C r o i s e m e n t d e F a c t e u r s Q u a l i t a t i f e t Q u a n t i t a t i f e n A n o v a : I m p a c t d u M i l i e u s u r l a C r o i s s a n c e d e s M o u l e s p a r G a  e t a n D a i g l e e t L o u i s - P a u l R i v e s t D  e p a r t e m e n t d e m a t h  e m a t i q u e s e t d e s t a t i s t i q u e U n i v e r s i t  e L a v a l M a i 1 9 9 8 UNIVERSITE L VA A L B L U E M U S S E L M y t i l u s e d u l i s T A X O N O M Y P h y l u m : M o l l u s c a C l a s s : B i v a l v i a O r d e r : M y t i l o i d a F a m i l y : M y t i l i d a e N u t r i t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n : C a l o r i e s P r o t e i n F a t S a t . F a t C h o l e s t . ( g m s ) ( g m s ) ( g m s ) ( m g ) 3 9 1 5 4 1 0 1 . 9 1 2 7 B a s e d O n : 1 p o u n d r a w m u s s e l s A n a v e r a g e p o u n d h a s 1 2 m u s s e l s H a b i t a t : R o c k y s h o r e l i n e s ; a t t a c h t o r o c k s , g r a v e l , m a n - m a d e h a r d s u r f a c e s a n d ÿ o a t i n g o r s u s p e n d e d o b j e c t s n e a r t h e w a t e r s u r f a c e . F o o d : S u s p e n s i o n f e e d e r ; s m a l l p l a n k t o n , i n c l u d - i n g p h y t o p l a n k t o n , b a c t e r i a , z o o p l a n c t o n a n d d e - t r i t u s . P r e d a t o r s : D i v i n g d u c k s , s e a s t a r s , c r a b s , s n a i l s , s e a u r c h i n s . I . D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t u d y  T h r e e p i e r s o f d i  e r e n t l e n g t h s ( 1 0 0 m , 5 0 0 m , a n d 1 2 0 0 m ) w e r e s e l e c t e d f o r t h e s t u d y .  T h e y a r e l o c a t e d o n t h e s o u t h s h o r e o f t h e S t - L a w r e n c e E s t u a r y a t t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t i o n s : { M a t a n e ( p i e r o f l e n g t h 1 2 0 0 m ) { B a i e - d e s - S a b l e s ( p i e r o f l e n g t h 1 0 0 m ) { M o n t - J o l i ( p i e r o f l e n g t h 5 0 0 m )  E a c h s t a t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n t o t w o z o n e s : { t h e p i e r z o n e A N D { a n a d j a c e n t " c o n t r o l " z o n e  T h e " c o n t r o l " z o n e s a r e l o c a t e d a w a y f r o m t h e p i e r s o u t o f t h e p i e r i n ÿ u e n c e { 1 2 k m a p a r t a t M a t a n e { 8 k m a p a r t a t M o n t - J o l i { 2 k m a p a r t a t B a i e - d e s - S a b l e s  T h e p o s i t i o n s o f c a g e s : - I n t h e c o n t r o l z o n e , a p i e r w a s s i m u l a t e d w i t h t h e s a m e s i z e a n s t h e c a g e s w e r e i m m e r s e d a t t h e s a m e p o s i t i o n s .  W e t h u s h a v e 3 f a c t o r s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n ( 3 ) : M a t a n e , M o n t - J o l i , B a i e - d e s - S a b l e s Z o n e ( 2 ) : P i e r z o n e , C o n t r o l z o n e P o s i t i o n ( 3 ) : U p s t r e a m , A p e x , D o w n s t r e a m  F o r e a c h t r e a t m e n t c o m b i n a i s o n s , { 5 c a g e s w e r e i m m e r s e d b e t w e e n 1 . 5 m a n d 2 . 5 m b e l o w l o w w a t e r l e v e l { A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f J u n e 1 9 9 5 { E a c h o f t h e s e c a g e s c o n t a i n 1 0 m u s s e l s ) A t o t a l o f 9 0 c a g e s a n d 9 0 0 m u s s e l s  T h e m u s s e l s w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m P o i n t e M  e t i s a t t h e e n d o f M a y 1 9 9 5 . { T h e i r a v e r a g e l e n g t h i s 1 . 9 1 c m ( m i n = 1 . 7 5 c m , m a x = 2 . 2 1 c m ) { T h e i r a v e r a g e w e t m a s s i s 7 6 9 . 9 8 m g ( m i n = 4 5 1 m g , m a x = 1 9 4 0 m g ) O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E S T U D Y : 1 ) C o m p a r e t h e m u s s e l s g r o w t h a f t e r a 3 m o n t h i m m e r s i o n p e r i o d b e t w e e n s t a t i o n s , z o n e s a n d p o s i t i o n s { b a s e d o n l e n g t h i n c r e a s e { b a s e d o n m a s s i n c r e a s e 2 ) C o m p a r e t h e m o r t a l i t y r a t e s b e t w e e n s t a t i o n s , z o n e s a n d p o s i t i o n s . I I . S t a t i s t i c a l p r o b l e m s M a i n p r o b l e m :  T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g p e c u l i a r a b o u t t h e f a c t o r " Z o n e " a n d " P o s i t i o n " . { I n t h e c o n t r o l z o n e s , t h e u p s t r e a m a n d d o w n - s t r e a m p o s i t i o n s a r e n o t r e a l l y d i  e r e n t . { T h e y a r e p o t e n t i a l l y d i  e r e n t o n l y i n t h e p i e r z o n e s .  T h i s m e a n s t h a t t o c o m p a r e t h e d o w n s t r e a m w i t h t h e u p s t r e a m p o s i t i o n o n l y d a t a c o l l e c t e d i n a p i e r z o n e s h o u l d b e u s e d .  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e s t a n d a r d s t a t i s t i c a l p a c k a g e s u s e b o t h z o n e s t o e s t i m a t e t h e d o w n s t r e a m v s . u p s t r e a m c o n t r a s t t h a t e n t e r s t h e s u m s o f s q u a r e s f o r p o s i t i o n . ) T h u s t h e s t a n d a r d A n o v a t a b l e m a y l e a d t o e r r o n e o u s c o n c l u s i o n s .  T o r e m e d y t h i s p r o b l e m , w e n e e d t o r e d e  n e t h e s u m s o f s q u a r e s u s i n g m e a n i n g f u l c o n t r a s t s f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e f a c t o r s .  T h i s d e  c i e n c y o f s t a n d a r d A n o v a t a b l e s h a s b e e n n o t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e ( A d d e l m a n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , G a t e s ( 1 9 9 1 ) ) w h e n a q u a l i t a t i v e f a c t o r i s c r o s s e d w i t h a q u a n t i t a t i v e f a c t o r w i t h a z e r o l e v e l . { T h e l e v e l z e r o o f t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e f a c t o r c a n - n o t b e u s e d t o c o m p a r e t h e q u a l i t a t i v e f a c t o r s . { A l l t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s a t l e v e l 0 a r e i n d i s t i n - g u i s h a b l e c o n t r o l v a l u e s . { E x a m p l e : F e r t i l i z e r s : ( N H 4 ) 2 S O 4 , K N O 3 , N H 4 N O 3 D o s e : 0 k g / h a , 1 0 k g / h a , O t h e r p r o b l e m :  1 7 c a g e s w e r e l o s t d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t . N u m b e r o f c a g e s P o s i t i o n S t a t i o n Z o n e U p s t r e a m D o w n s t r e a m A p e x M o n t - J o l i P i e r 5 5 0 C o n t r o l 3 5 5 M a t a n e P i e r 5 5 5 C o n t r o l 5 0 5 B a i e - d e s - S a b l e s P i e r 5 0 5 C o n t r o l 5 5 5 { T h i s a  e c t t h e d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m o f c e r t a i n i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s . { T h e t y p e I V s u m s o f s q u a r e s s h o u l d b e u s e d t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e m i s s i n g d a t a . I I I . A n a l t e r n a t i v e A n o v a t a b l e  T o i n t r o d u c e o u r n e w A n o v a t a b l e , i t i s c o n v e - n i e n t t o d e c o m p o s e t h e s t a n d a r d s u m s o f s q u a r e s f o r z o n e , p o s i t i o n a n d z o n e * p o s i t i o n u s i n g o r - t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s ( H o c k i n g , 1 9 8 5 ) : { O n e c o n t r a s t f o r z o n e : P i e r v s C o n t r o l { T w o c o n t r a s t s f o r p o s i t i o n : P o s 1 : ( D o w n s t r e a m + U p s t r e a m ) v s A p e x P o s 2 : D o w n s t r e a m v s U p s t r e a m  T a b l e 1 . C o n t r a s t s i n a s t a n d a r d A n o v a P i e r z o n e C o n t r o l z o n e U p D o w n U p D o w n C o n t r a s t s t r e a m s t r e a m A p e x s t r e a m s t r e a m A p e x Z o n e 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 P o s 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 - 2 P o s 2 1 - 1 0 1 - 1 0 Z o n e * P o s 1 1 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 2 Z o n e * P o s 2 1 - 1 0 - 1 1 0  T a b l e 2 . P r o p o s e d s e t o f c o n t r a s t s f o r o u r n e w A n o v a t a b l e . P i e r z o n e C o n t r o l z o n e U p D o w n U p D o w n C o n t r a s t s t r e a m s t r e a m A p e x s t r e a m s t r e a m A p e x Z o n e 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 P o s 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 - 2 P o s 2 1 - 1 0 0 0 0 Z o n e * P o s 1 1 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 2 E r r o r 0 0 0 1 - 1 0  T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r S T A T I O N i n t h e a n a l y s i s i s r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . { W e j u s t h a v e t o d e  n e a s e t o f o r t h o g o n a l c o n - t r a s t s f o r t h e f a c t o r S T A T I O N l i k e t h e f o l l o w - i n g f o r e x a m p l e : M a t a n e M o n t - J o l i B a i e - d e s - S a b l e s S t a t i o n 1 1 - 1 0 S t a t i o n 2 1 1 - 2 { T h e n t h e s u m s o f s q u a r e s f e a t u r i n g S T A T I O N c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g i n t e r a c t i o n c o n t r a s t s b e t w e e n t h i s s e t o f o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s a n d t h o s e i n T a b l e 2 ( f o r t h e n e w A N O V A t a b l e ) o r w i t h t h o s e i n T a b l e 1 ( f o r t h e u s u a l A N O V A t a b l e ) .  T a b l e 2 b : C o m p l e t e s e t o f c o n t r a s t s f o r t h e n e w A n o v a t a b l e N e w A n o v a t a b l e Z P Z P S S Z S P S Z P U p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P i e r D o w n 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 M A p 1 - 2 0 - 2 1 1 1 1 - 2 - 2 0 0 - 2 - 2 U p - 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 0 0 - 1 - 1 C t l D o w n - 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 0 0 - 1 - 1 A p - 1 - 2 0 2 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 0 0 2 2 U p 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 P i e r D o w n 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 M J A p 1 - 2 0 - 2 - 1 1 - 1 1 2 - 2 0 0 2 - 2 U p - 1 1 0 - 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 0 0 1 1 P i e r D o w n - 1 1 0 - 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 0 0 1 1 A p - 1 - 2 0 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 - 2 0 0 - 2 - 2 U p 1 1 1 1 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 P i e r D o w n 1 1 - 1 1 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 B S A p 1 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 4 0 0 0 4 U p - 1 1 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 0 0 2 P i e r D o w n - 1 1 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 0 0 2 A p - 1 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 4 0 0 0 - 4 I V . R e s u l t s a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 1 ) C o m p a r i s o n o f l e n g t h i n c r e a s e ( c m ) { S t a n d a r d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 0 . 0 7 4 8 1 0 . 0 3 7 4 1 2 . 8 8 0 . 0 6 4 4 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 0 . 1 3 0 . 7 1 9 8 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 0 4 4 5 5 0 . 0 2 2 2 8 1 . 7 1 0 . 1 8 9 2 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 0 7 9 1 0 . 0 0 3 9 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 7 3 9 0 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 0 7 1 1 8 0 . 0 1 7 7 9 1 . 3 7 0 . 2 5 5 9 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 4 9 0 1 0 . 0 2 4 5 1 1 . 8 9 0 . 1 6 1 0 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 0 4 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 8 0 4 E r r o r 5 8 0 . 7 5 4 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 0 { P r o p o s e d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 0 . 0 7 4 8 1 0 . 0 3 7 4 1 2 . 9 1 0 . 0 6 2 5 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 0 . 1 3 0 . 7 1 8 4 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 0 4 4 5 5 0 . 0 2 2 2 8 1 . 7 3 0 . 1 8 5 9 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 0 0 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 3 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 9 7 1 1 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 0 6 9 3 3 0 . 0 1 7 3 3 1 . 3 5 0 . 2 6 3 4 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 1 0 . 0 4 8 3 8 0 . 0 4 8 3 8 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 5 7 3 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 0 4 0 2 0 . 0 0 4 0 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 7 8 4 E r r o r ( Z o n e * P o s ) 1 0 . 0 0 5 1 4 0 . 0 0 5 1 4 E r r o r 5 8 0 . 7 5 4 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 0 T o t a l E r r o r 5 9 0 . 7 5 9 1 4 0 . 0 1 2 8 7 I n t e r a c t i o n Z o n e * P o s i t i o n S t a t i o n ( M a i n e  e c t ) 2 ) C o m p a r i s o n o f w e i g h t i n c r e a s e ( g ) { S t a n d a r d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 1 . 9 2 4 5 5 0 . 9 6 2 2 8 1 2 . 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 1 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 9 0 5 0 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 1 0 5 1 6 0 . 0 5 2 5 8 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 1 7 8 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 2 0 3 1 2 0 . 1 0 1 5 6 1 . 2 9 0 . 2 8 4 3 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 2 4 8 8 2 0 . 0 6 2 2 1 0 . 7 9 0 . 5 3 8 0 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 3 6 6 4 5 0 . 1 8 3 2 3 2 . 3 2 0 . 1 0 7 4 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 6 2 7 8 0 . 0 6 2 7 8 0 . 7 9 0 . 3 7 6 4 E r r o r 5 8 4 . 5 8 1 9 2 0 . 0 7 9 0 0 { P r o p o s e d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 1 . 9 2 4 5 5 0 . 9 6 2 2 8 1 2 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 9 0 4 6 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 1 0 5 1 6 0 . 0 5 2 5 8 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 1 3 4 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 1 4 8 2 1 0 . 0 7 4 1 1 0 . 9 5 0 . 3 9 2 5 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 2 0 8 6 6 0 . 0 5 2 1 6 0 . 6 7 0 . 6 1 6 1 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 1 0 . 3 6 5 9 8 0 . 3 6 5 9 8 4 . 6 9 0 . 0 3 4 3 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 6 2 7 8 0 . 0 6 2 7 8 0 . 8 1 0 . 3 7 3 3 E r r o r ( Z o n e * P o s ) 1 0 . 0 1 9 0 5 0 . 0 1 9 0 5 E r r o r 5 8 4 . 5 8 1 9 2 0 . 0 6 2 7 8 T o t a l E r r o r 5 9 4 . 6 0 0 9 7 0 . 0 7 7 9 8 I n t e r a c t i o n Z o n e * P o s i t i o n S t a t i o n ( M a i n e  e c t ) 3 ) C o m p a r i s o n o f m o r t a l i t y r a t e s ( a n g u l a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ) { S t a n d a r d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 0 . 0 2 8 0 8 0 . 0 1 4 0 4 0 . 4 5 0 . 6 4 0 0 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 1 2 3 4 0 . 0 1 2 3 4 0 . 4 0 0 . 5 3 2 1 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 0 2 9 4 4 0 . 0 1 4 7 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 6 2 6 5 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 0 4 3 4 0 . 0 0 2 1 7 0 . 0 7 0 . 9 3 3 0 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 1 9 3 3 0 0 . 0 4 8 3 3 1 . 5 5 0 . 2 0 0 5 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 2 9 2 1 0 . 0 1 4 6 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 6 2 8 8 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 2 1 5 0 0 . 0 2 1 5 0 0 . 6 9 0 . 4 1 0 1 E r r o r 5 8 1 . 8 1 1 0 3 0 . 0 3 1 2 2 { P r o p o s e d A n o v a t a b l e T y p e I V M e a n S o u r c e d . f . S S S q u a r e F v a l u e p - v a l u e S t a t i o n 2 0 . 0 2 8 0 8 0 . 0 1 4 0 4 0 . 4 6 0 . 6 3 5 2 Z o n e 1 0 . 0 1 2 3 4 0 . 0 1 2 3 4 0 . 4 0 0 . 5 2 8 5 S t a t i o n * Z o n e 2 0 . 0 2 9 4 4 0 . 0 1 4 7 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 6 2 1 5 P o s i t i o n 2 0 . 0 0 3 7 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 9 4 1 0 S t a t i o n * P o s i t i o n 4 0 . 1 2 9 4 7 0 . 0 3 2 3 7 1 . 0 5 0 . 3 8 7 2 Z o n e * P o s i t i o n 1 0 . 0 2 1 5 0 0 . 0 2 1 5 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 4 0 6 1 S t a t i o n * Z o n e * P o s 1 0 . 0 2 0 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 4 2 2 8 E r r o r ( Z o n e * P o s ) 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 8 E r r o r 5 8 1 . 8 1 1 0 3 0 . 0 3 1 2 2 T o t a l E r r o r 5 9 1 . 8 1 1 1 1 0 . 0 3 0 7 0


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60346-60348]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0069; Notice 2]

TAP Worldwide, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: TAP Worldwide, LLC, (TAP) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2017-2019 Smittybilt SCOUT Trailer Kits do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. TAP filed a noncompliance report
dated June 26, 2019. Tap also petitioned NHTSA on July 8, 2019, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of
TAP's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerrin Bressant, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    TAP has determined that certain MY 2017-2019 Smittybilt SCOUT
Trailer Kits do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3.5 and Figure 1 of
FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less (49 CFR
571.110). TAP filed a noncompliance report dated June 26, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. TAP also petitioned NHTSA on July 8, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of TAP's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 20, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 49622). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0069.''

II. Trailers Involved

    Approximately 176 MY 2017-2019 Smittybilt SCOUT Trailer Kits,
manufactured between March 31, 2017, and April 28, 2019, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    TAP explains that the noncompliance is that the vehicle placards on
the subject trailer kits, do not fully comply with the formatting and
color requirements (which require either ``yellow text on black
background'' or ``black text on yellow background'') as required by
paragraph S4.3.5 and Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 110. The TAP placards were
mounted with black text on a white background.

IV. Rule Requirements

    S4.3.5 and Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 110 include the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each trailer, except for an incomplete
vehicle, must show the information specified in S4.3(c) through (g).
This information, per Figures 1 and 2 of FMVSS No. 110, should be
illustrated with EITHER ``Yellow Text on Black Background'' or ``Black
Text on Yellow Background.'' Additionally, at the manufacturer's
option, they may show the information specified in S4.3(h) proximate to
the placard or the Tire Information Pressure Label and the listed
elements of S4.3(i) in accordance with S4.3(d). The information
specified in S4.3(e) shall be shown on both the vehicle placard and on
the tire inflation pressure label (if such a label is affixed to
provide the information specified in S4.3(c), (d), (h), and (i)) in the
format and color scheme set forth in Figures 1 and 2.

