Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10439 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 

272, do not apply. The rule also does 

not involve special consideration of 

environmental justice related issues as 

required by Executive Order 12898, 59 

FR 7629 (February 16, 1994). In issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630, 53 FR 8859 

(March 15, 1988), by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA’s compliance 

with these statutes and Executive 

Orders for the underlying rule is 

discussed in the December 1, 2009 

Federal Register notice. 74 FR 62995. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefor, and 

established an effective date of March 8, 

2010. The effective date of today’s 

correction is earlier than 30 days after 

publication. EPA finds that the earlier 

effective date clarifies the applicability 

date of the numeric effluent limit and 

associated monitoring requirements for 

sites that disturb 20 or more acres of 

land at one time for all stakeholders. 

Today’s amendment eliminates an 

inconsistency and thus, reduces the 

opportunity for confusion. Any 

additional delay in correcting the error 

would only increase the potential 

confusion. Thus, EPA sets an effective 

date to make the correction immediately 

effective. 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 450 

Environmental protection, 

Construction industry, Land 

development, Erosion, Sediment, 

Stormwater, Water pollution control. 

Dated: March 1, 2010. 

Peter S. Silva, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

■ Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 450 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 450—CONSTRUCTION AND 

DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE 

CATEGORY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 450 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 101, 301, 304, 306, 

308, 401, 402, 501 and 510. 

■ 2. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) of § 450.22 to read as 

follows: 

§ 450.22 Effluent limitations reflecting the 

best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(a) Beginning no later than August 1, 

2011 during construction activity that 

disturbs 20 or more acres of land at one 

time, including non-contiguous land 

disturbances that take place at the same 

time and are part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale; and no 

later than February 2, 2014 during 

construction activity that disturbs ten or 

more acres of land area at one time, 

including non-contiguous land 

disturbances that take place at the same 

time and are part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale, the 

following requirements apply: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–4823 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[ET Docket No. 03–108; FCC 10–12] 

Cognitive Radio Technologies and 

Software Defined Radios 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a 

petition for reconsideration filed by the 

SDR Forum requesting that the 

Commission modify the policy 

statements it made in the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order (MO&O) in this 

proceeding concerning the use of open 

source software to implement security 

features in software defined radios 

(SDRs). While, the Commission 

dismisses this petition on procedural 

grounds, it also provides clarification 

concerning the issues raised therein. 

DATES: Effective April 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Policy and Rules 

Division, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–7506, e-mail: 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 

Docket No. 03–108, adopted January 14, 

2010, and released January 19, 2010. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s Internet 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text of this document 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplication contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th St., SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 

488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion 

and Order 

1. On March 17, 2005, the 

Commission adopted the Cognitive 

Radio Report and Order, 70 FR 23032, 

May 4, 2005, in which the rules were 

modified to reflect ongoing technical 

developments in cognitive and software 

defined radio (SDR) technologies. 

2. On April 20, 2007, the Commission 

adopted a Memorandum Opinion and 

Order (MO&O), 72 FR 31190, June 6, 

2007, which responded to two petitions 

filed in response to the Cognitive Radio 

Report and Order. The Commission, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
10440 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

inter alia, granted a petition for 

clarification filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. 

(‘‘Cisco’’) requesting that the 

Commission clarify: (1) The requirement 

to approve certain devices as software 

defined radios; and (2) its policy on the 

confidentiality of software that controls 

security measures in software defined 

radios. 

3. In responding to the Cisco petition, 

the Commission stated that with regard 

to the use of open source software for 

implementing software defined radio 

security measures: 

‘‘* * * manufacturers should not 

intentionally make the distinctive elements 

that implement that manufacturer’s 

particular security measures in a software 

defined radio public, if doing so would 

increase the risk that these security measures 

could be defeated or otherwise circumvented 

to allow operation of the radio in a manner 

that violates the Commission’s rules. A 

system that is wholly dependent on open 

source elements will have a high burden to 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure to 

warrant authorization as a software defined 

radio.’’ 

4. The SDR Forum filed a petition for 

reconsideration on July 3, 2007, 

requesting that the Commission modify 

the statements. 

