[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76640-76642]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90481; File No. SR-DTC-2020-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the ClaimConnectTM
Service and Update the Settlement Service Guide

November 23, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On October 8, 2020, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule change SR-DTC-2020-012.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 21, 2020.\3\ The Commission did not receive any
comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90203 (October 15,
2020), 85 FR 67018 (October 21, 2020) (SR-DTC-2020-012)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change \4\ will (i) adopt a new DTC service guide
to establish the ClaimConnect service at DTC (``ClaimConnect Service
Guide''), and (ii) update the existing DTC Settlement Service Guide \5\
(``Settlement Guide'') to (A) make conforming changes to the Settlement
Guide to reflect the ClaimConnect service, and (B) update certain
address and contact information in the Copyright section of the
Settlement Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (``Rules'')
available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/dtc_rules.pdf, or in the hereby proposed ClaimConnect Service
Guide, included as Exhibit 5 to this proposed rule change filing.
    \5\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Settlement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    DTC is the central securities depository (``CSD'') for
substantially all corporate and municipal debt and equity securities
available for trading in the United States. As a covered clearing
agency that provides CSD services,\6\ DTC provides a central location
in which securities may be immobilized, and interests in those
securities are reflected in accounts maintained for its Participants,
which are financial institutions such as brokers or banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A covered clearing agency is defined as a registered
clearing agency that provides the services of a central counterparty
(``CCP'') or CSD. See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5). CSD services means
services of a clearing agency that is a securities depository as
described in Section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Exchange Act. See 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(a)(3). Specifically, the definition of a clearing agency
includes, in part, ``any person, such as a securities depository
that (i) acts as a custodian of securities in connection with a
system for the central handling of securities whereby all securities
of a particular class or series of any issuer deposited within the
system are treated as fungible and may be transferred, loaned, or
pledged by bookkeeping entry without physical delivery of securities
certificates, or (ii) otherwise permits or facilitates the
settlement of securities transactions or the hypothecation or
lending of securities without physical delivery of securities
certificates.'' 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC's CSD services include cash claims or cash claim transactions,
which are cash entitlements (i.e., a request for cash) from one
Participant to another Participant. Currently, cash claims arise as a
result of trading exceptions from a Corporate Action event,\7\ where a
cash entitlement needs to be delivered from one holder to another.
Today, such claims are settled away from DTC, except for some stock
loan and repurchase (``repo'') substitution payments, which can be
settled via DTC's Adjustment Payment Orders (``APOs''). DTC stated that
it developed the ClaimConnect service so Participants can settle cash
claims in one centralized location, using the DTC system.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Trading exceptions include, but are not limited to, trades
outside of the markets' agreed upon settlement cycle, lack of due
bill fail tracking, stock loan or repo transaction discrepancy, or
tax treaty differences. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 67019.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 67019. Based on
discussions with its Participants, DTC estimates that ClaimConnect
may process approximately 212,000 claims its first year, increasing
to approximately 425,000 claims by its fifth year. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed ClaimConnect Service

    The proposed ClaimConnect service will be an optional service
available to all DTC Participants.\9\ The service will enable DTC
Participants to bilaterally match and settle cash claim transactions at
DTC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DTC stated that a fee associated with Participants' use of
the ClaimConnect service will be the subject of a separate,
subsequent rule filing with the Commission. See Notice, supra note
3, 85 FR at 67019.
    \10\ To join ClaimConnect, a Participant needs to request to be
a ``Claim Participant,'' and DTC will then indicate that the
Participant is now a member of the service (i.e., a User). See
Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 67019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ClaimConnect will be a validation and matching engine that
continually