V. Summary of TAP's Petition

    TAP described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, TAP submitted the following reasoning:
    1. The subject tire pressure information labels provide all
required and correct technical information, and because such
information is found in three other locations, there is no safety risk
or risk of tire overloading.
    a. TAP states that the SCOUT Trailers are equipped with tires that
can handle their load carrying capacity, and there is, accordingly, no
risk of overloading. The SCOUT Trailer's tires are safe and comply with
all applicable standards. The sole noncompliance at issue in this
petition relates to formatting, namely the tire information label, not
conforming to the formatting and color requirements provided in Figure
1 of FMVSS No. 110. TAP says that because the tire pressure information
labels contain all the information required by FMVSS No. 110 and
because such information is accurate, the subject noncompliance will
not create a safety

risk to any person towing or using a SCOUT Trailer.
    b. Additionally, the correct tire pressure information can be found
in three other locations: (1) On the SCOUT Trailer's certification
label, as required under 49 CFR part 565; (2) in the SCOUT Trailer
owner's manual; and (3) on the SCOUT Trailer's tire sidewall markings.
Accordingly, including the tire pressure information label, there are
four separate places where a SCOUT Trailer owner can view the tire
size, pressure, and load-carrying capacity information of his/her SCOUT
Trailer.
    c. TAP also stated that because the label provides correct
information regarding tire size and inflation pressure, TAP's failure
to utilize the formatting, provided in Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 110, will
not present a motor vehicle safety risk or cause consumers to
misunderstand the label.
    2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions with inconsequential
noncompliances where the noncompliance relates solely to the labeling
that does not conform with formatting requirements and where the
manufacturer can show that the noncompliance is unlikely to cause
consumer misunderstanding.
    a. TAP believes that granting this petition would be consistent
with NHTSA's prior decisions on petitions involving label formatting
requirements. For example, in connection with a prior petition for
inconsequential noncompliance, NHTSA found that deviations in the
wording on the label required by FMVSS No. 303 were inconsequential
because the rationale and intent of the labeling requirement was
nonetheless met, even though the exact, prescribed wording was not
used, See IMPCO Technologies; Grant of Petition, 65 FR 14009 (March 15,
2000). Similarly, in another matter, NHTSA concluded that the
noncompliance with the seat belt assembly label requirements was
inconsequential because although the subject assemblies had the wrong
label, the likelihood that a seatbelt would be incorrectly installed as
a result was low, See TRW, Inc., Grant of Petition, 55 FR 7171, 7172
(February 4, 1993).
    Finally, in connection with a petition similar to this one, NHTSA
recently found that a tire pressure information label that was not
completely legible but provided all of the correct information was an
inconsequential noncompliance, See Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of
Petition, 84 FR 25118 (May 30, 2019). With respect to that petition,
NHTSA reasoned that the noncompliance was inconsequential because the
owners could still find the relevant information in other locations,
such as in the owner's manual and on the tire sidewall.
    Here, TAP's petition for inconsequential noncompliance meets the
criteria that NHTSA has previously held such petitions must meet in
order to be granted.
    3. NHTSA has also granted petitions for inconsequential
noncompliances where tire pressure information labels contained
incorrect or missing information.
    a. TAP says that NHTSA has also granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the tire pressure information
labels when the label contained incorrect information or was missing
tire pressure information altogether, See General Motors, LLC, Grant of
Petition, 84 FR 25117 (May 30, 2019). In so holding, NHTSA reasoned
that owners can determine the correct tire pressure information through
the owner's manual or other locations. Also, NHTSA recently granted a
petition for inconsequential noncompliance where the tire pressure
information label provided tire inflation information for 18-inch
tires, even though the vehicle was equipped with 17-inch tires, See BMW
of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition, 84 FR 26505 (June 6, 2019).
NHTSA concluded that there was no risk of underinflating or overloading
the tires, and consumers could find the correct tire pressure
information in the owner's manual or on the tire sidewall.
    Here, not only can the correct tire pressure information for the
SCOUT Trailer be found in various other places, but unlike the
petitions referenced above, it can also be found on the tire pressure
information label itself, as TAP has confirmed that the information
listed on the label is accurate.
    4. TAP will correct the formatting and color noncompliance on all
SCOUT Trailers subsequently sold.
    a. To address the noncompliance referenced in the part 573 Report,
TAP has reformatted the SCOUT Trailer tire pressure information label
and will utilize the properly formatted label on all SCOUT Trailers
sold subsequent to the filing of its June 26, 2019, part 573 Report.
    TAP concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA's Analysis

    TAP Worldwide explained that the noncompliance is that while
containing all technical information required by FMVSS No. 110, the
installed labels on the subject vehicles do not conform to the
formatting and color requirements referenced in Figure 1 of FMVSS No.
110.
    The intent of FMVSS No. 110 is to ensure that vehicles are equipped
with tires appropriate to handle maximum vehicle loads and prevent
overloading. As notated by TAP in their petition submission, the actual
technical information (in this case, the appropriate tire pressure and
cargo carrying capacity value) is correct. However, the format of the
label (i.e., its coloring--either yellow text and black background or
black text with a yellow background surrounded by a red border--and
missing tire figure) was not that which is prescribed by Figure 1 in
FMVSS No. 110, S4.3. The combination of contrasting colors and the
figure representing a tire were placed on the tire and loading
information label in order to attract the attention of the consumer to
this important tire related information. In lieu of the fact that the
noncompliance is an incorrectly colored (formatted) tire pressure label
and a missing representation of an actual tire, NHTSA agrees with the
manufacturer that the subject noncompliance will not create a safety
risk to any person towing or using the subject trailer.

NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA finds that TAP
Worldwide has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
110 noncompliance at issue is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, TAP's petition is hereby granted and TAP Worldwide is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
applies to the subject trailers that TAP no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the

granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant trailers under their control after TAP notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-23649 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12540-12544]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 37

[Docket Nos. RM05-17-004 and RM05-25-004; Order No. 890-C]

Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission
Service

March 19, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order on Rehearing and Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission affirms its basic
determinations in Order Nos. 890, 890-A and 890-B, granting rehearing
and clarification regarding certain revisions to its regulations and
the pro forma open-access transmission tariff, or OATT, adopted in
Order Nos. 888 and 889 to ensure that transmission services are
provided on a basis that is just, reasonable, and not unduly
discriminatory. The Commission grants clarification of the degree of
consistency required in the calculation of available transfer
capability by transmission providers and denies rehearing regarding the
requirement to undesignate network resources used to serve off-system
sales

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective March 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. Mason Emnett, Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.
    1. On February 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 890,\1\
addressing and remedying opportunities for undue discrimination under
the pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) adopted in Order
No. 888.\2\ The pro forma OATT was intended to foster greater
competition in wholesale power markets by reducing barriers to entry in
the provision of transmission service. In the ten years since Order No.
888, however, flaws in the pro forma OATT undermined its ability to
realize the core objective of remedying undue discrimination. The
Commission acted in Order No. 890 to correct these flaws by reforming
the terms and conditions of the pro forma OATT in several critical
areas, including the calculation of available transfer capability
(ATC), the planning of transmission facilities, and the conditions of
services offered by each transmission provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 72 FR 12,266 (March 15, 2007),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR
2984 (January 16, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 (2007), order
on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008).
    \2\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,026 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12,274 (Mar.
14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No.
888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998, aff'd in relevant part sub nom.
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (DC
Cir. 2000)(TAPS v. FERC), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S.
1 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In Order Nos. 890-A and 890-B, the Commission largely affirmed
the reforms adopted in Order No. 890. The Commission concluded that,
taken together, these reforms will better enable the pro forma OATT to
achieve the core objective of remedying undue discrimination in the
provision of transmission service. The Commission did, however, grant
rehearing and clarification regarding certain revisions to its
regulations and the pro forma OATT. NorthWestern Corporation
(NorthWestern) and South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (SCE&G) have
requested further rehearing and clarification of Order No. 890-B on
certain discrete issues, which we address below.

I. Reforms of the OATT

A. Consistency and Transparency of ATC Calculations

    3. In Order No. 890-B, the Commission among other things affirmed a
clarification provided in Order No. 890-A that adjacent transmission
providers must coordinate and exchange data and assumptions to achieve
consistent available transfer capability (ATC) values on either side of
a single interface.\3\ The Commission stated that it disagreed with
petitioners arguing that consistent ATC values

should not be interpreted to mean identical ATC values, but
acknowledged that factors such as timing of reservation requests,
acceptances, and confirmations, and multiple interfaces between and
among transmission providers, can make it difficult to achieve
coincidental, identical postings of ATC values on both sides of an
interface. The Commission reiterated that, if all of the ATC components
and certain data inputs and assumptions are consistent, the ATC
calculation methodologies being finalized by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) through the reliability
standards development process should produce predictable and
sufficiently accurate, consistent, equivalent, and replicable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 890-B at P 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Clarification and Rehearing
    4. NorthWestern contends that, while requiring two adjacent
transmission providers to post identical ATC at a single interface
appears on its face to be reasonable, that requirement can have
unintended and negative consequences. NorthWestern states the
requirement may allow transmission customers to be able to block other
market participants from requesting ATC without placing a transmission
service request or following OATT requirements. NorthWestern offers an
example of two transmission providers with a single interface and a
customer that requests service on that interface from only one of the
transmission providers. NorthWestern contends that the requirement to
make ATC postings on either side of an interface identical would force
the second transmission provider to reduce ATC on its side of the
interface if the first transmission provider grants service to the
customer, even though no request for service was submitted on the
second transmission system, circumventing the first-come, first-served
nature of transmission service under the pro forma OATT.
    5. NorthWestern contends that how transmission providers account
for capacity benefit margin (CBM) and transmission reliability margin
(TRM) on either side of an interface can have the same impact as a
transmission service request. If one transmission provider sets aside
capacity for CBM or TRM, NorthWestern contends that those set asides
will force the transmission provider to decrement ATC on the other side
of the interface. While NorthWestern understands the Commission's
desire to remove the potential for undue discrimination by requiring
ATC calculations to be consistent and transparent, it contends that
directing transmission providers to have identical ATC postings on
either side of an interface will allow transmission providers and
customers to block access to transmission service, either intentionally
or not.
    6. NorthWestern therefore asks the Commission to grant rehearing to
require that ATC on either side of an interface be consistent, rather
than identical. NorthWestern suggests that a consistency requirement
could be structured such that the transmission providers posting ATC
for a single interface be able to transparently provide all necessary
information that allows interested parties to determine why differences
in ATC exist.
Commission Determination
    7. The Commission clarifies that it did not intend in Order No.
890-B to require transmission providers to post identical ATC values on
either side of an interface in every instance and at all times. While
ATC values on either side of an interface may be identical in some
instances, in others they may not. To the extent necessary, the
Commission grants rehearing of Order No. 890-B to eliminate reference
to the posting of identical ATC values on either side of an interface.
    8. In Order No. 890-A, the Commission clarified that adjacent
transmission providers must coordinate and exchange data and
assumptions to achieve consistent ATC values on either side of a single
interface.\4\ The Commission explained that this requirement is
applicable to any neighboring transmission providers no matter whether
they use the same or different ATC methodologies. Several petitioners
requested rehearing and clarification of this requirement, generally
raising two arguments. First, they suggested that it would be more
appropriate to require consistency of total transfer capability (TTC)
on either side of an interface instead of consistency of ATC values.\5\
Second, they argued that any requirement to achieve consistent ATC
values on either side of an interface should not be interpreted to mean
identical ATC values.\6\ In response, the Commission stated that it
disagreed with petitioners arguing that consistent ATC values should
not be interpreted as identical, but went on to acknowledge that
various factors (such as timing of reservation requests, acceptances
and confirmation, or multiple interfaces between transmission
providers) could make it difficult for transmission providers to
achieve coincidental, identical postings of ATC values on either side
of an interface.\7\ The Commission therefore reiterated that the ATC
calculation methodologies being finalized by NERC ``should produce
predictable and sufficiently accurate, consistent, equivalent, and
replicable results.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 890-A at P 52. The Commission noted that the
anticipated consistency is for available capability in the same
direction across an interface.
    \5\ See Order No. 890-B at P 9.
    \6\ See id. P 9-10.
    \7\ Id. P 15.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The requirement, then, is not to achieve identical postings of
ATC values on either side of an interface, as NorthWestern contends.
The requirement is, instead, to achieve consistency in such values
through the development of ATC calculation methodologies that produce
sufficiently accurate, consistent, equivalent, and replicable results.
In some instances, it may be possible for transmission providers under
these methodologies to achieve identical ATC values on either side of
an interface. In others, such as when there are differences in
reservation status or when there are multiple interfaces between the
transmission providers, it may not be possible or even practical to
achieve identical values.
    10. Since the issuance of Order No. 890-B, NERC has submitted to
the Commission six proposed Reliability Standards governing the
calculation of ATC. In a companion order issued today, the Commission
proposes to approve these Reliability Standards as just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest.\9\ The Commission will address in that proceeding whether the
proposed Reliability Standards satisfy the requirements of Order No.
890, as clarified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Calculation of
Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit Margins,
Transmission Reliability Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and
Existing Transmission Commitments and Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
Docket No. RM08-19-000, et al. (March 19, 2009). 126 FERC ] 61,249
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designation of Network Resources

    11. In Order No. 890-B, the Commission among other things clarified
that the requirement for a network customer and the transmission
provider's merchant function to undesignate each portion of each
resource used to support a sale of system power does not apply in the
event the buyer and seller are located on the same transmission system
and the buyer designates the system power as a network resource. The
Commission explained that, when a seller's network

resources are used to support an on-system sale, the buyer meets the
informational requirements of section 29.2(v) of the pro forma OATT
simply by identifying the seller's system as the resource. In
comparison, when a buyer does not designate a system purchase as a
network resource, the point-to-point transmission reservation for
taking delivery of the purchase and the corresponding resource-specific
undesignation by the seller provide the transmission provider with the
information it needs to accurately model the effect of the transaction
on its transmission system and set aside ATC accordingly.
Requests for Clarification and Rehearing
    12. SCE&G argues on rehearing that the Commission has unreasonably
restricted the types of system sales that can be made from network
resources without undesignation. SCE&G argues that, for purposes of
performing transmission modeling and ATC calculations in conjunction
with a given third-party sale, the transmission provider has all of the
information that it needs regardless of whether the buyer is located
on-system or off-system. According to SCE&G, transmission modeling
relating to off-system sales is a routine matter in the industry and
the practice of supporting such sales via slice-of-system
undesignations has presented no obstacles to the execution of such
modeling or any associated calculations. SCE&G contends that, when
modeling transmission flows associated with an off-system sale, the
neighboring systems (of the buyer and the seller) are evaluated on a
system-wide basis and calculations reflecting the amount of the sale
are properly performed in modeling the flow from the system of the
seller to that of the buyer.
    13. SCE&G contends that modeling for slice-of-system sales, whether
on-system or off-system, is designed to ensure not only accuracy, but
also economic efficiency. SCE&G states that the modeling for such sales
takes into account load forecasts for the relevant time period and, on
the basis of such data, includes projections of which specific plants
are likely to be involved in generating the incremental power that
supports the sale, which in turn is reflected in the relevant economic
dispatch plan. Because load forecasts invariably differ to at least
some degree from the actual load that ultimately materializes, SCE&G
contends that the modeling of any system sale includes appropriate
alternate dispatch scenarios, to ensure that unit dispatch is performed
in the correct economic order no matter what the actual load may
eventually prove to be. For off-system sales, SCE&G states, the
transmission provider takes the additional steps of recalculating ATC
for the relevant interface and ensuring proper adjustment to posted ATC
values.
    14. If sellers are denied the ability to use a slice-of-system
undesignation to support an off-system sale, SCE&G states that their
only alternative is to make unit-by-unit undesignations, which SCE&G
contends is unworkable and inaccurate and could result in units having
to be dispatched out of economic order. SCE&G states that purchasers
often use such off-system firm transactions as a tool for ensuring
their compliance with NERC and regional reliability council reserve
requirements and related reliability requirements and that these
transactions garner greater reliability benefits by virtue of being
based on a share of an entire portfolio of generating units, rather
than a single unit. SCE&G therefore asks the Commission to revisit its
determination in Order No. 890-B and safeguard the ability to access
and rely on off-system system sales.
    15. SCE&G argues that it is particularly ironic that the
Commission's initial clarification regarding the use of network
resources to supply system sales is the outgrowth of a clarification
sought by SCE&G in comments on the NOPR in this proceeding. In those
comments, SCE&G requested that the Commission clarify ``exactly how to
undesignate and redesignate [network resources] when the Transmission
Provider/Network Customer is selling a block of firm power out of the
system.'' \10\ SCE&G argues that, in responding to the request in Order
No. 890, the Commission expressly acknowledged the off-system nature of
the sales at issue and, therefore, its statement that ``firm third-
party sales may be made from an undesignated portion of [network
resources]'' appeared to apply to off-system sales.\11\ SCE&G contends
that the Commission's determination in Order No. 890-B therefore cannot
be squared with either the history of the Commission's express
treatment of the issue or standard industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Reply Comments of South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. at 15,
Docket No. RM05-25-000, et al. (Sep. 20, 2006) (emphasis added).
    \11\ Citing Order No. 890 at PP 1567 and 1582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Should the Commission decline to grant rehearing as requested,
SCE&G argues that the Commission at a minimum should grandfather long-
term, still-continuing off-system sales sourced from designated network
resources that were entered into prior to Order No. 890-B in reliance
of the Commission's prior policy.
Commission Determination
    17. The Commission affirms the requirement that network resources
used to supply sales of system power to off-system buyers must first be
undesignated.\12\ As we explained in Order No. 890, transactions in
which a buyer and seller are both network customers located on the same
transmission system are distinct from transactions involving sales of
energy from a network customer to an off-system buyer. In the latter
circumstance, the off-system buyer will not be using network service to
take delivery from the host transmission provider and, instead, must
identify the points of receipt and delivery for the transaction on the
host transmission provider's system, i.e., the points where capacity
and energy will be received from the seller and delivered to the buyer.
The point-to-point transmission reservation and the corresponding
resource-specific undesignation provide the transmission provider with
the information it needs regarding the location of particular resources
being used by the seller to source the transaction in order to model
the effect of the transaction on its transmission system and set aside
ATC accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Order No. 890-B at P 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. SCE&G contends that a resource-specific undesignation of
resources is unnecessary for a transmission provider to model an
economic dispatch of resources to determine which specific plants are
likely to be involved in generating the incremental power to support an
off-system sale. Even if that is true in some circumstances, whether or
not the transmission provider is able to analytically determine the
likely units used to support a power sale does not affect the need of
the buyer to identify the points of receipt and delivery on the host
transmission system where capacity and energy will be received from the
seller and delivered to the buyer. Because the buyer is not a network
customer of the host transmission provider, it cannot use network
service to take delivery. In order for the buyer to schedule point-to-
point service to take delivery, the transmission customer must identify
the point of receipt and delivery for the transaction. Even if the
transmission provider has accurately modeled the seller's optimal use
of resources to supply the transaction, it is unclear how the buyer and
seller would reflect that dispatch in the point-to-point

