	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by:	Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)

Date Submitted: 	June 12, 2007

Subject:		Redesignation of the Centre County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area’s  Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

Completeness Review        /s/

Completed by:		Rose Quinto

Date Completed: 	June 27, 2007

Administrative Materials												        ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1.  Letter was submitted June 12, 2007 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Kathleen A. McGinty, Secretary, PADEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, US EPA Region III.

X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2.  N/A.  Not a regulatory change.  The submittal is a request for redesignation and a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory that is effective June, 2007.

X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  State has legal authority to adopt this maintenance plan under Section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Act.

X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4.  N/A.  See number 2 above.

X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  N/A.

X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6.  PADEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 28, 2007.

X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7.  Notice of public hearing was given to the public in the Centre Daily Times on April 28, 2007.

X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  No public comments were received.

X

Technical Materials

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  8-Hour Ozone

X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  Applies to Centre County (State College), Pennsylvania.

X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  An updated allowable emissions inventory was provided along with submittal.

X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The state has developed a current and projected (2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018) emissions inventory showing attainment of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  This portion of the maintenance plan shows how the NAAQS will be protected since emission levels are expected to remain at or below the levels needed for attainment.

X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  All data and evidence is present for this action.

X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6.  N/A

X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Evidence is shown that PADEP will do period emission inventory updates and analysis.

X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8.  Pennsylvania will continue to monitor ambient air in the area and to review the emissions inventory.  If an exceedance or growth in the emissions inventory occurs, contingency measures will be triggered.

X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.)

9.  N/A

X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  The Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region III on June 12, 2007. This plan demonstrates maintenance for 2006-2018.

X


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13692-13694]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5719]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64051; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Establish a Revenue Sharing Program With Correlix, Inc.

March 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 1, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') 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 CBOE. 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to establish a revenue sharing program with
Correlix, Inc. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), 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, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is filing a proposed rule change to establish a
revenue sharing program with Correlix. The Exchange has entered into an
agreement with Correlix to provide to users of the Exchange real-time
analytical tools to measure the latency of orders to and from its
systems. Under the agreement, the Exchange will receive 30% of the
total monthly subscription fees received by Correlix from parties who
have contracted directly with Correlix to use their RaceTeam latency
measurement service for the Exchange's systems. The Exchange will not
bill or contract with any Correlix RaceTeam customer directly.
    Pricing for the Correlix RaceTeam product for the Exchange varies
depending on the number of unique acronyms and logons selected by the
customer for monitoring by Correlix. For the Exchange, the fee will be
an initial $1,500 monthly base fee for the first unique acronym
monitored. For each additional unique acronym sought to be monitored,
an additional monthly charge of $1,500 will be assessed. The monthly
price for each unique acronym includes the monitoring of up to 25
Exchange logons associated with that particular acronym. Customers that
wish to exceed 25 logons per-acronym for monitoring can purchase
additional 25 logon blocks for an additional fee of $750 per month per
acronym.
    Under the program, Correlix will see an individualized unique
Exchange-generated identifier that will allow Correlix RaceTeam to
determine round trip order time,\3\ from the time the order reaches the
Exchange extranet, through the Exchange matching engine, and back out
of the Exchange extranet. The RaceTeam product offering does not
measure latency outside of the Exchange extranet. The unique identifier
serves as a technological information barrier so that the RaceTeam data
collector will only be able to view data for Correlix RaceTeam
subscriber firms related to latency. Correlix will not see subscriber's
individual order detail such as security, price or size. Individual
RaceTeam subscribers' logins will restrict access to only their own
latency data. Correlix will see no specific information regarding the
trading activity of non-subscribers. The Exchange believes that the
above arrangement will provide users of its systems greater
transparency into the processing of their trading activity and allow
them to make more efficient trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The product measures latency of orders whether the orders
are rejected, executed or partially executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\4\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) \5\ of the Act in
particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposal
will provide greater transparency into trade and information processing
and thus allow market participants to make better informed and more
efficient trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act in general, and
with Section 6(b)(4)\6\ of the Act in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among CBOE Trading Permit Holders and other persons using any facility
or system which the Exchange operates or controls. In particular, the
Exchange notes that the use of Correlix latency measurement services is
entirely voluntary and made available on a non-discriminatory basis. In
addition, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitable and
reasonable in that they are charged uniformly to all market
participants and are comparable to the fees charged by Correlix in
connection with its revenue sharing programs with other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of 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 rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission notes that the Exchange satisfied this five-day pre-
filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-CBOE-2011-023 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-2011-023. 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 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
a.m. and 3 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-2011-023 and should be
submitted on or before April 4, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5719 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35367-35370]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2033]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey on the
Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional
Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility Types