monitors claims throughout their lifecycle in order to settle and close
claims through DTC's settlement process. This continuous processing
will allow for both the manual matching of claims (i.e., Affirmation)
by ClaimConnect users (``Users'') and the systematic matching of two
like claims by ClaimConnect based on the alignment of certain data
elements (i.e., Auto-matching).
    ClaimConnect will offer various claim processing functions,
including end-of-day settlement of cash claims through systematic
Securities Payment Orders (``SPOs'') generated and submitted by
ClaimConnect at set times intraday (``settlement time'') on a
settlement date. If overpaid or underpaid a cash entitlement due to a
trading exception, a User will be able to create a claim against a
claim counterparty through ClaimConnect. To create a claim, the
ClaimConnect system will require the inclusion of certain data
elements, while other data elements will be optional.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Once submitted, claims can exist in several different
``states'' depending upon the actions taken by the parties to the
claim. The applicable rules will describe the different states that
a claim could take. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 67019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Validation, the process of confirming claim data elements, will
happen in two ways, as described below: (i) When a claim is Affirmed,
as described below, or (ii) when ClaimConnect Auto-matches two claims.
Users can also modify or Cancel claims. However, not all data elements
can be modified after submission.
    First, if a counterparty receives a claim and agrees with its
details (i.e., the data elements), then the counterparty could Affirm
the claim. Affirming a claim will be a confirmation of the claim's data
elements and would move the claim into a Matched state. Affirmation
will usually occur only when one side of a claim is submitted because
it affords the counterparty enough time to Affirm the claim. Once
Affirmed, the claim will be settled on the date the parties agree to.
Second, if both parties to a claim submit their respective sides to the
claim (i.e., a debit claim and a credit claim), the two sides of the
claim are Auto-matched.
    The SPO will credit the payee Participant and debit the payor
Participant the claim amount and will then be incorporated into DTC's
end-of-day settlement process. ClaimConnect SPOs will be subject to
DTC's Risk Controls (i.e., Collateral Monitor and Net Debit Cap) and
will ``recycle'' (i.e., pend) if the SPO cannot satisfy those controls.
    To assist Users with the management of their claims, ClaimConnect
will offer an Approval feature. The Approval feature will require
certain actions on a claim to be approved by a separate User employee,
if the claim amount meets or exceeds a predetermined dollar threshold
set by the User, before that action can be completed. This feature is
designed to enable Users to better monitor and manage certain cash
debits that are leaving their account to satisfy claims. Users can
activate the Approval feature by updating their ClaimConnect client
profile. When doing so, the User must then set the dollar threshold
that will trigger the Approval process.

C. Updates to the DTC Settlement Guide

    DTC has an existing DTC Settlement Guide, which describes its
existing services related to settlement. DTC will update the existing
Settlement Guide to (A) make conforming changes to the Settlement Guide
to reflect the establishment of the ClaimConnect service (specifically,
to clarify that the RAD process would not apply to cash claims as they
would go through ClaimConnect), and (B) update certain address and
contact information in the Copyright section of the Settlement Guide.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \12\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. After carefully considering the proposed rule
change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to DTC. In particular, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\13\ for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency, such as DTC, be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\14\ The Commission
believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, DTC proposes to introduce a new ClaimConnect service. As
noted above, the ClaimConnect service will be an optional service, and
DTC stated that it developed the service based on discussions with
Participants. ClaimConnect would enable Participants to bilaterally
match and settle cash claim transactions at DTC. While settlement of
cash claims occurs today, it does so away from DTC, in a dispersed
fashion. ClaimConnect would establish a centralized and coordinated
location for Participants to settle such claims. By offering a
centralized and coordinated location for Participants to settle cash
claims, with various functionality available, the Commission believes
that the ClaimConnect service is designed to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
    Second, DTC will update the existing Settlement Guide to (A) make
conforming changes to the Settlement Guide to reflect the ClaimConnect
service, and (B) update certain address and contact information in the
Copyright section of the Settlement Guide. By making conforming changes
and updating the Settlement Guide with more current information about
where Participants and others may direct inquiries about the DTC
service guides, the Settlement Guide will provide the most up-to-date
information and should help Participants to submit questions or
comments about the service guides. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the updates to the Settlement Guide are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\16\ and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\17\ that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2020-012, be, and hereby is,
approved.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26282 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45915-45917]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21001]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81722; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of Certain
Amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 Approved Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036

