[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11361-11367]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91157; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2021-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish Procedures for the
Allocation of Power to Its Co-Located Users

February 18, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 4, 2021, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE
Chicago'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish procedures for the allocation of
power

to its co-located Users. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish procedures for the allocation of
power to its co-located \4\ Users.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2019. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
87408 (October 28, 2019), 84 FR 58778 (November 1, 2019) (SR-
NYSECHX-2019-27). The Exchange is an indirect subsidiary of
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''). Through its ICE Data
Services (``IDS'') business, ICE operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center''), from which the Exchange provides
co-location services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See id., at note 6. As
specified in the Fee Schedule of NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``Fee
Schedule''), a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular
co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American
LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the
``Affiliate SROs''). Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially
the same proposed rule change to propose the changes described
herein. See SR-NYSE-2021-12, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-08, SR-NYSEArca-2021-
11, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the Exchange added procedures for the allocation of
cabinets (``Existing Procedures'') \6\ in colocation should it become
needed, which procedures are not currently being used. In addition,
Users have had an unprecedented demand for power, largely driven by the
demands caused by volatile market conditions related to the COVID-19
pandemic and higher than usual trading volumes. The Exchange is
currently working to expand the amount of power and number of cabinets
available in colocation. To complement the procedures for allocation of
colocation cabinets, the Exchange believes it would be prudent to have
procedures in place for the allocation of power, should such allocation
be necessary. The Exchange accordingly proposes to expand the Existing
Procedures to incorporate procedures for the allocation of power
(``Proposed Procedures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90732 (December 18,
2020), 85 FR 84443 (December 28, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-73, SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-66, SR-NYSEArca-2020-82, SR-NYSECHX-2020-26, and SR-
NYSENAT-2020-28) (Notice of Filings of Amendment No. 1 and Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Amending the Exchanges' Co-Location Services To
Establish Procedures for the Allocation of Cabinets to Co-Located
Users if Cabinet Inventory Falls Below Certain Thresholds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Users currently have two options for purchasing power. First, a
User may purchase a new dedicated or partial cabinet, which comes with
power. The User pays an initial fee and a monthly fee based on the
number of kilowatts (``kW'') contracted for the cabinet. The dedicated
cabinets have a standard power allocation of either 4 kW or 8 kW (the
``Standard Cabinet Power''). Partial cabinets are available in
increments of eight-rack units of space, and each eight-rack unit may
be allocated 1 or 2 kW. The Exchange allocates cabinets on a first-
come/first-serve basis.
    Second, a User may request power upgrades to dedicated cabinets in
addition to the Standard Cabinet Power.\7\ Users may request that such
additional power (``Additional Power'') be allocated to a cabinet when
it is first set up or later. A User with a dedicated cabinet, for
example, may develop its infrastructure in a manner that allows it to
expand the hardware within that cabinet by adding Additional Power.
Because it could add Additional Power to its existing cabinet, the User
would not need an additional cabinet. Adding Additional Power may
entail overhauling wiring, circuitry and hardware for the dedicated
cabinet so that it can handle the increased power.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 84 FR 58778, supra note 4, at 58781.
    \8\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also offers cabinets that do not have power: Cabinets
for which power is not utilized (``PNU cabinets''). PNU cabinets are
reserved cabinet space that are not active, and that can be converted
to a powered, dedicated cabinet when the User requests it.\9\ Although
PNU cabinets do not use power, when the Exchange establishes a PNU
cabinet, it allocates unused power capacity to it, depending on the
User's requirements. The allocated power is kept in reserve for the PNU
cabinet, and, upon the User's request, the PNU cabinet may be powered
and used promptly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If additional power or cabinets are needed, the Exchange may use
established measures to convert PNU cabinets:

    [i]f reserved cabinet space becomes needed for use, the
reserving User will have 30 business days to formally contract with
the Exchange for full payment for the reserved cabinet space needed
or the space will be reassigned.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62732 (August 16,
2010), 75 FR 51512 (August 20, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56), at note 5.
See also 84 FR 58778, supra note 4, at 58781. ``Reserved cabinet
space'' is a PNU cabinet. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
70913 (November 21, 2013), 78 FR 70987 (November 27, 2013) (SR-NYSE-
2013-74).

    The Exchange proposes to provide additional detail regarding the
conversion of PNU cabinets in the Proposed Procedures.
Proposed Procedures
    Like the Existing Procedures, the Proposed Procedures would be set
forth in General Notes 7 and 8. General Note 7 would be amended to
provide that, if the amount of power or cabinets available fell below
specified thresholds, Users would be subject to purchasing limits.
General Note 7 would also specify when the purchasing limits would
cease to apply. Consistent with the Existing Procedures, the amended
General Note 7 would provide that if a User requests a number of
Standard Cabinets and/or amount of Additional Power that would cause
the unallocated power capacity to be below the specified power and
cabinet thresholds, the purchasing limits would apply only to the
portion of the User's order below the relevant threshold.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, if there was 365 kW unallocated power capacity
in co-location and a User requested to purchase cabinets and
Additional Power that would, together, total 55 kW, the purchasing
limits in General Note 7 would not apply to the User's purchase of
the first 15 kW, whether those kW were in the form of cabinets or
Additional Power. Once the power threshold was reached, the combined
limits would be activated, limiting the User's purchase of
additional cabinets and Additional Power. In all, the User would be
permitted to purchase a total of 47 kW out of its original order of
55 kW. The User could choose whether the 47 kW was in the form of
cabinets, Additional Power, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, if either the Cabinet Threshold or the
Power Threshold, or if both the Cabinet Threshold and Power Threshold
are reached, all Users with PNU cabinets would be required to either
convert or relinquish them, consistent with the