5. In its petition, the SDR Forum 

expresses concern that the language in 

the MO&O on the use of open source 

software for implementing SDR security 

measures may inadvertently pose a 

barrier to the development and wide 

implementation of security techniques 

that would ensure compliance with the 

Commission’s rules. SDR recommends 

that these policy statements be 

modified, stating that manufacturers 

should have the discretion to discuss 

their security measures in public so long 

as the intent of the disclosure is not to 

enable circumvention of the 

Commission’s rules. The SDR Forum 

states that the Commission should 

remain neutral on the security of open 

source elements because open source 

approaches are no less secure than 

proprietary techniques. It specifically 

requests that the Commission modify 

the text quoted above by: 

‘‘revising the first sentence to state ‘‘a 

manufacturer may make public its SDR 

security mechanisms so long as the intent is 

not to circumvent compliance with 

Commission rules;’’ and by deleting the 

second sentence.’’ 

6. The Commission is dismissing the 

SDR Forum petition for reconsideration 

on procedural grounds. While the SDR 

Forum filed comments in response to 

the NPRM in this proceeding, it did not 

submit comments in response to the 

Cisco petition for reconsideration that 

raised the issue of using open source 

software to implement software defined 

radio security mechanisms. The Cisco 

petition was addressed in the 

Commission’s MO&O for which the SDR 

Forum now requests reconsideration. A 

petition for reconsideration that relies 

on facts not previously presented to the 

Commission will be granted only if: 

(a) The facts relied on relate to events 

which have occurred or circumstances 

which have changed since the last 

opportunity to present them to the 

Commission; 

(b) The facts relied upon were 

unknown to the petitioner until after his 

last opportunity to present them to the 

Commission, and the petition could not 

through the exercise of due diligence 

have learned of the facts in question 

prior to such opportunity; or 

(c) The Commission determines that 

consideration of the facts relied on is 

required in the public interest. 

The SDR Forum petition does not 

address why it did not respond to the 

Cisco petition or claim that any of these 

three conditions are met in this case. 

Accordingly, the SDR Forum’s petition 

for reconsideration is procedurally 

defective and is hereby dismissed. 

However, the Commission recognizes 

that the issue of open source software in 

software defined radios is of interest to 

the SDR Forum and other parties. 

Accordingly, the Commission is taking 

this opportunity to clarify its policies 

with respect to the use of open source 

software for implementing security 

features in software defined radios. 

7. The Commission’s rules require 

that a software defined radio 

manufacturer take steps to ensure that 

only software that has been approved 

with a software defined radio can be 

loaded into the radio. The software must 

not allow the user to operate the 

transmitter with radio frequency 

parameters other than those that were 

approved by the Commission. The 

Commission’s rules require that the 

manufacturer have reasonable security 

measures to prevent unauthorized 

modifications that would affect the RF 

operating parameters or the 

circumstances under which the 

transmitter operates in accordance with 

Commission rules. Manufacturers may 

select the methods used to meet these 

requirements and must describe them in 

their application for equipment 

authorization. 

8. When a party applies for 

certification of a software defined radio, 

the description of the security methods 

used in the radio is automatically held 

confidential. The Commission does this 

because such information often is 

proprietary and also because revelation 

of the security methods, or portions 

thereof, could possibly assist parties in 

defeating the security features and 

enable operation of the radio outside the 

Commission’s rules. Out of an 

abundance of caution—because 

operation of a radio outside the 

Commission’s rules could result in 

harmful interference to a wide variety of 

radio services, including safety-of-life 

services—the Commission holds the 

entire description of the security 

measures confidential. Therefore, the 

Commission’s staff does not have to 

determine which portions of a software 

defined radio security methods 

description filed with an application 

could be made publicly available 

without risk that such disclosure could 

assist parties in defeating the security 

measures. Further, by automatically 

holding the description confidential, 

applicants for certification do not have 

to specifically request confidentiality for 

the description of a radio’s security 

mechanisms. 

9. Neither the Commission’s rules 

whereby it maintains the confidentiality 

of a software defined radio’s security 

mechanism nor the policy stated in the 

MO&O prohibit radio manufacturers 

and software developers from sharing 

information on the design of security 

methods with other manufacturers and 

developers. Rather, the Commission’s 

policy stated only that manufacturers 

should not make the ‘‘distinctive 

elements’’ of security features publicly 

available, if doing so would increase the 

risk that security measures could be 

defeated or circumvented to allow 

operation of a radio in a manner that 

violates the rules. The Commission’s 

intent was not to prohibit manufacturers 

from collaborating and sharing 

information that could allow them to 

develop more robust security features or 

reduce the cost of implementing them. 

