[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11385-11387]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 25, 121, and 129

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0186; Amdt. Nos. 21-94, 25-133, 121-354, 129-50;
SFAR 111]
RIN 2120-AJ92

Security Considerations for Lavatory Oxygen Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule; disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2011, the FAA published an interim final rule,
request

for comments (Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-133, 121-354, 129-50; SFAR 111)
on security considerations for lavatory oxygen systems (77 FR 12550).
The interim final rule addresses a security vulnerability and is needed
so the affected airplanes can continue operating until the non-
compliance to airworthiness standards and operating rules is resolved.
We sought public comment on the interim final rule even though it
became effective upon publication. This action responds to the public
comments the FAA received.

ADDRESSES: You may review the public docket for this rulemaking (Docket
No. FAA-2011-0186) at the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the public docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch,
ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas
Anderson, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA became aware of a security vulnerability with certain types
of oxygen systems installed inside the lavatories of most transport
category airplanes. As a result, the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2011-04-09, which mandated that these oxygen systems be rendered
inoperative until the vulnerability could be eliminated. However, by
completing the mandated actions in AD 2011-04-09, operators were no
longer in compliance with the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1447, 121.329, and 121.333, and could not
legally continue flight operations. AD 2011-04-09 also affects newly
manufactured airplanes and airplanes undergoing other modification. The
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) is needed to address the
security vulnerability and allow the affected operators to continue
flight operations until the non-compliance to airworthiness standards
and operating rules created by the AD is resolved.
    The FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) primarily
comprised of industry representatives in March 2011. The ARC's purpose
was to recommend regulatory changes and guidance that could be used to
restore oxygen in affected lavatories while addressing the security
vulnerability. The ARC submitted its recommendations to the FAA on
August 3, 2011. The FAA is reviewing the recommendations and will
initiate additional rulemaking as necessary. The recommendations will
facilitate developing future rulemaking to address existing and new
certifications of aircraft. As stated in SFAR 111, we envision a two-
to four-year regulatory process to restore the affected oxygen systems
to their full operational capability. Complete restoration includes any
new regulatory changes, as well as incorporating any new oxygen system
designs into airplanes currently in service.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received comments from ten commenters: Aerox Aviation
Oxygen Systems, Inc., The Boeing Company, and eight private citizens.
Boeing and three citizens supported the SFAR with the overall assertion
that removing chemical oxygen generators from the lavatories poses a
risk to a small number of passengers compared to putting all of the
passengers on the airplane at risk by keeping the chemical oxygen
generators installed.
    Five citizens opposed the SFAR, asserting that the safety benefit
gained by removing the chemical oxygen system from lavatories to
preclude the unlikely event of a terrorist attack does not outweigh the
potential risk of individual passengers experiencing hypoxia in the
event of a decompression. These commenters also suggested that the FAA
consider other options, such as installing an alternative oxygen system
in the lavatories, rather than simply removing the chemical oxygen
system.
    We disagree with the commenters' assertion that the potential risk
of a security breach is outweighed by the potential individual risk of
hypoxia for a passenger in the lavatory during cabin decompression. We
continue to believe that the approach taken by the FAA--to temporarily
allow a non-compliance with existing regulations until a solution is
found to the problem identified in the underlying AD--appropriately
addresses risk. While there is some risk of hypoxia, the emergency
descent procedures initiated by the flightcrew are the primary
protection against hypoxia provided to passengers.
    Pressure loss events have not resulted in a cabin pressure altitude
that was instantaneously equal to the airplane altitude. Even when
decompressions have occurred when the airplane is at a high altitude,
such as 40,000 feet, cabin occupants have not been exposed to those
altitudes because it takes time for the cabin pressure to leak from the
fuselage. Flightcrews initiate an emergency descent shortly after they
receive notification that the cabin pressure cannot be maintained. The
airplane is already descending by the time the internal cabin pressure
is equal to the airplane altitude.
    We carefully considered all of the variables and determined that
the risk to all of the passengers due to the security vulnerability was
significantly greater than the potential individual risk of hypoxia in
the event of cabin decompression. AD 2011-04-09 and SFAR 111 are only
interim measures, and we are actively pursuing regulatory changes
intended to restore supplemental oxygen in the affected lavatories,
while considering the security issues.
    We partially agree with the commenters' suggestions to consider
other rulemaking alternatives because other alternatives could be used
to restore oxygen in the affected lavatories. We disagree with the
commenters' suggestions to accomplish longer-term rulemaking actions
while leaving the chemical oxygen generators installed in the
lavatories. The security vulnerability would remain until final
corrective actions were identified and completed. Accomplishing the
actions in AD 2011-04-09 eliminates the security vulnerability until
additional actions can be identified and taken to restore the oxygen
system with a design that would consider the security risk.
    Boeing stated that in and of itself, the SFAR does not require
removing or expending the contents of the chemical oxygen generators.
This will likely cause confusion and is not consistent with the actions
in AD 2011-04-09. Boeing recommended that the SFAR be revised to
require the oxygen generators to be either removed or expended and that
the wording be the same as that in the AD; we disagree. The affected
chemical oxygen generators have already been removed or expended in
accordance with AD 2011-04-09, and the SFAR does not supersede AD 2011-
04-09. The SFAR provides interim relief