September 26, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 19, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to delay, until June 25, 2018, the
implementation date of the amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin
Requirements) pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036, other than the amendments
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 that were implemented on December 15,
2016. The proposed rule change would not make any changes to FINRA
rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On October 6, 2015, FINRA filed with the Commission proposed rule
change SR-FINRA-2015-036, which proposed to amend FINRA Rule 4210 to
establish margin requirements for (1) To Be Announced (``TBA'')
transactions, inclusive of adjustable rate mortgage (``ARM'')
transactions; (2) Specified Pool Transactions; and (3) transactions in
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (``CMOs''), issued in conformity
with a program of an agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprise
(``GSE''), with forward settlement dates, as defined more fully in the
filing (collectively, ``Covered Agency Transactions''). The Commission
approved SR-FINRA-2015-036 on June 15, 2016 (the ``Approval Date'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78081 (June 15,
2016), 81 FR 40364 (June 21, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule
Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) to Establish
Margin Requirements for the TBA Market, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1, 2, and 3; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposed in Amendment No. 3 to SR-FINRA-2015-036 to implement
the rule change 18 months from the Approval Date, except that the risk
limit determination requirements as set forth in paragraphs (e)(2)(F),
(e)(2)(G) and (e)(2)(H) of Rule 4210 and in new Supplementary Material
.05, each as respectively amended or established by SR-FINRA-2015-036
(collectively, the ``risk limit determination requirements''), would be
implemented six months from the Approval Date.\5\ As FINRA announced in
Regulatory Notice 16-31 (the ``Notice''), the amendments relating to
the risk limit determination requirements became effective on December
15, 2016.\6\ FINRA announced in the Notice that December 15, 2017 would
be the effective date for all other amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-

2015-036 (the ``December 15, 2017 implementation date'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Partial Amendment No. 3 to SR-FINRA-2015-036, available
at: www.finra.org; see also Regulatory Notice 16-31 (August 2016)
(announcing December 15, 2016 as the effective date for the
amendments relating to the risk limit determination requirements
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 and announcing December 15, 2017 as
the effective date for all other amendments pursuant to the rule
change).
    \6\ See Regulatory Notice 16-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has received questions regarding implementation of the
requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-036. In response, FINRA has engaged in
extensive discussions with industry participants and other regulators,
including staff of the SEC, and has made available a set of Frequently
Asked Questions & Guidance to facilitate members' efforts to comply
with the rule change.\7\ In addition, industry participants have
requested additional time to make systems changes necessary to comply
with the requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-036, including time to test the
systems changes, and have requested time to update or amend margining
agreements and related documentation. Given the systems changes
necessary, and industry participants' request for additional time to
update or amend margining agreements and related documentation, FINRA
believes it is appropriate to extend the December 15, 2017
implementation date to June 25, 2018. FINRA notes that the risk limit
determination requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 became
effective on December 15, 2016 and, as such, the implementation of such
requirements is not affected by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at: www.finra.org/industry/guidance. Further,
staff of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets have made
available a set of Frequently Asked Questions regarding Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1 and Rule 15c3-3 in connection with Covered Agency
Transactions under FINRA Rule 4210, also available at:
www.finra.org/industry/guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the
requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing. The operative date will be the date
of filing of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change provides
industry participants additional time to complete the systems changes
necessary to comply with SR-FINRA-2015-036, and provides them
additional time to update or amend margining agreements and related
documentation. FINRA believes that providing such additional time is
consistent with the Act in that it thereby facilitates implementation
of SR-FINRA-2015-036, which, by establishing margin requirements for
Covered Agency Transactions, will help among other things to reduce the
risk of loss due to counterparty failure in one of the largest fixed
income markets and thereby help protect investors and the public
interest by ensuring orderly and stable markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that providing
additional time for industry participants to make and test the systems
changes necessary to comply with SR-FINRA-2015-036, and providing
additional time to update or amend margining agreements and related
documentation, will benefit all interested parties.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires FINRA to give the Commission written notice of FINRA's
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. FINRA
has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative upon filing. FINRA has stated that the purpose of the
proposed rule change is to provide industry participants additional
time to make systems changes necessary to comply with the requirements
of SR-FINRA-2015-036, including time to test the systems changes, and
time to update or amend margining agreements and related documentation.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and
will help to facilitate the implementation of the margin requirements
for Covered Agency Transactions. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2017-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-029. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-FINRA-2017-029 and should be submitted on or before October 23,
2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21001 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53361]
[DOCID:fr31au10-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
September 2, 2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 2, 2010 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21798 Filed 8-27-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


OPP, 2003 1 Derivation of " Equivalent" Reference Concentrations for Azinphos Methyl, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon and Naled Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.

October 20, 2003 OPP, 2003 2 AZINPHOS METHYL Principal Study: Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rat Kimmerle, G. ( 1976): Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study of Azinphos methyl in Rats. Arch. Toxicol. 35: 83 89. MRID. No. 00155011.

