[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55832]
[DOCID:fr26se08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1513-001]

ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 19, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 16, 2008, ISO New England, Inc.
submitted for filing an Errata to the Informational Filing for
Qualification in the Forward Capacity Market.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 26, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22616 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47490]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF21-4-000]

Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 16, 2021, Southeastern Power
Administration submitted tariff filing: Proposed Rate Increase for the
Jim Woodruff Project, to be effective 10/1/2021.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 15, 2021.

    Dated: August 18, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18217 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53326-53331]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21539]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0779; FRL-9996-14]

Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of thiamethoxam in or on rice. This action is in response to
EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide
on rice. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for
residues of thiamethoxam in or on these commodities. The time-limited
tolerances expire on December 31, 2024. This action is also associated
with the utilization of a crisis exemption under the FIFRA authorizing
use of the pesticide on rice.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 7, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 6, 2019
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0779, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select
``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2018-0779 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 6, 2019. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0779, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of thiamethoxam, 3-
[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-
oxadiazin-4-imine, in or on rice, grain at 6 parts per million (ppm)
and rice, straw at 2 ppm. These time-limited tolerances expire on
December 31, 2024.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Thiamethoxam on Rice and FFDCA Tolerances

    During 2015, the first year the rice delphacid pest appeared in
Texas, the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) reported ratoon rice
losses as high as 25%. TDA claims that they are experiencing high
numbers of rice delphacid in ratoon rice and recently, pest populations
over 8,000 nymphs and adult rice delphacids per 10 sweeps were observed
in a rice field in Galveston county. Approximately 60% of Texas' rice
crop is ratooned and in 2018, this represented more than 100,000 acres.
There are no insecticides labeled specifically for rice delphacid, and
TDA says that products registered for leafhopper control in rice are
not efficacious in controlling rice delphacid. On October 31, 2018, the
TDA issued a crisis exemption for use of thiamethoxam on rice. The
crisis exemption expired on November 9, 2018. Due to the short duration
of the crisis exemption, the pest was not fully controlled and
therefore, TDA submitted a quarantine request for this use pattern.
    After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an
emergency condition existed in this State, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption were met. On March 3, 2019, EPA
authorized a quarantine exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
thiamethoxam on rice for control of rice delphacid in Texas.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of thiamethoxam
in or on rice. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under
FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard
and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on
the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent, non-routine
situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA
is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public
comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-
limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2024, under FFDCA section
408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts
specified in the tolerance remaining in or on rice after that date will
not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that
was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was
authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that
application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
thiamethoxam meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on rice or
whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under
these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited
tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of thiamethoxam
by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor does
this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any
State other than Texas to use this pesticide on the applicable crops
under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption
applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the
emergency exemption for thiamethoxam, contact the Agency's Registration
Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of thiamethoxam on rice, grain
at 6 ppm rice, straw at 2 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing time-limited tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiamethoxam used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 15, 2017 (82 FR 10714)
(FRL-9957-00).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to thiamethoxam, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
thiamethoxam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.565. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from thiamethoxam in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute effects were identified for thiamethoxam.
In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat
in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed field-trial
average residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit IV.A., EPA has
concluded that thiamethoxam does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for thiamethoxam. Tolerance level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for thiamethoxam in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of thiamethoxam. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticides in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM) or
Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC)), the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of thiamethoxam for
acute exposures are estimated to be 20 ppb parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 63 ppb for ground water.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments EDWCs are
estimated to be 1.05 ppb for surface water and 58 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 63 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 58 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in

this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g.,
for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides,
and flea and tick control on pets).
