[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78307-78309]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-1009]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations
Meetings, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 165.164 by establishing
three security zones to replace the three regulated navigation areas
(RNAs) currently contained within this section. The Coast Guard is also
disestablishing these three RNAs. The three security zones, just like
the RNAs they replace, are meant to promote public safety and to
protect dignitaries who visit the United Nations in New York, NY.

DATES: This rule is effective January 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-1009]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Commander Myles Greenway, Coast
Guard First District Waterways Management Branch, Telephone (617) 223-
8385, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
UN United Nations
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
USSS United States Secret Service

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On September 29, 2014 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, ``Security Zones;
Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY''
in the Federal Register (79 FR 58298). We received no comments on the
NPRM. We received no requests for a public meeting.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define security zones.
    As mentioned above, the Coast Guard previously established three
RNAs on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill, near Wall Street
Heliport, Randalls and Wards Islands, and the United Nations Building.
The primary purpose of these three RNAs was to protect dignitaries,
such as the President of the United States, who visit the United
Nations. Although these RNAs served their intended purpose, the Coast
Guard is replacing them with security zones to best communicate the
federal government's security posture in these particular water areas.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received no comments in response to the proposed rule and the
final rule is being published without change.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the fact that the RNAs would simply be designated as security
zones as the more appropriate means to regulate the movement of vessels
or individuals in the areas. We have not made any changes to the size,
boundaries, or enforcement duration of these security zones.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This determination is based on the fact that the RNAs are simply
being designated as security zones as the more appropriate means to
regulate the movement of vessels or individuals in the areas. We are
not making any changes to the size, boundaries, or enforcement duration
of the security zones.

3. Collection of Information

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

4. Federalism

    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 rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

5. 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.

6. 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

9. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
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 rule involves designating three RNAs as security
zones. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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
rule.

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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.164 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.164  Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United
Nations Meetings, New York, NY.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) Wall Street Heliport. All waters of the East River within the
following

boundaries: East of a line drawn between approximate position
40[deg]42'01'' N, 074[deg]00'39'' W (east of The Battery) to
40[deg]41'36'' N, 074[deg]00'52'' W (point north of Governors Island)
and north of a line drawn from the point north of Governors Island to
the southwest corner of Pier 7 North, Brooklyn; and south of a line
drawn between 40[deg]42'14.8'' N, 074[deg]00'20.3'' W (Wall Street,
Manhattan), and the northwest corner of Pier 2 North, Brooklyn (NAD
1983).
    (2) Randalls and Wards Islands: All waters of the East River
between the Hell Gate Rail Road Bridge (mile 8.2), and a line drawn
from a point at approximate position 40[deg]47'27.12'' N,
073[deg]54'35.14'' W (Lawrence Point, Queens) to a point at approximate
position 40[deg]47'52.55'' N, 073[deg]54'35.25'' W (Port Morris
Stacks), and all waters of the Bronx Kill southeast of the Bronx Kill
Rail Road Bridge (mile 0.6) (NAD 1983).
    (3) Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport Security Zone: All
waters of Bowery Bay, Queens, New York, south of a line drawn from the
western end of LaGuardia Airport at approximate position 40[deg]46'47''
N, 073[deg]53'05'' W to the Rikers Island Bridge at approximate
position 40[deg]46'51'' N, 073[deg]53'21'' W and east of a line drawn
between the point at the Rikers Island Bridge to a point on the shore
in Queens, New York, at approximate position 40[deg]46'36'' N,
073[deg]53'31'' W (NAD 1983).
    (4) United Nations Manhattan Shoreline. All waters of the East
River bound by the following points: 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), then
east to 40[deg]44'34.5'' N, 073[deg]58'10.5'' W (about 180 yards
offshore of Manhattan), then northeasterly to 40[deg]45'29'' N,
073[deg]57'26.5'' W (about 125 yards offshore of Manhattan at the
Queensboro Bridge), then northwesterly to 40[deg]45'31'' N,
073[deg]57'30.5'' W (Manhattan shoreline at the Queensboro Bridge),
then southerly along the shoreline to the starting point at
40[deg]44'37'' N, 073[deg]58'16.5'' W (NAD 1983).
    (5) United Nations West Channel Closure. All waters of the East
River north of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), to
approximate position 40[deg]44'31.04'' N, 073[deg]58'03.10'' W
(approximately 400 yards east of the Manhattan shoreline), all waters
west of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'31.04'' N,
073[deg]58'03.10'' W (approximately 400 yards east of the Manhattan
shoreline), to the southern tip of Roosevelt Island at approximate
position 40[deg]44'57.96'' N, 073[deg]57'41.57'' W, then along the
western shoreline of Roosevelt Island to the Queensboro Bridge, and all
waters south of the Queensboro Bridge (NAD 1983).
    (6) United Nations Full River Closure. All waters of the East River
north of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), to
approximate position 40[deg]44'23'' N, 073[deg]57'44.5'' W (Hunters
Point, Long Island City), and south of the Queensboro Bridge (NAD
1983).
    (b) Definitions.
    As used in this section--
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on
the COTP's behalf. A designated representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, or onboard a federal, state, or local agency vessel that is
authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
    Dignitary means the President or Vice President of the United
States, or visiting heads of foreign states or governments.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or move within a security
zone created by this section while that security zone is being enforced
unless granted permission to do so by the Coast Guard's First District
Commander, the COTP, or a designated representative. Vessel operators
and persons given permission to enter or operate in a security zone
must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP, or a
designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard or
other duly authorized law enforcement vessel (e.g. New York City
police) by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator
of a vessel must proceed as directed, and follow any instructions to
anchor or moor up to a waterfront facility.
    (d) Enforcement periods. The security zone described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section is subject to enforcement at all times. All
other security zones established by this section will only be enforced
when necessary to protect dignitaries as determined by the COTP.
    (e) Notification. Because the security zone described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section is subject to enforcement at all times, the
Coast Guard will not necessarily take any action to further notify the
public about the enforcement of that zone. As for the enforcement
periods for the other security zones contained herein, the Coast Guard
will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public
of the time and duration of any enforcement period. The COTP may also
notify the public about enforcement of these security zones via http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork.
    (f) Contact information. Vessel operators desiring to enter or
operate within a security zone shall telephone the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or a designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission
to do so.