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 July
20, 2015.

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 Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in
Selected Institutional Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility
Types. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<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.

Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Institutional Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility Types (2015-
2025)

(OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

I. Background

    From 1998-2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a study
to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors,
preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly reported to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as contributing factors
to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, data
was collected by FDA Specialists in retail and foodservice
establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and 2008) in order to
observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following
foodborne illness risk factors:
     Food from Unsafe Sources,
     Poor Personal Hygiene,
     Inadequate Cooking,
     Improper Holding/Time and Temperature and
     Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
    FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the
three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1-3). Data
from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends
in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether
progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of
foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice
facility types (Ref. 4).
    Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013-2014, FDA
initiated a new study in full service and fast food restaurants. This
study will span 10 years with additional data collections planned for
2017-2018 and 2021-2022. FDA is proposing to collect data in select
institutional foodservice and retail food store facility types in 2015-
2016. This proposed study will also span 10 years with additional data
collections planned for 2019-2020 and 2023-2024.

    Table 1--Description of the Facility Types Included in the Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility type                         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Facilities.............  Hospitals and long-term care
                                     facilities foodservice operations
                                     that prepare meals for highly
                                     susceptible populations as defined
                                     as follows:
                                     Hospitals--A foodservice
                                     operation that provides for the
                                     nutritional needs of inpatients by
                                     preparing meals and transporting
                                     them to the patient's room and/or
                                     serving meals in a cafeteria
                                     setting (meals in the cafeteria may
                                     also be served to hospital staff
                                     and visitors).
                                     Long-term care facilities--
                                     A foodservice operation that
                                     prepares meals for the residents in
                                     a group care living setting such as
                                     nursing homes and assisted living
                                     facilities.

                                    Note: For the purposes of this
                                     study, healthcare facilities that
                                     do not prepare or serve food to a
                                     highly susceptible population, such
                                     as mental healthcare facilities,
                                     are not included in this facility
                                     type category.
Schools (K-12)....................  Foodservice operations that have the
                                     primary function of preparing and
                                     serving meals for students in one
                                     or more grade levels from
                                     Kindergarten through Grade 12. A
                                     school foodservice may be part of a
                                     public or private institution.
Retail Food Stores................  Supermarkets and grocery stores that
                                     have a deli department/operation as
                                     described as follows:
                                     Deli department/operation--
                                     Areas in a retail food store where
                                     foods, such as luncheon meats and
                                     cheeses, are sliced for the
                                     customers and where sandwiches and
                                     salads are prepared on-site or
                                     received from a commissary in bulk
                                     containers, portioned, and
                                     displayed. Parts of deli operations
                                     may include:
                                     Salad bars, pizza stations,
                                     and other food bars managed by the
                                     deli department manager.
                                     Areas where other foods are
                                     cooked or prepared and offered for
                                     sale as ready-to-eat and are
                                     managed by the deli department
                                     manager.