to operators from type design requirements that the operators would
have been out of compliance with once the actions mandated in AD 2011-
04-09 were completed. No changes to SFAR 111 were made as a result of
this comment.
    Boeing also suggested that the SFAR be clarified to allow the
applicant for a type certificate to receive a production certificate
and an airworthiness approval for domestic operators affected by AD
2011-04-09 (14 CFR part 121 operators) or for foreign operators (14 CFR
part 129) in countries where the local civil aviation authority has
issued a mandatory action equivalent to AD 2011-04-09. We infer that
Boeing is requesting we clarify SFAR 111 for airplanes registered
outside the United States because only foreign registered airplanes
could be subject to a mandatory action similar to AD 2011-04-09. We
disagree because SFAR 111 does not apply to airplanes registered
outside the United States. We cannot provide relief from airworthiness
standards issued by civil aviation authorities in other countries. The
responsible civil aviation authority must grant relief from an
airworthiness standard. Furthermore, SFAR 111, paragraph (b)(2) already
provides this relief for airplanes registered in the United States but
operated by foreign carriers. No changes were made to the SFAR as a
result of this comment.
    Boeing suggested paragraph (c) of the SFAR be revised to indicate
that it is the operators' responsibility to provide flightcrew training
procedures for airplanes with a disabled lavatory oxygen system. We
disagree that this clarification is necessary because the SFAR does not
include a requirement to revise existing flightcrew training
procedures. Operators currently have the option to add or revise
existing training for the cabin or flightcrew as they deem necessary.
No changes were made to the SFAR as a result of this comment.
    Aerox Aviation provided information pertaining to the availability
of a small portable, gaseous oxygen supply and stated that such
equipment could provide an emergency oxygen supply. We are familiar
with the Aerox portable oxygen equipment as well as other portable
oxygen equipment from other suppliers. It is possible for operators to
incorporate installation of portable gaseous oxygen equipment for use
in the lavatory under existing regulations. If such equipment were to
be installed, it would need to be approved by the FAA in accordance
with existing procedures applicable to type design changes. Neither AD
2011-04-09 nor SFAR 111 would prevent installation of portable gaseous
oxygen equipment for use in the lavatory. No changes were made to the
SFAR as a result of this comment.

Conclusion

    After analyzing the comments submitted in response to SFAR 111, the
FAA has determined that no further revisions to the SFAR are necessary
at this time. The FAA determined this interim rule remains necessary
because it addresses an emergency safety situation that made it
imperative to immediately implement the rulemaking's provisions. While
the chemical oxygen supply is intended to provide passengers with
supplemental oxygen when necessary, lavatories become privately
enclosed areas when in use. Possible tampering with that chemical
oxygen supply presented a security vulnerability that this rulemaking
addresses. Therefore, Amendments 21-94, 25-133, 121-354, and 129-50
remain in effect.
    The FAA is currently assessing the recommendations of the ARC
discussed above. We are using these recommendations to develop
additional rulemaking actions that will restore the affected oxygen
systems to their full operational capability in existing and new
certifications of affected aircraft, while eliminating the potential
security threat posed by the previous systems.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2012.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-4571 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5780-5782]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55214; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-50]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to
Amendments to Registration Rules of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.

January 31, 2007.
    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 November 14, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities'' or ``Corporation''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change on January 12, 2007. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, proposes to amend certain NYSE Arca Equities Rules governing
registration of employees of Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders
\3\ in order to clarify registration procedures and make them
consistent with the procedures of other self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE
Arca, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nysearca.com/regulation/filings.asp
.

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

    \3\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.4, 2.21,
and 9.27 (referred to herein as Rules 2.4, 2.21 and 9.27) in order to
clarify registration procedures and ongoing compliance obligations for
ETP Holders and their registered persons. Further, the Exchange
proposes to amend these rules so that they are consistent with industry
practices and with the operation of the Central Registration Depository
(``CRD'') system maintained by the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). The proposed rule changes are similar to the
rules of other SROs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASD Rules 1070(d) and 1120(a) and (b) and New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Rule 345A and Supplementary Material
.15(1)(b) to NYSE Rule 345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Requests for Waivers of Examination Requirements

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.4(c), which governs requests
from ETP Holder applicants to waive applicable examinations
requirements prescribed by the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add new waiver standards under which the Corporation has
discretion to grant waivers so that the Exchange's practices are
generally consistent with the criterion set forth in NASD Rule 1070(d)
and Supplementary Material .15(1)(b) to NYSE Rule 345.