    Dated: November 15, 2014.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-30455 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34743-34744]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13946]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0408; FRL-10025-72-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; EPA's WaterSense Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), EPA's WaterSense Program (EPA ICR
Number 2233.08, OMB Control Number 2040-0272) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through June 30, 2021. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on February 24, 2021
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0408 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara O'Hare, WaterSense Branch, Water
Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of
Water, (Mail Code 4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-
8836; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: WaterSense is a voluntary program designed to promote use
of water-efficient products and services via a common label. The label
provides an incentive for manufacturers and builders to design,
produce, and market water-efficient products and homes. Data collected
under this ICR will assist WaterSense in demonstrating results and
carrying out evaluation efforts to ensure continual program
improvement. Shipment and sales data submitted by WaterSense
manufacturer and retailer/distributor partners are collected as
confidential business information (CBI) using the procedures outlined
in the WaterSense CBI security plan under the Clean Water Act.
    As a terms of clearance for the previous ICR, EPA was required to
address comments on an April 2020 Federal Register notice (85 FR 20268)
that sought input on whether and how the program could better
understand and collect information on consumer satisfaction with
labeled products. As summarized in the supporting statement, there was
no support for conducting a survey or study on consumer satisfaction
for use in future product reviews. There was, however, support for a
general survey to provide information to improve awareness of the
WaterSense label, which is covered under this ICR.

Form Numbers

 Partnership Agreements: Builders 6100-19; Licensed
Certification Providers 6100-20; Manufacturers 6100-13; Professional
Certifying Organizations 6100-07; Promotional partners 6100-06;
Retailers/distributors 6100-12

 Application for Professional Certifying Organization Approval
6100-X3
 Annual Reporting Forms: Builders 6100-09; Professional
Certifying Organizations 6100-09; Promotional partners 6100-09
 Annual Reporting Forms--Online and Hard-copy Confidential
Business Information (CBI) Forms: Plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09; Non-
plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09; Retailers/Distributors 6100-09
 Provider Quarterly Reporting Form 6100-09
 Award Application Forms: Builders 6100-17; Licensed
Certification Providers 6100-17; Manufacturers 6100-17; Professional
Certifying Organizations 6100-17; Promotional Partners 6100-17;
Retailers/Distributors 6100-17
 Consumer Awareness Survey 6100-X2

    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents will consist of
WaterSense partners and participants in the consumer survey. WaterSense
partners include product manufacturers; professional certifying
organizations; retailers; distributors; utilities; federal, state, and
local governments; home builders; licensed certification providers; and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,561 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once a prospective partner organization
reviews WaterSense materials and decides to join the program, it will
submit the appropriate Partnership Agreement for its partnership
category (this form is only submitted once). Professional Certifying
Organizations must include additional documentation to begin their
partnership by completing an Application for Professional Certifying
Organization Approval (this form is only submitted once). Each year,
EPA also asks partners to submit an Annual Reporting Form and Awards
Application (voluntarily at the partner's discretion). Licensed
certification providers for WaterSense-labeled new homes are asked to
submit a Provider Quarterly Reporting Form four times each year. EPA
also may conduct two Consumer Awareness Surveys over the three-year
period of the ICR.
    Total estimated burden: 3,212 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $293,189 per year, includes $905 annualized
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is no change in burden compared
with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-13946 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 45210]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3371-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Washington; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Washington (FEMA-3371-EM), dated July 23,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 23, 2014, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Washington resulting from wildfires beginning on
July 9, 2014, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
an emergency exists in the State of Washington.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of
the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance,
you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael
J. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Washington have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    The counties of Chelan and Okanogan and the Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Reservation for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18394 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24536-24541]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11454]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83305; File No. SR-OCC-2017-811]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing Concerning The Options
Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology

May 23, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On November 13, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
advance notice SR-OCC-2017-811 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of
2010 (``Payment Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \2\ to propose
several enhancements to OCC's margin methodology, the System for
Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (``STANS''), OCC's
proprietary risk management system that calculates clearing member
margin requirements.\3\ The proposed changes would modify OCC's margin
methodology to: (1) Obtain daily price data for equity products
(including daily corporate action-adjusted returns of equities where
prices and thus returns of securities are adjusted for any dividends
issued, stock splits, etc.) for use in the daily estimation of
econometric model parameters; (2) enhance its econometric model for
updating statistical parameters (e.g., parameters concerning
correlations or volatility) for all risk factors that reflect the most
recent data obtained; (3) improve the sensitivity and stability of
correlation estimates across risk factors by using de-volatized \4\
returns (but using a 500 day look back period); and (4) improve OCC's
methodology related to the treatment of defaulting securities \5\ that
would result in stable and realistic risk estimates for such
securities.\6\ The Advance Notice was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 27, 2017.\7\ On January 11, 2018, the
Commission requested OCC provide it with additional information
regarding the Advance Notice.\8\ OCC responded to this request for
information on January 23, 2018.\9\ On March 22, 2018, the Commission
determined that the Advance Notice raises complex issues because OCC
proposes to make detailed, substantial, and numerous changes to its
margin methodology.\10\ As such, the Commission extended review period
of the Advance Notice until May 23, 2018.\11\ As of May 23, 2018, the
Commission has received one comment letter on the proposal contained in
the Advance Notice.\12\ This publication serves as notice of no
objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated OCC a systemically important financial market
utility (``SIFMU'') on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability
Oversight Council 2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, available at
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, OCC is required to comply
with the Payment Supervision Act and file advance notices with the
Commission. See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ See Notice infra note 7, at 82 FR 61355.
    \4\ De-volatization is a process of normalizing historical data
with the associated volatility thus facilitating comparison between
different sets of data.
    \5\ Within the context of OCC's margin system, securities that
do not have enough historical data for calibration are classified as
``defaulting securities.'' See Notice, 82 FR at 61355, note 15.
    \6\ See Notice infra note 7, at 82 FR 61354.
    \7\ Exchange Act Release No. 82371 (Dec. 20, 2017), 82 FR 61354
(Dec. 27, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-811) (``Notice''). On November 13,
2017, OCC also filed a related proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-
022) with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b)(1)
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, seeking approval of changes to its rules
necessary to implement the proposal contained in the Advance Notice
(``Proposed Rule Change''). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-
4, respectively. The Proposed Rule Change was published in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2017. Exchange Act Release No. 82161
(Nov. 28, 2017), 82 FR 57306 (Dec. 4, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-022).
    \8\ See Memorandum from Office of Clearance and Settlement,
Division of Trading and Markets, dated January 12, 2018, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2017-811/occ2017811.htm.
    \9\ See Memorandum from Office of Clearance and Settlement,
Division of Trading and Markets, dated March 6, 2018, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2017-811/occ2017811.htm.
    \10\ See Extension Notice, 82 FR at 13315.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See letter from Michael Kitlas, dated November 28, 2017, to
Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary, Commission, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2017-022/occ2017022.htm
(``Kitlas Letter''). After reviewing the Kitlas Letter, the
Commission believes that it is nonresponsive to the Advance Notice
and therefore outside the scope of the proposal.
    Since the proposal contained in the Advance Notice was also
filed as a proposed rule change, all public comments received on the
proposal are considered regardless of whether the comments are
submitted on the Proposed Rule Change or the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The description of the background of the proposal is
substantially excerpted from the Notice. See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCC's Current Margin Methodology

    OCC's margin methodology, the System for Theoretical Analysis and
Numerical Simulations (``STANS''), calculates clearing member margin
requirements.\14\ STANS utilizes large-scale Monte Carlo simulations to
forecast price and volatility movements in determining a clearing
member's margin requirement.\15\ The STANS margin requirement is
calculated at the portfolio level of clearing member accounts with
positions in marginable securities and consists of an estimate of a 99%
expected shortfall \16\ over a two-day time horizon and an add-on
margin charge for model risk (the concentration/dependence stress test
charge).\17\ The STANS methodology is used to measure the exposure of
portfolios of options and futures cleared by OCC and cash instruments
in margin collateral.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Act Release No. 53322 (Feb. 15, 2006), 71 FR
9403 (Feb. 23, 2006) (File No. SR-OCC-2004-20).
    \15\ See OCC Rule 601; see also Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
    \16\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
     The expected shortfall component is established as the
estimated average of potential losses higher than the 99% value at
risk threshold. See Notice, 82 FR at 61355, note 8.
    \17\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355. A detailed description of the
STANS methodology is available at http://optionsclearing.com/risk-management/margins/. See Notice, 82 FR at 61355, note 9.
    \18\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``risk factor'' within OCC's margin system may be defined as a
product or attribute whose historical data are used to estimate and
simulate the risk for an associated product.\19\ The majority of risk
factors utilized in the STANS methodology are total returns on
individual equity securities. Other risk factors considered include:
Returns on equity indexes; returns on implied volatility risk factors
that are a set of nine chosen volatility pivots per product; changes in
foreign exchange rates; securities underlying equity-based products;
and changes in model parameters that sufficiently capture the model
dynamics from a larger set of data.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under OCC's current margin methodology, OCC obtains monthly price
data for most of its equity-based products from a third-party
vendor.\21\ This data arrive around the second week of every month in
arrears and require approximately four weeks for OCC to process prior
to installing into OCC's margin system.\22\ As a result, correlations
and statistical parameters for risk factors at any point in time
represent stale data and therefore may not be representative of the
most recent market data.\23\ In the absence of daily updates, OCC
employs an approach