                                    Data will also be collected in the
                                     following areas of a supermarket or
                                     grocery store, if present:
                                     Meat and seafood department/
                                     operation--Areas in a retail food
                                     store where raw animal food
                                     products, such as beef, pork,
                                     poultry, or seafood, are cut,
                                     prepared, stored, or displayed for
                                     sale to the consumer.
                                     Produce department/
                                     operation--Areas in a retail food
                                     store where produce is cut,
                                     prepared, stored, or displayed for
                                     sale to the consumer. A produce
                                     operation may include salad bars or
                                     juice stations that are managed by
                                     the produce manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the study is to:
     Assist FDA with developing retail food safety initiatives
and policies focused on the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
     Identify retail food safety work plan priorities and
allocate resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
     Track changes in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors in retail and foodservice establishments over time; and
     Inform recommendations to the retail and foodservice
industry and state, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory
professionals on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors.
    The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243, section 311(a)).
Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Act relative to
food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs
in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the Economy Act (31
U.S.C. 1535) require FDA to provide assistance to other Federal, state,
and local government bodies.
    The objectives of the study are to:
     Identify the foodborne illness risk factors that are in
most need of priority attention during each data collection period;
     Track trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors over time;
     Examine potential correlations between operational
characteristics of food establishments and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors;
     Examine potential correlations between elements within
regulatory retail food protection programs and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors; and
     Evaluate the impact of industry food safety management
systems in controlling the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors.
    The methodology to be used for this information collection is
described as follows. In order to obtain a sufficient number of
observations to conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will
conduct approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This
sample size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations
to be 95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5
percent of the true compliance percentage.
    A geographical information system database containing a listing of
businesses throughout the United States will be used as the
establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA will sample
establishments from the inventory based on the descriptions in table 1.
FDA does not intend to sample operations that handle only prepackaged
food items or conduct low risk food preparation activities. The FDA
Food Code contains a grouping of establishments by risk, based on the
type of food preparation that is normally conducted within the
operation (Ref. 5). The intent is to sample establishments that fall
under risk categories 2 through 4.
    FDA has approximately 25 Regional Retail Food Specialists
(Specialists) who will serve as the data collectors for the 10-year
study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the
United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and
a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility
types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition personnel in the
application and interpretation of the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5).
    Sampling zones will be established which are equal to the 150 mile
radius around a Specialist's home location. The sample will be selected
randomly from among all eligible establishments located within these
sampling zones. The Specialists are generally located in major
metropolitan areas (i.e. population centers) across the contiguous
United States. Population centers usually contain a large concentration
of the establishments FDA intends to sample. Sampling from the 150 mile
radius sampling zones around the Specialists' home locations provides
three advantages to the study:
    1. It provides a cross section of urban and rural areas from which
to sample the eligible establishments.
    2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory
entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
    3. It reduces overnight travel and therefore reduces travel costs
incurred by the Agency to collect data.
    The sample for each data collection period will be evenly
distributed among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by
industry is voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected
establishment is subject to change, substitute establishments will be
selected for each Specialist for cases where the restaurant facility is
misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling
to participate.

    Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists will contact
the state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for
conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The
Specialist will verify with the jurisdiction that the facility has been
properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in
operation. The Specialist will also ascertain whether the selected
facility is under legal notice from the state or local regulatory
authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the
Specialist will not conduct a data collection, and a substitute
establishment will be used. An invitation will be extended to the state
or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data
collection visit.
    A standard form will be used by the Specialists during each data
collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1--
``Establishment Information''; Section 2--``Regulatory Authority
Information''; and section 3--``Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food
Safety Management System Assessment.'' The information in section 1--
``Establishment Information'' of the form will be obtained during an
interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the
Specialist and will include a standard set of questions.
    The information in section 2--``Regulatory Authority Information''
will be obtained during an interview with the program director of the
state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for
conducting inspections for the selected establishment. Section 3
includes three parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists'
observations of the food employees' behaviors and practices in limiting
contamination, proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; part
B for assessing the food safety management being implemented by the
facility; and part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food
employee hand washing. The information in part A will be collected from
the Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and
practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the
Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or
practice being observed. The information in part B will be collected by
making direct observations and asking follow up questions of facility
management to obtain information on the extent to which the food
establishment has developed and implemented food safety management
systems. The information in part C will be collected by making direct
observations of food employee hand washing. No questions will be asked
in the completion of section 3, part C of the form.
    FDA will collect the following information associated with the
establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city,
state, zip code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The
establishment identifying information is collected to ensure the data
collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the
nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of
employees per shift, will also be collected. Data will be consolidated
and reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any
establishment included in the study.
    FDA is working with the National Center for Food Protection and
Defense to develop a Web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect,
store, and analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. Once
developed, this platform will be accessible to state, local,
territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions to collect data
relevant to their own risk factor studies. FDA is currently
transitioning from the manual entry of data to the use of hand-held
technology. Contingent upon the completion of the Web-based platform,
FDA intends to pilot test the use of hand-held technology during its
2015-2016 risk factor study data collection in institutional
foodservice and retail food store facility types, with the goal to have
it fully implemented by the next the data collection in restaurant
facility types that will occur in 2017-2018. When a data collector is
assigned a specific establishment, he or she will conduct the data
collection and enter the information into the Web-based data platform.
The interface will support the manual entering of data, as well as the
ability to upload a fillable PDF.
    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75158), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    The burden for this collection of information is as follows. For
each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in
charge of the selected facility type (whether it be a healthcare
facility, school, or supermarket/grocery store); and (2) the program
director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory
authority. In order to provide the sufficient number of observations
needed to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data, FDA
has determined that 400 data collections will be required in each of
the three facility types. Therefore, the total number of responses will
be 2,400 (400 data collections x 3 facility types x 2 respondents per
data collection).
    The burden associated with the completion of sections 1 and 3 of
the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected
facilities. It includes the time it will take the persons in charge to
accompany the data collectors during the site visit and answer the data
collectors' questions. The burden related to the completion of section
2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated
individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. It includes the
time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the
same regardless of the facility type.
    To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA will use
the average data collection duration for similar facility types during
FDA's 2008 Risk Factor Study (Ref. 3) plus an extra 30 minutes (0.5
hours) for the information collection related to section 3, part B of
the form. FDA estimates that it will take the persons in charge of
healthcare facility types, schools, and retail food stores 150 minutes
(2.5 hours), 120 minutes (2 hours), and 180 minutes (3 hours),
respectively, to accompany the data collectors while they complete
sections 1 and 3 of the form. FDA estimates that it will take the
program director (or designated individual) of the respective
regulatory authority 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions
related to section 2 of the form. The total burden estimate for a data
collection, including both the program director's and the person in
charge's responses, in healthcare facility types is 180 minutes (150 +
30) (3 hours), in schools is 150 minutes (120 + 30) (2.5 hours), and in
retail food stores is 210 minutes (180 + 30) (3.5 hours).
    Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2013-2014 Risk
Factor Study in the restaurant facility types, we estimate a refusal
rate of 2 percent in the institutional foodservice and retail food
store facility types. The estimate of the time per non-respondent is 5
minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in charge to listen to the purpose
of the visit and provide a verbal refusal of entry.

                                                     Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of                              Number of
                                                   Number of    responses      Total      Number of    responses      Total       Average
                    Activity                      respondents      per         annual        non-       per non-   annual non-   burden per  Total hours
                                                                respondent   responses   respondents   respondent   responses     response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2016 Data Collection (Healthcare                     400            1          400  ...........  ...........  ...........          2.5        1,000
 Facilities)--Completion of Sections 1 and 3....
2015-2016 Data Collection (Schools)--Completion           400            1          400  ...........  ...........  ...........            2          800
 of Sections 1 and 3............................
2015-2016 Data Collection (Retail Food Stores)--          400            1          400  ...........  ...........  ...........            3        1,200
 Completion of Sections 1 and 3.................
2015-2016 Data Collection-Completion of Section         1,200            1        1,200  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.5          600
 2--All Facility Types..........................
2017-2018 Data Collection-Entry Refusals--All     ...........  ...........  ...........           24            1           24         0.08         1.92
 Facility Types.................................                                                                                (5 minutes)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Hours.................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........     3,601.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

II. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and are available electronically at http://regulations.gov.

    1. ``Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne
Illness Risk Factors (2000).'' Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm123546.pdf.
    2. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and
Retail Food Store Facility Types (2004).'' Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/UCM423850.pdf
    3. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and
Retail Food Store Facility Types (2009).'' Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/UCM224682.pdf.
    4. FDA National Retail Food Team. ``FDA Trend Analysis Report on
the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store
Facility Types (1998-2008).'' Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/UCM224152.pdf.
    5. FDA Food Code. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/FoodCode.

    Dated: June 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-15077 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62887-62889]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24630]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70618; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-093]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
6.42

October 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 27, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.42. 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'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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 6.42--Minimum Increments
for Bids and The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 6.42--Minimum
Increments for Bids and Offers--regarding minimum increments of bids
and offers for complex orders. Currently, Rule 6.42(4) states that bids
and offers on complex orders may be expressed in any increment
regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate to the
individual legs of the order. This language allows for complex order
bids and offers to be expressed in any increment whatsoever. The
Exchange believes that setting a minimum increment for bids and offers
on complex orders of $0.01 will ensure that there is a lowest minimum
increment for bids and offers that makes it simple to monitor and
participate for all market participants (for example, many of the web-
based services that public customers use to enter options orders do not
permit the entry of orders in sub-penny increments, while other types
of market participants may not face that limitation). Further, this
$0.01 minimum increment will put the electronic and manual entry of
complex orders on even footing (as the Exchange's Complex Order Book
(``COB'') and Complex Order Auction

(``COA'') (both being electronic complex order execution systems) are
not configured to permit quoting in sub-penny increments.\3\) Further,
setting a minimum increment for bids and offers at $0.01 ensures that
price improvement occurs at a meaningful increment. Without this
minimum, it would be possible for a market participant to jump ahead of
another market participant's quoted price by a de minimis amount, and
the knowledge that this could occur could discourage competitive
quoting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Rules 6.53C(c)(ii) and 6.53C(d)(iii)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, in order to limit the potential to express orders in any
increment, the Exchange hereby proposes to state that bids and offers
on complex orders, as defined in Interpretation and Policy .01 below,
may be expressed in any net price increment (that may not be less than
$0.01) that may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis
and announced to the Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') via Regulatory
Circular, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate to
the individual legs of the order.
    The Exchange proposes adding the parenthetical language which
allows the Exchange to set minimum increments for bids and offers on
complex orders on a class-by-class basis and announce such minimum
increments to TPHs via Regulatory Circular in order to ensure
uniformity of minimum bid and offer increments within a class (as the
Exchange may already do for bids and offers on complex orders in
options on the S&P 500 Index (``SPX''), p.m.-settled S&P 500 Index
(``SPXPM'') or on the S&P 100 Index (``OEX'' and ``XEO'')). The
proposed parenthetical language would allow the Exchange to set and
vary minimum increments for bids and offers on complex orders for
different classes in response to different market conditions in those
classes and in order to encourage more trading in such classes.\4\ This
language will also ensure that TPHs are notified of such minimum
increments via Regulatory Circular. For example, the Exchange could
release a Regulatory Circular stating that the minimum increments for
complex order bids and offers within a certain class would be $0.01, or
$0.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange would not make changes to minimum increments
for bids and offers on complex orders on an intra-day basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change will ensure that there is a lowest minimum
increment for bids and offers on complex orders that makes it simple to
monitor and participate for all market participants and places market
participants entering orders manually and electronically on an equal
footing. This is simpler and more restrictive than the current rule,
which permits the expression of bids and offers on complex orders in
any increment (though only complex orders entered manually can be in
sub-penny increments), which would allow more sophisticated market
participants entering orders electronically [sic] \5\ to express bids
and offers in complex orders in infinitesimally small amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that the word ``electronically'' here
is a typographical error. In an email from CBOE to Commission staff
on October 2, 2013, CBOE made clear that it meant ``manually'' where
it presently says ``electronically.'' Accordingly, the sentence
should read: ``This is simpler and more restrictive than the current
rule, which permits the expression of bids and offers on complex
orders in any increment (though only complex orders entered manually
can be in sub-penny increments), which would allow more
sophisticated market participants entering orders manually to
express bids and offers in complex orders in infinitesimally small
amounts.'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that
setting a minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders of
$0.01 will ensure that there is a lowest minimum increment for bids and
offers in complex orders that makes it simple to monitor and
participate for all market participants, thereby removing impediments
to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market. Some market
participants, such as public customers, may not have sophisticated
enough order entry systems to quote in sub-penny increments, and this
would ensure that they are placed on the same competitive footing as
those that can do so. Further, the proposed change would place market
participants bidding and offering electronically and manually on the
same competitive footing, as well, since COB and COA both are not
configured to permit quoting in sub-penny increments.\9\ Moreover,
setting a minimum increment for bids and offers at $0.01 ensures that
price improvement occurs at a meaningful increment. Without this
minimum, it would be possible for a market participant to jump ahead of
another market participant's quoted price by a de minimis amount, and
the knowledge that this could occur could discourage competitive
quoting (which would be an impediment to a free and open market). The
proposed minimum increment would apply to all CBOE market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See CBOE Rules 6.53C(c)(ii) and 6.53C(d)(iii)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BOE 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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change will not impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to minimum increments for bids and
offers on complex orders from all market participants. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change will not impose an unnecessary burden
on intermarket competition because it applies only to CBOE. To the
extent that setting the lowest possible minimum increment for bids and
offers in complex orders at $0.01 (and the other changes proposed
herein) may be attractive to market participants at other options
exchange, such market participants are always welcome to become CBOE
market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange 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-2013-093 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-2013-093. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2013-093, and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24630 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85218-85220]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM17-4-000]