In a subchronic inhalation toxicity study, male and female Wistar rats were exposed to azinphos methyl aerosol at concentrations of 0.195, 1.24, or 4.72 mg/ m3 , 6 hr/ day, 5 days/ week for 90 days. Plasma and RBC cholinesterase activity was determined after 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment. Plasma and red blood cell cholinesterase inhibition ( 30 40%) was observed in both sexes at a concentration of 4.72 mg/ m3. The NOAEL was 1.24 mg/ m3, and the LOAEL was 4.72 mg/ m3.

Critical Effect Experimental Concentration UF Equivalent RfC Plasma and RBC NOAEL = 1.24 mg/ m3 100 0.0022 mg/ m3 ChE inhibition in LOAEL = 4.72 mg/ m3 ( See below) both sexes Uncertainty Factor UF = 100; The uncertainty factor of 100 includes the 10X for intra species extrapolation and 10X for inter species variation.

Confidence in the Data Although the study is only 90 days in duration, rather than a chronic exposure, there is high confidence in the quality of the data derived. The principal toxicological effect of concern ( i. e., cholinesterase inhibition) observed via inhalation exposure in this study is similar to that observed in oral studies.

Calculation of Equivalent RfC Although an RfC was not specifically established by OPP, a dose, endpoint and uncertainty factor were selected for use in risk assessment [ using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE)], due to concern for exposure via the inhalation route. However, for this exercise, an equivalent RfC is calculated, using the NOAEL ( adjusted for duration of experimental regimen) and the uncertainty factors.

NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = E ( mg/ m3) x D ( h/ 24 h) x W ( days/ 7 days)

1.24 mg/ m3 x 6hr/ 24hr x 5days/ 7days = 0.22 mg/ m3 OPP, 2003 3 Equivalent RfC = NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = 0.0022 mg/ m3 100 ( UF)

Where: NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = Adjusted for duration of experimental regimen. E = Experimental NOAEL D = Number of hours exposed/ 24 hr; and W = Number of days of exposure/ 7 days. OPP, 2003 4 CHLORPYRIFOS Principal Studies: Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rat Newton, P. E., 1988. A Thirteen Week Nose Only Study of Chlorpyrifos Technical ( Pyrinex) in the Rat. Bio/ dynamics, Inc, East Millstone, New Jersey Study No. 88 8058. November 14, 1988. Unpublished. MRID Nos. 40908401; 40908401.

In a subchronic nose only inhalation study, Fischer 344 rats ( 10/ sex/ concentration) were exposed nose only to Chlorpyrifos ( 95% a. i.) at vapor concentrations of 0, 0.072, 0.143 or 0.287 mg/ m3, 6 hours/ day, 5 days/ week for13 weeks. The study author stated that the saturation or near saturation level was 0.287 mg/ m3. There were no treatment related effects on mortality, body weight, clinical signs, ophthalmoscopy, hematology, gross pathology or histopathology. In females, food consumption was slightly depressed throughout the study in all dose groups without correlation to the dose level, although this observation was not considered of toxicological significance due to only slight decreases in corresponding body weights. There were some sporadic differences in clinical chemistry parameters, although these were not considered treatment related due to a lack of dose response and inconsistency between interim and terminal values. Sporadic differences in organ weights also were not considered treatment related and appeared to be attributed to the increase mean body weights.

Significant plasma cholinesterase ( ChE) inhibition was observed in the high dose males ( 23%) and females ( 25%) at the terminal sacrifice. Significant plasma ChE inhibition was also noted in females of 0.072 and 0.143 mg/ m3 the ( 26 and 40%, respectively), although a dose response relationship was not apparent. Interim ( 8 week) measurements were similar or slightly greater than controls. Red blood cell ( RBC) ( interim and terminal) and brain ( terminal) ChE activities were not significantly inhibited at any dose level. The plasma ChE inhibition was not considered of toxicological significance because of the minimal inhibition ( 23 25%) at the high dose, lack of dose response, and an absence of inhibition in the 8 week interval. The NOAEL for systemic effects and plasma cholinesterase inhibition was 0.287 mg/ m3 ( highest concentration tested); a LOAEL was not established.

Critical Effect Experimental Concentration UF Equivalent RfC Lack of ChE NOAEL = 0.287 mg/ m3 100 0.0005 mg/ m3 ( Occupational) ChE inhibition in LOAEL = Not established both sexes 1000 0.00005 mg/ m3 ( Residential) ( See below) OPP, 2003 5 Uncertainty Factor UF = 100 for occupational exposure; The uncertainty factor of 100 includes the10X for intraspecies extrapolation and 10X for inter species variation.

