[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37556-37558]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0538; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-37 Due to the Planned
Decommissioning of Aylmer, Canada, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Navigation Aid

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway V-37 in the northeast United States to reflect changes made by
NAV CANADA in Canadian airspace. The modification to V-37 is necessary
due to the decommissioning of the Aylmer, Canada, VOR navigation aid
(NAVAID), which provided navigation guidance for portions of V-37. The
Aylmer VOR was decommissioned March 23, 2020, as part of NAV CANADA's
NAVAID Modernization Program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the
National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2019-0538 in the Federal Register (84 FR 34073; July 17, 2019)
amending VOR Federal airway V-37 due to the planned decommissioning of
the Aylmer, Canada, VOR by NAV CANADA. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal. No comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airway V-37 due to the decommissioning
of the Aylmer, Canada, VOR by NAV CANADA. The VOR Federal airway change
is outlined below.
    V-37: V-37 extends between the Craig, FL, VORTAC and the Toronto,
ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway
segments between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/
DME, and the language excluding the airspace within Canada are removed.
The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.
    All radials in the VOR Federal airway description below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of modifying VOR
Federal airway V-37, due to the decommissioning of the Aylmer, Canada,
VOR, has no potential to cause any significant environmental impacts,
and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment. Therefore, this airspace action has been
categorically excluded from further environmental impact review in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). In accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances,
the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which
a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-37 [Amended]

    From Craig, FL; Brunswick, GA; INT Brunswick 014[deg] and
Savannah, GA, 177[deg] radials; Savannah; Allendale, SC; Columbia,
SC; Charlotte, NC; Pulaski, VA; Elkins, WV; Clarksburg, WV; INT
Clarksburg 359[deg] and Ellwood City, PA, 185[deg] radials; Ellwood
City; to Erie, PA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-13339 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27-29]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM364 Special Conditions No. 25-356-SC]

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Systems and Data
Networks Security--Isolation or Protection From Unauthorized Passenger
Domain Systems Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787-8
airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when
compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness
standards for transport category airplanes. These novel or unusual
design features are associated with connectivity of the passenger
domain computer systems to the airplane critical systems and data
networks. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
protection and security of airplane systems and data networks against
unauthorized access. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for
other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8
airplanes.

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Struck, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for
its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8
airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a
two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds,
with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21.17,
Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred
to as ``the 787'') meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as
amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except Sec. Sec.  25.809(a)
and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator
finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel
or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under
provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission
requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements
of part 36. The FAA must also issue a finding of regulatory adequacy
pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the ``Noise Control Act
of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The digital systems architecture for the 787 consists of several
networks connected by electronics and embedded software. This proposed
network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, including
the following:
    1. Flight-safety-related control and navigation and required
systems (Aircraft Control Domain).
    2. Airline business and administrative support (Airline Information
Domain).
    3. Passenger entertainment, information, and Internet services
(Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain).
    The proposed architecture of the 787 is different from that of
existing production (and retrofitted) airplanes. It allows new kinds of
passenger connectivity to previously isolated data networks connected
to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of
the airplane. Because of this new passenger connectivity, the proposed
data network design and integration may result in security
vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data
and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The
existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type
of system architecture or electronic access to aircraft systems that
provide flight critical functions. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and
current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address
potential security vulnerabilities that could be caused by unauthorized
access to aircraft data buses and servers. Therefore, special
conditions are imposed to ensure that security, integrity, and
availability of the aircraft systems and data networks are not
compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between
airplane data buses and networks.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-07-01-SC for the 787
was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18597).
One comment was received from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) and several from Airbus.
     ALPA Comment: ALPA strongly recommended that a backup
means must also be provided for the flightcrew to disable passengers'
ability to connect to these specific systems.
    FAA Response: These special conditions apply to the design of
airplane systems and networks, and would not preclude a security
mitigation strategy that provides a means for the flightcrew to disable
passenger connectivity to the networks or to disable access to specific
systems connected to the airplane networks. However, the FAA would
prefer not to dictate specific design features to the applicant but
rather to allow applicants the flexibility to determine the appropriate
security protections and means to address all potential vulnerabilities
and risks posed by allowing this access. For example, the security
protection response to a suspected network security violation could
result in--
     The system automatically disabling passenger access to the
network or certain functions,
     Flight deck annunciation and flightcrew disabling of
passenger access to certain systems or capabilities, or
     Various combinations of the above.
     AIRBUS General Comment 1: In Airbus's opinion these
special conditions leave too much room for interpretation, and related
guidance and acceptable means of compliance should be developed in an
advisory circular for use by future applicants.
    FAA Response: We agree that guidance is necessary and specific,
detailed compliance guidelines and