Establishing the Length of License Terms for Hydroelectric
Projects

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION:  Notice of Inquiry.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
inviting comments on what changes, if any, the Commission should make
to its policy for establishing the length of original and new license
terms for hydroelectric projects.

DATES:  Comments are due January 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES:  Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.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: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Comment Procedures section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nick Jayjack, (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Carolyn Clarkin, (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel--
Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether, and, if so, how the
Commission should revise its policy for establishing the length of
original and new licenses it issues for hydroelectric projects.

I. Background

    2. Section 6 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ provides that
hydropower licenses shall be issued for a term not to exceed 50 years.
There is no minimum license term for original licenses. FPA section
15(e) \2\ provides that any new license (i.e., relicense) shall be for
a term that the Commission determines to be in the public interest, but
not less than 30 years or more than 50 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 799 (2012).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 808(e) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. It is current Commission policy to set a 50-year term for
licenses issued for projects located at federal dams.\3\ For projects
located at non-federal dams, the Commission's current policy is to set
a 30-year term where there is little or no authorized redevelopment,
new construction, or environmental mitigation and enhancement; a 40-
year term for a license involving a moderate amount of these
activities; and a 50-year term where there is an extensive amount of
such activity.\4\ The purpose of this policy is to ease the economic
impact of new costs, promote balanced and comprehensive development of
renewable power generating resources, and encourage licensees to be
better environmental stewards.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See City of Danville, Virginia, 58 FERC ] 61,318, at 62,020
(1992).
    \4\ See id. (addressing original licenses); Consumers Power Co.,
68 FERC ] 61,077, at 61,384 (1994) (addressing relicenses).
    \5\ Consumers Power Co., 68 FERC ] 61,077 at 61,384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Determining whether the measures required under a license are
minimal, moderate, or extensive is highly case-sensitive and largely
based on a qualitative analysis of the record before the Commission. In
establishing the appropriate license term, staff initially examines the
nature and extent of the required measures in the context of the
project at issue,\6\ and then uses the cost of measures as a check on a
qualitative conclusion that measures required under a relicense are
minimal, moderate, or extensive. Further, the Commission's policy is to
take a forward-looking approach, such that measures adopted under a
previous license term are not considered.\7\ It has also been the
Commission's policy to set license terms that coordinate, to the extent
feasible, the license terms for projects in the same river basin to
maximize future consideration of cumulative impacts at the same time