UF = 1000 for residential exposure; The uncertainty factor of 1000 includes the 10X for intraspecies extrapolation and 10X for inter species variation and an additional 10X FQPA Safety Factor for protection of infants and children from residential uses ( non occupational) of chlorpyrifos. OPP, 2003 6 DIAZINON Principal Study: Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rat In a 21 day inhalation study, Sprague Dawley rats ( 15/ sex/ concentration) were exposed to 0, 0.1, 1, 10 and 100 mg/ m3 of Diazinon ( 87% purity) for 6 hour/ day for a total of 21 or 22 consecutive days. No systemic toxicity was seen at any concentration. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is > 100 mg/ m3, the LOAEL is not established. The following table illustrates the plasma, RBC and brain cholinesterase inhibition data.

Concentration Plasma ChE Males Females RBC AChE Males Females Brain AChE Males Females 0.1 mg/ m3 30%*

56%*

18%*

NOAEL 4%

ns NOAEL 4%

ns NOAEL 6%

ns 1.0 mg/ m3 50%*

71%*

53%*

LOAEL 45%*

LOAEL 13%*

LOAEL 15%*

10 mg/ m3 60%*

76%*

75%*

75%*

37%*

44%*

100 mg/ m3 80%*

88%*

91%*

93%*

62%*

80%*

* Statistically significant p < 0.05. ns = not statistically significant.

There is statistically significant inhibition for plasma ChE in both sexes and for RBC AChE for males at the lowest dose of 0.1 mg/ m3. The LOAEL for plasma ChE in both sexes and for RBC ChE in males is < 0.1 mg/ m3; a NOAEL was not established.

Critical Effect Experimental Concentration UF Equivalent RfC Plasma and RBC NOAEL = Not established 300 0. 00006 mg/ m3 ChE inhibition in LOAEL = 0.1 mg/ m3 ( See below) both sexes.

Uncertainty Factor UF = 300; The uncertainty factor of 300 includes the 10X for intra species extrapolation, 10X for inter species variation and an additional 3X for the use of a LOAEL ( i. e., lack of NOAEL in the critical study).

Confidence in the Data OPP, 2003 7 Although it is only 22 days in duration, rather than a chronic exposure, there is high confidence in the quality of the data derived. The principal toxicological effect of concern ( i. e., cholinesterase inhibition) was measured in this study which was also the effect of concern in oral studies. Since a NOAEL was not established, an additional 3x uncertainty factor is applied. Calculation of Equivalent RfC Although an RfC was not specifically established by OPP, a dose, endpoint and uncertainty factor were selected for use in risk assessments [ using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE)] due to concern for exposure via the inhalation route. However, for this exercise, an equivalent RfC is calculated. using the LOAEL ( adjusted for duration of experimental regimen) and the uncertainty factors.

LOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = E ( mg/ m3) x D ( h/ 24 h) x W ( days/ 7 days)

0.1 mg/ m3 x 6hr/ 24hr x 5days/ 7days = 0. 018 mg/ m3 Equivalent RfC = LOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = 0. 00006 mg/ m3 300 ( UF)

Where: LOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = Adjusted for duration of experimental regimen. E = Experimental LOAEL D = Number of hours/ exposed/ 24 hr; and W = Number of days of exposure/ 7 days. OPP, 2003 8 NALED Principal Study: Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rat Griffis, L. Thirteen week Aerosol Inhalation Toxicology study of Chevron Naled Technical ( SX 1655) in Rats: Project ID: SOCAL 2400: SX 1665. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Environmental Health Center. MRID No. 00164224; 00265678; 00265680 In a subchronic inhalation toxicity study, male and female Fischer 344 rats were exposed ( whole body) to filtered air ( control group) or aerosols containing 0, 0.23, 1.29 or 5.8 mg/ m3 of naled for 6 hours/ day, 5 days/ weeks for 13 weeks. Additional control and high dose groups were allowed to recover for 6 weeks. Exposure to the highest concentration of 5.8 mg/ m3 resulted in clinical signs of toxicity manifest as tremors, salivation, nasal discharge, abnormal respiration, and anogenital staining. The clinical signs were consistent with cholinergic effects and the observed inhibition of cholinesterase activity. Brain cholinesterase was inhibited at 5.8 mg/ m3 . Plasma and RBC cholinesterases were inhibited at 1.29 and 5.8 mg/ m3. Only plasma cholinesterase continued to be inhibited six weeks after exposure to the high concentration. No other treatment related effects were observed. The NOAEL was 0.23 mg/ m3 and the LOAEL was 1.29 mg/ m3 based on depression of plasma and RBC cholinesterase activities.