applicable provisions. Doing so would allow all cabinets and power to
be available for active use. As a result, no User would be subject to
limitations on its ability to purchase and use cabinets or power at the
same time that PNU cabinets were dormant.
    General Note 8 would be amended to provide that, if the amount of
power or cabinets available fell to zero, Users seeking to purchase
power or cabinets would be put on a waitlist. The waitlist provisions
for power would be substantially similar to those for cabinets in the
Existing Procedures.\12\ In both General Notes 7 and 8, the Proposed
Procedures would also state how the Existing Procedures regarding
cabinets and the new procedures regarding power would relate to each
other. In each case, the Proposed Procedures would state what the
threshold amount of power and cabinets would be to discontinue the
limits, which would allow the Exchange to return to offering PNU
cabinets. Finally, in clarifying changes, the existing text of General
Notes 7 and 8 would be amended to change ``Purchasing Limits'' to
``Cabinet Limits'' and ``waitlist'' to ``Cabinet Waitlist'' and to
delete redundant text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consistent with the Existing Procedures, the Proposed
Procedures would provide that, as additional power and cabinets
became available, the Exchange would offer it to the User at the top
of the combined waitlist. Power may become available if, for
example, (a) a User vacates a dedicated or partial cabinet or
relinquishes Additional Power or (b) IDS builds additional capacity.
Cabinets may become available if, for example, a User vacates a
dedicated or partial cabinet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to General Note 7
    The Exchange proposes to amend General Note 7 as follows (additions
italicized, deletions in [brackets]):

    7. Cabinet and Power Purchasing Limits. If (i) unallocated
cabinet inventory is at or below 40 cabinets, whether or not such
cabinets are configured to be subdivided into partial cabinets
(``Cabinet Threshold''), or (ii) the unallocated power capacity in
co-location is at or below 350 kW (the ``Power Threshold''), the
following limits on the purchase of new cabinets (``Purchasing
Limits'') will apply:
    a. Cabinet Limits. If only the Cabinet Threshold is reached, the
following measures (the ``Cabinet Limits'') will apply:
     All Users with PNU cabinets will be required to either
convert [its]their PNU cabinets into dedicated cabinets or
relinquish [its]their PNU cabinets [before being permitted to
purchase new cabinets]. The Exchange will notify each User with a
PNU cabinet that the User has 30 business days to decide whether to
contract to convert the PNU cabinet to a dedicated cabinet. If the
User does not contract to use the PNU cabinet as a dedicated cabinet
within such time, the PNU cabinet will be relinquished.
     [Once the Cabinet Threshold is reached, t]The Exchange
will limit each User's purchase of new cabinets (dedicated and
partial) to a maximum of four dedicated cabinets. The maximum may be
comprised of a mix of dedicated and partial cabinets, with two
partial cabinets counting as one dedicated cabinet.
     If a User requests, in writing, a number of cabinets
that, if provided, would cause the available cabinet inventory to be
below 40 cabinets, the [Purchasing]Cabinet Limits will only apply to
the portion of the User's order below the Cabinet Threshold.
     A User will have to wait 30 days from the date of its
signed order form before purchasing new cabinets again.
     If the Cabinet Threshold is reached, the Exchange will
cease offering or providing new PNU cabinets to all Users and Users
will not be permitted to convert a currently used dedicated cabinet
to a PNU cabinet.
     When unallocated cabinet inventory is more than 40
cabinets, the Exchange will discontinue the [Purchasing]Cabinet
Limits.
    b. Combined Limits. If only the Power Threshold is reached or
both the Cabinet Threshold and the Power Threshold are reached, the
following measures (the ``Combined Limits'') will apply:
     All Users with PNU cabinets will be required to either
convert their PNU cabinets into dedicated cabinets or relinquish
their PNU cabinets. The Exchange will notify each User with a PNU
cabinet that the User has 30 business days to decide whether to
contract to convert the PNU cabinet to a dedicated cabinet. If the
User does not contract to use the PNU cabinet as a dedicated cabinet
within such time, the PNU cabinet will be relinquished.
     A User may purchase either or both of the following, so
long as the combined power usage of such purchases is no more than a
maximum of 32 kW:
    a. New cabinets (dedicated and partial), subject to a maximum of
four dedicated cabinets with standard power allocations of 4 kW or 8
kW (``Standard Cabinets''). The purchase may be comprised of a mix
of dedicated and partial cabinets, with two partial cabinets
counting as one dedicated cabinet.
    b. Additional power for new or existing cabinets.
     If a User requests, in writing, a number of Standard
Cabinets and/or an amount of additional power that, if provided,
would cause the unallocated power capacity to be below the Power
Threshold or Cabinet Threshold, the Combined Limits would apply only
to the portion of the User's order below the relevant threshold.
     A User will have to wait 30 days from the date of its
signed order form before purchasing new Standard Cabinets or
additional power again.
     If the Power Threshold or Cabinet Threshold is reached,
the Exchange will cease offering or providing new PNU cabinets to
all Users and Users will not be permitted to convert a currently
used dedicated cabinet to a PNU cabinet.
     When unallocated power capacity is above the Power
Threshold, the Exchange will discontinue the Combined Limits. If at
that time the unallocated cabinet inventory is 40 or fewer cabinets,
the Cabinet Limits would enter into effect.
    c. Applicability. If the Cabinet Threshold is reached before the
Power Threshold, the Cabinet Limits will be in effect until the
Power Threshold is reached, after which the Combined Limits will
apply.