reservation used to deliver the energy other than by identifying the
particular point(s) of receipt for the transaction, which is tantamount
to a resource-specific undesignation of associated network resources.
    19. Transactions in which the buyer of system energy is a network
customer located on-system are clearly distinguishable from those in
which the buyer and seller are located on different systems. In the
former circumstance, the host transmission provider knows the normal
operating levels and variable energy costs for both network customers'
resources, the load forecasts for both network customers' network
loads, and any transmission constraints requiring redispatch. Section
29.2(v) of the pro forma OATT requires such information to be submitted
for each of the two designations (the original designation of the
capacity by the seller, and the subsequent designation of the capacity
by the buyer) such that the local transmission provider is able to use
such information to simultaneously determine the expected dispatches
for each network customer. From these predictions, reasonable operating
and contingency scenarios can be modeled in order to accurately
determine what transmission capacity should be reasonably set aside to
accommodate both network customers. That is not the case when one party
to the transaction is located in another transmission system.
    20. As noted above, NERC recently submitted for Commission review
proposed Reliability Standards to govern the calculation of ATC. One of
the issues the Commission directed transmission providers to address in
those Reliability Standards is the effect on ATC of designating and
undesignating network resources.\13\ Although the Commission proposes
in Docket Nos. RM08-19-000, et al., to approve the proposed Reliability
Standards, the Commission notes that NERC failed to address the
modeling of network resources and its impact on ATC calculations. The
Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop a modification to the
Reliability Standards to address this requirement. We encourage SCE&G
and any other interested party to provide comments in that proceeding
regarding the interaction of network resource designations and the
calculation of ATC. Upon review of those comments and final action in
that proceeding, the Commission may revisit its network resource
policies as necessary to reflect the Reliability Standards implemented
by NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 1041,
order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In the meantime, we disagree with SCE&G that the Commission's
network resource policies unreasonably impair the ability of network
customers to meet reserve requirements or related reliability
requirements. In Order Nos. 890-A and 890-B, the Commission made clear
that network customers could use designated resources to fulfill
obligations under a reserve sharing program.\14\ In other proceedings,
the Commission has permitted transmission providers to amend their
OATTs to allow network customers to use designated resources to supply
power to other control areas during system emergencies.\15\ Moreover,
the Commission has stated repeatedly that transmission providers are
free to propose additional variations to the pro forma OATT to
accommodate more flexible network resource policies if the particular
ATC methodology used by a transmission provider allows for such
flexibility.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Order No. 890-A at P 948; Order No. 890-B at P 215.
    \16\ See Arizona Public Service Co., 121 FERC ] 61,246 at P 42
(2007).
    \16\ See Order No. 890-A at P 951; Order No. 890-B at P 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. We also disagree with SCE&G that it would be appropriate to
grandfather all long-term, still-continuing off-system sales sourced
from designated network resources that were entered into prior to Order
No. 890-B. In response to SCE&G's NOPR comments, the Commission clearly
stated that firm third-party sales may be made only from an
undesignated portion of network resources and that a network customer
must submit undesignations for each portion of each resource supporting
the third-party sale.\17\ A number of petitioners sought rehearing and
clarification of that statement, which led the Commission to conclude
in Order No. 890-A that system sales could be supplied by network
resources without undesignation if the system sale is itself designated
as a network resource by the buyer.\18\ The Commission, however, did
not specifically state that the buyer had to be a network customer on
the same transmission system as the seller in order to qualify for this
exception from the undesignation requirement. As a result, confusion
arose regarding Order No. 890-A that was resolved in Order No. 890-
B.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Order No. 890 at P 1582.
    \18\ See Order No. 890-A at P 947.
    \19\ See Order No. 890-B at P 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. It would therefore only be appropriate to allow an exception to
the undesignation requirement for off-system system sales that occurred
after the issuance of Order No. 890-A, but before the clarification in
Order No. 890-B. During that six-month period, it may have been
reasonable for a network customer to interpret the Commission's
statement in Order No. 890-A as allowing for off-system sales from
network resource capacity undesignated on a general (as opposed to
resource-specific) basis if the buyer designated the purchase as an
external network resource with its own transmission provider. Prior to
issuance of Order No. 890-A, however, there was no indication that such
sales would be permitted without undesignation on a resource-specific
basis.
    24. As such, we agree that a power sale initiated on or after the
issuance date of Order No. 890-A, but before the effective date of
Order No. 890-B, may be accommodated with capacity undesignated on a
general basis, as described in paragraph 947 of Order No. 890-A. Any
network customer making such power sales, and which submitted a general
undesignation for such power sales between those dates, is not
considered to be in violation of section 30.4 as a result of operation
of such resources. Network customers may rely on such undesignation(s)
until the redesignation date (for resources temporarily terminated) or
the expiration of the current term of the power sales contract (for
resources indefinitely terminated).

II. Information Collection Statement

    25. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
an agency.\20\ The revisions to the information collection requirements
for transmission providers adopted in Order No. 890 were approved under
OMB Control Nos. 1902-0233. This order does not substantively alter
those requirements. OMB approval of this order is therefore
unnecessary. However, the Commission will send a copy of this order to
OMB for informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 CFR 1320 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Document Availability

    26. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)

and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    27. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    28. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    29. This order does not substantively alter the requirements of
Order Nos. 890, 890-A or 890-B and, therefore, will become effective as
of the date of publication in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6502 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 40069]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3402]

Advisory Committee; National Mammography Quality Assurance
Advisory Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory
Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The
Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew
the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee for an
additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter
will be in effect until July 7, 2021.

DATES: Authority for the National Mammography Quality Assurance
Advisory Committee would have expired on July 7, 2019; however, the
Commissioner formally determined that renewal is in the public
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Anderson, Office of Management,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G616, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the
Department of Health and Human Services under 45 CFR part 11 and by the
General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the
National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee. The
committee is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established
to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Secretary and, by
delegation, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health and
Science, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are charged with the
administration of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and various
provisions of the Public Health Service Act. The Mammography Quality
Standards Act of 1992 amends the Public Health Service Act to establish
national uniform quality and safety standards for mammography
facilities. The National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory
Committee advises the Secretary and, by delegation, the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs in discharging their responsibilities with respect to
establishing a mammography facilities certification program. The
Committee shall advise the Food and Drug Administration on:
    (1) Developing appropriate quality standards and regulations for
mammography facilities;
    (2) developing appropriate standards and regulations for bodies
accrediting mammography facilities under this program;
    (3) developing regulations with respect to sanctions;
    (4) developing procedures for monitoring compliance with standards;
    (5) establishing a mechanism to investigate consumer complaints;
    (6) reporting new developments concerning breast imaging that
should be considered in the oversight of mammography facilities;
    (7) determining whether there exists a shortage of mammography
facilities in rural and health professional shortage areas and
determining the effects of personnel on access to the services of such
facilities in such areas;
    (8) determining whether there will exist a sufficient number of
medical physicists after October 1, 1999; and
    (9) determining the costs and benefits of compliance with these
requirements.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 15 members, including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among physicians, practitioners, and other health
professionals, whose clinical practice, research specialization, or
professional expertise includes a significant focus on mammography.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4
years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as
Special Government Employees. The core of voting members shall include
at least four individuals from among national breast cancer or consumer
health organizations with expertise in mammography, and at least two
practicing physicians who provide mammography services. In addition to
the voting members, the Committee shall include two nonvoting industry
representatives who have expertise in mammography equipment. The
Committee may include one technically qualified member, selected by the
Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/national-mammography-quality-assurance-advisory-committee/past-meeting-materials-national-mammography-quality-assurance-advisory-committee or
by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made
to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be
made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees.

    Dated: August 7, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17276 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69737-69739]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27758]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70878; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Fourteen Month Extension of Pilot Program That
Eliminates Position and Exercise Limits for Physically-Settled SPDR S&P
500 ETF Trust (``SPY'') Options

November 14, 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 November 5, 2013, the 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 and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 4.11
(Position Limits) by extending a pilot program that eliminates the
position and exercise limits for physically-settled options on the SPDR
S&P 500 ETF Trust (``SPY Pilot Program''), which is currently set to
expire on November 27, 2013.
    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 Interpretation and Policy .07 to
Rule 4.11 (Position Limits) to extend the duration of the SPY Pilot
Program for an additional fourteen months.\5\ The SPY Pilot Program is
currently scheduled to expire on November 27, 2013 and this proposal
would extend the SPY Pilot Program through January 27, 2015. There are
no substantive changes being proposed to the SPY Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67937 (September 27,
2012) 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange
reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported its
original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, which include:
(1) The liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (2) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the securities
that make up the S&P 500 Index; (3) options reporting requirements; and
(4) financial requirements imposed by CBOE and the Commission.
    In the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, CBOE
stated that if CBOE were to submit a proposal to either extend the SPY
Pilot Program, adopt the SPY Pilot Program on a permanent basis, or
terminate the SPY Pilot Program, CBOE would submit, along with any
proposal, a report providing any analysis of the SPY Pilot Program
covering the first twelve months during which the SPY Pilot Program was
in effect (the ``Pilot Report'').\6\ However, because not all self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'') have adopted similar rules
eliminating position and exercise limits for SPY options and because
market participants that are members of such SROs are required to
comply with the more restrictive SPY option position and exercise
limits, no market participants have availed themselves of the SPY Pilot
Program. As a result, there is not sufficient data to compile a
meaningful Pilot Report at this time to file with this current
extension request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR at 60490.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to extend the SPY
Pilot Program for an additional fourteen months to provide time for
other SROs to adopt similar pilot programs that eliminate positions and
exercise limits for SPY options. In that event (and in a year's time),
the Exchange will be able to prepare a meaningful Pilot Report in
support of a proposal to either extend the SPY Pilot Program, adopt the
SPY Pilot Program on a permanent basis, or terminate the SPY Pilot
Program.
    As with the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program,
the Exchange represents that the Pilot Report would be submitted within
thirty (30) days of the end of the first twelve months of the extended
SPY Pilot Program time period and would cover the twelve months that
just ended. The Pilot Report would detail the size and different types
of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a
result of the elimination of position limits in SPY options. In
addition, the Pilot Report would note whether any problems resulted due
to the no limit approach and any other information that may be useful
in evaluating the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot
Report would compare the impact of the SPY Pilot Program, if any, on
the volumes of SPY options and the volatility in the price of the
underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration. In preparing the
report the Exchange would utilize various data elements such as volume
and open interest. In addition the Exchange would make available to
Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the SPY
Pilot Program.
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.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot
Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by permitting
market participants, including market makers, institutional investors
and retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing
their investment goals and needs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue while other SROs adopt similar provisions and meaningful data
can be compiled into a Pilot Report.

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

    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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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, along
with a brief description and text of 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will benefit market participants since immediate operability
will allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue without interruption. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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-2013-106 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-2013-106. 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-2013-106 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27758 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10684-10685]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03393]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68886; File No. SR-ISE-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend ISE Rule 2102 To Extend the Pilot Program

February 8, 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 January 31, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``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 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2102 (Hours of Business) to
extend the expiration of the pilot rule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2102 to extend the
expiration of the pilot rule. Initial amendments to ISE Rule 2102 to
allow the Exchange to pause trading in an individual stock when the
primary listing market for such stock issues a trading pause were
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') on
June 10, 2010 on a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010.\3\ The
pilot was then extended to expire on April 11, 2011.\4\ On March 21,
2011, ISE Rule 2102 was amended to state that the pilot would expire on
the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on which a limit up/limit
down mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility, if adopted,
would apply.\5\ On August 9, 2011, ISE Rule 2102 was once again amended
to extend the pilot to January 31, 2012.\6\ On January 30, 2012, ISE
Rule 2102 was amended to extend the pilot to July 31, 2012.\7\ On July
27, 2012, ISE Rule 2102 was amended to extend the pilot to February 4,
2013.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-48).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63506 (December 9,
2010), 75 FR 78301 (December 15, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-117).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64193 (April 5,
2011), 76 FR 20062 (April 11, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-17).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65072 (August 9,
2011), 76 FR 50513 (August 15, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-52).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66271 (January 30,
2012), 77 FR 5587 (February 3, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-05).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67527 (July 27,
2012), 77 FR 46530 (August 3, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2010, ISE Rule 2102 was amended to expand the
pilot rule to apply to the Russell 1000[supreg] Index and other
specified exchange traded products.\9\ On June 23, 2011, ISE Rule 2102
was amended again to expand the pilot rule to apply to all NMS
Stocks.\10\ The Exchange now proposes to extend the date by which this
pilot rule will expire to the earlier of the initial date of operations
of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
or February 4, 2014. Extending this pilot program will provide the
exchanges with a continued opportunity to assess the effect of this
rule proposal on the markets. While the proposed rule change would
allow the single stock circuit breaker to sunset as the Regulation NMS
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility expands to cover more
securities, this phasing out of the single stock circuit breaker will
have no effect on the Exchange as the Exchange does not trade equity
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-66).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''),\11\
which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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. The proposed rule change
also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \12\ of
the Exchange Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition among
brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule meets these requirements in that it promotes
uniformity across markets concerning decisions to pause trading in a
security when there are significant price movements. Additionally,
extending this pilot rule so that it will expire on the earlier of the
initial date of operations of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility or February 4, 2014 will provide the
exchanges with a continued opportunity to assess the effect of this
rule proposal on the markets. While the proposed rule change would
allow the single stock circuit breaker to sunset as the Regulation NMS
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility expands to cover more
securities, this phasing out of the single stock circuit breaker will
have no effect on the Exchange as the Exchange does not trade equity
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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 \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of 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
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-ISE-2013-10 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-ISE-2013-10. 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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-10 and should be
submitted on or before March 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03393 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P