criteria have been developed for this aircraft certification program,
specific to this airplane's network architecture and design, providing
initial guidance on an acceptable means of compliance for the 787.
Additionally, the FAA intends to participate in an industry committee
chartered with developing acceptable means of compliance to address
aircraft network security issues, and hopes to endorse the results of
the work of that committee by issuing an advisory circular (AC). Until
such time as guidance is developed for a general means of compliance
for network security protection, these special conditions and the
agreed-to guidance are imposed on this specific network architecture
and design.
     AIRBUS Comment (a): Airbus stated that the requirement in
the proposed special conditions is not ``high level'' enough because it
considers a solution or an architecture. Airbus believes that criteria
or assumptions for defining the domains are missing (for example,
systems criticality, interfaces, rationale for the need to protect one
domain from another one, trust levels * * *). The commenter maintained
that the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD), Airline Information Domain
(AID) and Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain (PIED) need to
be precisely defined.
    FAA Response: We do not agree that the requirement in the proposed
special conditions prescribes a solution or an architecture. These
special conditions and the acceptable means of compliance were
developed based on the Boeing-proposed 787 network architecture and
connectivity between the Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain
and the Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Domain. The
applicant is responsible for the design of the airplane network and
systems architecture and for ensuring that potential security
vulnerabilities of providing passenger access to airplane networks and
systems are mitigated to an appropriate level of assurance, depending
on the potential risk to the airplane and occupant safety. This
responsibility is similar to that entailed in the current system safety
assessment process of 14 CFR 25.1309. (See also AC 25.1309-1A and the
ARAC-recommended Arsenal version of this AC, which can be found at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/arac/media/tae/TAE_SDA_T2.pdf
, and SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

ARP (Aerospace Recommended Practice) 4754). We believe the general
definitions for the airplane network ``domains'' are sufficient for
these special conditions.
     AIRBUS Comment (b): Airbus stated that in the sentence
``The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes to, and
all adverse impacts * * *'', the wording ``shall prevent ALL'' can be
interpreted as a zero allowance. According to the commenter,
demonstration of compliance with such a requirement during the entire
life cycle of the aircraft is quite impossible because security threats
evolve very rapidly. The only possible solution to such a requirement
would be to physically segregate the Passenger Information and
Entertainment Domain from the other domains. This would mean, for
example, no shared resources like SATCOM (satellite communications),
and no network connections. Airbus maintained that such a solution is
not technically and operationally viable, saying that a minimum of
communications is always necessary. Airbus preferred a less categorical
requirement which allows more flexibility and does not prevent possible
residual vulnerabilities if they are assessed as acceptable from a
safety point of view. Airbus said this security assessment could be
based on a security risk analysis process during the design,
validation, and verification of the systems architecture that assesses
risks as either acceptable or requiring mitigations even through
operational procedures if necessary. Airbus noted that this process,
based on similarities with the SAE ARP 4754 safety process, is already
proposed by the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment
(EUROCAE) Working Group 72 for consideration of safety risks posed by
security threats or by the FAA through the document ``National Airspace
System Communication System Safety Hazard Analysis and Security Threat
Analysis,'' version v1.0, dated Feb. 21, 2006. Airbus said such a
security risk analysis process could be used as an acceptable means of
compliance addressed by an advisory circular.
    FAA Response: We agree that Airbus's interpretation of zero
allowance for any ``inadvertent or malicious changes to, and all
adverse impacts'' to airplane systems, networks, hardware, software,
and data is correct. However, this does not prevent allowing
appropriate access if the design incorporates robust security
protection means and procedures to prevent inadvertent and intentional
actions that could adversely impact airplane systems, functionality,
and airworthiness. Airbus commented that ``a minimum of communications
is always necessary.'' Unauthorized users, however, must not be allowed
communication access to aircraft systems and equipment in such a way
that inadvertent or intentional actions can have any adverse impact on
the aircraft systems, equipment, and data. Technology exists which
allows sharing of resources without allowing unauthorized access and
inappropriate actions to systems and data. As previously mentioned,
detailed compliance guidelines and criteria, specific to the 787
network architecture, have been developed into an acceptable means of
compliance for this airplane certification program. In addition, we
intend to participate in future related industry committees (such as
SAE S-18, which is currently revising ARP 4754, EUROCAE Working Group
72, and RTCA (RTCA, Incorporated; formerly Radio Technical Commission
for Aeronautics) Special Committee 216). These groups will be
developing additional aircraft network security guidance, and we hope
to be able to endorse the results of their efforts as an acceptable
means of compliance for network security issues on future aircraft
certification programs.
     AIRBUS Comment (c): Airbus said that this requirement is
limited to the design (``The design shall prevent all inadvertent or
malicious changes * * * ''), but security solutions are always
dependent on organizational procedures. Airbus said that because the
efficiency of a security solution relies on the weakest link in the
overall chain (design, operations, organizations, processes, * * *),
the robustness of the design may be impaired (by, for instance, cabin
crew interfaces being used by unauthorized passengers) if equivalent
security requirements are not mandated for other involved parties, as,
for example, through an operational or maintenance approval.
    FAA Response: The applicant is responsible for developing a design
compliant with these special conditions and other applicable
regulations. The design may include specific technology and
architecture features, as well as operator requirements, operational
procedures and security measures, and maintenance procedures and
requirements, to ensure an appropriate implementation that can be
properly used and maintained to ensure safe operations and continued
operational safety. These special conditions do not preclude
organizational, process, operational, monitoring, or maintenance
procedures and requirements from being part of the design to ensure
security protection. As with other aircraft models, the operator is
obligated to

operate and maintain the aircraft in conformance with regulations and
with requirements for operation and maintenance of the product.
     AIRBUS Comment (d): Airbus noted that the special
conditions consider only interference between the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain (PIED) and the Airline Information Domain or
Aircraft Control Domain. It notes there is no requirement for
protecting the Aircraft Control Domain from the Airline Information
Domain, if this one is considered less trusted than the Aircraft
Control Domain. As an example, it said that the Airline Information
Domain could implement portable electronic flight bags.
    FAA Response: These special conditions address only the interfaces
between the passenger domain (PIED) and other aircraft systems and
networks. Other interfaces and accesses are addressed by current
regulations and policy, and by another proposed special conditions.
     AIRBUS Comment (e): Airbus said that, depending on the
meaning of ``unauthorized external access,'' these special conditions
may be redundant to proposed special conditions 25-07-02-SC (see
comment ``b'' about 25-07-02-SC).
    FAA Response: These special conditions are not redundant. The
passenger PIED and its security implementation are part of the airplane
model and type design, and are not considered ``external'' to the
aircraft. In reviewing the Boeing-proposed 787 network architecture and
design during development of these special conditions, we determined
the need for two separate special conditions. To ensure appropriate
security protection of the aircraft and its systems, one special
condition was needed for access from the passenger domain, and one for
access from sources external to the airplane.
     AIRBUS proposed text revision: Airbus proposed the
following revised wording for these special conditions.

    The applicant shall ensure that security threats from all points
within the Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain, are
identified and risk mitigation strategies are implemented to protect
the Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain
from adverse impacts reducing the aircraft safety.

    FAA Response: As noted previously, the purpose of these special
conditions is to ensure security protection from all inadvertent or
malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts to, airplane systems,
networks, hardware, software, and data from accesses through the
passenger domain. We do not believe the commenter's proposal is
specific enough to achieve this purpose, and we will retain the current
wording.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type
certificate to include another model on the same type certificate
incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane.

    The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-25467 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 7063]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0050]

Towing Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Towing Safety Advisory Committee and its subcommittees
will meet in Charleston, South Carolina to review and discuss
recommendations from its subcommittees and to receive briefs on items
listed in the agenda. All meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: Meetings. The subcommittees of the Towing Safety Advisory
Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to
conduct work-group sessions. The full Committee will meet on Wednesday,
March 21, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. These meetings may end early if
the subcommittees or the Committee has completed its business, or the
meetings may be extended based on the number of public comments.
    Comments and supporting documentation. To ensure your comments are
reviewed by Committee members comment before the meetings, submit your
written comments no later than March 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Charleston Marriott 170
Lockwood Boulevard, Charleston, South Carolina 29403; http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/chsmc-charleston-marriott/.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
as soon as possible.
    Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical
difficulties with comment submission, contact the individuals listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the meetings, but if you want Committee members to
review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no
later than March 6, 2018. We are particularly interested in comments on
the issues in the ``Agenda'' section below. You must include
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number USCG-2018-
0050. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
more about privacy and the docket, review the Privacy and Security
Notice for the Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Docket Search: For access to the docket or to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert USCG-2018-0050 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on
the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Jose Perez, Designated
Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant
(CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax 202-
372-8382 or email [email protected], or Mr. Kenneth Doyle,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code
Appendix. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and
recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters
relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and
towing safety.