where one or more identified market proxies (or ``scale-factors'') are
used to incorporate day-to-day market volatility across all associated
asset classes throughout.\24\ The scale-factor approach, however,
assumes a perfect correlation of the volatilities between the security
and its scale-factor, which gives little room to capture the
idiosyncratic risk of a given security and is different from the broad
market risk represented by the scale-factor.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OCC imposes a floor on volatility estimates for its
equity-based products using a 500-day look back period.\26\ OCC
believes that using monthly price data, coupled with the dependency of
margins on scale-factors and the volatility floor can result in
imprecise changes in margins charged to clearing members, specifically
across periods of heavy volatility when the correlation between the
risk factor and a scale-factor fluctuate.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
     In risk management, it is a common practice to establish a
floor for volatility at a certain level in order to protect against
procyclicality in the model. See Notice, 82 FR at 61355, note 14.
    \27\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's current methodology for estimating covariance and
correlations between risk factors relies on the same monthly data
described above, resulting in a similar lag time between updates.\28\
In addition, correlation estimates are based off historical returns
series, with estimates between a pair of risk factors being highly
sensitive to the volatility of either risk factor in the chosen
pair.\29\ Accordingly, OCC believes that the current approach results
in potentially less stable correlation estimates that may not be
representative of current market conditions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, under OCC's existing margin methodology, theoretical price
scenarios for ``defaulting securities'' \31\ are simulated using
uncorrelated return scenarios with an average zero return and a pre-
specified volatility called ``default variance.'' \32\ The default
variance is estimated as the average of the top 25 percent quantile of
the conditional variances of all securities.\33\ As a result, OCC
believes that these default estimates may be impacted by extremely
illiquid securities with discontinuous data.\34\ In addition, OCC
believes that the default variance (and the associated scale-factors
used to scale up volatility) is also subject to sudden jumps across
successive months because it is derived from monthly data updates, as
opposed to daily updates, which are prone to wider fluctuations and are
subject to adjustments using scale-factors.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 5.
    \32\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61355.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal in the Advance Notice \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The description of the proposal is substantially excerpted
from the Notice. See Notice, 82 FR at 61356-61358.
     In addition to the proposed methodology changes described
herein, OCC also would make some clarifying and clean-up changes,
unrelated to the proposed changes described herein, to update its
margin methodology to reflect existing practices for the daily
calibration of seasonal and non-seasonal energy models and the
removal of methodology language for certain products that are no
longer cleared by OCC. See Notice, 82 FR at 61356, note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Advance Notice proposes changes to OCC's margin methodology,
STANS. More specifically, OCC proposes to: (1) Obtain daily price data
for equity products (including daily corporate action-adjusted returns
of equities where price and thus returns of securities are adjusted for
any dividends issued, stock splits, etc.) for use in the daily
estimation of econometric model parameters; (2) enhance its econometric
model for updating statistical parameters (e.g., parameters concerning
correlations or volatility) for all risk factors that reflect the most
recent data obtained; (3) improve the sensitivity and stability of
correlation estimates across risk factors by using de-volatized \37\
returns (but using a 500 day look back period); and (4) improve OCC's
methodology related to the treatment of defaulting securities \38\ that
would result in stable and realistic risk estimates for such
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ De-volatization is a process of normalizing historical data
with the associated volatility thus facilitating comparison between
different sets of data.
    \38\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, OCC believes that introducing daily updates
for price data would result in more accurate margin requirements that
are based off of the most recent market data. OCC also believes that
the other model enhancements would, among other things, improve OCC's
approach to estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors
in an effort to achieve more accurate and timely correlation
estimations.\39\ OCC further represents that the proposed changes would
improve OCC's methodology related to the treatment of defaulting
securities by reducing the impact that illiquid securities with
discontinuous data have on default variance estimates. Each of these
proposals is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ OCC's covariance and correlation analytics estimate whether
risk factors are positively or inversely related and to what extent
any relationship exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Daily Updates of Price Data

    OCC proposes to introduce daily updates for price data for equity
products, including daily corporate action-adjusted returns of
equities, Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs''), Exchange Traded Notes
(``ETNs'') and certain indexes.\40\ OCC believes that the proposed
change would help ensure that OCC's margin methodology is reliant on
data that is more representative of current market conditions, thereby
resulting in more accurate and responsive margin requirements.\41\ In
addition, OCC believes that the introduction of daily price updates
would enable OCC's margin methodology to better capture both market and
idiosyncratic risk by allowing for daily updates to the parameters
associated with the econometric model (discussed below) that captures
the risk associated with a particular product, and therefore help
ensure that OCC's margin requirements are based on more current market
conditions.\42\ As a result, OCC would also reduce its reliance on the
use of scale-factors to incorporate day-to-day market volatility, which
OCC believes give little room to capture the idiosyncratic risk of a
given security and is different from the broad market risk represented
by the scale-factor.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61356.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Enhancements to the Econometric Model

    In addition to introducing daily updates for price and corporate
action-adjusted returns data, OCC is proposing enhancements to its
econometric model for calculating statistical parameters for all
qualifying risk factors that reflect the most recent data obtained
(e.g., OCC would be able to calculate parameters such as volatility and
correlations on a daily basis using the new daily price data discussed
above). More specifically, OCC proposes to enhance its econometric
model by: (i) Introducing daily updates for statistical parameters;
(ii) introducing features in its econometric model that are designed to
take into account asymmetry in the model used to forecast volatility
associated with a risk factor ; (iii) modifying the statistical
distribution