Critical Effect Experimental Concentration UF Equivalent RfC Plasma and RBC NOAEL = 0.23 mg/ m3 100 0.0004 mg/ m3 ChE inhibition. LOAEL = 1.29 mg/ m3 ( See below)

Uncertainty Factor UF = 100; The uncertainty factor of 100 includes the 10X for intra species extrapolation and 10X for inter species variation.

Confidence in the Data Although the study is only 90 days in duration, rather than a chronic exposure, there is high confidence in the quality of the data derived. Plasma and RBC cholinesterase were inhibited as early as day 15 of the study. The results of the 90 day study are supported by a 21 day inhalation study where a concentration of 3.4 mg/ m3 caused plasma and RBC cholinesterase inhibition by day 5 of treatment and decreases in food consumption and body weight on day 7 ( MRID 40087201).

Calculation of Equivalent RfC Although an RfC was not specifically established by OPP, a dose, endpoint and uncertainty factor OPP, 2003 9 were selected for use in risk assessment [ using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE)], due to concern for exposure via the inhalation route. However, for this exercise, an equivalent RfC is calculated using the NOAEL ( adjusted for duration of experimental regimen) and the uncertainty factors. NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = E ( mg/ m3) x D ( h/ 24 h) x W ( days/ 7 days)

0.23 mg/ m3 x 6hr/ 24hr x 5days/ 7days = 0.04 mg/ m3 Equivalent RfC = NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = 0.0004 mg/ m3 100 ( UF) Where: NOAEL [ ADJ] ( mg/ m3) = Adjusted for duration of experimental regimen. E = Experimental NOAEL D = Number of hours exposed/ 24 hr; and W = Number of days of exposure/ 7 days.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6596-6597]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1663]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1663, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been

engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    February 23, 2017.
    Dated: December 21, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Upper Saline Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Saline County, Arkansas and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Alexander......................  Municipal Complex, 15605
                                          Alexander Road, Alexander, AR
                                          72002.
City of Benton.........................  Municipal Complex, 114 South
                                          East Street, Benton, AR 72015.
City of Bryant.........................  Public Safety Building, 312
                                          Roya Lane, Bryant, AR 72022.
City of Haskell........................  City Hall, 2520 Highway 229,
                                          Haskell, AR 72015.
City of Shannon Hills..................  City Hall, 10401 High Road
                                          East, Shannon Hills, AR 72103.
City of Traskwood......................  Community Center, 212 Main
                                          Street, Traskwood, AR 72167.
Town of Bauxite........................  City Hall, 6055 Stanley Circle,
                                          Bauxite, AR 72011.
Unincorporated Areas of Saline County..  Saline County Complex, 215
                                          North Main Street, Suite 7,
                                          Benton, AR 72015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Lower Sabine Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vernon Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Leesville......................  City Hall, 101 West Lee Street,
                                          Leesville, LA 71446.
Town of Hornbeck.......................  Town Hall, 939 Hammond Street,
                                          Hornbeck, LA 71439.
Town of New Llano......................  City Hall, 109 Stanton Street,
                                          New Llano, LA 71461.
Unincorporated Areas of Vernon Parish..  Vernon Parish Public Works
                                          Department, 602 Alexandria
                                          Highway, Leesville, LA 71446.
Village of Anacoco.....................  Village Hall, 4973 Main Street,
                                          Anacoco, LA 71403.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-01100 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 60 (Friday, March 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17301-17303]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06273]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0132; FRL-10007-10-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; Connecticut;
Determination of Clean Data for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the
Greater Connecticut Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Greater Connecticut Serious 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, based on certified 2016-2018 ozone
data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data
for 2019 that are available in the EPA Air Quality System, but not yet
certified, do not conflict with the conclusion that this area attains
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If this proposed determination is made
final, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment
demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended
for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0132 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Townsend, Air Quality
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1614, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Analysis of Air Quality Data
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to establish a new 8-hour standard of 0.075
parts per million (ppm). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30087), EPA established
initial classifications for designated nonattainment areas under the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified Greater Connecticut (an area
containing Hartford County, Litchfield County, New London County,
Tolland County, and Windham County) as a Marginal nonattainment area.
This designation was based on certified air quality monitoring data
from calendar years 2008-2010.
    On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), EPA published the final notice in the
Federal Register stating that Greater Connecticut failed to attain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of July 20, 2015 and
changed the classification for Greater Connecticut to the next higher
classification of Moderate under the CAA statutory scheme.
    On August 23, 2019 (84 FR 44238), Greater Connecticut was
reclassified from a Moderate to Serious ozone nonattainment area. This
designation was based on certified 2015-2017 ozone data that showed the
Greater Connecticut area failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by the attainment date of July 20, 2018. More recent air quality data
indicates that the Greater Connecticut area is now attaining the 2008
8-hour ozone standard.