Filing of Registration Documentation with the Exchange

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.21, which governs
registration procedures for employees of ETP Holders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide manual registration
procedures for registration categories (e.g., floor clerk) for which
CRD does not provide electronic registration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2005, NYSE Arca (formerly Pacific Exchange, Inc.) became
a participant of the CRD system for maintenance of certain
registration categories with the Exchange. As part of this
implementation, applicable rules of the Exchange were amended to
address filing appropriate registration documentation electronically
with the CRD system for employees of ETP Holders. These amended
rules, however, inadvertently omitted certain registration
procedures for positions not available on the CRD system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Education Requirements

    Currently, employees of ETP Holders who wish to initiate and
maintain registration with the Corporation must follow two separate
rules--Rules 2.21 and 9.27. Rule 2.21 sets forth initial registration
requirements, whereas Rule 9.27 sets forth the continuing education
requirements that must be satisfied to maintain registration with the
Corporation.
    In order to simplify compliance for employees of ETP Holders, the
Exchange proposes to provide continuing registration requirements in
the same rule as initial registration requirements. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to add continuing education requirements to new Rule
2.21(d) and certain definitions and clarifications with respect thereto
to new Commentary .01-.06 to Rule 2.21.
    The continuing education requirements in proposed new Rule 2.21(d)
and related Commentary .01-.06

to Rule 2.21 are substantially similar to those contained in current
Rule 9.27(c) and (d) and related Commentary .01-.06 to Rule 9.27(c) and
(d), except that the Exchange has made certain clarifications so that
the continuing education requirements and related definitions and
clarifications are more closely aligned with NASD Rule 1120 and NYSE
Rule 345A and other clean-up changes, as set forth in detail below.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes in Rule 2.21(d)(1) that the
content of the Regulatory Element of the program shall be consistent
with the standards set forth by the Corporation and other SROs, rather
than just determined by the Corporation as is set forth in the current
Rule 9.27(c). In addition, the Exchange proposes to add language in
Rule 2.21(d)(2)(B)(i) providing that if an ETP Holder's analysis
establishes the need for supervisory training for persons with
supervisory responsibilities, such training must be included in the ETP
Holder's training plan. Such language is not included in the current
Rule 9.27(d)(2)(A).
    The Exchange has not proposed for inclusion NASD's continuing
education requirements applicable to research analysts because the
Corporation does not provide for research analyst registration.
Additionally, unlike current NASD Rule 1120(a)(6), the Corporation is
not proposing to permit ETP Holders to self-administer the Regulatory
Element of continuing education, as the Corporation does not have the
resources or capability to offer an approval process or monitoring of
such self-administered programs. ETP Holders will be responsible for
ensuring continuing education information related to their associated
persons is received by the firm in a timely manner and, as such, shall
designate a person or persons to receive applicable information via
electronic mail directly from the CRD system. ETP Holders will not be
required to submit to the Corporation the names of such designated
persons, as is required by the current NASD rule. This is based on the
fact that the Corporation does not have a contact management system
comparable to that of NASD.
    With respect to the proposed new Commentary to Rule 2.21, the
Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``registered person'' to
Commentary .01 to Rule 2.21 as is currently set forth in Commentary .01
to Rule 9.27(c) and (d), except that the definition that the Exchange
is proposing does not include the carve-out for ``any such person whose
activities are limited solely to the transaction of business on the
facilities of the Corporation with ETP Holders or registered broker-
dealers.'' In addition, the Exchange proposes in Commentary .04 to Rule
2.21 to correct a mistake in the language in Commentary .04 to Rule
9.27(c) and (d) to provide that reassociated registered persons shall
participate in the Regulatory Element at intervals based on their
initial base date, rather than their new base date. Lastly, the
Exchange proposes in Commentary .06 to Rule 2.21 to change the
reference of ``any registered member who is an ETP Holder,'' which is
currently in Commentary .06 to Rule 9.27(c) and (d), to ``any
registered person associated with an ETP Holder'' in order to be
consistent with the language of other SROs.
    In connection with the addition of proposed new Rule 2.21(d) and
Commentary .01-.06 to Rule 2.21 as set forth above, the Exchange
proposes to delete the specific continuing education requirements in
Rule 9.27(c) and (d) and the related Commentary .01-.06 to Rule 9.27(c)
and (d). The purpose for deleting the continuing education requirements
in Rule 9.27(c) and (d) is to avoid needless repetition and risk of
inconsistencies. The Exchange proposes to include cross-reference
language in Rule 9.27(c) that provides that registered persons shall
follow the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule 2.21(d).
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 2.21(i)
with respect to transition to the CRD system because registration with
CRD is already provided for in Rule 2.21(a).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-50 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-50. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-50 and should be submitted on or before
February 28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2000 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8751]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-346-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing NWP 2017 Rate Case Stipulation and
Settlement Filing.
    Filed Date: 1/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170123-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-347-000.
    Applicants: Vitruvian II Woodford, LLC, Gulfport Energy
Corporation.
    Description: Joint Petition of Vitruvian II Woodford, LLC and
Gulfport Energy Corporation for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release
Regulations and Policies and Request for Expedited Action and a
Shortened Notice Period.
    Filed Date: 1/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170123-5341.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 24, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01937 Filed 1-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P