used to model the returns of equity prices; (iv) introducing a second-
day forecast for volatility into the model to estimate the two-day
scenario distributions for risk factors; and (v) imposing a floor on
volatility estimates using a 10-year look back period. These proposed
model enhancements are described in detail below.
i. Daily Updates for Statistical Parameters
    Under the proposal, the statistical parameters for the model would
be updated on a daily basis using the new daily price data obtained by
OCC from a reliable third-party (as described above).\44\ As a result,
OCC would no longer need to rely on scale-factors to approximate day-
to-day market volatility for equity-based products.\45\ OCC believes
that calibrating statistical parameters on a daily basis would allow
OCC to calculate more accurate margin requirements that represent the
most recent market data.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61356. OCC notes that this change
would apply to most risk factors with the exception of certain
equity indexes, Treasury securities, and energy futures products,
which are already updated on a daily basis. See Notice, 82 FR 61356,
at note 18.
    \45\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61356.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Enhancements To Capture Asymmetry in Conditional Variance
    The current approach for forecasting the conditional variance for a
given risk factor does not consider the asymmetric volatility
phenomenon observed in financial markets (also called the ``leverage
effect'') where volatility is more accurate and timely and reactive to
market downturns.\47\ Under the proposal, OCC would amend its
econometric model to include new features (i.e., incorporating
asymmetry into its forecast volatility) designed to allow the
conditional volatility forecast to be more accurate and timely to
market downturns and thereby capture the most significant dynamics of
the relationship between price and volatility observed in financial
markets.\48\ OCC believes the proposed enhancement would result in more
accurate and responsive margin requirements, particularly in market
downturns.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61357.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Proposed Change in Statistical Distribution
    OCC also proposes to change the statistical distribution used to
model the returns of equity prices. OCC's current methodology uses a
fat tailed distribution \50\ (the Student's t-distribution) to model
returns; \51\ however, price scenarios generated using very large log-
return scenarios (positive) that follow this distribution can approach
infinity and could potentially result in excessively large price jumps,
a known limitation of this distribution.\52\ Under the proposal, OCC
would adopt a more defined distribution (Standardized Normal Reciprocal
Inverse Gaussian or NRIG) for modeling returns, which OCC believes
would more appropriately simulate future returns based on the
historical price data for the products in question and allows for more
appropriate modeling of fat tails.\53\ As a result, OCC believes that
the proposed change would lead to more consistent treatment of log
returns both on the upside as well as downside of the distribution.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ A data set with a ``fat tail'' is one in which extreme
price returns have a higher probability of occurrence than would be
the case in a normal distribution. See Notice, 82 FR at 61357, note
21.
    \51\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61357.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Second Day Volatility Forecast
    OCC further proposes to introduce a second-day forecast for
volatility into the econometric model to estimate the two-day scenario
distributions for risk factors.\55\ Under the current methodology, OCC
typically uses a two-day horizon to determine its risk exposure to a
given portfolio.\56\ This is done by simulating 10,000 theoretical
price scenarios for the two-day horizon using a one-day forecast
conditional variance; the value at risk and expected shortfall
components of the margin requirement are then determined from the
simulated profit/loss distributions.\57\ These one-day and two-day
returns scenarios are both simulated using the one-day forecast
conditional variance estimate.\58\ OCC believes that this could lead to
a risk factor's coverage differing substantially on volatile trading
days.\59\ As a result, OCC proposes to introduce a second-day forecast
variance for all equity-based risk factors.\60\ The second-day
conditional variance forecast would be estimated for each of the 10,000
Monte Carlo returns scenarios, resulting in more accurately estimated
two-day scenario distributions, and therefore more accurate and
responsive margin requirements.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id. This proposed change would not apply to STANS implied
volatility scenario risk factors. For those risk factors, OCC's
existing methodology would continue to apply. See Notice, 82 FR at
61357, note 23.
    \56\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61357.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Anti-Procyclical Floor for Volatility Estimates
    In addition, OCC proposes to modify its floor for volatility
estimates. OCC currently imposes a floor on volatility estimates for
its equity-based products using a 500-day look back period.\62\ Under
the proposal, OCC would extend this look back period to 10 years (2520
days) in the enhanced model and apply this floor to volatility
estimates for other products (excluding implied volatility risk factor
scenarios).\63\ OCC believes that using a longer 10-year look back
period will help ensure that OCC captures sufficient historical events/
market shocks in the calculation of its anti-procyclical floor.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Enhancements to Correlation Estimates

    As described above, OCC's current methodology for estimating
covariance and correlations between risk factors relies on the same
monthly price data feeding the econometric model, resulting in a
similar lag time between updates.\65\ In addition, correlation
estimates are based off historical returns series, with estimates
between a pair of risk factors being highly sensitive to the volatility
of either risk factor in the chosen pair.\66\ The current approach
therefore results in correlation estimates being sensitive to volatile
historical data.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to address these limitations, OCC proposes to enhance its
methodology for calculating correlation estimates by moving to a daily
process for updating correlations (with a minimum of one week's lag) to
help ensure clearing member account margins are more current and thus
more accurate.\68\ Moreover, OCC proposes to enhance its approach to
modeling correlation estimates by de-volatizing \69\ the returns series
to estimate the correlations.\70\ Under the proposed approach, OCC
would first consider the returns excess of the mean (i.e., the average
estimated from historical data sample) and then further scale them by
the corresponding estimated conditional

variances.\71\ OCC believes that using de-volatized returns would lead
to normalizing returns across a variety of asset classes and make the
correlation estimator less sensitive to sudden market jumps and
therefore more stable.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Defaulting Securities Methodology