Proposed Amendments to General Note 8
    The Exchange proposes to amend General Note 8 as follows (additions
italicized, deletions in [brackets]):

    8. Cabinet and Combined Waitlists.
    a. Cabinet Waitlist. Unless a Combined Waitlist is in effect,
t[T]he Exchange will create a cabinet waitlist (``Cabinet
Waitlist'') if the available cabinet inventory is zero, or a User
requests, in writing, a number of cabinets that, if provided, would
cause the available inventory to be zero. The Exchange will place
Users seeking cabinets on a Cabinet [w]Waitlist, as follows:
     Users with PNU cabinets will not be required to either
convert their PNU cabinets into dedicated cabinets or relinquish
their PNU cabinets in accordance with the measures set forth in
General Note 7(a), above. [placed on the waitlist if the User could
meet its new cabinet request by converting its PNU cabinets to
dedicated cabinets. A User will only be placed on the waitlist for
the portion of its new cabinet request that exceeds its existing PNU
cabinets, subject to the Purchasing Limitations.]
     A User will be placed on the Cabinet [w]Waitlist based
on the date its signed order is received. A User may only have one
order for new cabinets on the Cabinet [w]Waitlist at a time, and the
order is subject to the [Purchasing]Cabinet Limits. If a User
changes the size of its order while it is on the Cabinet Waitlist,
it will maintain its place on the Cabinet Waitlist, and will remain
subject to the Cabinet Limits.
     As cabinets become available, the Exchange will offer
them to the User at the top of the Cabinet [w]Waitlist. If the
User's order is completed, it will be removed from the Cabinet
[w]Waitlist. If the User's order is not completed, it will remain at
the top of the Cabinet [w]Waitlist.
     A User will be removed from the Cabinet [w]Waitlist (a)
at the User's request or (b) if the User turns down an offer of a
cabinet of the same size it requested in its order. If the Exchange
offers the User a cabinet of a different size than the User
requested in its order, the User may turn down the offer and remain
at the top of the Cabinet [w]Waitlist until its order is completed.
     A User that is removed from the Cabinet [w]Waitlist but
subsequently submits a new written order for cabinets will be added
back to the bottom of the Cabinet [w]Waitlist.
     When unallocated cabinet inventory is more than 10
cabinets, the Exchange will cease use of the Cabinet [w]Waitlist.
    b. Combined Waitlist. The Exchange would create a power and
cabinet waitlist (``Combined Waitlist'') if the unallocated power
capacity is zero, or if a User requests,

in writing, an amount of power (whether power allocated to a
Standard Cabinet or additional power) that, if provided, would cause
the unallocated power capacity to be below zero. The Exchange would
place Users seeking cabinets or power on the Combined Waitlist, as
follows:
     All Users with PNU cabinets will be required to either
convert their PNU cabinets into dedicated cabinets or relinquish
their PNU cabinets in accordance with the measures set forth in
General Note 7(b), above.
     If a Cabinet Waitlist exists when the requirements to
create a Combined Waitlist are met, the Cabinet Waitlist will
automatically convert to the Combined Waitlist. If a Combined
Waitlist exists when the requirements to create a Cabinet Waitlist
are met, no new waitlist will be created, and the Combined Waitlist
will continue in effect.
     A User will be placed on the Combined Waitlist based on
the date its signed order for cabinets and/or additional power is
received. A User may only have one order for new cabinets and/or
additional power on the Combined Waitlist at a time, and the order
would be subject to the Combined Limits. If a User changes the size
of its order while it is on the Combined Waitlist, it will maintain
its place on the Combined Waitlist, and will remain subject to the
Combined Limits.
     As additional power and/or cabinets become available,
the Exchange will offer them to the User at the top of the Combined
Waitlist. If the User's order is completed, the order will be
removed from the Combined Waitlist. If the User's order is not
completed, it will remain at the top of the Combined Waitlist.
     A User will be removed from the Combined Waitlist (a)
at the User's request; (b) if the User turns down an offer that is
the same as its order (e.g., the offer includes cabinets of the same
size and/or the amount of additional power that the User requested
in its order). If the Exchange offers the User an offer that is
different than its order, the User may turn down the offer and
remain at the top of the Combined Waitlist until its order is
completed.
     A User that is removed from the Combined Waitlist but
subsequently submits a new written order for cabinets and/or
additional power will be added back to the bottom of the waitlist.
     If the Combined Waitlist is in effect, when unallocated
power capacity in co-location is at 100 kW, the Exchange will cease
use of the waitlist. If at that time the unallocated cabinet
inventory is 10 or fewer cabinets, the Cabinet Limits would enter
into effect.

    The proposed change would apply the same way to all types and sizes
of market participants. As is currently the case, the purchase of any
colocation service is completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule is
applied uniformly to all Users. The proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services
and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that
Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. In addition, it is designed to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable and Equitable
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
and equitable for the following reasons.
    The Exchange believes that User demand for power will continue. The
Exchange is currently working to expand the amount of power and number
of cabinets available in colocation. Nevertheless, the Exchange
believes that it would be reasonable for it to put in place the
Proposed Procedures to establish the allocation of power and cabinets
on an equitable basis, consistent with the Established Procedures. The
Proposed Procedures would establish a rational, objective procedure
that would be applied uniformly by the Exchange to all Users that
requested new cabinets or Additional Power.
    The Exchange believes that integrating the procedures for the
allocation of power with the Existing Procedures would be reasonable,
because cabinets are provided with power. Having both power and
cabinets covered by the Proposed Procedures would ensure that the
procedures for all relevant services are consistent and coordinated.
Having the Proposed Procedures state what would occur if the Cabinet
Threshold and Power Threshold are reached at different times, and how
the Cabinet Waitlist and Combined Waitlist interrelate, is reasonable
for the same reason.
    The Exchange believes that following the Existing Procedures' two-
tier structure of establishing, first, a purchasing limitation on order
size, and second, a waitlist, would be a reasonable method to respond
to increasing demand for power and cabinets in the future. The Exchange
notes that the Existing Procedures are consistent with the Nasdaq
procedures for allocating cabinets if its cabinet inventory shrinks to
zero.\15\ The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to amend the
Existing Procedures to clarify what would occur if a User changes the
size of its order while it is on the Cabinet Waitlist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62397 (June 28,
2010), 75 FR 38860 (July 6, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Power Threshold is
reasonable and equitable. Based on experience, the Exchange believes
that the Power Threshold of 350 kW is reasonable and appropriate
because it is sufficiently low that it would not be triggered
repeatedly, yet it offers a reasonable buffer during which the Combined
Limits would apply before the Combined Waitlist would become effective.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Combined Limits are
reasonable and equitable. Based on its experience with co-location and
purchasing trends over the last few years, the Exchange believes that
in most cases the amount of power that a User would be allowed to buy
under the proposed Combined Limits, whether in the form of cabinets or
Additional Power, would be sufficient for a User's needs while leaving
a margin for potential growth.
    Further, the Exchange believes that, by establishing a waitlist on
the basis of the date it receives signed orders, limiting the size and
number of orders a User may have on the waitlist at any one time,
stating what happens if a User changes its order while on the waitlist,
and removing a User from the waitlist if it turns down an offer that is
the same as what it requested, the Combined Waitlist is largely
consistent with the Existing Procedures and reasonably designed to
prevent Users from utilizing the waitlist as a method to obtain a
greater portion of the power and cabinets available, thereby
facilitating a more equitable distribution. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that by requiring a 30-day delay before a User subject to the
Combined Limits could purchase Standard Cabinets or Additional Power

again, the Proposed Procedure is reasonably designed to prevent a User
from obtaining a greater portion of the power and cabinets available.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and
equitable because the Exchange would only place limits on Users'
ability to purchase Standard Cabinets or Additional Power if either or
both the Power Threshold and Cabinet Threshold are reached. Similarly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and
equitable because the Combined Waitlist would only be created if
unallocated power capacity in co-location is zero, or if a User
requests, in writing, an amount of power (whether power allocated to a
Standard Cabinet or Additional Power) that, if provided, would cause
the unallocated power capacity to be below zero, and because there
would be an established threshold for cessation of the Combined
Waitlist.
    The Exchange believes that it would be reasonable and equitable to
require Users with PNU cabinets to either convert their PNU cabinets
into dedicated cabinets or relinquish them if either or both the
Cabinet Threshold and Power Threshold are reached. Doing so would make
the power reserved for PNU cabinets and the cabinets themselves
available to meet User demand for power and cabinets. As a result, no
User would be subject to limitations on its ability to purchase and use
power or cabinets at the same time that PNU cabinets were dormant. The
Exchange believes that the measure is therefore reasonably designed to
prevent a User from reserving, but not using, power or cabinets at a
time when other Users are subject to limitations, facilitating a more
equitable distribution.
    The Proposed Procedures would provide additional specificity to the
existing PNU cabinet provision permitting conversion of PNU cabinets,
by stating what the relevant thresholds would be, when the Exchange
would require Users to decide whether to convert their PNU cabinets,
and when PNU cabinets would be offered again, thereby increasing
transparency and adding clarity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would be a
reasonable method for the Exchange to accommodate demand for power and
cabinets on an equitable basis, while allowing all Users that currently
have a PNU cabinet to have a choice between converting their PNU
cabinet to a dedicated cabinet or relinquishing it. The Exchange notes
that Nasdaq's co-location customers that have a ``Cabinet Proximity
Option'' have a similar choice if Nasdaq determines that the reserved
data center space is needed for use.\16\ Finally, the Exchange believes
that it would be fair and equitable to require all Users with PNU
cabinets to be subject to the same measures if the Cabinet Threshold or
Power Threshold were met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Co-location customers may either contract with Nasdaq for
full payment or have the cabinet reassigned. Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62354 (June 22, 2010), 75 FR 38860 (July 6, 2010) (SR-
Nasdaq-2010-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Would Protect Investors and the Public
Interest
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, protect investors and the public interest for the
following reasons.
    The Exchange believes that User demand for cabinets and power will
continue. In this context, the proposed rule change would allow the
Exchange to protect investors and the public interest, first, by
setting limits on Users' ability to purchase power, and second, by
using a waitlist to allocate any unallocated cabinets and power on a
first come-first served rolling basis.
    Based on experience, the Exchange believes that the Power Threshold
is sufficiently low that it would not be triggered repeatedly, which
would protect investors and the public interest. Similarly, based on
its experience with co-location and purchasing trends over the last few
years, the Exchange believes that in most cases the amount of power
that a User would be allowed to buy under the proposed Combined Limits,
whether in the form of cabinets or Additional Power, would be
sufficient for a User's needs while leaving a margin for potential
growth, which would protect investors and the public interest.
    In addition, the Proposed Procedures would protect investors and
the public interest in that they are designed to prevent Users from
utilizing the Combined Limit and waitlist procedures to obtain a
greater portion of the power and cabinets available, thereby
facilitating a more equitable distribution.
    The Exchange believes that it would protect investors and the
public interest to require Users with PNU cabinets to either convert
their PNU cabinets into dedicated cabinets or relinquish them if either
or both the Cabinet Threshold and Power Threshold are reached. Doing so
would mean that no User would be subject to limitations on its ability
to purchase and use power or cabinets at the same time that PNU
cabinets were dormant. The Exchange believes that the measure is
therefore reasonably designed to prevent a User from reserving but not
using power or cabinets at a time when other Users are subject to
limitations.
    The proposed rule change would protect investors and the public
interest because the proposed revised General Notes would articulate
rational, objective procedures consistent with the Existing Procedures
and PNU cabinet provisions, and would serve to reduce any potential for
confusion on how cabinets and power would be allocated if a shortage in
one or the other were to arise in the future, and would thereby make
the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons.
    The proposed change would apply equally to all types and sizes of
market participants. If the Proposed Procedures were in place, all
Users would be able to identify the permitted cabinet and power options
and the procedures that would apply to them in the event that
unallocated cabinet or power supply runs low in the future. All Users
with PNU cabinets would be subject to the same measures if the Cabinet
Threshold or Power Threshold were met. The Proposed Procedures would
assist the Exchange in accommodating demand for co-location services,
and power and cabinets in particular, on an equitable basis.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

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

Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would place
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate. The proposed change would not apply differently to
distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply
to all Users equally.
    The Exchange believes that, if triggered, the imposition of the
Combined Limits or Combined Waitlist would not impose a burden on a
User's ability to compete that is not necessary or appropriate. The
Exchange believes that User demand for power will continue in the
future, and the Exchange is presently working to expand the amount of
power and number of cabinets available in colocation. In this context,
the Exchange believes that it would be reasonable for it to put in
place the Proposed Procedures to expand on the Existing Procedures and
establish a method for allocating not just cabinets but also power on
an equitable basis.
    The Exchange would only follow the Proposed Procedures and place
limits on Users' ability to purchase new power and cabinets if either
or both the proposed Power Threshold and existing Cabinet Threshold
were met, as specified in the proposed General Notes. Similarly, the
Exchange would only create the Proposed Waitlist if the unallocated
power capacity is zero, or if a User requests, in writing, an amount of
power that, if provided, would cause the unallocated power capacity to
be below zero. Based on its experience with co-location and purchasing
trends over the last few years, the Exchange believes that in most
cases the amount of power that a User would be allowed to buy under the
proposed Combined Limits, whether in the form of cabinets or Additional
Power, would be sufficient for a User's needs while leaving a margin
for potential growth.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed revised General Notes would
articulate rational, objective procedures consistent with the Existing
Procedures and PNU cabinet provisions, and would serve to reduce any
potential for confusion on how power and cabinets would be allocated if
a shortage in one or the other were to arise in the future, and would
thereby make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential
ambiguity.
    The Exchange believes that it would not impose a burden on a User's
ability to compete that is not necessary or appropriate to require
Users with PNU cabinets to either convert or relinquish their PNU
cabinets if either or both the Cabinet Threshold and Power Threshold
are reached. Doing so would make the power reserved for PNU cabinets
and the cabinets themselves available to meet User demand for power and
cabinets. As a result, no User would be subject to limitations on its
ability to purchase and use power or cabinets at the same time that PNU
cabinets were dormant. A User does not require a PNU cabinet to trade
on the Exchange, and whether or not a User has a PNU cabinet has no
effect on such User's orders going to, or trade data coming from, the
Exchange, or the User's ability to utilize other co-location services.
Rather, the proposed change would assist the Exchange in accommodating
demand for co-location services on an equitable basis.
    Use of any co-location service is completely voluntary, and each
market participant is able to determine whether to use co-location
services based on the requirements of its business operations.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors (i.e., Hosting Users) offer co-location
services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants who believe that co-location
enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged
for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for
the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants.
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would protect investors and the public
interest because the proposed revised General Notes would articulate
rational, objective procedures consistent with the Existing Procedures
and PNU cabinet provisions, and would serve to reduce any potential for
confusion on how cabinets and power would be allocated if a shortage in
one or the other were to arise in the future, and would thereby make
the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSECHX-2021-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2021-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2021-02 and should be submitted
on or before March 17, 2021.