    Thiamethoxam is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass (including golf
courses, residential lawns, and athletic fields), residential
landscapes, structural/perimeter applications (indoors and outdoors in
schools, apartments, etc.), and indoor control of bed bugs. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-
term exposures, lasting from 1 to 30 days, may occur from uses of
thiamethoxam in residential settings. These exposures may occur by
dermal, inhalation, and incidental oral (children <6 years old) routes.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found thiamethoxam to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and thiamethoxam does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Thiamethoxam
and its clothianidin metabolite have different mechanisms of toxicity
in mammals, and since clothianidin has a complete database owing to its
registration as a pesticide active ingredient, it is appropriate for
EPA to evaluate its risks separately. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that thiamethoxam does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In mammals, toxicological
effects are seen primarily in the liver, kidney, testes, and blood
cellular (hematopoietic) system. In addition, developmental
neurological effects were observed in rats. These developmental effects
were used to assess risk associated with acute exposure to
thiamethoxam, and the liver and testicular effects are the basis for
assessing longer-term exposures. The PODs used for risk assessment are
protective of all effects, including quantitative susceptibility
observed in developmental and reproduction studies, and the exposure
assessments do not underestimate exposures.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for thiamethoxam is complete.
    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was seen in the acute and DNT studies
in the rat. However, there is a low degree of concern for the potential
neurotoxic effects of thiamethoxam since: (1) Clear NOAELs were
identified for the neurotoxic effects; (2) the neurotoxic effects were
not the most sensitive endpoint in the toxicity database; and (3) the
endpoints chosen for risk assessment are protective of any potential
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that thiamethoxam results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. There was no evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility
in the core guideline toxicity studies. The maternal/parental NOAELs/
LOAELs in the 1998 two-generation reproduction toxicity study and the
core developmental toxicity studies (rats and rabbits) occur at doses
lower than or equal to the developmental/offspring NOAELs/LOAELs and
are, therefore, not indicative of a quantitative susceptibility.
Furthermore, the severity of effects in the parent and fetus/offspring
generations in the three studies are comparable and therefore are not
indicative of qualitative sensitivity. However, in the DNT and the 2004
2-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats, developmental/
offspring effects were seen in the absence of maternal toxicity;
therefore, there is evidence of quantitative susceptibility. In the
2004 two-generation rat reproduction study, decreased total litter
weights were observed in pups in the absence of parental adverse
effects. In the rat DNT study, decreased body weight and body weight
gain, as well as reduced brain weight and size were observed in the
pups in the absence of adverse effects in dams. However, considering
the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints selected for
risk assessment, the degree of concern for the effects observed in the
studies is low because (1) the developmental/offspring effects observed
in the studies are well characterized and (2) clear NOAELs/LOAELs have
been identified in the studies for the effects of concern.
Additionally, the Agency is confident that the endpoints and PODs
selected for risk assessment are protective of potential developmental/
reproductive effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. There are no residual uncertainties with respect to dietary
or residential exposure. The dietary exposure assessments are based on
high-end residue levels from crop field trials and empirical and
default processing factors, both of which account for parent and
metabolites of concern, and the assumption of 100 PCT for all
agricultural commodities. Furthermore, conservative, upper-bound
assumptions were used to determine exposure through drinking water,
such that these exposures have not been underestimated. Therefore, the
actual risk from exposure to thiamethoxam will likely be much lower
than calculated risk estimates. In addition, the residential exposure
estimates are conservative and do not underestimate exposure and risk.
EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and
surface water modeling used to assess exposure to thiamethoxam in
drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess
post-application exposure of youth and children as well as incidental
oral exposure of children 1 to 2 years old (1 < 2). These assessments
will not

underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiamethoxam.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to thiamethoxam will occupy 12% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
thiamethoxam from food and water will utilize 74% of the cPAD for
(children 1 to 2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Thiamethoxam is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to thiamethoxam.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs ranging from 130 for
adults to 330 for children less than 6 years old. Because EPA's level
of concern for thiamethoxam is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are
not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified, thiamethoxam is not expected to pose an intermediate-
term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, thiamethoxam is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to thiamethoxam residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate method using liquid solvent extraction, solvent and
solid-phase extraction clean-up, and high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) Method AG-675, is available to enforce the
tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Neither the Codex nor Canada has established specific MRLs for
thiamethoxam residues in rice commodities. Canada has established an
``All food crops'' MRL at 0.02 ppm for thiamethoxam that would apply to
rice, but it is not specific to a use on rice.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
thiamethoxam, 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-
nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine, in or on rice, grain at 6 ppm and
rice, straw at 2 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2024.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action

does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.565, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.565   Thiamethoxam; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the table are established for residues of the insecticide
thiamethoxam, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring
only thiamethoxam 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-
N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine and its metabolite CGA-322704 N-[(2-
chloro-thiazol-5-yl)methyl]-N'-methyl-N''-nitro-guanidine, calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiamethoxam, in or on the
specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide
pursuant to FFIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances
expire on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Parts per    Expiration
                  Commodity                     million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice, grain.................................           6      12/31/2024
Rice, straw.................................           2      12/31/2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-21539 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17120-17121]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0944]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, Escorted Vessels; Sector Long Island Sound Captain
of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security
zone within Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound's Captain of the Port
(COTP) Zone on the waters in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This
security zone would be enforced around any escorted vessel in the
Sector Long Island Sound COTP Zone in order to protect the vessel and
the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive
acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0944 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Ian M. Fallon,
U.S. Coast Guard Waterways Management Division Sector Long Island
Sound; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On occasion, the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port
(COTP) Zone has vessels enter its zone that require the implementation
of heightened security measures for the protection of the vessel and
the public.
    The purpose of this rulemaking to protect the vessel and the public
from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or
other malicious acts of a similar nature.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a security zone in all navigable
waters within the Sector Long Island Sound COTP Zone, extending from
the surface to the bottom, within a 500-yard radius of any escorted
vessel.
    While this security zone is being enforced, no person or vessel
would be allowed to enter or remain in it without the permission of the
COTP or the designated representative.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking would not be a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The security
zone area covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways,
waterway users may transit around the area, and mariners may request
permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated
representative to transit the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this
proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
establishing a security zone and maybe categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
supporting this is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  in 33 U.S.C., 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.155 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.155  Security Zone, Escorted Vessels, Sector Long Island
Sound Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable
waters within the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port (COTP)
Zone, extending from the surface to the bottom, within a 500-yard
radius of any escorted vessel.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Escorted Vessel. ``Escorted vessel'' as used in this section
means any vessels deemed to be in need of escort protection by the COTP
for security reasons.
    (2) Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast
Guard who has been designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or
may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    (3) Official Patrol Vessels. ``Official patrol vessels'' may
consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law
enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations
contained in Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within
this zone is prohibited unless previously authorized by the COTP,
Sector Long Island Sound or his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the COTP or the designated representative.
    (3) No person may swim upon or below the surface of the water of
this security zone unless previously authorized by the COTP or his
designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the
designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other
means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to
comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area,
citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
E.J. Cubanski, III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island
Sound.
[FR Doc. 2016-06911 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20195-20200]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07004]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97225; File No. SR-OCC-2023-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by The Options Clearing
Corporation Concerning Clearing Member Cybersecurity Obligations

March 30, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 21, 2023, The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'' or ``Corporation'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend certain provisions in OCC's
Rules relating to Clearing Member cybersecurity obligations to address
the occurrence of a cyber-related disruption or intrusion of a Clearing
Member (``Security Incident''). The proposed changes would (i) require
a Clearing Member to immediately notify OCC of a Security Incident;
(ii) memorialize OCC's ability to take actions reasonably necessary to
mitigate any effects to its operations; and (iii) require such

Clearing Member to provide a form containing written representations
addressing the incident and attesting to certain security requirements
(``Reconnection Attestation'') and an associated checklist describing
remediation efforts (``Reconnection Checklist'' and together,
``Reconnection Attestation and Checklist'').
    The proposed changes to OCC's Rules are included as Exhibit 5 to
File No. SR-OCC-2023-003. Material proposed to be added to the Rules as
currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted
is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined
herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and
Rules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(1) Purpose
Overview
    The proposed rule change would amend certain provisions in the
Rules relating to Clearing Member cybersecurity obligations to address
the occurrence of a Security Incident. The proposed changes would (i)
require a Clearing Member to immediately notify OCC of a Security
Incident; (ii) memorialize OCC's ability to take actions reasonably
necessary to mitigate any effects to its operations; and (iii) require
such Clearing Member to provide a Reconnection Attestation containing
written representations addressing the incident and attesting to
certain security requirements and an associated Reconnection Checklist
describing remediation efforts. As described in more detail below, the
proposed rule change is designed to help OCC assess and take
appropriate action to manage the cybersecurity risks that may be
introduced to OCC's information and data systems due to a Security
Incident.