    Under the proposal, OCC would enhance its methodology for
estimating the defaulting variance in its model.\73\ OCC's margin
system is dependent on market data to determine clearing member margin
requirements.\74\ Securities that do not have enough historical data
are classified as ``defaulting securities'' within OCC systems.\75\ As
noted above, within current STANS systems, the theoretical price
scenarios for defaulting securities are simulated using uncorrelated
return scenarios with a zero mean and a default variance, with the
default variance being estimated as the average of the top 25 percent
quantile of the conditional variances of all securities.\76\ As a
result, these default estimates may be impacted by extremely illiquid
securities with discontinuous data.\77\ In addition, the default
variance (and the associated scale-factors used to scale up volatility)
is also subject to sudden jumps across volatile months.\78\ To mitigate
these concerns, OCC proposes to: (i) Use only optionable equity
securities to estimate the defaulting variance; (ii) use a shorter time
series to enable calibration of the model for all securities; and (iii)
simulate default correlations with the driver Russell 2000 index
(``RUT'').\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id.
    \74\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61357-61358.
    \75\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61358.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Proposed Modifications to Securities and Quantile Used in Estimation
    Under the proposal, only optionable equity securities, which are
typically more liquid, would be considered while estimating the default
variance.\80\ This limitation would eliminate from the estimation
almost all illiquid securities with discontinuous data that could
contribute to high conditional variance estimates and thus a high
default variance.\81\ In addition, OCC proposes to estimate the default
variance as the lowest estimate of the top 10% of the floored
conditional variance across the risk factors.\82\ OCC believes that
this change in methodology would help ensure that while the estimate is
aggressive it is also robust to the presence of outliers caused by a
few extremely volatile securities that influence the location parameter
of a distribution.\83\ Moreover, as a consequence of the daily updates
described above, the default variances would change daily and there
would be no scale-factor to amplify the effect of the variance on risk
factor coverage.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Id.
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Change in Time Series
    Under the proposal, OCC would use a shorter time series to enable
calibration of the model for all securities.\85\ Currently, OCC does
not calibrate parameters for defaulting securities that have historical
data of less than two years.\86\ OCC is proposing to shorten this time
period to approximately 6 months (180 days) to enable calibration of
the model for all securities within OCC systems.\87\ OCC believes that
this shorter time series is sufficient to produce stable calibrated
parameters.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Id.
    \86\ Id.
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Proposed Default Correlation
    Under the proposal, returns scenarios for defaulting securities
\89\ would be simulated using a default correlation with the driver
RUT.\90\ The default correlation of the RUT index is roughly equal to
the median of all positively correlated securities with the index.\91\
Since 90% of the risk factors in OCC systems correlate positively to
the RUT index, OCC would only consider those risk factors to determine
the median.\92\ OCC believes that the median of the correlation
distribution has been steady over a number of simulations and is
therefore proposing that it replace the current methodology of
simulating uncorrelated scenarios, which OCC believes is not a
realistic approach.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See supra note 5.
    \90\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61358. OCC notes that, in certain
limited circumstances where there are reasonable grounds backed by
the existing return history to support an alternative approach in
which the returns are strongly correlated with those of an existing
risk factor (a ``proxy'') with a full price history, OCC's margin
methodology allows its Financial Risk Management staff to construct
a ``conditional'' simulation to override any default treatment that
would have otherwise been applied to the defaulting security. See
Notice, 82 FR at 61358, note 26.
    \91\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61358.
    \92\ Id.
    \93\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Act does not specify a standard of review for an
advance notice, the stated purpose of the Act is instructive: To
mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for SIFMUs and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Act \95\ authorizes the Commission to
prescribe regulations containing risk-management standards for the
payment, clearing, and settlement activities of designated clearing
entities engaged in designated activities for which the Commission is
the supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the Act \96\ provides the
following objectives and principles for the Commission's risk-
management standards prescribed under Section 805(a):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \96\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To promote robust risk management;
     to promote safety and soundness;
     to reduce systemic risks; and
     to support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-
management standards may address such areas as risk-management and
default policies and procedures, among others areas.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Act and the Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency
Rules'').\98\ The Clearing Agency Rules require, among other things,
each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
meet certain minimum requirements for operations and risk-management
practices on an ongoing

basis.\99\ As such, it is appropriate for the Commission to review
advance notices for consistency with the objectives and principles for
risk-management standards described in the Clearing Agency Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Covered Clearing
Agency Standards''). The Commission established an effective date of
December 12, 2016, and a compliance date of April 11, 2017, for the
Covered Clearing Agency Standards. On March 4, 2017, the Commission
granted covered clearing agencies a temporary exemption from
compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) and certain requirements in
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) and (ii) until December 31, 2017, subject to
certain conditions. OCC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined
in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \99\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Act