Agenda of Meetings

    On March 20 and 21, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet to review, discuss,
deliberate, and formulate recommendations, as appropriate, on the
following tasks:

 Subchapter M Implementation (Task 16-01)
 Inland Firefighting (Task 16-02)
 Towing Liquefied Natural Gas Barges (Task 16-03)
 Regulatory Reform (Task 17-01)
 Load Line Exemption Review for River Barges on Lakes Erie and
Ontario (Task 17-02)

    All current Towing Safety Advisory Committee tasks can be found at
https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?&ID=574&Source=https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/tsac/recommendations-reports.
    A copy of all meeting documentation, including any draft final
reports, will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/tsac/announcements no later
than March 13, 2018. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Kenneth Doyle
as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting
as the Committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and
voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the
meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the period
allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above
to register as a speaker.

Notices of Future 2018 Towing Safety Advisory Committee Meetings

    To receive automatic email notices of future Towing Safety Advisory
Committee meetings in 2018, go to the online docket, USCG-2018-0050
(http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2018-0050), and
select the Sign-up-for-Email-Alerts option. We plan to use the same
docket number for all Towing Safety Advisory Committee meeting notices
in 2018, so when the next meeting notice is published you will receive
an email alert from http://www.regulations.gov when the notice appears
in this docket, in addition to notices of other items being added to
the docket.

    Dated: February 13, 2018.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2018-03221 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOCKET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:Data and Results for the monetized Health Benefits Analysis completed using BenMAP-CE as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final Good Neighbor Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: March 6, 2023
EPA has provided the Docket Office for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668, a zip file containing the files used to estimate the benefits to human health of reducing concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final Good Neighbor Plan. The assessment was completed using BenMAP-CE version <IP_ADDRESS>.  Health incidence and valuation estimates can be reproduced either by performing individual parameterized runs for a given air quality scenario and year using the BenMAP graphical user interface (GUI) or performing batch runs using scripts.
BenMAP runs were batch processed using command line and a written script. The full set of estimates can be reproduced using the automation script files available in the docket materials, which can be run from the command prompt using the input air quality surface files. See Appendix L of the BenMAP manual for additional details on running BenMAP through the command line and the Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits Technical Support Document (TSD) for additional information of selection of health endpoints and concentration-response relationships.
Standard BenMAP folders are included in the docket materials, described below. Script files can be reviewed and modified in a text editor such as Notepad++, which includes comments preceded by "#". Four script files were used for this analysis.:
ozone_transport_final_docket.ctlx produces the national level ozone-related health benefits for the scenario years of 2023 and 2026
PM_for_ozone_transport_final_docket.ctlx produces the national level PM-related health benefits for the scenario years of 2023 and 2026
ozone_transport_final_annual_docket.ctlx produces the national ozone-related health benefits valuation results for each year from 2023-2042
PM_for_ozone_transport_final_annual_docket.ctlx produces the national PM-related health benefits valuation results for each year from 2023-2042

The script file can be reviewed and modified in a text editor such as Notepad++, which includes comments preceded by "#". Prior to running the script from the command line, a number of subdirectory pointers within the automation code must be set to where the user has placed the input files and results directories for outputs. Imbedded notes within the automation code highlight the pointers which must be updated, which appear near the beginning of the script file. Once pointers have been updated and the required input files have been placed in the appropriate subdirectories (see below), then the script run is initiated with the below commands from the command prompt:
Direct to the location where the BenMAP program is located (e.g., "cd\program files (x86)\BenMAP-CE") and hit Enter
Direct the command line prompt to the script file (e.g., start/wait "" "C:\program files (x86)\benmap-ce\benmap.exe" "C:\[INSERT FILE LOCATION}\ ozone_transport_final_docket.ctlx ")

In order to run the automated script, make sure that the following subdirectories have been created, include the necessary input files, and the script has been edited to their location:

"Inputs" Containing the air quality grid .csv (or .xlsx) files
"AQG" Will be the location of output .aqgx air quality gridded surface files
"CFG" Containing the BenMAP configuration file used as the basis for generating risk estimates, e.g., 2026.cfgx
"APV" Contains BenMAP aggregation and pooling file which allows .apvx and .cfgrx reports containing the risk estimates to be generated, e.g., 2023_Ozone.apvx
"Reports" Will be the location of exposure output .csv files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.
"Results" Will be the location of exposure output .cfgrx and .apvrx files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 59301]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Central 40, LLC......................................       EG20-176-000
Pioneer Solar (CO), LLC..............................       EG20-177-000
Maverick Creek Wind, LLC.............................       EG20-178-000
Northern Colorado Wind Energy Center II, LLC.........       EG20-179-000
Assembly Solar I, LLC................................       EG20-180-000
Clyde OnSite Generation, LLC.........................       EG20-181-000
Rattlesnake Flat, LLC................................       EG20-182-000
Aviator Wind, LLC....................................       EG20-183-000
Hardin Wind LLC......................................       EG20-184-000
Altavista Solar, LLC.................................       EG20-185-000
Ellwood Power, LLC...................................       EG20-186-000
Ormond Beach Power, LLC..............................       EG20-187-000
Fern Solar LLC.......................................       EG20-188-000
Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC..............................       EG20-189-000
Antelope Expansion 3A, LLC...........................       EG20-190-000
Antelope Expansion 3B, LLC...........................       EG20-191-000
SR Snipesville, LLC..................................       EG20-192-000
Titan Solar 1, LLC...................................       EG20-193-000
Coachella Hills Wind, LLC............................       EG20-194-000
Voyager Wind IV Expansion, LLC.......................       EG20-195-000
Hardin Solar Energy LLC..............................       EG20-196-000
Deuel Harvest Wind Energy LLC........................       EG20-197-000
Cassadaga Wind LLC...................................       EG20-198-000
Boswell Wind, LLC....................................       EG20-199-000
Maryneal Windpower, LLC..............................       EG20-200-000
HO Clarke Generating, LLC............................       EG20-201-000
G.S.E. One LLC.......................................       EG20-202-000
SR Baxley, LLC.......................................       EG20-203-000
Milford Solar I, LLC.................................       EG20-204-000
Odom Solar, LLC......................................       EG20-206-000
Energy Center Fajardo LLC............................        FC20-10-000
Faro Energy Ltd......................................        FC20-11-000

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign
Utility Company Status

    Take notice that during the month of August 2020, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2020).

    Dated: September 15, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20765 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Dr. Sylvia Jacobi
Corporate Toxicology Director
Parc Scientifique Einstein Rue de Bosquet 9B-1348 Louvain-la Neuve Sud
Belgium
Phone: +3210481768
Fax: +3210481768
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

July 29, 2014
Diethylmethylbenzene diamine (DEDTA) Developmental Toxicity Study in Rats, TNO-Triskelion Study Report No. V20193, Project No. 093.20418,
Summary
A developmental toxicity study was conducted with Diethylmethylbenzene diamine (DEDTA) accoring to OECD TG 414 (2001) and Council Regulation EC No. 440/2008 B.31 (2008). Groups of 24 pregnant rats received DEDTA by continuous oral administration in the diet from gestation day (GD) 0 until GD 20. The test substance was given at constant dietary nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 50 (low-dose), 150 (mid-dose) and 500 mg/kg diet (high-dose). These doses corresponded to 0, 2.63, 7.83 and 20.45 mg/kg bw per day interpolated actual test substance intake. The doses were chosen on the basis of two dose range finding studies. During the in-life phase clinical signs, maternal body weight and food consumption were recorded. Ophthalmoscopic examination was performed pre-treatment and at gestation day 20. At Caesarean section, females and fetuses of all groups were macroscopically examined and blood was collected for haematology and clinical chemistry. Fetuses, placentas and reproductive organs were weighed. Histopathology of the pancreas as the primary target organ for DEDTA toxicity was performed in the dams. Fetuses were further processed for fetopathological examination.
Upon analysis of the experimental diets, DETDA was found to be homogeneously distributed at all dose levels and stable in diets after storage in a freezer (<= - 18ºC). However, the initial measured content of DETDA was 10-16% lower than intended, and storage in the animal room for 5 days (in an open container) resulted in 32-41% loss. Although the measured concentrations were lower than the intended nominal concentrations in diets, the achieved exposure levels did result in maternal toxicity at the high dose level. Therefore the guideline requirements of maternal toxicity at the high dose level were met and the study was considered valid at relevant dose levels.
Feed was removed and completely replaced by feed from the freezer twice weekly at three or four day intervals. The actual test substance intake was assessed taking into account the measured initial levels and the (interpolated) loss during storage for 3 or 4 days in the animal room.
In the high dose group maternal toxicity was observed as represented by a body weight loss during the first three days of gestation, followed by a decreased mean body weight gain and decreased food consumption during gestation, reduced ovary weight and induction of acinar cell apoptosis and mononuclear cell inflammation in the pancreas in most of the animals of the high dose group (13 animals with minimal to moderate apoptosis of the pancreatic acinar cells, 15 animals with minimal to mild mononuclear cell inflammation). In the mid dose group minimal induction of acinar cell apoptosis was observed in two animals and minimal mononuclear cell inflammation in one animal. Although this finding was of low incidence and severity in this group, it could be regarded as a first indication of an effect on the target organ. Consequently, the low dose level was considered a No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) for maternal toxicity..

Developmental toxicity was observed in the high dose group, as evidenced by a decreased number of implantation sites and live fetuses. In addition mean placenta weight and mean fetus weight were decreased, which was confirmed by an increase in incidence of small fetuses.  A slight retardation in ossification in the fetuses of the high dose group was related to the lower fetus weight.

Fetal observations with single incidences including one foetus showing a hernia ventralis, one fetus being too small and one fetus showing dilated ventricles of the brain were considered not treatement related based on the low (single) incidence and the absence of dose relationship.

In absence of developmental effects in the mid-dose group, the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was placed at the mid-dose level of 7.83 mg/kg bw/day

Effects on fetus weight, placenta weight and ossification are considered to be related to maternal toxicity as outlined in Waalkens-Berendsen et al., 2002 and 2004, Wolterbeek et al., 2004 and Meiling et al., 2004. In this study overt maternal toxicity was observed at the high dose level. An onset of the target organ effects in the dams was already observed in some animals of the mid dose group, but not accompanied by fetal toxicity. Consquently, the effects on embryo-fetal development that were observed at the high dose level were considered to be secondary to maternal toxicity

References:
Waalkens-Berendsen D.H., Kuilman-Wahls M.E.M., Wolterbeek A.P.M. Maternal toxicity and fetal development: effects of decreased food intake.
Reproductive Toxicology 16, 425, 2002.

Wolterbeek APM, Tegelenbosch-Schouten MM, Waalkens-Berendsen DH and Dijkstra A.
Impact of maternal toxicity on pre- and postnatal development of rats.
Reproductive Toxicology 18, 753, 2004.

Meiling J, Wolterbeek APM, Waalkens-Berendsen DH, Tegelenbosch-Schouten MM and Dijkstra A. Impact of maternal toxicity on pre- and postnatal development of rats.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 197, 211, 2004.

Waalkens-Berendsen ID, Tegelenbosch-Schouten MM, Dijkstra A and Wolterbeek APM.
Impact of maternal toxicity on pre- and postnatal development of rats.
The Toxicologist 78, Suppl. 1, 221, 2004


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37640-37642]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14791]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[(Release No. 34-69771; File No. SR-OCC-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, To Separate the Powers and Duties Currently Combined in the Office
of OCC's Chairman Into Two Offices, Executive Chairman and President,
and Create an Additional Directorship To Be Occupied by the President

June 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 4, 2013, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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 OCC. On June 10, 2013, OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 modified Exhibit 3A to the original filing
to correct an erroneous reference contained therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to separate the powers and duties currently combined
in the office of OCC's Chairman into two offices, Executive Chairman
and President, and create an additional directorship to be occupied by
the President.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide for
separation of the powers and duties currently combined in the office of
OCC's Chairman into two offices, Executive Chairman and President, and
create an additional directorship to be occupied by the President.
These changes resulted from a review of the structure of OCC's Board,
with particular consideration given to the trend in many corporations
toward separating the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board. OCC's Board of Directors ultimately determined that as a
corporate governance matter dividing the powers and duties of the
Chairman into two positions was desirable. Under the proposal, the
Executive Chairman would be responsible for the control functions of
OCC, including enterprise risk management, internal audit and
compliance, as well as for external affairs, and for presiding at all
meetings of the Board and the stockholders. The President would report
to the Chairman and be responsible for all aspects of OCC's business
that do not report directly to the Chairman. OCC intends that the
President, who would be OCC's Chief Executive Officer,\4\ would focus
on the effectiveness of OCC's day-to-day operations, as well as
strategic initiatives for the future, while the Chairman would provide
objective oversight over the entire organization, including the
President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While the By-Laws would make it clear that the President is
OCC's Chief Executive Officer, for simplicity the officer in
question would be referred to only as the ``President.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed change would enhance oversight of
management because the Chairman will be independent of most management
functions. The separation would also avoid concentrating too much power
over OCC's operations in the hands of a single individual, and heighten
accountability of management to the Board. Furthermore, the Board of
Directors found that separation of these offices would better align
OCC's governance structure with global standards for financial services
organizations.
    While OCC's Board of Directors determined that its Chairman should
no longer function as its chief executive officer, in light of OCC's
status as a registered clearing organization and designated clearing
organization, it concluded that the Chairman should have executive
responsibilities relating to risk management, compliance and similar
issues. The Board of Directors believes that the Chairman's direct
oversight of these control functions will increase independence by
limiting management's influence over them.\5\ The Board also believes
that the significance of these control functions for a clearing
organization warrants full-time oversight, which can only be provided
by an executive of OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed structure of OCC's Board, including the
utilization of an executive chairman, is similar to that employed by
the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and CME Group Inc. See
Article III of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation's By-
Laws, effective April 2012, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules_proc/dtc_rules.pdf, and Article V of CME Group Inc.'s Tenth
Amended and Restated By-Laws, effective as of April 17, 2013,
available at http://investor.cmegroup.com/investor-relations/groupBylaws.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect the above changes in its governance structure, OCC is
proposing to revise Section 7 of Article III of its By-Laws to include
OCC's President as a Management Director, along with OCC's Chairman.
Accordingly, Sections 1, 7 and 12 of Article III will also be amended
to reflect the existence of an additional Management Director.
Furthermore, OCC proposes to amend Section 15 of Article III to grant
the President the same authority to act in the case of an emergency as
the Chairman and, consequently, OCC also proposes to remove the
President as one of the ``Designated Officers'' to whom such authority
would devolve if certain enumerated officers are unavailable. Section 3
of Article III would also be amended to clarify the timing of the
annual meetings at which the initial election of each class of Member
Directors in fact occurred.
    OCC is proposing to revise Article IV of its By-Laws to include
references to the President in certain provisions governing OCC's
officers. In particular, Section 8 of Article IV would no longer give
the Board the option of electing a President, but would make such
office required, and, accordingly, Section 1 of Article IV would
include the President, along with the Chairman, as an officer elected
by the Board of Directors. Sections 6 and 8 would also be amended to
specify the Chairman's duties and the President's duties, respectively,
as described above. OCC also proposes to amend Sections 2, 3 and 13 of
Article IV to provide that, like the Chairman, the President may
appoint and remove certain officers and