    OCC believes it is prudent to implement a standardized approach to
assess and manage the cybersecurity risks that OCC may face through its
interconnections to Clearing Members. Cybersecurity incidents pose an
ongoing risk to OCC, as well as market participants, as an attack on
OCC can lead to the loss of data or system integrity, unauthorized
disclosure of sensitive information, or an inability to conduct
essential clearance and settlement functions. Moreover, as a designated
systemically important financial market utility (``SIFMU''),\4\ a
failure or disruption to OCC could increase the risk of significant
liquidity problems spreading among financial institutions or markets
and thereby threaten the stability of the financial system in the
United States. Given its designation as a SIFMU, OCC believes it is
prudent to enhance its management of Security Incidents so that OCC's
own information and data systems remain protected against cyberattacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC was designated as a SIFMU under Title VIII of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. 12
U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend certain provisions in the
Rules relating to Clearing Member cybersecurity obligations to address
the occurrence of a Security Incident. Clearing Member cybersecurity
obligations are currently set out in Rule 219, which addresses
requirements related to a firm's cybersecurity program. The proposed
rule change would expand the scope of this Rule to incorporate
provisions that address the occurrence of a Security Incident, as
further described below. The current Clearing Member cybersecurity
obligations in this Rule would remain unchanged.
    The proposed changes would clearly describe Clearing Member
obligations and OCC rights with respect to a Security Incident. The
proposal would require Clearing Members to immediately notify OCC of a
Security Incident. OCC's notification and reporting requirements for
Clearing Members are currently set forth in various provisions of the
By-Laws and the Rules and require, among other things, that Clearing
Members provide OCC with such documents and information as OCC may
require from time to time.\5\ These existing notification and reporting
requirements do not directly address Security Incidents. The proposal
would amend OCC's notification and reporting requirements to adopt a
specific requirement in the Rules that Clearing Members immediately
notify OCC of a Security Incident and promptly confirm such notice in
writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Article V, Section 1, Interpretation and Policy .07 of
the By-Laws and Rules 201(b), 215, 216, 217(b), 303, 306, 308 and
310(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would also memorialize in the Rules OCC's
ability to take actions reasonably necessary to mitigate any effects of
a Security Incident to its operations. OCC's existing right to
disconnect access, or to modify the scope and specifications of access,
of a Clearing Member to OCC information and data systems is based in
the Agreement for OCC Services, which sets forth the terms of various
services that OCC may provide to Clearing Members.\6\ OCC maintains
various contracts and forms, including the Agreement for OCC Services,
that in conjunction with OCC's By-Laws and Rules, establish and govern
the relationship between OCC and each Clearing Member.\7\ Pursuant to
the Agreement for OCC Services, OCC may terminate electronic access to
particular OCC information and data systems, or modify the scope and
specifications of such access, from time to time. Codifying this
ability of OCC to take actions reasonably necessary to mitigate any
effects to its operations in the Rules would centralize relevant
information pertaining to cybersecurity in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-73577 (Nov. 12, 2014), 79 FR
68733 (Nov. 18, 2014) (File No. SR-OCC-2014-20).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would further implement a standardized approach to
evaluate and manage the cybersecurity risks that OCC may face due to a
Security Incident. The proposal would set out new procedures that would
require a Clearing Member to submit, upon OCC's request, the
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist after reporting a Security
Incident, both as provided by OCC from time to time. The Rule is
designed to provide OCC with a degree of flexibility in requesting the
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist to consider circumstances where
there may be no risk or threat to OCC, such as when a Security Incident
is contained to a part of a Clearing Member's business with no
relevance to OCC or its markets. The Reconnection Attestation and
Checklist are designed to enable OCC to determine whether the risk or
threat to OCC has been mitigated sufficiently, including whether to
resume connectivity to a Clearing Member if connectivity was
disconnected or modified. OCC would detail specific representations and
information required of Clearing Members in the proposed Reconnection

Attestation and Checklist, included in Exhibit 3 to File No. SR-OCC-
2023-003. OCC believes an attestation-based format coupled with a
checklist would be most effective in ascertaining a Clearing Member's
response to a Security Incident, including whether the Clearing Member
has appropriate security requirements and carried out suitable
remediation measures, to determine any potential threats to OCC's
information and data systems. The forms filter the requested
information and representations into a standardized format, which would
better enable OCC to review and identify areas of interest, concern, or
heightened risk in respect of a Security Incident. Standardizing the
form and contents of submissions would also improve efficiency for
Clearing Members and OCC by reducing the potential uncertainty and time
required to demonstrate an acceptable response to a Security Incident,
which would facilitate OCC's ability to evaluate the potential risk or
threat posed by the Security Incident and facilitate the resumption of
Clearing Member connectivity.