    The Commission believes that the proposal contained in OCC's
Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles
of Section 805(b) of the Act. Specifically, as discussed below, the
Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are
consistent with promoting robust risk management in the area of credit
risk and promoting safety and soundness, which in turn, would help
reduce systemic risks and support the stability of the broader
financial system.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes promote robust
risk management by enhancing OCC's margin methodology for the reasons
set forth below.
    First, as noted above, the STANS methodology is used to measure the
exposure of portfolios of options and futures cleared by OCC and cash
instruments in margin collateral on behalf of its clearing members,
which allows OCC to calculate its clearing members' margin
requirements. Currently, STANS makes these calculation based on monthly
price data obtained from a third-party vendor. To make the calculations
more accurate and representative of recent market data, OCC proposes to
amend its margin methodology to require the use of daily updates for
equity price data instead of monthly updates, thereby reducing OCC's
reliance on scale-factors.\101\ Accordingly, the Commission believes
that changing to daily price data updates would result in more accurate
and timely estimations of OCC's clearing members' margin requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See supra note 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposal discussed above to amend OCC's margin
methodology to require the use of daily updates for price data would
allow for updates to the margin model's statistical parameters on a
daily, instead of monthly, basis.\102\ Similarly, the proposal would
also amend STANS to introduce other features that would improve the
accuracy of its models and, consequently, produce risk exposure and
margin requirement calculations that better reflect current market
conditions. For example, the proposal would: (i) Amend STANS to account
for the asymmetric volatility phenomenon observed in financial markets
and allow for conditional volatility forecast to be more accurate and
timely to market downturns;\103\ (ii) amend the statistical
distribution for modeling equity price returns to more appropriately
model fat tails and, consequently, more accurately model returns; (iii)
introduce a second-day volatility forecast into the model to provide
for more accurate and timely estimations of its two-day scenario
distributions then currently provided by its one-day forecast variance;
and (iv) amend STANS to impose a volatility floor using a 10-year look
back period to reduce procyclicality in the margin model by capturing
sufficient market events in its calculations. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the introduction of enhancements to improve
the accuracy of the STANS margin models would enable OCC to more
effectively calculate clearing members' margin requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See supra note 40.
    \103\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as described earlier, OCC proposes to enhance its approach
to model correlation estimates by moving to a daily process for
updating correlations and by de-volatizing the return series to
estimate the correlations. This change is intended to lead to
normalized returns across a variety of asset classes and make the
correlation estimator less sensitive to sudden market jumps and
therefore more stable. Accordingly, the Commission believes that
updating the correlations daily and de-volatizing the return series to
reduce the estimator's sensitivity to market jumps promotes more
accurate and robust models within the STANS methodology.
    Finally, to enhance its methodology for estimating the defaulting
securities in its model, OCC proposes to: (i) Modify the method for
estimating the default variance to include only optionable equity
securities; (ii) use a shorter time series of six months instead of two
years to enable calibration of the model for all securities within OCC
systems; and (iii) simulate return scenarios for defaulting securities
assuming a default correlation with the driver RUT. Accordingly, the
Commission believes these changes will mitigate the effect that
extremely illiquid securities with discontinuous data can have on OCC's
default estimates, while further decreasing the degree to which the
default variance is subject to sudden jumps across volatile months.
    Taken together, the Commission believes that these proposals would
improve the accuracy of OCC's credit exposure calculations and,
consequently, OCC's calculations of its clearing members' margin
requirements. Therefore, the Commission believes the changes proposed
in the Advance Notice would promote robust risk management, consistent
with Section 805(b) of the Act.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposed changes would
help promote safety and soundness, reduce systemic risk and support the
stability of the broader financial system. As described above, the
proposed changes are designed to better limit OCC's credit exposure to
the clearing members in the event of a clearing member default. More
specifically, the daily updates of the pricing data, the enhancements
to the econometric model, and the enhancements to the correlation
estimates promote more accurate and stable model measurements that have
less volatility. Moreover, the enhancements to the defaulting
securities methodology will decrease the manner in which the default
estimates are affected by illiquid securities and reducing the amount
to which the default variance is subject to sudden jumps.
    By better limiting credit exposure to its clearing members, OCC's
proposed changes are designed to help ensure that, in the event of a
clearing member default, OCC's operations would not be disrupted and
that its SIFMU functions would therefore be able to continue in a safe
and sound manner. Furthermore, the ongoing safe and sound functioning
of OCC via an enhanced ability to determine margin requirements should
help ensure that non-defaulting clearing members would not be exposed
to losses that they cannot anticipate or control. As such, the
Commission finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the
promotion of safety and soundness, which in turn, would reduce systemic
risks and support the stability of the broader financial system,
consistent with Section 805(b) of the Act.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Act.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance

Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) under the Exchange Act,
which requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, among other things: (i) Considers, and produces margin
levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each
relevant product, portfolio, and market; (ii) calculates margin
sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to participants in
the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of
positions following a participant default; and (iii) uses reliable
sources of timely price data and uses procedures and sound valuation
models for addressing circumstances in which pricing data is not
readily available or reliable.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 17 CFR 240.17AD-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal contained in the Advance Notice
would make several amendments to OCC's margin methodology designed to
improve how it: (i) Accounts for asymmetry in conditional variance;
\108\ (ii) models the statistical distribution of price returns; \109\
(iii) models second-day volatility forecasts; \110\ (iv) estimates
covariance and correlations between risk factors to provide for stable
and sensitive correlation estimations; \111\ and (v) treats defaulting
securities by reducing the impact that illiquid securities with
discontinuous data have on default variance estimates.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Notice of Filing of Advance Notice, 82 FR at 61357.
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id.
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ See Notice of Filing of Advance Notice, 82 FR at 61357-
61358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the modifications proposed are designed to
improve the manner in which STANS would calculate daily margin
requirements for OCC's clearing members. Consequently, the Commission
believes that the proposal is designed both (i) to consider, and
produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular
attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market \113\ and
(ii) to calculate margin sufficient to cover OCC's potential future
exposure to participants in the interval between the last margin
collection and the close out of positions following a participant
default.\114\ Additionally, as discussed in the Advance Notice,\115\
the proposal would introduce daily updates for price data for equity
products. This data would be obtained from a reliable industry vendor.
Consequently, the Commission believes that the proposal contained in
the Advance Notice would help ensure that OCC's margin methodology
would utilize a reliable source of timely price data, which would
better reflect current market conditions than the current monthly
updates, and thereby result in more accurate and responsive margin
requirements.\116\ Consequently, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \114\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
    \115\ See Notice, 82 FR at 61356.
    \116\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Payment Supervision Act,\117\ that the Commission does not object to
Advance Notice (SR-OCC-2017-811) and that OCC is authorized to
implement the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11454 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 87454]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0975]

Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine
Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone--San Diego Parade of
Lights