the projects are due to be relicensed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, one type of fishway may be more expensive than
another, and a fishway type that might be considered extensive for a
small project could be seen as minimal for a larger one.
    \7\ See, e.g., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy), 156
FERC ] 61,010, at P 19 (2016); Public Utility District No. 1 of
Chelan County, Washington (Chelan PUD), 127 FERC ] 61,152, at PP 12-
14 (2009); Ford Motor Co., 110 FERC ] 61,236, at PP 6-8 (2005).
    \8\ See, e.g., 18 CFR 2.23 (2016); Chelan PUD, 127 FERC ] 61,152
at P 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The length of an original license has not been contested on
rehearing for some time. The length of a new license, however, has
recently been contested in several relicensing proceedings. The
arguments raised in these cases include that the Commission, when
establishing the license term, should have considered, or given more
weight to: Capacity-related investments or environmental enhancements
made by the licensee during the current license and before issuance of
the new license; \9\ total cost of the relicensing process; \10\ losses
in generation value related to environmental measures; \11\ the license
terms of projects that the licensee states are similarly situated to
its project; \12\ and the license term provided for in settlement
agreements.\13\ In each circumstance, the Commission declined to
deviate from its current policy to extend the length of the license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Duke Energy, 156 FERC ] 61,010 at PP 9-26;
Alabama Power Co., 155 FERC ] 61,080, at P 72 (2016); Public Utility
District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington (Douglas PUD), 143 FERC
] 61,130, at PP 12-14 (2013); Chelan PUD, 127 FERC ] 61,152 at PP
12-14; Georgia Power Co., 111 FERC ] 61,183, at PP 10-15 (2005);
Ford Motor Co., 110 FERC ] 61,236 at PP 6-8.
    \10\ See, e.g., Duke Energy, 156 FERC ] 61,010 at P 14.
    \11\ See, e.g., id. P 12.
    \12\ See, e.g., Duke Energy, 156 FERC ] 61,010 at PP 20-23;
Alabama Power Co., 155 FERC ] 61,080 at PP 71, 75; Duke Energy
Progress, Inc., 153 FERC ] 61,056, at PP 39, 42 (2015); Douglas PUD,
143 FERC ] 61,130 at P 15.
    \13\ See, e.g., Duke Energy Progress, Inc., 153 FERC ] 61,056 at
PP 40, 44; Douglas PUD, 143 FERC ] 61,130 at PP 18-19; Chelan PUD,
127 FERC ] 61,152 at PP 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Subject of the Notice of Inquiry

    6. The Commission seeks comments on whether, and, if so, how the
Commission should revise its policy for establishing license terms for
projects located at non-federal dams. Below, we outline five potential
options that

Commission staff has identified for establishing license terms: (1)
Retain the existing license term policy; (2) add to the existing
license term policy the consideration of measures implemented under the
prior license; (3) replace the existing license term policy with a 50-
year default license term unless the Commission determines that a
lesser license term would be in the public interest (for example, to
better coordinate, to the extent feasible, the license terms for
projects in the same river basin for future consideration of cumulative
impacts); (4) add a more quantitative cost-based analysis to the
existing license term policy; and (5) alter current policy to accept
the longer license term agreed upon in an applicable settlement
agreement, when appropriate. We encourage comments on these options, as
well as the suggestion of any other alternatives. While the Commission
will consider comments filed, the Commission may not, and is not
required to, take further action.