agents to carry out the functions assigned to him and may determine the
salaries of these appointees and agents. Finally, OCC is proposing to
amend Sections 7 and 9 to add references to the President, in addition
to the Chairman, when referencing the highest-ranking officers of OCC.
Amendments to Certificate of Incorporation and Stockholders Agreement
    OCC is proposing to amend Articles IV and V of its Certificate of
Incorporation to reflect the existence of an additional Management
Director.\6\ OCC is also proposing to amend Sections 2 and 3 of the
Stockholders Agreement to provide for the election of the President, in
addition to the Chairman, as a Management Director.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the proposed Fifth Certificate of Amendment of Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Options Clearing Corporation,
attached hereto as Exhibit 3A.
    \7\ See Amendment No. 10 to the Stockholders Agreement, attached
hereto as Exhibit 3B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Clearing Members
    The proposed rule change relates to OCC governance issues. OCC
believes that it would affect all clearing members equally, and that it
would not impose any compliance burdens on clearing members.
Notice of Implementation
    Following approval of this rule change by the Commission, OCC
expects to provide notice to its clearing members of the date on which
it intends to implement this rule change by separating the powers and
duties of OCC's Chairman into two offices and creating the additional
directorship. Such notice will be provided to clearing members through
an information memo posted on OCC's Web site. The implementation of the
rule change will occur no later than December 31, 2013.
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder,
including Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8), because the proposed modifications would
help ensure that the rules of OCC are designed to protect investors and
the public interest \9\ and that OCC's governance arrangements are
clear and transparent, fulfill the public interests requirements in
Section 17A, support the objectives of owners and participants and
promote the effectiveness of OCC's risk management procedures \10\ by
separating the powers and duties currently combined in the office of
Chairman into two offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose a
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\ With respect to any burden
on competition among clearing agencies, OCC is the only clearing agency
that performs central counterparty services for the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may have an impact on the
participants in a clearing agency and the markets that the clearing
agency serves. However, this proposed rule change primarily affects OCC
in that it separates the powers and duties of the office of OCC's
Chairman into two offices and creates an additional directorship. OCC
does not believe that these changes with respect to governance would
disparately treat any clearing member or group of clearing members or
otherwise disparately affect access to or use of any of OCC's
facilities or disadvantage or favor any user in relationship to any
other such user. In this connection, OCC notes that the provision of
Section 1 of Article III of the By-Laws that requires that the number
of Member Directors must exceed the sum of the number of Exchange
Directors and the number of Public Directors by at least one is not
being changed as a result of the proposed rule change. In addition, OCC
believes that the proposed rule change would in fact allow OCC's Board
to supervise management more effectively and thereby help ensure
against any particular clearing member's exercising undue influence
over management to the detriment of other clearing members.
    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, that it would promote transparency,
fairness and competition in the options markets served by OCC, and it
would not impose any burden on competition that is unnecessary or
inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2013-09 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2013-09. 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, and the amendment
thereto, also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site: http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_13_09.pdf.http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_13_09_a1.pdf.
    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-OCC-2013-09
and should be submitted on or before July 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14791 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1571-1572]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55047; File No. SR-OCC-2006-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Membership
Requirements