Proposed Rule Changes
    The proposed rule change would amend certain provisions in the
Rules relating to Clearing Member cybersecurity obligations to address
the occurrence of a Security Incident. In addition to expanding the
scope of existing Rules, the proposed changes would (i) require a
Clearing Member to immediately notify OCC of a Security Incident; (ii)
memorialize OCC's ability to take actions reasonably necessary to
mitigate any effects to its operations; and (iii) require such Clearing
Member to provide a Reconnection Attestation and Checklist.
Amended Cybersecurity Obligations Provisions
    The proposed changes would expand the scope of existing Rule 219 to
address the occurrence of a Security Incident. Existing Rule 219,
titled ``Cybersecurity Confirmation,'' currently includes requirements
related to a firm's cybersecurity program and requires Clearing Members
and applicants for clearing membership to submit a form, referred to as
the ``Cybersecurity Confirmation,'' that confirms the existence of a
cybersecurity program. To broaden the scope, OCC proposes to retitle
this Rule from ``Cybersecurity Confirmation'' to ``Cybersecurity
Obligations'' to address Security Incidents and centralize
cybersecurity-related provisions in one section of the Rules. For
clarity, OCC also proposes to add a heading to each paragraph in this
Rule to summarize its content. OCC proposes to add the following
headings: ``Cybersecurity Confirmation Submission'' to paragraph (a),
which relates to the submission of the Cybersecurity Confirmation;
``Representations in the Cybersecurity Confirmation'' to paragraph (b),
which relates to the representations in the Cybersecurity Confirmation;
and ``Execution of the Cybersecurity Confirmation'' to paragraph (c),
which relates to the execution of the Cybersecurity Confirmation. OCC
also proposes a minor edit to replace ``OCC'' with ``the Corporation''
in paragraphs (a) and (b) for consistency. Additionally, under the
proposed rule change, existing Rule 219 would be renumbered as Rule
213.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OCC proposes to renumber existing Rule 219 to Rule 213
following on proposed changes to OCC's clearing membership
standards, which includes removal of current rules 213 through 218.
See Exchange Act Release No. 34-97150 (Mar. 15, 2023), 88 FR 17046
(Mar. 21, 2023) (File No. SR-OCC-2023-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occurrence of a Security Incident
    The proposed changes would address the occurrence of a Security
Incident in the Rules by: (i) requiring a Clearing Member to
immediately notify OCC of a Security Incident; (ii) memorializing OCC's
ability to take actions reasonably necessary to mitigate any effects to
its operations; and (iii) requiring such Clearing Member to provide a
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist. Each of these proposed changes
is described in greater detail below.
(i) Notification of a Security Incident
    The proposed rule change would adopt a new paragraph (d) to amended
Rule 213, titled ``Occurrence of a Security Incident,'' to address the
occurrence of a Security Incident. Proposed Rule 213(d) would define
Security Incident as a cyber-related disruption or intrusion of the
Clearing Member, including, but not limited to, any disruption or
degradation of the normal operation of the Clearing Member's systems or
any unauthorized entry into the Clearing Member's systems. Proposed
Rule 213(d) would require a Clearing Member to immediately notify OCC
if there has been a Security Incident or if a Security Incident is
occurring and to promptly confirm such notice in writing.