    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. 2021-03721 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67737-67738]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23714]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10016-02-OA]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC);
Notice of Virtual Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a virtual, open,
public meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory
Committee (FRRCC) on November 12-13, 2020, with remote participation
only. There will be no in-person gathering for this meeting.

DATES: This virtual public meeting will be held on Thursday, November
12, 2020, from 11 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., and Friday, November
13, 2020, from 11 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
Members of the public seeking to view the meeting (but not provide oral
comments) may register any time prior to the meeting. Members of the
public seeking to make oral comments during the virtual meeting must
register and contact the Designated Federal Officer directly by 12 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on November 7, 2020 to be placed on a list of
registered commenters and receive special instructions for
participation.

ADDRESSES: To register and receive information on how to attend this
virtual meeting, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/faca/farm-ranch-and-rural-communities-federal-advisory-committee-frrcc-meeting-calendar.
Attendees must register online prior to the meeting to receive
instructions for participation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Perrin, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please note that, due
to Coronavirus (COVID-19), there are currently practical limitations on
the ability of EPA personnel to collect and respond to mailed ``hard
copy'' correspondence. General information regarding the FRRCC can be
found on the EPA website at: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide policy advice, information,
and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a range of
environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture
and rural communities. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss topics
of relevance to agriculture and rural communities, specifically the two
charge topics (1) creating a holistic pesticide program for the future
and (2) supporting inter-agency environmental benchmarks with
interagency partners on the issues of water quality and quantity and
food loss and waste. A copy of the FRRCC charges and meeting agenda
will be posted at www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc. This will be the second
public meeting of the membership of the FRRCC which was newly appointed
in June of 2020. Potentially interested entities may include: Farmers,
ranchers, and rural communities and their allied industries; as well as
the academic/research community who research environmental issues
impacting agriculture; state, local, and tribal government agencies;
and nongovernmental organizations.

II. How do I participate in the virtual public meeting?

A. Virtual Meeting

    This meeting will be conducted as a virtual conference. You may
attend by registering online before the meeting to receive information
on how to participate. You may also submit written or oral comments for
the committee by contacting the DFO directly per the processes outlined
below.

B. Registration

    Attendees should register via the link on this website prior to the
meeting in order to receive information on how to participate in the
virtual meeting: https://www.epa.gov/faca/farm-ranch-and-rural-communities-federal-advisory-committee-frrcc-meeting-calendar.

C. Procedures for Providing Public Comments

    Oral Statements: In general, oral comments at this virtual
conference will be limited to the Public Comments portions of the
Meeting Agenda. Members of the public may provide oral comments limited
to three minutes per individual or group, and submit further
information in written comments. Persons interested in providing oral
statements should register as attendees at the link provided above, and
also contact the DFO directly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by 12:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on November 7, 2020 to be placed on the list of
registered speakers and receive special instructions for participation.
Oral commenters will be provided an opportunity to speak in the order
in which their request was received by the DFO.
    Written Statements: Persons interested in providing written
statements pertaining to this committee meeting may email them to the
DFO at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>prior to 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on
November 13, 2020.

D. Availability of Meeting Materials

    The Meeting Agenda and other materials for the virtual conference
will be posted on the FRRCC website at www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

E. Accessibility

    Persons with disabilities who wish to request reasonable
accommodations to participate in this event may contact the DFO at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on
November 5, 2020. All final meeting materials will be posted to the
FRRCC website in an accessible format

following the meeting, as well as a written summary of this meeting.

Carrie Vicenta Meadows,
Agriculture Advisor to the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-23714 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18641-18644]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0683; FRL-8895-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for 1-Hour Ozone for the Milwaukee-
Racine, WI Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a July 28, 2008, request from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that EPA find that the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin (WI) nonattainment area has attained the
revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0683, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0683. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is the Impact of a December 22, 2006, United States Court
of Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Ozone Implementation
Rule on This Rule?
IV. Attainment Finding
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving a July 28, 2008, request from WDNR that EPA find
that the Milwaukee-Racine, WI nonattainment area attained the revoked
1-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Milwaukee-Racine, WI area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 CAA
amendments. Under section 181(a) of the CAA, each ozone area designated
nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of
law as ``marginal,'' ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe-15,''
``severe-17'', or ``extreme,'' depending on the severity of the area's
air quality problem and the number of years needed to reach attainment
from the 1990 CAA amendments. These nonattainment designations and
classifications were codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 81 (see 56 FR 56994, November 6, 1991).
    The ozone design value for an area, which characterizes the
severity of the air quality problem, is represented by the highest
ozone design value at any of the individual ozone monitoring sites in
the area. Table 1 in section 181(a) of the CAA provides the design
value ranges for each nonattainment classification. Ozone nonattainment
areas with design values between 0.190 parts per million (ppm) and
0.280 ppm for the three-year period, 1987-1989, were classified as
severe-17. Because the Milwaukee-Racine, WI area's 1988 ozone design
value fell between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm, this area was classified as
severe-17 nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Under section
182(c) of the CAA, states containing areas that were classified as
severe-17 nonattainment were required to submit State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) to provide for certain emission controls, to show progress
toward attainment, and to

provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than November 15, 2007.
    In 1997, EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The implementation
rule for the standard, referred to as the Phase 1 Implementation Rule,
was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951). More detail on this rule
and how it pertains to this action is provided below.

III. What Is the Impact of a December 22, 2006, United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Ozone Implementation Rule on
This Rule?

    On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the court) vacated the Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing,
the court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard
to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Id.,
Docket No. 04-1201. With respect to the challenges to the anti-
backsliding provisions of the rule, the court vacated three provisions
that would have allowed states to remove from the SIP or to not adopt
three 1-hour obligations once the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked to
transition to the implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (1)
Nonattainment area new source review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that fail to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 1-hour attainment date; and (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or for failure to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The court clarified that 1-hour
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) concerning anti-backsliding
remain in effect and areas must continue to meet those requirements.
However, the three provisions noted above, which are specified in 40
CFR 51.905(e), were vacated by the court. As a result, states must
continue to meet: (1) The obligations for 1-hour NSR; (2) 1-hour
contingency measures; and, (3) for severe and extreme areas, the
obligations related to a section 185 fee program. Currently, EPA is
developing two proposed rules to address the court's vacatur and remand
with respect to these three requirements. We address below how the 1-
hour obligations that currently continue to apply under EPA's anti-
backsliding rule (as interpreted by the court) apply where EPA has made
a determination that the area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its
attainment date.
    Therefore, of the three provisions vacated by the court, today's
action addresses two of them using existing policy: Section 185 penalty
fees and contingency measures. The third issue, NSR requirements, will
be addressed in a separate agency rulemaking which is currently under
development.

IV. Attainment Finding

    In 1991, the Milwaukee-Racine, WI area was classified as severe-17
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area consists of the following
counties: Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Kenosha, and
Racine.
    An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if
there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete, quality-assured monitoring data. A
violation occurs when the ozone air quality monitoring data show
greater than one (1.0) average expected exceedance per year at any site
in the area. An exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone
concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. The data should be
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the Air Quality System so that they are available to the
public for review.
    The finding of attainment for the Milwaukee-Racine, WI area is
based on an analysis of 1-hour ozone air quality data from three
separate three-year periods including 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-
2007. Table 1 below summarizes these data.

                       Table 1--1-Hour Ozone Violation Assessment at Monitoring Sites in the Milwaukee-Racine, WI Area (2003-2007)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number 2003- Number 2004- Number 2005-
              Site code                         County                    Site               2005         2006         2007           In violation?
                                                                                exceedances  exceedances  exceedances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55-059-0019..........................  Kenosha................  Pleasant Prairie.......            0            0            0  No.
55-079-0010..........................  Milwaukee..............  16th St Health Center..        \a\ 0            0            0  No.
55-079-0026..........................  Milwaukee..............  SER-HQ.................            1            1            1  No.
55-079-0041..........................  Milwaukee..............  UWM North..............            2            2            2  No.
55-079-0044..........................  Milwaukee..............  Appleton Avenue........            0        (\b\)        (\b\)  No.
55-079-0085..........................  Milwaukee..............  Bayside................            2            2            2  No.
55-089-0008..........................  Ozaukee................  Grafton................            1            1            1  No.
55-089-0009..........................  Ozaukee................  Harrington Beach.......            2            1            1  No.
55-101-0017..........................  Racine.................  Racine.................            0            0            0  No.
55-131-0009..........................  Washington.............  Slinger................            0            0            0  No.
55-133-0017..........................  Waukesha...............  Carroll College........            0        (\c\)        (\c\)  No.
55-133-0027..........................  Waukesha...............  Cleveland Avenue.......        (\d\)            0            0  No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Data completeness at 55-079-0010 in 2003 was 62%. This does not meet US EPA's 75% completeness criterion. Hence, the 3rd high ozone value was used
  to determine the design value for 2003-2005. That value is 0.097 ppm.
\b\ The ozone monitor at Appleton Avenue in Milwaukee (55-079-0044) was removed from service after the 2005 monitoring season. Therefore a violation
  determination can be made only for the period 2003-2005.
\c\ The Carroll College site (55-133-0017) was shut down after the 2005 ozone monitoring season because the building where the monitor was located was
  razed.
\d\ Ozone monitoring at the Cleveland Avenue site (55-133-0027) began in 2004. A violation assessment cannot be completed for 2003-2005 due to the lack
  of data.

    Based on ambient ozone season (April-October) 1-hour ozone air
quality data for these three-year periods, EPA is approving a request
to find that the Milwaukee-Racine, WI area attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS prior to its attainment deadline of November 15, 2007. An
analysis of preliminary, non-quality assured data for 2008 indicates
that the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a July 28, 2008 request from WDNR that EPA find
that the Milwaukee-Racine, WI nonattainment area attained the revoked
1-hour ozone NAAQS. Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA must
determine whether ozone nonattainment areas have attained the ozone
NAAQS by their attainment date. This determination must be based on the
area's design value as of the attainment date.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA remains obligated under section 181(b)(2) to determine
whether an area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment
date. However, after the revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher
classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon a determination
that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the area's
attainment date for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. (40 CFR section
51.905(e)(2)(i)(B). Thus, even if we make a finding that an area has
failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, the
area would not be reclassified to a higher classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, it is not subject to the requirement to
implement contingency measures for failure to attain the standard by
its attainment date. Since the area has met its attainment deadline,
even if the area subsequently lapses into nonattainment, it would not
be required to implement the contingency measures for failure to attain
the standard by its attainment date.
    If a severe or extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area attains by
its attainment date, it would not be required to implement the section
185 penalty fees program. Section 185(a) of the CAA states that a
severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area must implement a program to
impose fees on certain stationary sources of air pollution if the area
``has failed to attain the national primary ambient air quality
standard for ozone by the applicable attainment date.'' Consequently,
if such an area has attained the standard by its applicable attainment
date, even if it subsequently lapses into nonattainment, the area would
not be required to implement the section 185 penalty fees program.
Because EPA finds that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by
its applicable attainment date, we also find that the area is not
subject to the imposition of the section 185 penalty fees.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 23, 2009
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 26, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective June 23, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of

proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (v) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2585  Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (v) On July 28, 2008, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
requested that EPA find that the Milwaukee-Racine, WI nonattainment
area, attained the revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). After review of this submission, EPA approves this
request.

[FR Doc. E9-9364 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44023]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting
related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)--
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative
(Docket No. AD14-3-000): MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting--July 24,
2014.
    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters,
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032-7574.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. EL13-47, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and Allegheny Energy
Supply Company, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL13-75, Indicated Load Serving Entities v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-503, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-2233, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-381, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL11-34, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-21, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-30, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket Nos. ER13-1923, ER13-1938, ER13-1943, ER13-1945,
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket Nos. ER13-1924, ER13-1926, ER13-1927, ER13-1936, ER13-1944,
ER13-1947, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. ER13-1937, ER13-1939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1713, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1736, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2059, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2062, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2367, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER14-2368, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1405, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER14-1406, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1407, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    For more information, contact Mary Cain, Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 18, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17754 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10457-10460]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD;
Amendment 39-18403; AD 2016-04-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at the middle
position of the left outboard slat. This AD would require modifying the
assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension mechanical
stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant fuel leak and
result in an uncontained fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 5, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 5,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-3144; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-3144.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 21, 2015 (80 FR 50810). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at the middle position
of the left outboard slat. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the
assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension mechanical
stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant fuel leak and
result in an uncontained fire.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    After landing, an airplane experienced a significant fuel
leakage at the middle position of the left outboard slat.
Investigations showed that the fuel spillage originated in a
structural cap, which had been punctured by a broken locking pin of
the slat extension mechanical stop.
    A design review revealed that the locking pin could become loose
due to an incorrect installation combined with a non-fault-tolerant
design.
    This condition, if not corrected, may lead to a significant fuel
leak, possibly resulting in an uncontained fire.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
developed a modification of the slat extension mechanical stop
assembly (Mod M3678 for [Model] F2000EX aeroplanes and Mod M5870 for
[Model] F900EX aeroplanes) with the purpose to increase its
robustness with regards to possible mishandling on production or
during maintenance. Dassault Aviation also published Service
Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-344 and SB F900EX-450, for embodiment in
service of that modification.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA AD] requires
modification of the slat extension mechanical stop assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3144-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR
50810, August 21, 2015) and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Refer to the Latest Service Information

    Dassault Aviation requested that we refer to the latest service
information: Erratum Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated July 16, 2014;
and Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated July 16, 2014. Dassault
Aviation stated that it issued changes to Dassault Service Bulletin
F900EX-450, dated March 10, 2014; and Dassault Service Bulletin
F2000EX-344, dated March 10, 2014 (which we referred to as the
appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the
actions specified in the proposed AD (80 FR 50810, August 21, 2015)).
    We agree with the commenter. Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin
F900EX-450, dated July 16, 2014; and Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-
344, dated July 16, 2014; include among other minor changes, additional
illustrations. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to
Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated July 16, 2014; and
Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated July 16, 2014. We
have also added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to provide credit for
the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions are
done before the effective date of this AD using Dassault Service
Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March 10, 2014; or Dassault Service Bulletin
F2000EX-344, dated March 10, 2014; as applicable. We have redesignated
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 50810, August 21, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 50810, August 21, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Erratum Service Bulletin F900EX-450,
dated July 16, 2014; and Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated
July 16, 2014. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,510 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $280,730, or $4,190 per product.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-3144; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 (AD):

2016-04-09 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18403. Docket No. FAA-
2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, all serial
numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M5281 has been
embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification M5870
has been embodied in production.
    (2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, all serial
numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M2846 has been
embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification M3678
has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at
the middle position of the left outboard slat. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension
mechanical stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant
fuel leak and result in an uncontained fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 9 months or 440 flight hours, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Modify the assembly of the slat
extension mechanical stop, in accordance with Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated
July 16, 2014; or Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-344,
dated July 16, 2014; as applicable.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the applicable service information identified
in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (1) Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March 10, 2014;
and
    (2) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated March 20, 2014.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3144.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated July 16,
2014. (All pages of this revised service bulletin are marked
``Initial issuance'' and dated July 16, 2014.)
    (ii) Dassault Erratum Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated July
16, 2014. (All pages of this revised service bulletin are marked
``Initial issuance'' and dated July 16, 2014.)
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 15, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03694 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P