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Parade of Lights
special local regulations on the waters of San Diego Bay, California on
December 11, 2016 and December 18, 2016. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of
the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are
prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 5 p.m.
through 8:30 p.m. on December 11, 2016 and December 18, 2016 for Item 5
in Table 1 of Section 100.1101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
(619) 278-7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Parade of Lights
in San Diego Bay Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 5 of that
section from 5 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on December 11, 2016 and December
18, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. The Coast
Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain
of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities and area for this
event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are
prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this
regulated area, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33
CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the
event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: November 16, 2016.
J.R. Buzzella,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-29110 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79425-79427]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0654; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-17]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of V-53, V-115, V-140, T-215, and T-323, and Revocation
of V-339 in the Vicinity of Hazard, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-53, V-115, and V-140, and Area Navigation (RNAV) T-routes T-
215 and T-323; and removes VOR Federal airway V-339 in the vicinity of
Hazard, KY. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) route modifications are
necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Hazard, KY, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid
(NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the
affected ATS routes. The Hazard VOR is being decommissioned as part of
the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2020-0654 in the Federal Register (85 FR 44801; July 24, 2020),
amending VOR Federal airways V-53, V-115, and V-140, and RNAV T-routes
T-215 and T-323; and removing VOR Federal airway V-339 in the vicinity
of Hazard, KY. The proposed amendment and revocation actions were due
to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Hazard, KY,
VOR/DME. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July
21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this
document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-53, V-115, and V-140, and
RNAV routes T-215 and T-323; and removing VOR Federal airway V-339. The
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME
NAVAID has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes
are outlined below.
    V-53: V-53 extends between the Charleston, SC, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) and the Brickyard, IN, VOR/DME. The airspace within
R-3401B is excluded. The airway segment overlying the Hazard, KY, VOR/
DME between the Holston Mountain, TN, VORTAC and the Lexington, KY,
VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway
remain as charted.
    V-115: V-115 extends between the Crestview, FL, VORTAC and the
Parkersburg, WV, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Hazard, KY,
VOR/DME between the Volunteer, TN, VORTAC and the Charleston, WV,
VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway
remain as charted.
    V-140: V-140 extends between the Panhandle, TX, VORTAC and the
Casanova, VA, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Hazard, KY, VOR/
DME between the London, KY, VOR/DME and the Bluefield, WV, VOR/DME is
removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as
charted.
    V-339: V-339 extends between the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME and the
Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    The RNAV T-route changes are outlined below.
    T-215: T-215 extends between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME and the
GAMKE, IN, waypoint (WP). The route is extended southeastward from the
Lexington, KY, VOR/DME to the Holston Mountain, TN, VORTAC.
Additionally, the type of facility for Lexington, KY, is corrected from
``VORTAC'' to ``VOR/DME'' and the geographic coordinates of each route
point are updated to be expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and
hundredths of a second.
    T-323: T-323 extends between the CROCS, GA, WP and the HIGGI, NC,
WP. The route is extended northward from the HIGGI, NC, WP to the
Hazard, KY, DME. Additionally, the geographic

coordinates of each route point are updated to be expressed in degrees,
minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    All NAVAID radials in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airways V-53, V-115, and V-140, and RNAV routes T-215 and T-323; and
removing VOR Federal airway V-339, due to the planned decommissioning
of the VOR portion of the Hazard, KY, VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and
its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-53 [Amended]

    From Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; Spartanburg, SC; Sugarloaf
Mountain, NC; to Holston Mountain, TN. From Lexington, KY;
Louisville, KY; INT Louisville 333[deg] and Brickyard, IN, 170[deg]
radials; to Brickyard. The airspace within R-3401B is excluded.
* * * * *

V-115 [Amended]

    From Crestview, FL; INT Crestview 001[deg] and Montgomery, AL,
204[deg] radials; Montgomery; INT Montgomery 323[deg] and Vulcan,
AL, 177[deg] radials; Vulcan; Choo Choo, TN; to Volunteer, TN. From
Charleston, WV; to Parkersburg, WV.
* * * * *

V-140 [Amended]

    From Panhandle, TX; Burns Flat, OK; Kingfisher, OK; INT
Kingfisher 072[deg] and Tulsa, OK, 261[deg] radials; Tulsa;
Razorback, AR; Harrison, AR; Walnut Ridge, AR; Dyersburg, TN;
Nashville, TN; Livingston, TN; to London, KY. From Bluefield, WV;
INT Bluefield 071[deg] and Montebello, VA, 250[deg] radials;
Montebello; to Casanova, VA.
* * * * *

V-339 [Removed]

* * * * *

6011. United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-215 Holston Mountain, TN (HMV) to GAMKE, IN [Amended]

Holston Mountain, TN (HMV)                        VORTAC                        (Lat. 36[deg]26'13.40'' N, long. 082[deg]07'46.56'' W)
HILTO, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]41'48.46'' N, long. 082[deg]26'07.44'' W)
FLENR, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]56'44.27'' N, long. 082[deg]43'42.75'' W)
RISTE, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]09'02.92'' N, long. 082[deg]58'24.38'' W)
Hazard, KY (AZQ)                                  DME                           (Lat. 37[deg]23'28.52'' N, long. 083[deg]15'46.83'' W)
HUGEN, KY                                         FIX                           (Lat. 37[deg]31'46.14'' N, long. 083[deg]32'58.54'' W)
Lexington, KY (HYK)                               VOR/DME                       (Lat. 37[deg]57'58.86'' N, long. 084[deg]28'21.06'' W)
GAMKE, IN                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]46'12.99'' N, long. 085[deg]14'35.37'' W)

                                                                      * * * * * * *
T-323 CROCS, GA to Hazard, KY (AZQ) [Amended]

CROCS, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 32[deg]27'17.69'' N, long. 082[deg]46'29.06'' W)
BOBBR, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 33[deg]19'57.07'' N, long. 083[deg]08'19.47'' W)
BIGNN, GA                                         WP                            (Lat. 34[deg]20'34.38'' N, long. 083[deg]33'06.80'' W)
ZPPLN, NC                                         WP                            (Lat. 34[deg]59'47.42'' N, long. 083[deg]49'37.73'' W)
HIGGI, NC                                         WP                            (Lat. 35[deg]26'46.57'' N, long. 083[deg]46'41.05'' W)
KIDBE, TN                                         WP                            (Lat. 35[deg]51'16.23'' N, long. 083[deg]40'19.66'' W)
ZADOT, TN                                         WP                            (Lat. 36[deg]35'32.17'' N, long. 083[deg]28'40.09'' W)
WELLA, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]02'15.68'' N, long. 083[deg]21'31.07'' W)
Hazard, KY (AZQ)                                  DME                           (Lat. 37[deg]23'28.52'' N, long. 083[deg]15'46.83'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3, 2020.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-26920 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P