January 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 15, 2006, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would modify certain OCC By-Laws and Rules
relating to membership requirements.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this rule change is to modify certain By-Laws and
Rules relating to membership requirements in order to improve their
effectiveness or otherwise clarify their meaning.
1. Interpretation and Policy .03
    Interpretation and Policy .03 to Article V, Section 1, of OCC's By-
Laws currently requires applicants for membership to employ two key
operations employees on a full-time basis. This requirement is intended
to ensure that an applicant maintains sufficient staff to fulfill its
obligations as a clearing member. However, several recent applicants
for clearing membership have had difficulty meeting this requirement
because their entire staff was employed by an affiliate of the
applicant (i.e., a parent or related organization) rather than by the
applicant itself. While these applicants entered into employee leasing
arrangements in order to comply with OCC's policy, OCC decided to
reevaluate the policy in light of the fact that it had proved
burdensome to a number of applicants.
    OCC understands that it is not uncommon for some entities of an
affiliated corporate group to outsource certain or all functions to
another entity of the corporate group and let the latter be the sole
employer of the people who perform those functions. In situations of
that nature, OCC has concluded that there is not the same reason to be
concerned about whether the applicant will have adequate staffing as in
cases where the applicant relies on an unaffiliated third party for
staffing. OCC therefore wishes to modify its policy in order to provide
greater flexibility to recognize this alternative employment structure.
Accordingly, OCC proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .03 to
Article V, Section 1, to permit the Membership/Risk Committee
(``Committee'') to waive the requirement that an applicant employ two
key operations employees on a full-time basis if the daily operations
of the applicant are conducted by staff employed on a full-time basis
by an entity affiliated with such applicant. OCC believes that the
Committee's authority to waive such requirement is consistent with its
existing authority to waive the requirement that an applicant employ at
least one full-time person who is registered as a ``Limited Principal--
Financial and Operations'' or comparable registration requirement, as
applicable.
2. Rule 309
    OCC proposes to amend Rule 309 to clarify that if an operationally
capable clearing member proposes to become a managed clearing member
(i.e., outsource certain of its obligations as a clearing member to
another clearing member [``managing clearing member'']), the applicant
must obtain prior approval from the Committee. Currently,
Interpretation and Policy .04 primarily contemplates the use of
facilities management agreements by applicants for membership rather
than existing clearing members. Nonetheless, OCC has always interpreted
its By-Laws and Rules as requiring prior Committee review and approval
of all facilities management agreements, including those proposed to be
entered into by operationally capable clearing members. The proposed
amendment to Rule 309 makes this interpretation explicit.
3. Rule 901
    OCC proposes to amend Rule 901 to provide that a clearing member's
appointment of another clearing member or CDS Clearing and Depository
Services Inc. (``CDS'') \3\, as applicable, for purposes of effecting
settlements of exercised or matured cleared securities may not be
terminated until after the 30th calendar day following notice to OCC of
such termination.\4\ Currently, clearing members are required to
provide three business days notice of terminating such appointments.
However, three business days might be insufficient for OCC to determine
whether or not the clearing member has made appropriate alternative
settlement arrangements. Accordingly, OCC proposes to change the notice
period to be consistent with the notice period required to advise OCC
of the termination of a facilities management agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CDS is the successor organization to Canadian Depository for
Securities Ltd. The By-Law definition of CDS has been amended to
reflect this organizational change.
    \4\ OCC surveyed appointed clearing members that effect NSCC
settlements for nonaffiliated clearing members as well as CDS to
ascertain their views regarding the proposed change in the notice
period for terminating such appointments. There were no objections
to the proposed change.
    \5\ Conforming changes have been made to the related appointment
forms, which are attached as Exhibits 5A and 5B to the proposed rule
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act \6\ because it amends certain rule provisions relating
to membership requirements in order to improve their effectiveness or
otherwise clarify their meaning and thereby promotes the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of derivative contracts and
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments with respect to
the proposed rule change.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-OCC-2006-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2006-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at OCC's principal office and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/

proposed--changes.jsp. 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 submission should refer to File No. SR-
OCC-2006-21 and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-305 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P