II. Analysis of Air Quality Data

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone,
consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for the Greater
Connecticut ozone nonattainment area from 2016 through the present
time. On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that this area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone standard at the end of the 2018 ozone
season, based on certified 2016-2018 ozone data. In addition, quality
controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2019 that are available
in AQS, but not yet certified, do not conflict with the conclusion that
this area attains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations, the 2008 8-hour ozone standard is attained
when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or
equal to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (See 73 FR 16436). This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When calculating the design
value, digits to the right of the third decimal place are truncated
(See 73 FR 16436). When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075
ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is meeting the
NAAQS. Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%,
and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in
Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.

    Table 1 shows the fourth-highest maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area monitors
for the years 2016-2019. Table 2 shows the ozone design values for
these same monitors based on the following 3-year periods: 2016-2018
and 2017-2019.

  Table 1--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations (parts per million, ppm) in the Greater Connecticut
                                                      Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                AQS site ID        2016            2017            2018            2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abington........................        90159991           0.074           0.075           0.072           0.066
Cornwall........................        90050005           0.078           0.067           0.071           0.062
East Hartford...................        90031003           0.075           0.070           0.067           0.072
Groton..........................        90110008           0.075           0.078           0.074           0.075
Stafford........................        90131001           0.072            0.07           0.071           0.073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 2--Ozone Design Values (ppm) for the Greater Connecticut Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017-2019
                            Location                                AQS site ID      2016-2018     (preliminary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abington........................................................        90159991           0.071           0.071
Cornwall........................................................        90050005           0.070           0.066
East Hartford...................................................        90031003           0.069           0.069
Groton..........................................................        90110008           0.075           0.075
Stafford........................................................        90131001           0.071           0.071
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicate that the Greater Connecticut
ozone nonattainment area has met and continues to meet the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greater Connecticut Serious
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the
ozone NAAQS based on 2016-2018 data. In addition, quality controlled
and quality assured ozone data for 2019 that are available in the EPA
AQS database, but not yet certified, do not conflict with the
conclusion that this area attains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA finalizes this determination, it
would suspend the requirements for Connecticut to submit an attainment
demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, and contingency
measures under CAA section 172(c)(9), and any other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision related to attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for this area, for so long as the area continues to
attain the standard. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 19, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-06273 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2460]
[DOCID:fr15ja09-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0357; FRL-8761-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Approval of the Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard for El Paso County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision consists of a maintenance plan
for El Paso County developed to ensure continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 10 years
after the effective designation date of June 15, 2004. The Maintenance
Plan meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) of the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA's rules, and is consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 17,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located
in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, for
detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to take action on SIP revisions pertaining
to the El Paso area. We have published a direct final rule approving
the State's SIP revisions in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action
and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based upon this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Dated: December 31, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-707 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16507-16509]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06500]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0831; Project Identifier 2019-CE-031-AD; Amendment
39-21471; AD 2021-06-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GV airplanes. This
AD was prompted by notification of corrosion present in floor beam
support links. This AD requires inspecting the right butt line 6 floor
beam inboard support links and bushings for corrosion. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 4, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept.,
P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(912) 965-3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://www.gulfstream.com/en/customer-support/. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0831.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0831; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Wissing, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Gulfstream Model GV
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 10,
2020 (85 FR 79443). The NPRM was prompted by notification of a failed
floor beam support link at right butt line (RBL) 6 on a Gulfstream
Model GV airplane, resulting from seizure of the retaining sleeve and
bushing at the lower attachment point due to undetected corrosion.
    The floor beam support links at RBL 6, fuselage stations (FS) 499,
531, and 569.5 have a two-piece installation with straight bushings
rather than spherical bearings in the inboard link lower end. Design of
the support links allows floor beam movement when the cabin is
pressurized. Seizure of the lower bushing will not allow the link
assembly to move as designed, resulting in bending stress and potential
failure of the link, which may compromise the integrity of the pressure
vessel floor. Gulfstream determined that the procedures for the
existing Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) inspection do not reliably
detect corrosion in the floor beam support link lower bushings.
Accordingly, Gulfstream has revised the airworthiness limitation
requirements to the AMM by adding a detailed inspection with an initial
and repetitive inspections at intervals of 96 months and including
references for removal and installation instructions for RBL 6 Floor
Beam Support Links.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the right butt
line 6 floor beam inboard support links and bushings for corrosion. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent link failure, which can compromise
the integrity of the pressure vessel floor and lead to loss of
pressurization of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received one comment from Gulfstream. The following
presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the
comment.