(ii) Memorialization of OCC's Ability To Take Action
    Proposed paragraph (d) to amended Rule 213 would also memorialize
OCC's ability to take actions reasonably necessary to mitigate any
effects to its operations in the case of a Security Incident. The
proposed language specifies that upon notice from a Clearing Member of
a Security Incident, or if OCC has a reasonable basis to believe that a
Security Incident has occurred, or is occurring, OCC may take actions
reasonably necessary to mitigate any effects to its operations. Such
actions would include the right to disconnect access, or to modify the
scope and specifications of access, of the Clearing Member to OCC's
information and data systems, consistent with the Agreement for OCC
Services.
(iii) Requirement To Provide Reconnection Attestation and Checklist
    The proposed rule change would adopt new paragraph (e) to amended
Rule 213, titled ``Procedures for Connecting Following a Security
Incident,'' to incorporate procedures for Clearing Members to follow in
the case of a Security Incident, including in order to resume
connectivity to OCC. Proposed Rule 213(e) would require a Clearing
Member to complete and submit, upon OCC's request, the Reconnection
Attestation and Checklist after reporting a Security Incident, both as
provided by OCC from time to time. The Reconnection Attestation and
Checklist would facilitate OCC's ability to determine whether the risk
or threat to OCC has been mitigated sufficiently, including whether to
resume connectivity to a Clearing Member if connectivity was
disconnected or modified. The proposed Reconnection Attestation and
Checklist are set out in more detail below.
    Each Reconnection Attestation would be required to be in writing on
a form provided by OCC and signed by a designated senior executive of
the Clearing Member who is authorized to attest to these matters, as
specified in proposed Rule 213(e)(1). Each Reconnection Attestation
would contain representations addressing the incident and attesting to
certain security requirements. In addition, Clearing Members would be
required to describe the Security Incident. OCC is proposing to require
that the following representations be included in the Reconnection
Attestation in proposed Rule 213(e)(1)(A) through (E):
    First, the Reconnection Attestation would include a representation
that the Clearing Member has provided full, complete and accurate
information in response to all requests made by OCC regarding the
Security Incident, including all requests contained in the Reconnection
Checklist, on a good faith, best efforts basis.

    Second, the Reconnection Attestation would include a representation
that the Clearing Member has provided full, complete and accurate
information regarding any OCC data or systems that were potentially
compromised during the Security Incident, including any potential
exposure of credentials used to access OCC's systems, and will
immediately notify OCC if it later becomes aware of a previously
undetected or unreported compromise of OCC data or systems during the
Security Incident.
    Third, the Reconnection Attestation would include a representation
that the Clearing Member has determined whether the Security Incident
resulted, directly or indirectly, from any controls that failed or were
circumvented by its employees, contractors or agents (``Failed
Controls''). The proposed language would further specify that the
Clearing Member has communicated Failed Controls to OCC and is
remediating or has remediated all Failed Controls.
    Fourth, the Reconnection Attestation would include a representation
that the Clearing Member has implemented, or will implement promptly,
technical and operational changes, both preventative and detective,
with the intent to prevent a recurrence of the Security Incident and
has provided written summaries of such changes to OCC.
    Fifth, the Reconnection Attestation would include a representation
that the Clearing Member has complied and will continue to comply with
all applicable laws in connection with its response to the Security
Incident, including any notifications required to be provided to
government agencies, OCC, and third parties.
    Furthermore, each Reconnection Checklist would be required to be in
writing on a form provided by OCC. A Clearing Member would describe its
remediation efforts as part of the Reconnection Checklist, including
relevant information related to the Security Incident and the Clearing
Member's response thereto. To account for the evolving nature of
Security Incidents, OCC proposes flexibility regarding the information
requirements under proposed Rule 213(e)(2). Namely, the Reconnection
Checklist may require information including, but not limited to, the
following under this Rule:
     whether the disconnection was the result of a
cybersecurity-related incident;
     the nature of the incident;
     the steps taken to contain the incident;
     the OCC data, if any, that was compromised during the
incident;
     the OCC systems, if any, that were impacted during the
incident;
     whether there was any risk of exposure of credentials used
to access OCC systems, and if so, whether the credentials were
reissued;
     the controls that were circumvented or failed that led to
the incident occurring;
     the changes, preventative and detective, that were
implemented to prevent a reoccurrence;
     details on how data integrity has been preserved and what
data checks have been performed; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OCC notes that the Reconnection Checklist would specifically
request details on how data integrity has been preserved and what
data checks have been performed ``prior to reconnecting to and
sending/receiving data to/from OCC.'' See Exhibit 3 to File No. SR-
OCC-2023-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     whether third-parties, including government agencies, have
been notified; and
     any additional details relevant to reconnection.
    Together, the required representations and information in the
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist are designed to provide OCC with
evidence related to a Clearing Member's response to a Security
Incident, including whether the Clearing Member has appropriate
security requirements and carried out suitable remediation measures, to
enable OCC to better understand and manage Security Incidents. By
requiring such representations and information from a Clearing Member,
the Reconnection Attestation and Checklist would provide OCC with key
information to make decisions about risks and threats, perform
additional monitoring, and determine whether to resume connectivity to
a Clearing Member, as applicable, in order to protect OCC's information
and data systems.
(2) Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, OCC believes
that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act,\10\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) and (e)(17)(ii), each
promulgated under the Act,\11\ for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) and (e)(17)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of OCC be
designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\12\ As
described above, the proposed amendments are designed to help OCC
assess and take appropriate action to manage the cybersecurity risks
that may be introduced to OCC's information and data systems due to a
Security Incident. OCC proposes edits to existing Rule 219, including
to titles and headings, to expand the scope to address the occurrence
of a Security Incident. Existing Rule 219 would be renumbered as Rule
213 and would clearly set out the obligation of Clearing Members to
notify OCC of a Security Incident and the right of OCC to take actions
reasonably necessary to mitigate any effects to its operations, thereby
centralizing relevant information pertaining to cybersecurity in the
Rules and promoting transparency. Moreover, the proposal would
implement a standardized approach to assess and manage the
cybersecurity risks that OCC may face through its interconnections to
Clearing Members. The proposal would include procedures for Clearing
Members to follow in the case of a Security Incident, including in
order to resume connectivity to OCC. The proposed changes would require
a Clearing Member to submit, upon OCC's request, the Reconnection
Attestation and Checklist after reporting a Security Incident, both as
provided by OCC from time to time. OCC proposes to set forth specific
representations and information required of Clearing Members in the
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist, which are designed to provide
OCC with evidence related to a Clearing Member's response to a Security
Incident, including whether the Clearing Member has appropriate
security requirements and carried out suitable remediation measures, to
enable OCC to better understand and manage Security Incidents. The
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist would provide OCC with key
information to make decisions about risks and threats, perform
additional monitoring, and determine whether to resume connectivity to
a Clearing Member, as applicable, to protect OCC's information and data
systems. Risks, threats, and potential vulnerabilities could impact
OCC's ability to clear and settle securities transactions, or to
safeguard the securities and funds which are in its custody or control,
or for which it is responsible. Therefore, by enhancing its processes
to mitigate these risks, OCC believes the proposal would promote the
prompt and accurate

clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible,
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered
clearing agency's operational risks by identifying the plausible
sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating
their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies,
procedures, and controls.\14\ The proposed Reconnection Attestation and
Checklist would reduce the cybersecurity risks to OCC by requiring a
Clearing Member to provide written representations addressing the
incident and attesting to certain security requirements and an
associated checklist describing remediation efforts. The proposed
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist would filter the requested
information and representations into a standardized format, which would
better enable OCC to review and identify areas of interest, concern, or
heightened risk in respect of a Security Incident. The representations
and information in these forms would help OCC mitigate its exposure to
cybersecurity risk and, thereby, decrease the operational risks to OCC.
The proposed Reconnection Attestation and Checklist would identify to
OCC potential sources of external operational risks that may be
introduced through its interconnections to Clearing Members and enable
OCC to mitigate these risks and possible impacts to OCC's operations.
Based on this information, OCC would make a determination regarding the
resumption of connectivity to a Clearing Member if connectivity was
disconnected or modified. As a result, OCC believes the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the
Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered
clearing agency's operational risks by ensuring, in part, that systems
have a high degree of security, resiliency, and operational
reliability.\16\ The proposed Reconnection Attestation and Checklist
would help enhance the security, resiliency, and operational
reliability of OCC's information and data systems. Namely, these forms
would help OCC determine whether to take action against a Clearing
Member, including preventing the reconnection of a Clearing Member,
that may pose an increased cyber risk to OCC by not having appropriate
security requirements or taking suitable remediation measures. Clearing
Members that have not adequately addressed Security Incidents may
present increased risk to OCC. For example, weaknesses within a
Clearing Member's environment could allow for exploitation by a
malicious actor of the link between a Clearing Member and OCC. By
better enabling OCC to identify these risks, the proposed rule change
would allow OCC to more effectively secure its environment against
potential vulnerabilities. The required representations and information
in the Reconnection Attestation and Checklist would provide OCC with
key information to make decisions about risks and threats, perform
additional monitoring, and determine whether to resume connectivity to
a Clearing Member, as applicable, to protect OCC's information and data
systems. As a result, OCC believes the proposal would improve OCC's
ability to ensure that its systems have a high degree of security,
resiliency, and operational reliability, and, as such, is consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii) under the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \18\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule changes would impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. As discussed above, OCC proposes to amend certain
provisions in the Rules relating to Clearing Member cybersecurity
obligations to address the occurrence of a Security Incident. The
proposed changes would (i) require a Clearing Member to immediately
notify OCC of a Security Incident; (ii) memorialize OCC's ability to
take actions reasonably necessary to mitigate any effects to its
operations; and (iii) require such Clearing Member to provide a
Reconnection Attestation and Checklist. While the proposed changes
would require Clearing Members to incur additional costs, including to
complete and submit the Reconnection Attestation and Checklist, OCC
does not believe the proposed changes would present an undue burden on
Clearing Members. Clearing Members are already subject to the
notification and reporting requirements in OCC's By-Laws and the Rules
that require, among other things, that Clearing Members provide OCC
with such documents and information as OCC may require from time to
time.\19\ Standardizing the form and contents of the proposed
submissions would reduce the potential uncertainty and time required to
demonstrate an acceptable response to a Security Incident.
Additionally, the proposed changes would not unfairly inhibit access to
OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any particular user in
relationship to another user. Such changes would apply to all Clearing
Members consistently and thus would not provide any Clearing Member
with a competitive advantage over any other Clearing Member as the
requirements would be uniform. As described above, given OCC's position
in the marketplace, OCC believes it is prudent to enhance its
management of Security Incidents as detailed in the proposal, so that
OCC's own information and data systems remain protected against
cyberattacks. For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed
rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impact or impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \19\ See Article V, Section 1, Interpretation and Policy .07 of
the By-Laws and Rules 201(b), 215, 216, 217(b), 303, 306, 308 and
310(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments 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.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2023-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2023-003. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2023-003 and
should be submitted on or before April 26, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07004 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55401]
[DOCID:fr10se10-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request of release for permanent easement of airport
property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
request for permanent easement at the Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Jeff Fegan, Chief Executive Office, at the
following address: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Executive
Office, P.O. Box 619428, DFW Airport, Texas 75261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Rodney Clark, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-651, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0650,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax: (817)
222-5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    On August 23, 2010, the FAA determined that the request for
permanent easement at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport,
submitted by the Airport, met the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the
request, in whole or in part, no later than October 23, 2010.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport requests the release
for permanent easement of 0.501 acres of non-aeronautical airport
property. The land was acquired by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth
for use as an airport. The funds generated by the release will be used
to improve the Airport's roadway system.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, telephone number (972) 973-
5200.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 31, 2010.
Joseph G. Washington,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-22542 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M