Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Notices 72493 

2011); 65428 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61453 

(October 4, 2011); 65429 (September 28, 2011), 76 

FR 61432 (October 4, 2011); 65433 (September 28, 

2011), 76 FR 61453 (October 4, 2011); 65438 

(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61447 (October 4, 

2011); 65426 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61460 

(October 4, 2011); 65431 (September 28, 2011), 76 

FR 61425 (May 12, 2011); 65440 (September 28, 

2011), 76 FR 61444 (October 4, 2011); 65430 

(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61429 (October 4, 

2011); 65425 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61438 

(October 4, 2011); 65435 (May 6, 2011), 76 FR 

61416 (October 4, 2011); 65436 (September 28, 

2011), 76 FR 61450 (October 4, 2011); 65427 

(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61457 (October 4, 

2011); 65432 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61422 

(October 4, 2011); 65439 (September 28, 2011), 76 

FR 61463 (October 4, 2011); 65434 (September 28, 

2011), 76 FR 61419 (October 4, 2011). 

5See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Commission, from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director 

and Associate General Counsel, the Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated 

October 27, 2011; Letter to Commission, from James 

J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, Associate Professor of 

Finance, Georgetown University, McDonough 

School of Business, dated October 25, 2011; Letter 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, 

from Craig S. Donohue, CME Group, Inc., dated 

October 25, 2011; Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, from Commissioner Bart 

Chilton, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

dated October 25, 2011; Letter to Elizabeth M. 

Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Richard H. 

Baker, President and CEO, Managed Funds 

Association, dated October 25, 2011; Letter from 

Suzanne H. Shatto, dated October 20, 2011; Letter 

from Mark Roszak, dated October 4, 2011. 

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). 

Commission received seven comment 

letters on these proposals.5

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides 

that within 45 days of the publication of 

notice of the filing of a proposed rule 

change, or within such longer period up 

to 90 days as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or as to which the 

self-regulatory organization consents, 

the Commission shall either approve the 

proposed rule change, disapprove the 

proposed rule change, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether these 

proposed rule changes should be 

disapproved. The 45th day from the 

publication of notice of filing of these 

proposed rule changes is November 18, 

2011. The Commission is extending this 

45-day time period. 

The Commission finds it appropriate 

to designate a longer period within 

which to take action on these proposed 

rule changes so that it has sufficient 

time to consider these proposed rule 

changes, which would revise the rules 

relating to trading halts due to 

extraordinary market volatility, and to 

consider the comment letters that have 

been submitted in connection with 

them. 

Accordingly, the Commission, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7

designates December 30, 2011, as the 

date by which the Commission should 

either approve or disapprove or institute 

proceedings to determine whether to 

disapprove these proposed rule changes. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.8

Kevin O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30193 Filed 11–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

ITS Joint Program Office Webinar on 

Alternative Organizational Structures 

for a Certificate Management Entity; 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent 

Transportation System Joint Program 

Office (ITS JPO) will host a free public 

webinar on December 9, 2011 from 

1:00–3 p.m. (EST) to seek input on a set 

of high-level, alternative organizational 

structures for a certificate management 

entity (CME) to support a trusted and 

secure connected vehicle environment. 

Persons planning to attend the 

webinar should register by December 5, 

2011 using the following link: http:// 

www.itsa.org/policywebinarregistration. 

For additional questions, please contact 

Adam Hopps at (202) 680–0091. 

The ITS JPO will present results from 

an early analysis of organizational 

models. This analysis will describe the 

functions that need to be performed by 

a CME; identify key constraints as well 

as institutional and policy requirements; 

model how those functions may be 

organized; and present a high level 

assessment of these organizational 

models against a set of evaluation 

criteria. Draft documentation of the 

analysis will be posted for comment at 

the following location on or before 

December 9, 2011 at: http:// 

www.its.dot.gov. Stakeholders are asked 

to submit comments to: 

ITSCME@dot.gov by 8 p.m. (EST) on 

December 14, 2011. Written comments 

may be submitted to: ITS JPO, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE (E33–316) Washington, 

DC 20590. This is not an official docket. 

Stakeholders will have additional 

opportunities to provide input in to this 

project at later stages, including via a 

public meeting planned for March 2012. 

Background 

Through 2014, the primary focus of 

the ITS JPO is a research initiative 

focused on developing rapid and secure 

wireless communications and trusted 

data exchanges among vehicles, 

roadside infrastructure, and passengers’ 

personal communications devices. This 

innovative use of wireless 

communications provides the 

foundation for a connected environment 

for transportation that is intended to 

enable a multitude of applications to 

enhance surface transportation safety, 

mobility, and environmental 

performance. 

In the end state, users need to have 

assurance that the system offers trusted 

and secure communications. That is the 

fundamental purpose of the Certificate 

Management System (or CME): To 

ensure that participants and their 

vehicles receive digital certificates that 

allow them to be trusted actors within 

the system and to access meaningful 

and trusted data that is generated by 

others. If trust in the communications 

breaks down, then trust in the overall 

connected environment erodes and 

users become reluctant to use it or rely 

on it. Trust can be violated in several 

ways: 

• Security of communications: If 

communications are not considered 

secure, users will be less likely to trust 

the data that is generated by or 

accessible through the system. 

• Private data is compromised: If 

technical and policy solutions are not in 

place to protect private data or users 

perceive that their private data could be 

made available to unauthorized third 

parties without their awareness and 

consent, they will not participate. 

• Corrupt or inaccurate data: If the 

data can be altered or corrupted through 

malicious misbehavior by hackers, it 

may cause more safety problems than 

fixes. 

The current study aims to analyze 

alternative operational models that 

describe potential organizational 

designs, institutional capabilities, and 

policies of a Certificate Management 

System. It also assesses the needs for 

operation, maintenance, and system 

enhancements over time. (This study is 

an institutional analysis only, not a 

technical analysis, and it is not intended 

to develop a system design.) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on the 16th day 

of November 2011. 

John Augustine, 

Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30216 Filed 11–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES