770]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings
    Docket Numbers: RP17-1054-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update List of Non-Conforming
Service Agreements (Garden State) to be effective 9/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170918-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1035-001.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: RP17-1035 Amendment to be effective
10/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1055-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091917 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol, Inc. R-7495-05 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1056-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091917 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol, Inc. H-7495-89 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1057-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091917 Negotiated Rates--
Hartree Partners, LP R-7090-04 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1058-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091917 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol, Inc. R-7495-04 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1059-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091917 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC R-4090-15 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170919-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    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 5:00
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: September 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20557 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10671-10674]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03386]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68873; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Permit the
Minimum Price Variation for Mini-Options To Be the Same as Permitted
for Standard Options on the Same Security

February 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 31, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to permit the minimum price variation for mini-option
contracts that deliver 10 shares to be the same as permitted for
standard options that deliver 100 shares on the same security. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBOE recently amended its rules to allow for the listing of mini-
options that deliver 10 physical shares on SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''),
Apple, Inc. (``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc.
(``GOOG'') and Amazon.com Inc. (``AMZN'').\3\ Mini-options trading is
expected to commence in March 2013. Prior to the commencement of
trading mini-options, the Exchange proposes to establish and permit the
minimum price variation for mini-option contracts to be the same as
permitted for standard options on the same security. In addition to
giving market participants clarity as to the minimum pricing increments
for mini-options, the filing would harmonize penny pricing between
mini-options and standard options on the same security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68656 (January 15,
2013), 78 FR 4526 (January 22, 2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Option
Contracts Overlying 10 Shares of Certain Securities) (SR-CBOE-2013-
001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the five securities on which mini-options are permitted, four of
them (SPY, AAPL, GLD and AMZN) participate in the Penny Pilot Program.
Under the Penny Pilot Program:
     The minimum price variation for AAPL, GLD and AMZN options
is $0.01 for all quotations in series that are quoted at less than $3
per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in series that are quoted at
$3 per contract or greater; \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 6.42(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The minimum price variation for SPY options is $0.01 for
all quotations in all series.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.42(3) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 61478 (February 3, 2010), 75 FR 6762 (February 10, 2010) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
[sic] Relating to the Penny Pilot Program) (SR-CBOE-2010-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the lead up to the launch of mini-options trading, the Exchange
has polled firms with customer bases of potential product users and
they have indicated a preference that premium pricing for mini-options
match what is currently permitted for standard options that deliver 100
physical shares on the same securities. Specifically, firms' systems
are configured using the ``root symbol'' of an underlying security and
cannot differentiate, for purposes of minimum variation pricing,
between contracts on the same security. Mini-options will be loaded
into firms' systems using the same ``root symbol'' that is used for
standard options on the same security. As a result, it is believed that
existing systems will not be able to assign different minimum pricing
variations to different contracts on the same security. As a result,
firms have indicated their preference that there be matched pricing
between mini-options and standard options on the same security because
their systems, which are programmed using ``root symbols,'' would not
be able to assign different minimum pricing variations to mini-options
and standard options on the same security.
    Because mini-options are a separate class from standard options on
the same security, mini-options would have to qualify separately for
entry into the Penny Pilot Program. This, however, is not possible by
product launch (or possibly ever) for a number of reasons. First, there
is a six calendar month trading volume criteria for entry into the
Penny Pilot Program, which mini-options cannot satisfy prior to launch.
Second, even if mini-options met the trading volume criteria,
replacement classes are only added to the Penny Pilot Program on the
second trading day following January 1 and July 1 in a given year.
Finally, there is a price test for entry into the Penny Pilot Program
which excludes ``high premium'' classes, which are defined as classes
priced at $200 per share or higher at the time of selection. As of the
date of this filing, three of the five securities (AAPL, AMZN and GOOG)
eligible for mini-options would be excluded as ``high premium''
classes, even though two of those securities (AAPL and AMZN) are in the
Penny Pilot Program for standard options. The Exchange notes that GOOG
is not in the Penny Pilot Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The minimum price variation for standard options on GOOG is
$0.05 for all quotations in series that are quoted at less than $3
per contract and $0.10 for all quotations in series that are quoted
at $3 per contract or greater. See CBOE Rule 6.42(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, therefore, is proposing to establish a pricing regime
for mini-options separate from the Penny Pilot Program that permits the
minimum price variation for mini-option contracts to be the same as
permitted for standard options on the same security, which would
encompass penny pricing for mini-option contracts on securities that
participate in the Penny Pilot Program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted in the Exchange's original mini-option filing,
mini-options are limited to five securities and any expansion of the
program would require that a subsequent proposed rule change be
submitted to the Commission. The current proposal is limited to the
five securities originally approved to underlie mini-options. The
Exchange anticipates that a similar minimum pricing variation regime
would be included in any rule change to expand the mini-option
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the Penny Pilot Program, the Exchange believes that there are
several good reasons to allow penny pricing for mini-options on
securities that currently participate in the Penny Pilot Program,
without requiring mini-options to separately qualify for the Penny
Pilot Program. First, the Penny Pilot Program applies to the most
actively-traded, multiply-listed option classes. Likewise, the five
securities which may underlie mini-options were chosen because of the
significant liquidity in standard options on the same security. The
Exchange also believes that the marketplace and investors will be
expecting the minimum price variation for contracts on the same
security to be the same. Second, one of the primary goals of the Penny
Pilot Program is to

narrow the bid-ask spreads of exchange-traded options to reduce the
cost of entering and exiting positions. This same goal can similarly be
accomplished by permitting penny pricing for mini-option contracts on
securities that already participate in the Penny Pilot Program.
Finally, the Exchange believes that penny pricing for mini-options is
desirable for a product that is geared toward retail investors. Mini-
options are on high priced securities and are meant to be an investment
tool with more affordable and realistic prices for the retail average
investor. Penny pricing for mini-options on securities that are
currently in the Penny Pilot Program would benefit the anticipated
users of mini-options by providing more price points. The Exchange
notes that it is not requesting penny pricing for all of the five
securities eligible for mini-options trading; but rather is seeking to
permit matched penny pricing for mini-options on those securities for
which standard options already trade in pennies.
    In addition to an expressed market preference for matched minimum
increment pricing (including penny pricing) between mini-options and
standard options on the same securities, the Exchange believes that its
rules establish precedent for the current proposal. Specifically, CBOE
Rule 6.42.03 provides, among other things, that matched penny pricing
between SPY and Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP'') options is permitted. As
to SPY and XSP options, the rationale for matched pricing was that the
underlying SPY ETF is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index and XSP options are options based on the S&P 500 Index.\8\ In
support of this earlier filing, the Exchange believed that having the
same minimum price variation for SPY and XSP options was necessary for
consistency and for competitive reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56565 (September 27,
2007), 72 FR 56403 (October 3, 2007) (Order Granting Approval to a
Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Extension and Expansion of the
Penny Pilot Program) (SR-CBOE-2007-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect the current proposed rule changes, CBOE proposes to amend
CBOE Rules 6.42 and 5.5. As to CBOE Rule 6.42 (Minimum Increments for
Bids and Offers), CBOE proposes adding new Interpretation and Policy
.04 that would be an internal cross reference to new proposed
Interpretation and Policy .22(d) to CBOE Rule 5.5 as the provision that
sets forth the minimum price variation for bids and offers for mini-
options. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .22(d) to CBOE Rule 5.5
would provide as follows:

    The minimum price variation for bids and offers for mini-options
shall be the same as permitted for standard options on the same
security. For example, if a security participates in the Penny Pilot
Program, mini-options on the same underlying security may be quoted
in the same minimum increments, e.g., $0.01 for all quotations in
series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for
all quotations in series that are quoted at $3 per contract or
greater, $0.01 for all SPY option series, and mini-options do not
separately need to qualify for the Penny Pilot Program.

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity
to handle the potential additional traffic associated with this
proposal. The Exchange does not believe that this increased traffic
will become unmanageable since mini-options are limited to a fixed
number of underlying securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors and other market
participants would benefit from the current rule proposal because it
would clarify and establish the minimum price variation for mini-
options prior to the commencement of trading. The Exchange believes
that the marketplace and investors will be expecting the minimum price
variation for contracts on the same security to be the same. As a
result, the Exchange believes that this change would lessen investor
and marketplace confusion because mini-options and standard options on
the same security would have the same minimum price variation.
    While price protection between mini-options and standard options on
the same security is not required, the Exchange believes that
consistency between mini-options and standard options as to the minimum
price variation is desirable and is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade. Matching the minimum price variation
between mini-options and standard options on the same security would
help to eliminate any unnecessary arbitrage opportunities that could
result from having contracts on the same underlying security traded in
different minimum price increments. Similarly, matched minimum pricing
would hopefully generate enhanced competition among liquidity
providers. The Exchange believes that matched pricing for mini-options
and standard options on the same security would attract additional
liquidity providers who would make markets in mini-options and standard
options on the same security. In addition to the possibility of more
liquidity providers, the Exchange believes that the ability to quote
mini-options and standard options on the same security in the same
minimum increments would hopefully result in more efficient pricing via
arbitrage and possible price improvement in both contracts on the same
security. The Exchange also believes that allowing penny pricing for
mini-options on securities that currently participate in the Penny
Pilot Program (without mini-options having to qualify separately for
entry into the Penny Pilot Program) will benefit the marketplace and
investors because penny pricing in mini-options may also accomplish one
of the primary goals of the Penny Pilot Program, which is to narrow the
bid-ask spreads of exchange-traded options to reduce the cost of
entering and exiting positions. Finally, the proposed rule would be
beneficial from a logistical perspective since firms' existing systems
are configured using the ``root symbol'' of an underlying security and
would not be able to assign different minimum pricing variations to
mini-options and standard options on the same security.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Specifically, since mini-options are permitted
on multiply-listed classes, other exchanges that have received approval
to trade mini-options will have the opportunity to similarly establish
the minimum price variation for mini-options prior to the anticipated
launch in March 2013. CBOE also believes that the proposed rule change
will enhance competition by allowing

products on the same security to be priced in the same minimum price
increments.

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

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

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

    Within 45 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 or disapprove such 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-016 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-CBOE-2013-016. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-016 and should be
submitted on or before March 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03386 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P