Request for Clarification on Reporting

    Gulfstream requested the FAA clarify whether the AD requires or
recommends reporting the CB 231A inspection results to Gulfstream.
Gulfstream noted a discrepancy in the NPRM, where the section titled
``Proposed AD Requirements'' states that the proposed AD recommends
sending the inspection results to Gulfstream, but the section titled
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information''
states that the proposed AD would not require reporting the results of
the inspection to Gulfstream.
    The FAA agrees. This AD does not require reporting the results of
the inspection. This AD is not an interim action; mandating a report of
the inspection results is not necessary to correct the unsafe
condition. The FAA should not have included conflicting language in the
NPRM to this effect. The FAA has revised the preamble of this final
rule to correct this discrepancy.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin Number 231,

Revision A, dated July 30, 2019 (Gulfstream CB 231A). The service
information contains procedures for the inspection of the RBL 6, FS
499, 531, and 569.5, and the bushing in the lower end of the link and
all attachments for corrosion.
    The FAA reviewed Table 13: Fuselage Inspection Table in Section 05-
10-10 of Chapter 5--Time Limits/Maintenance Checks of Gulfstream GV
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 51, dated February 28, 2020. The
service information identifies tasks for a recurring detailed
inspection of the floor beam and wing links FS 465 through FS 576.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Gulfstream CB 231A specifies reporting the results of the
inspection to Gulfstream, and this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 148 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection per the Customer         120 work-hours x $85   Not applicable.......         $10,200      $1,509,600
 Bulletin, all 3 locations.          per hour = $10,200.
Revise the AMM....................  1 work-hour x $85 per  Not applicable.......              85          12,580
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of all 3 links...................  40 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $316           $3,716
                                                $3,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-06-04 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-21471;
Docket No. FAA-2020-0831; Project Identifier 2019-CE-031-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 4, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage
Structure.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that current inspection
procedures of floor beam support links, which can fail due to
corrosion, are inadequate. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and
correct corrosion on a floor beam support link lower bushing. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in link failure, which can
compromise the integrity of the pressure vessel floor and lead to
loss of pressurization of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Actions

    (1) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the right butt line 6 floor beam inboard support links at
fuselage stations (FS) 499, 531, and 569.5 for corrosion by
following the Accomplishment Instructions, steps A through M, of
Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin No. 231, Revision A, dated July 30,
2019 (Gulfstream CB 231A). Where Gulfstream CB 231A specifies
contacting Gulfstream for procedures if any corrosion is found, you
must replace the support link in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, before further flight. For
a method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, as
required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the airworthiness limitations section of your maintenance manual or
inspection program to incorporate the airworthiness limitations
specified in Table 13: Fuselage Inspection Table in Section 05-10-10
of Chapter 5--Time Limits/Maintenance Checks of Gulfstream GV
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 51, dated February 28, 2020.
Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative inspection intervals may be approved for the fuselage
floor beam and wing link FS 465-FS 576.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Ronald Wissing,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404)
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin Number 231, Revision A,
dated July 30, 2019.
    (ii) Table 13: Fuselage Inspection Table in Section 05-10-10 of
Chapter 5--Time Limits/Maintenance Checks of Gulfstream GV Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, Revision 51, dated February 28, 2020.
    (3) For Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation,
Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-
2206; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://www.gulfstream.com/en/customer-support/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 5, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-06500 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P