A. Retain Existing License Term Policy

    7. The Commission could retain its current policy to set a 30-year
term where there is little or no authorized redevelopment, new
construction, or environmental mitigation and enhancement; a 40-year
term where there is a moderate amount of these activities; and a 50-
year term where there is an extensive amount of such activity. The
Commission seeks comment on whether it should retain its current
license term policy and on the following questions:
    i. What challenges does the Commission's current license term
policy pose?
    ii. Does the Commission's current license term policy discourage
licensees from investing in environmental and recreational enhancements
or in development improvements (e.g., efficiency upgrades or project
expansions) before relicensing? How so? What other factors affect
whether and when a licensee makes such project enhancements or
improvements?
    iii. Does a license term affect a licensee's ability to finance its
project, and if so, how?
    iv. Does the Commission's license term policy affect the likelihood
of parties reaching settlement agreements? How so?
    v. Does the current license term policy have benefits for
stakeholders and affected resources? If so, please describe these
benefits.

B. Consider Measures Implemented During a Prior License Term

    8. In addition to considering measures required under the new
license, the Commission could, when establishing the license term,
consider measures implemented under the prior license.\14\ The
Commission would have to determine which measures to consider (i.e.,
the timing and type of measures), and whether the considered measures
justify a 30-, 40-, or 50-year license term. The Commission seeks
comment on this policy option and on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Early'' measures could include: measures that the
licensee implemented through an amendment of its existing license
where such amendment did not extend the existing license term, and
measures implemented by a licensee that were permissible under but
not required by the existing license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Why should the Commission consider early measures when
establishing a license term?
    ii. What measures should be considered under ``early measures'' and
why? Should the Commission consider all early measures, including
developmental, environmental, recreation, and maintenance activities?
Are there certain types of measures that the Commission should not
consider?
    iii. How would the Commission's consideration of early measures
affect whether and when licensees make non-developmental and
developmental improvements?
    iv. How should the Commission limit the scope of early measures
considered? Should the Commission only consider activities conducted
within a certain number of years of relicensing?

C. 50-Year Default License Term

    9. The Commission could establish 50 years as the default license
term. A lesser license term could be set to coordinate, to the extent
feasible, the license terms for projects in the same river basin for
future consideration of cumulative impacts or for other appropriate
reasons. Under the 50-year default option, parties other than the
licensee would bear the burden of arguing that the license term should
be less than 50 years. The Commission seeks comment on establishing a
50-year default license term and on the following questions:
    i. What would be the benefit(s) of the Commission establishing a
50-year default license term?
    ii. What factors, other than the coordination of license terms for
projects in the same river basin, would weigh against the presumption
of a 50-year default license term?
    iii. How would the default term affect license settlements and
negotiations?

D. Quantitative Cost-Based Analysis

    10. The Commission could include a more quantitative cost-based
analysis that factors-in project size and capacity into its license
term policy. The Commission seeks comment on using a more quantitative
cost-based analysis to establish a license term and on the following
questions:
    i. What costs should the Commission consider in a quantitative
analysis?
    ii. How should cost be calculated? Should cost be calculated on a
total cost or a on a cost per megawatt basis?
    iii. What weight should the Commission give to costs when
establishing the license term?
    iv. The Commission licenses an array of small and large projects.
How could the Commission account for project size and capacity when
considering project costs?
    v. Commission staff relies on the cost information provided by the
licensees. How could the Commission ensure the reliability of the cost
information and to what extent would consideration of this type of
information affect the licensing process?

E. Agreed-Upon Settlement Term

    11. The Commission could establish the license term based on the
term negotiated in a settlement agreement when appropriate. The
Commission seeks comment on this policy option and on the following
questions:
    i. How would establishing the license term based on the term agreed
upon in a settlement agreement affect settlement negotiations?
    ii. When should the Commission not defer to the license term agreed
upon in a settlement agreement?

III. Comment Procedures

    12. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
and other information on the matters, issues, and specific questions
identified in this notice, and any alternative proposals that
commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due January 24, 2017.
Comments must refer to Docket No. RM17-4-000, and must include the
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and
their address.
    13. 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.
    14. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    15. 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.

IV. Document Availability

    16. 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 the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    17. From the Commission'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.
    18. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: November 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28195 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P