In fact, the Commission would 

encourage such work by industry. The 

Commission’s concern is only with 

disclosure of those particular elements 

of a security scheme when such 

disclosure could facilitate defeating the 

security scheme. Thus, manufacturers 

can make whatever information they 

wish concerning their security methods 

public, provided they can demonstrate 

the implementation has a means of 

controlling access to the distinctive 

elements that could allow parties to 

defeat or circumvent the security 

methods. 

10. The Commission emphasizes that 

it does not prohibit the use of open 

source software in implementing 

software defined radio security features. 

The Commission’s concern with open 

source software is that disclosure of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10441 

certain elements of a security scheme 

could assist parties in defeating the 

scheme. As Cisco stated in its petition, 

licensing agreements may require that 

open source software code be made 

publicly available. This could 

potentially lead to public disclosure of 

this information. For these reasons, the 

Commission stated in the MO&O that a 

system that is wholly dependent on 

open source elements would have a 

high burden to demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently secure to warrant 

authorization as a software defined 

radio. However, the Commission’s 

statements in the MO&O were not 

intended to prohibit the use of open 

source software or discourage its use. 

All applicants seeking to certify a 

software defined radio are held to the 

same standard, i.e., they must 

demonstrate that the radio contains 

security features sufficient to prevent 

unauthorized modifications to the radio 

frequency operating parameter. A party 

applying for certification of a software 

defined radio would need to show that 

public disclosure of the source code 

would not assist parties in defeating the 

security scheme, or that disclosure of 

the distinctive elements of the security 

scheme would not assist parties in 

defeating the security scheme. As the 

SDR Forum notes, security mechanisms 

can rely on a variety of means to control 

access, such as keys, passwords or 

biometric data. 

11. Finally, as software defined radio 

and security technologies continue to 

develop and mature, the Commission 

may address the rules for software 

defined radios, including their security 

requirements, in future proceedings. 

The Commission encourages the SDR 

Forum and other interested parties to 

participate in such proceedings. 

Ordering Clauses 

12. The petition for reconsideration 

filed by the SDR Forum IS hereby 

dismissed. This action is taken pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 

4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 

302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r). 

13. It is further ordered that ET Docket 

No. 03–108 is terminated. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4855 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 09100091344–9056–02] 

RIN 0648–XU89 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for 

Processing by the Offshore 

Component in the Western Regulatory 

Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by vessels 

catching Pacific cod for processing by 

the offshore component in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the A season 

allocation of the 2010 total allowable 

catch (TAC) of Pacific cod apportioned 

to vessels catching Pacific cod for 

processing by the offshore component of 

the Western Regulatory Area of the 

GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), March 3, 2010, through 

1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

The A season allocation of the 2010 

TAC of Pacific cod apportioned to 

vessels catching Pacific cod for 

processing by the offshore component of 

the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA 

is 1,246 metric tons (mt) as established 

by the final 2009 and 2010 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(74 FR 7333, February 17, 2010) and 

inseason adjustment (74 FR 68713, 

December 29, 2009). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Regional Administrator has 

determined that the A season allocation 

of the 2010 TAC of Pacific cod 

apportioned to vessels catching Pacific 

cod for processing by the offshore 

component of the Western Regulatory 

Area of the GOA will soon be reached. 

Therefore, the Regional Administrator is 

establishing a directed fishing 

allowance of 1,096 mt, and is setting 

aside the remaining 150 mt as bycatch 

to support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by 

vessels catching Pacific cod for 

processing by the offshore component in 

the Western Regulatory Area of the 

GOA. 

After the effective date of this closure 

the maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the closure of Pacific cod 

apportioned to vessels catching Pacific 

cod for processing by the offshore 

component of the Western Regulatory 

Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to 

publish a notice providing time for 

public comment because the most 

recent, relevant data only became 

available as of March 2, 2010. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4857 Filed 3–3–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES