[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27643-27646]
[DOCID:fr16my07-23]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Belmont County to Attainment of the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; FRL-8312-8]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Belmont County to Attainment of the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request to redesignate Belmont County (the Ohio
portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio (WV-OH) bi-state ozone
nonattainment area) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Additional information was also submitted
on August 24, 2006 and December 4, 2006. In these submittals, Ohio EPA
also requested EPA approval of an Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision containing a 12-year maintenance plan for the County. EPA is
making a determination that the Wheeling (WV-OH) nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based on three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data
for the 2003-2005 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS has been attained. Quality assured monitoring data for 2006 shows
that the area continues to attain the standard. EPA is approving, as a
SIP revision, the State's maintenance plan for Belmont County. As a
result, Ohio has satisfied the criteria for redesignation of Belmont
County to attainment and EPA is approving the requested redesignation.
Further, EPA is approving, for purposes of transportation conformity,
the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2018 that are
contained in 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through 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 Steve Marquardt,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental
Engineer, 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: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Are Our Final Actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment
any area that is violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on three
consecutive years of air quality monitoring data. EPA designated
Belmont County as part of the Wheeling WV-OH nonattainment area in a
Federal Register notice published on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). At
the same time EPA classified the area as a subpart 1 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-
2003.
    On June 20, 2006, Ohio EPA submitted a request for redesignation of
Belmont County, Ohio to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
Additional supporting information was also submitted on August 24, 2006
and December 4, 2006. The redesignation request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003 through 2005,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The data
satisfy the CAA requirements for attainment when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to
determine that the areas have attained the standard and the areas meet
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The
December 27, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 77666) provides a discussion of
how the State of Ohio met these requirements for the area.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the December 27,
2006, proposed rule. EPA received no comments.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 ``Final Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard'' (the Phase 1
implementation rule). South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, No. 04-1200, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a
supplemental proposed rulemaking that set forth its views on the
potential effect of the Court's ruling on these and other proposed
redesignation actions. 72 FR 13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed to
find that the Court's ruling does not alter any requirements relevant
to the proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing
these redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the
supplemental notice. The public comment period on this supplemental
proposed rulemaking closed on April 6, 2007. EPA received six comments,
all supporting EPA's supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting
redesignation of the affected areas. EPA recognizes the support
provided in these comments and does not find that any specific response
is necessary with respect to these supportive comments. Accordingly,
EPA is proceeding with redesignation of these areas as proposed.

III. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is taking several related actions. EPA is making a
determination that the Wheeling (WV-OH) nonattainment area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving Ohio's maintenance plan SIP
revision for Belmont County (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed, in conjunction with the maintenance plan developed by West
Virginia, to keep the Wheeling WV-OH area in attainment for ozone
through 2018. Because Ohio has met these and

other prerequisites for redesignation, EPA is approving the State's
request to change the legal designation of Belmont County from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition,
and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is
approving the 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs for Belmont County, Ohio are 1.52
tons per day for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 1.91 tons per day
for oxides of nitrogen (NOX). West Virginia develops MVEBs
for its portion of the area.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on
sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 16, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to force its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 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 KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (2) Belmont County, as submitted on June 20, 2006, and supplemented
on August 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006. The maintenance plan
establishes 2018 motor vehicle emission budgets for Belmont County of
1.52 tons per day for volatile organic compounds and 1.91 tons per day
for oxides of nitrogen.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Wheeling, WV-OH:
Belmont County in the table entitled ``Ohio Ozone (8-Hour Standard)''
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                              Ohio Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Designation \a\                                           Classification
           Designated area            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Date\1\                               Type                               Date\1\               Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Wheeling, WV-OH: Belmont County......  6/15/2007                            Attainment.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. E7-9149 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72787-72788]
[DOCID:fr01de08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2403-057; 2721-021]

PPL Maine, LLC; Penobscot River Restoration Trust; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene and Protests

November 20, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Transfer of License.
    b. Project Nos.: 2403-057 Veazie Project. 2721-021 Howland Project.
    c. Date filed: November 7, 2008.
    d. Applicants: PPL Maine, LLC (transferor). Penobscot River
Restoration Trust (transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Projects: The Veazie Project is located on
the Penobscot River near the city of Veazie in Penobscot County, Maine.
    The Howland Project is located on the Piscataquis River near the
city of Howland in Penobscot County, Maine.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    g. Applicant Contact: For the transferor: Jesse A. Dillon, Esq.,
PPL Maine, LLC, Two North Ninth Street, Allentown, PA 18101, (610) 774-
5013.
    For the transferee: Laura Rose Day, Executive Director, Penobscot
River Restoration Trust, P.O. Box 5695, Augusta, ME 04332, (207) 232-
5976.
    h. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests and motions to intervene:
30 days from notice issuance.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-2403-057 or P-
2721-021) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: Applicants seek Commission approval
to transfer the licenses for the Veazie and Howland Projects from PPL
Maine, LLC to Penobscot River Restoration Trust.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item g above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as

applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers.
    Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants'
representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28305 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 38528]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-37-000.
    Applicants: SourceGas Distribution LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Revised
Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 6/1/2014; TOFC: 1300.
    Filed Date: 6/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140625-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1058-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Neg Rate 2014-06-20 Antero to be effective 6/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140625-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15848 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32292-32298]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12747]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92160; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List

June 11, 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 May 27, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 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 amend its Price List to (1) introduce
three adding credit tiers (Tiers 3, 5 and 6 Adding Credits) and re-
number current Tier 3, and (2) relocate and modify certain fees, and
introduce new fees, for transactions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange in Tape A, B and C securities. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective June 1, 2021. The proposed rule
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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) introduce
three adding credit tiers (Tiers 3, 5 and 6 Adding Credits) and re-
number current Tier 3, and (2) relocate and modify certain fees, and
introduce new fees, for transactions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange in Tape A, B and C securities.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing orders by offering further incentives for member
organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June
1, 2021.
Background
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly available information, no single exchange has
more than 20% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tape A, B and C
securities combined is less than 12%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
order flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange,
member organizations can choose from any one of the numerous currently
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly,
competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to
orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established incentives for its member organizations who submit orders
that provide liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed fee change is
designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange by
incentivizing member organizations to submit additional displayed
liquidity to the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
Adding Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers three adding tiers (Tier 1 Adding
Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit, and Tier 3 Adding Credit) that provide
credits of $0.0022, $0.0020, and $0.0018 per share, respectively, for
all orders, other than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add
liquidity to the NYSE when certain requirements are met. The Exchange
proposes to introduce three similar adding credit tiers numbered 3, 5
and 6 and re-number current Tier 3 as Tier 4, as follows.
Tier 3 Adding Credit
    The Exchange proposes a new Tier 3 Adding Credit for orders, other
than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add liquidity to the
Exchange. As proposed, the Exchange would provide a $0.0019 credit in
Tape A securities if a member organization has an average daily volume
(``ADV'') that adds liquidity to the Exchange during the billing month
(``Adding ADV''),\9\ excluding Supplemental Liquidity Provider
(``SLP'') and Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') Adding ADV, that is at
least 0.35% of NYSE CADV. In addition, member organizations that meet
the above requirements and add liquidity, excluding liquidity added as
an SLP, in Tape B and C Securities of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape
C CADV combined, would receive an additional $0.0001 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The terms ``ADV'' and ``CADV'' are defined in footnote * of
the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed change is to incentivize member
organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in the Tape A
securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality
of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for
incoming orders. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive
environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable
orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. Because the proposed tier
requires a member organization to achieve a minimum volume of its
trades in orders that add liquidity, the Exchange believes that the
proposed credits would provide an incentive for all member
organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to
qualify for them. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member
organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Since the proposed tier is new, the Exchange does not know how
many member organizations could qualify for the new tiered rate based
on their current trading profile on the Exchange and if they choose to
direct order flow to the NYSE. However, without having a view of member
organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule

change would result in any member organization directing orders to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the new tier.
    In connection with this proposed change, current Tier 3 Adding
Credit would become Tier 4 Adding Credit. The next proposed tier would
follow current Tier 3 Adding Credit as renumbered in the Price List.
Tier 5 Adding Credit
    The Exchange proposes a new Tier 5 Adding Credit for orders, other
than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add liquidity to the
Exchange. As proposed, the Exchange would provide a $0.0017 credit in
Tape A securities if a member organization's Adding ADV, excluding
liquidity added as an SLP and as a DMM, is at least 0.29% of NYSE CADV.
Further, member organizations that meet the above requirements and add
liquidity, excluding liquidity added as an SLP, in Tape B and C
Securities of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, would
receive an additional $0.0001 per share.
    The purpose of this proposed change is to incentivize member
organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in the Tape A
securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality
of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for
incoming orders. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive
environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable
orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. Because the proposed tier
requires a member organization to achieve a minimum volume of its
trades in orders that add liquidity, the Exchange believes that the
proposed credits would provide an incentive for all member
organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to
qualify for them. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member
organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Since the proposed tier is new, the Exchange does not know how
many member organizations could qualify for the new tiered rate based
on their current trading profile on the Exchange and if they choose to
direct order flow to the NYSE. However, without having a view of member
organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any member organization directing orders to the Exchange in
order to qualify for the new tier.
Tier 6 Adding Credit
    The Exchange proposes a new Tier 6 Adding Credit for orders, other
than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add liquidity to the
Exchange. As proposed, the Exchange would provide a $0.0015 credit in
Tape A securities if a member organization's Adding ADV, excluding
liquidity added as an SLP and as a DMM, is at least either:
     0.22% of NYSE CADV, or
     0.15% of NYSE CADV that is at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV
above the member organization's first quarter 2021 adding liquidity as
a percentage of NYSE CADV.
    In addition, member organizations that meet the above requirements
and add liquidity, excluding liquidity added as an SLP, in Tape B and C
Securities of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, would
receive an additional $0.0001 per share.
    The following example illustrates how all of the proposed adding
tiers would operate.
    Assume Member Organization A has an Adding ADV as a percentage of
Tape A CADV of 0.45% in the billing month of which 0.10% was DMM Adding
ADV and 0.05% was SLP Adding ADV:
     Member Organization A would qualify for adding credit of
$0.0017 for displayed adding liquidity, based on the Adding ADV of
0.30%, exceeding the 0.29% requirement.
    If Member Organization A instead had Adding ADV as a percentage of
Tape A CADV of 0.55% in the billing month, of which 0.10% was DMM
Adding ADV and 0.05% was SLP Adding ADV:
     Member Organization A would qualify for adding credit of
$0.0019 for displayed adding liquidity, based on the Adding ADV of
0.40%, exceeding the 0.35% requirement.
    Also assume that Member Organization A had an Adding ADV, excluding
SLP and DMM Adding ADV, of 0.05% in the baseline quarter of the first
quarter 2021. If in another billing month, Member Organization A had an
Adding ADV, excluding SLP and DMM Adding ADV, of 0.17%:
     Member Organization A would qualify for a credit of
$0.0015 for displayed adding liquidity, exceeding the 0.05% step up
with 0.12% over first quarter 2021 baseline and meeting the 0.015%
Adding ADV requirement.
    The purpose of this proposed change is also to incentivize member
organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in the Tape A
securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality
of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for
incoming orders. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive
environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable
orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. Because the proposed tier
requires a member organization to achieve a minimum volume of its
trades in orders that add liquidity, the Exchange believes that the
proposed credits would provide an incentive for all member
organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to
qualify for them. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member
organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Since the proposed tier is new, the Exchange does not know how
many member organizations could qualify for the new tiered rate based
on their current trading profile on the Exchange and if they choose to
direct order flow to the NYSE. However, without having a view of member
organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any member organization directing orders to the Exchange in
order to qualify for the new tier.
Charges for Removing Liquidity
    Currently, the Exchange sets forth the fees for removing liquidity
from the Exchange in Tape A securities in a different section of the
Price List from fees for removing liquidity in Tape B and C securities,
which are grouped with credits for adding liquidity in Tape B and C
securities under their own heading in the Price List. The Exchange
proposes to modify certain fees for removing liquidity in Tapes B and C
securities and relocate them to section of the Price List setting forth
the current fees for removing liquidity in Tape A securities. In
addition, other fees for removing liquidity in Tape B and C securities
would be deleted or relocated within the current section of the Price
List where remove fees and adding credits in Tapes B and C securities
are set forth.
    First, the current base rate charged for non-Floor broker
transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange (i.e., unless one
of the charges set forth immediately below this charge applies) is a
fee of $0.0030. The Exchange proposes that this fee would apply to Tape
B and C securities in addition to Tape A securities.
    Second, under Remove Tier 2 for Tape B and C securities, the
Exchange currently charges a per tape fee of $0.00285 per share to
remove liquidity from the Exchange for member

organizations with an at least 50,000 shares Per Tape of Non-SLP and
Floor broker Adding ADV. This fee would be deleted from Remove Tier 2
and incorporated into a new section under Tape A securities setting
forth rates and new requirements for removing liquidity in Tape A, B
and C securities, as follows.
    As proposed, for non-Floor broker transactions if the member
organization has an Adding ADV, excluding liquidity added by a DMM,
that is at least 250,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape A securities, the
Exchange would offer a fee of $0.00295 for Tape A securities and
$0.00285 for Tape B and C securities. For non-Floor broker transactions
if the member organization has an Adding ADV, excluding liquidity added
by a DMM, that is at least 3,500,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape A
securities, the Exchange would offer a fee of $0.00290 in Tape A
securities and a fee of $0.00285 for Tape B and C securities.
    Further, the Exchange currently charges $0.00285 for non-Floor
broker transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange by member
organizations with an Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a
DMM, that is more than 250,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape A Securities and
less than 500,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape B and Tape C securities
combined during the billing month.
    The Exchange proposes to revise the requirements and extend the
same fee to Tape A, B and C securities. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes a fee of $0.00285 in Tape A, B and C securities for non-Floor
broker transactions if the member organization has Adding ADV,
excluding liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 7,000,000 ADV in
Tape A securities and 500,000 ADV in Tape B and Tape C securities
combined.
    Similarly, the Exchange currently charges $0.00275 for non-Floor
broker transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange by member
organizations with an Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a
DMM, that is at least 250,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape A securities and
at least 500,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape B and C securities combined
during the billing month.
    The Exchange proposes new fees and revised requirements. As
proposed, the Exchange proposes a fee of $0.0028 in Tape A securities
and a fee of $0.00285 Tape B and C securities for non-Floor broker
transactions if the member organization has Adding ADV, excluding
liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 14,000,000 ADV in Tape A
securities and 750,000 ADV in Tape B and Tape C securities combined.
    Finally, in the section of the Price List setting forth fees for
removing liquidity in Tape B and C securities, the Exchange would make
the following additional changes.
    First, for executions on the Exchange in Tape B and C securities
that remove liquidity, the Exchange currently charges $0.0030 per share
for securities priced at or above $1.00, including MPL Orders, unless
the Floor broker fee or the Remove Tier fees applies. The Exchange
proposes to delete this fee since it would be referenced in the above
section.
    Second, following the current $0.0026 fee for Floor broker Tape B
and C executions that remove liquidity from the Exchange, which would
remain unchanged, the Exchange would clarify that remove rates listed
in the Tape A section of the Price List would apply unless a better
rate set forth below apply.
    Finally, the current Remove Tier 1 for Tape B and C securities,
which provides a per tape fee of $0.0026 per share to remove liquidity
from the Exchange for member organizations meeting its requirements,
would be moved from its current place and moved up within the same
section. The rate and requirements would remain unchanged.
    As noted, the current Remove Tier 2 for Tape B and C securities
would be deleted from its current place. The heading titled ``Remove
Tiers For Securities At or Above $1.00 Requirement Rate'' would also be
deleted.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes, taken together,
will incentivize submission of additional liquidity in Tape A, B and
Tape C securities to a public exchange, thereby promoting price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for member organizations. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a
competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-
marketable orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange
does not know how much order flow member organizations choose to route
to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Because the proposed
reconfiguration of the fees involves the introduction of new fees and/
or new requirements, the Exchange does not know how many member
organizations could qualify for the new remove fees based on their
current trading profile on the Exchange and if they choose to direct
order flow to the NYSE. However, without having a view of member
organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any member organization directing orders to the Exchange.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that
market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. 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.'' \12\ While Regulation
NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a ``fragmented''
market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across
multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for
order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that ``such
competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that
stock.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
Adding Tiers
    The proposed new Adding Tier Credits are reasonable. Specifically,
the

Exchange believes that the proposed adding tiers would provide
additional incentives for member organizations to send additional
liquidity providing orders to the Exchange in Tape A securities. As
noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment,
particularly for attracting non-marketable order flow that provides
liquidity on an exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the requirements for the proposed Tier 1
Adding Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit, and Tier 3 Adding Credit are
reasonable because each would encourage additional displayed and non-
displayed liquidity on the Exchange and because market participants
benefit from the greater amounts of displayed and non-displayed
liquidity present on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to provide credits of $0.0019, $0.0017 and $0.0015 when the
current adding tiers offer credits of $0.0018 (current Tier 3, proposed
Tier 4 Adding Credit) and $0.0020 (Tier 2 Adding Credit) because the
proposal would provide additional ways for member organizations to
qualify for a tiered credit by adding liquidity, thereby encouraging
member organizations to send orders that provide liquidity to the
Exchange which in turn contributes to robust levels of liquidity and
promoting price discovery and transparency which benefits all market
participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that the additional
credit of $0.0001 per share for member organizations that meet the
proposed tier requirements and add liquidity, excluding liquidity added
as an Supplemental Liquidity Provider, in Tape B and C Securities of at
least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined is reasonable as a
similar incentive is offered in the NYSE's other adding tiers (Tier 1-3
Adding Credits). Since the proposed Adding Tiers would be new, no
member organization currently qualifies for the proposed pricing tiers.
As previously noted, without a view of member organization activity on
other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether the proposed rule change would result in any member
organization qualifying for the tier. The Exchange believes the
proposed credit is reasonable as it would provide an incentive for
member organizations to direct their order flow to the Exchange and
provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for
the credits, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the
Exchange.
Charges for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to relocate and modify
certain fees, and introduce new fees, for transactions that remove
liquidity from the Exchange in Tape A, B and C securities are
reasonable. The purpose of these changes is to encourage additional
liquidity on the Exchange because market participants benefit from the
greater amounts of displayed liquidity present on a public exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new fees and modifications to
qualification requirements will incentivize additional liquidity in
Tape A, B and Tape C securities to a public exchange to qualify for
lower fees for removing liquidity, thereby promoting price discovery
and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for member
organizations. The proposal is thus reasonable because all member
organizations would benefit from such increased levels of liquidity.
Non-Substantive Changes
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive
clarifying and conforming changes are reasonable and would not be
inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors
because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from
increased clarity and transparency on the Price List, thereby reducing
potential confusion.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants. The Exchange believes its proposal
equitably allocates its fees among its market participants by fostering
liquidity provision and stability in the marketplace.
Adding Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to provide additional
incremental tiered credits for adding liquidity to the Exchange in Tape
A securities is equitable because it would encourage additional
displayed liquidity on the Exchange and because market participants
benefit from the greater amounts of displayed liquidity present on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the magnitude of the additional
credit is not unreasonably high compared to the current adding tier
credits and also relative to the other adding tier credits, which range
from $0.0015 to $0.0031, in comparison to the credits paid by other
exchanges for orders that provide additional step up liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe BZX Fee Schedule, which has adding credits ranging
from $0.0025 to $0.0032, at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. Since the proposed Adding
Tiers would be new, no member organization currently qualifies for
them. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member
organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. As described above, member organizations with liquidity-
providing orders have a choice of where to send those orders. The
Exchange believes that by offering alternate credits for member
organizations to qualify for a tiered credit, more member organizations
will be able to choose to route their liquidity-providing orders to the
Exchange to qualify for one of the proposed credits. However, without
having a view of member organization's activity on other exchanges and
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any member organization directing
orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the new credits.
    The Exchange believes the proposed credits are reasonable as they
would provide an additional incentive for member organizations to
direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added
levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the higher credits, thereby
contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange. The proposal
neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular
category of market participant. All member organizations would be
eligible to qualify for the proposed credits if they meet the proposed
adding liquidity requirements for each proposed tier. The Exchange
believes that offering credits for providing liquidity will continue to
attract order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby providing
additional price improvement opportunities on the Exchange and
benefiting investors generally. As to those market participants that do
not presently qualify for the adding liquidity credits, the proposal
would provide a lower entry point and revised requirements that could
allow those member organizations to qualify for a credit. The proposal
will also not

adversely impact their ability to qualify for other credits provided by
the Exchange.
Charges for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that, for the reasons discussed above, the
proposed changes taken together, will incentivize member organizations
to send additional adding liquidity to achieve lower fees when removing
liquidity in Tape A, B and Tape C securities from the Exchange, thereby
increasing the number of orders that are executed on the Exchange,
promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order
execution opportunities and improving overall liquidity on a public
exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is
equitable because it would apply to all similarly situated member
organizations that remove liquidity in Tape A, B or Tape C securities.
The proposed change also is equitable because it would be consistent
with the applicable rate on other marketplaces. For example, Nasdaq PSX
provides a fee per share for removing liquidity, $0.0028 in Tape A and
B securities and $0.0029 in Tape C securities, if a firm removes 0.065%
or more of Consolidated Volume; otherwise, Nasdaq PSX imposes a charge
of $0.0030 per share for removing liquidity.\15\ The Exchange notes
that since the requirement is for Tape B and Tape C securities
combined, member organizations can meet the requirement by adding
liquidity in either Tape B or Tape C securities, or both. The Exchange
further notes that other marketplaces have tiers with adding
requirements in specific tapes to qualify for a rate in securities on
another tape. For example, to be eligible for a $0.0020 adding credit
in Tape C securities on Nasdaq, firms are required to average a minimum
of 250,000 shares added per day in Tape A or Tape B securities
(combined); otherwise, the Tape C credit for adding liquidity is
$0.0015.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PSX_Pricing.
    \16\ See https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive
environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable
orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not know
how much order flow member organizations choose to route to other
exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Because the proposed
reconfiguration of the fees involves the introduction of new fees and/
or new requirements, the Exchange does not know how many member
organizations could qualify for the new remove fees based on their
current trading profile on the Exchange and if they choose to direct
order flow to the NYSE. However, without having a view of member
organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any member organization directing orders to the Exchange.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
Adding Tiers
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
an additional adding tiers and corresponding credits as the proposed
credits would be provided on an equal basis to all member organizations
that add liquidity by meeting the new proposed adding tier
requirements. For the same reason, the Exchange believes it is not
unfairly discriminatory to provide an additional credit of $0.0001 per
share for member organizations that meet the proposed tier requirements
and add a minimum liquidity as a percentage of Tape B and Tape C CADV.
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed adding tier credits would
incentivize member organizations that meet the new tiered requirements
to send more orders to the Exchange. Since the proposed credits would
be new, no member organization currently qualifies for them. As noted,
without a view of member organization activity on other exchanges and
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any member organization qualifying
for the tier. The Exchange believes the proposed credit is reasonable
as it would provide an incentive for member organizations to direct
their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added levels of
liquidity in order to qualify for the credits, thereby contributing to
depth and market quality on the Exchange. The proposal neither targets
nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of
market participant. All member organizations that provide liquidity
could be eligible to qualify for the proposed credit if meet the
proposed adding liquidity requirements. The Exchange believes that
offering credits for providing liquidity will continue to attract order
flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby providing additional price
improvement opportunities on the Exchange and benefiting investors
generally. As to those market participants that do not presently
qualify for the adding liquidity credits, the proposal will not
adversely impact their existing pricing or their ability to qualify for
other credits provided by the Exchange.
Charges for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that that reconfiguring the charges for
member organizations that remove liquidity in all three tapes will
incentivize submission of additional liquidity in Tape A, B and Tape C
securities to a public exchange to qualify for the fees for removing
liquidity, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations.
    The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the new
rates for removing liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities would be
applied to all similarly situated member organizations and other market
participants, who would all be eligible for the same credit on an equal
basis. Accordingly, no member organization already operating on the
Exchange would be disadvantaged by this allocation of fees. The
Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide lower
fees for removing liquidity as the proposed fee and credits would be
provided on an equal basis to all member organizations that remove
liquidity by meeting the tiered requirements. Further, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee would provide an incentive for member
organizations to remove additional liquidity from the Exchange in Tape
A, B and C securities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related
to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volume. As noted, the proposed change also is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would be consistent with the applicable rate
on other marketplaces.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
member organizations in that they could choose whether to submit orders
to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this
regard.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing 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 would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for member organizations. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation
NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \18\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed changes are designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would continue to incentivize market
participants to direct displayed and non-displayed order flow to the
Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and encourages member
organizations to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity, which benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The
current and proposed fees and credits would be available to all
similarly situated market participants, and, as such, the proposed
change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange. As noted, the proposal would apply to all
similarly situated member organizations on the same and equal terms,
who would benefit from the changes on the same basis. Accordingly, the
proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates
to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-exchange
venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and
credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change can impose any burden on intermarket competition.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2021-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-35. 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-NYSE-2021-35, and should be submitted on
or before July 8, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12747 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

4E8312

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (4E8312) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ
08540 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing tolerances for residues of clofentezine in or on the raw
agricultural commodities avocado at 0.3 parts per million (ppm); papaya
at 0.3 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.5 ppm; cherry, subgroup 12-12A
at 1.0 ppm; peach, subgroup 12-12B at 1.0 ppm; and fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.0 ppm.  Upon the
approval of the aforementioned tolerances, IR-4 proposes that the
existing tolerances for apple at 0.5 ppm; pear at 0.5 ppm; cherry at 1.0
ppm; nectarine at 1.0 ppm; peach at 1.0 ppm; and grape at 1.0 ppm be
removed as unnecessary.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of clofentezine residues in
plants is adequately understood. The metabolism of clofentezine has been
studied in three crops representative of the use pattern for APOLLO SC:
Apples (pome fruit), peaches (stone fruit), and grapes (vines/small
fruit). In each case, unchanged clofentezine was the major extractable
residue present. Non-extractable residues (fiber-bound) were negligible.
Minor amounts of 2-chlorobenzonitrile, the major photo-degradation
product, were detected, predominantly on the fruit surface. Dissipation
of this component may be a significant route in the degradation of
clofentezine on the surface of these crops. The nature of the residue in
grapes, and in all the other registered crops, is therefore adequately
understood. The residue of concern is the parent, clofentezine.

	2. Analytical method. An adequate method for purposes of enforcement of
the proposed clofentezine tolerance is available. An independent method
validation was successfully completed, and the method was found
acceptable. An extensive database of method validation data using this
method on various crop commodities is available. The Limit of
Quantitation (LOQ) and Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) were determined to
be 0.01 ppm and 0.003 ppm, respectively. The method was forwarded to FDA
for inclusion in PAM-II

	3. Magnitude of residues. Adequate crop field trial data are available
for clofentezine in/on almonds, peaches, nectarines, persimmons, and
grapes following application of a SC formulation containing 0.25 lb
ai/A. The established tolerances range from 0.02 ppm in walnuts to 5.0
ppm in almond hulls (40 CFR §180.446). The magnitude of residues for
the proposed tolerance is adequately understood. The results demonstrate
that the maximum residue of clofentezine in or on avocado was 0.0305
ppm, measured 133 to 140 days after application (0.25 pounds active
ingredient (lb a.i.)/acre).

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Clofentezine has a relatively low degree of acute
toxicity and irritation potential. It is classified as toxicity category
III for oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity, and toxicity category IV
for eye and skin irritation. The acute oral lethal dose (LD 50) of
clofentezine was determined to be 5,200 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) in
rats and mice, 3,200 mg/kg in hamsters, and 2,000 mg/kg in beagle dogs.
The acute rat dermal LD 50 was 2,100 mg/kg. Clofentezine is considered
to be practically non-irritating to eyes and skin but is considered to
be a week skin sensitizer in the guinea pig maximization assay.

	2. Genotoxicty. No evidence of genotoxicity was noted in a battery of
in vitro and in vivo studies. Studies submitted included Ames Salmonella
and mouse lymphoma gene mutation assay, a mouse micronucleus assay, a
rat dominant lethal assay, and a gene conversion and mitotic
recombination assay in yeast. Therefore, the registrant concludes that
clofentezine has no potential to induce genotoxicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A multigeneration rate
reproduction study was conducted at dietary concentrations of 0, 4, 40,
and 400 ppm. The parental no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was
40 ppm based on slightly reduced body weights, increased liver weights
and hepatocellular hypertrophy at 400 ppm. No treatment-related
reproductive effects were noted at any dose level.

In a rat developmental toxicity study, clofentezine was administered by
gavage at dose levels of 0, 320, 1, 280 and 3,200 mg/kg/day during
gestation days 6 to 20. Evidence of maternal toxicity was noted at 3,200
mg/kg/day and consisted of decreased weight gain, increased liver
weights and centrilobular hepatocellular enlargement. No developmental
effects were observed at any dose level.

In a rabbit developmental toxicity study, clofentezine was administered
by gavage at dose levels of 0, 250, 1,000 and 3,000 mg/kg/day during
gestation days 7 to 28. Slight maternal toxicity (decreased maternal
food consumption and weight gain) and a slight decrease in fetal weight
were noted at 3,000 mg/kg/day. Thus, the NOAEL was considered to be
1,000 mg/kg/day for both maternal and developmental effects.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a preliminary 90-day feeding study designed
to select a suitable high dose level for a subsequent chronic rate
study, clofentezine was administered to rats at dietary concentrations
of 0, 3,000, 9,000 and 27,000 ppm. A significant reduction in weight
gain was noted at 9,000 and 27,000 ppm. In addition, a marked,
dose-related hepatomegaly and centrilobular hepatocyte enlargement was
noted in all treatment groups.

In a subsequent 90-day feeding study, clofentezine was administered to
rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 40, 400, and 4,000 ppm. Slightly
reduced weight gain, alterations in several clinical pathology
parameters, increased liver, kidney and spleen weights, and
centrilobular hepatocyte enlargement were noted at 400 and/or 4,000 ppm.
Thus, 40 ppm (2.8 mg/kg/day) was considered to be the NOAEL for this
study.

Clofentezine was administered to beagle dogs for 90 days at dietary
concentrations of 0, 3,200, 8,000 and 20,000 ppm. Increased liver
weights were noted at all dose levels but no histopathological changes
nor any other treatment-related effects were observed.

	5. Chronic toxicity. In a 12-month feeding study, clofentezine was
administered to beagle dogs at dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 1,000,
and 20,000 ppm. An increase in adrenal and thyroid weights, as well as
moderate hepatotoxicity consisting of minimal periportal hepatocyte
enlargement with cytoplasmic eosinophilia, hepatomegaly and increased
plasma cholesterol, triglycerides and alkaline phosphatase levels, were
noted at 20,000 ppm. Evidence of slight hepatotoxicity was also noted at
1,000 ppm. Thus, the NOAEL for this study was considered to be 50 ppm
(1.25 mg/kg/day).

In a 27-month feeding study, clofentezine was administered to rats at
dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 40, and 400 ppm. Effects noted at 400
ppm were limited to the liver and thyroid, primarily of males, and
consisted of increased liver weights, a variety of microscopic liver
lesions (centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy and vacuolation, focal
cystic hepatocellular degeneration and diffuse distribution of fat
deposits), increased serum thyroxine levels, and a slight but
statistically significant increase in the incidence of thyroid
follicular cell tumors. The NOAEL was considered to be 40 ppm (2
mg/kg/day).

Clofentezine was not oncogenic to mice when administered for 2 years at
dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 500, and 5,000 ppm. Decreased weight
gain, increased liver weights, and increased mortality were noted at
5,000 ppm. An increased incidence of eosinophilic or basophilic
hepatocytes was noted at 5,000 ppm, and possibly 500 ppm.Show citation
box

Numerous studies were conducted to investigate the mechanism for the
increased incidence of male thyroid follicular tumors that was observed
in the chronic rat study. These studies suggest that the tumors may have
been caused by increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels,
which, in turn, resulted from clofentezine's liver toxicity, and were
not attributable to a genotoxic mode of action.

	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism, tissue distribution and excretion
of clofentezine have been evaluated in a number of species. In all
species, almost all of the administered dose was recovered within 24 to
48 hours after treatment, primarily via the feces. The major route of
metabolism was found to be ring hydroxylation, sometimes preceded by the
replacement of a chlorine atom with a methyl-thio group. Blood and
tissue levels in the fetuses of pregnant rats that had been treated with
clofentezine were much lower than the levels found in the mother,
indicating that clofentezine does not readily pass across the placenta.
In addition, less than 1% of the administered dose was absorbed through
the skin of rats following a 10-hour exposure to the end use formulation
of clofentezine, APOLLO SC.

Following oral dosing of a cow and three goats with 14C-labeled
clofentezine, the residue in milk was identified as a single metabolite,
4-hydroxyclofentezine. Similarly, 4-hydroxyclofentezine has been shown
to be the only metabolite present in fat, liver, and kidney. No
unchanged clofentezine or other metabolites were found. Therefore, the
nature of the residue in animals is adequately understood. The residues
of concern in ruminant commodities and milk are the combined residues of
the parent, clofentezine, and the 4-hydroxyclofentezine metabolite.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of toxicological
concern and therefore, no metabolites need to be included in the
tolerance expression and require regulation.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Except for the thyroid mechanistic studies
mentioned above, no special studies have been conducted to investigate
the potential of clofentezine to induce estrogenic or other endocrine
effects. However, the standard battery of required toxicity studies has
been completed. These studies include an evaluation of the potential
effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation of the
pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term
exposure. Repeated dose studies are generally considered to be of
substantial value as a means for detection of any endocrine effects.
However, with the exception of a slightly increased incidence of thyroid
tumors in male rats, no such effects were noted in any of the repeated
dose toxicity studies with clofentezine. The male rat is known to be
much more susceptible than humans to the carcinogenic effects resulting
from thyroid hormone imbalance and/or increased levels of TSH.
Therefore, the alterations in thyroid hormone and subsequent thyroid
pathological changes, which have been noted following administration of
high doses of clofentezine, are considered to be of minimal relevance to
human risk assessment, particularly considering the low levels of
clofentezine to which humans are likely to be exposed.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The chronic dietary exposure estimates from food
and drinking water do not exceed HED’s level of concern. The cancer
dietary exposure estimates from food and drinking water result in a
cancer risk estimate of 2.8 x 10-7.

Tolerances for bean, snap, succulent, dry, seed; for vegetable,
fruiting, group 8; for fruit, pome, group 11; for cherry; and for fruit,
stone, group 12, except cherry have previously been established and the
updates to the crop grouping is not likely to influence assessment
calculations. As avocado is considered minor crops, contribution from
these sources is not likely to have significant impact on this
assessment.

	i. Food. Clofentezine chronic and cancer dietary risk assessments were
previously conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
DEEM-FCID™, Version 3.16 which uses food consumption data from the
USDA’s NHANES/WWEIA from 2003-2008. A description can be found the
June 6, 2013 Human Health Risk Assessment (PC Code: 125501; Decision
No.: 464564; DP Barcode: D401611).

	ii. Drinking water. There are no monitoring data currently available
for clofentezine or its residues of concern in drinking water. Estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were generated by the
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) using computer modeling
methods. Tier II EDWCs were generated to support clofentezine use on
almonds, apples, Christmas trees, nectarines, containerized plants,
peaches, pears, persimmons, pecans, and walnuts (R. Parker; D404287;
08/03/2012). The surface water EDWCs are based on the USEPA Pesticide
Root Zone Model (PRZM) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS)
using the EXPRESS shell. Estimated groundwater EDWCs were calculated
using the screening model SCI-GROW (Screening Concentrations in Ground
Water, version 2.3, 07/29/03). The highest surface water EDWCs values
are 7.59 ppb (1-in-10 year acute) and 0.062 ppb (1-in-10 year annual
average). The SCI-GROW groundwater concentration is 0.04 ppb.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There are currently no registered residential
uses associated with clofentezine; therefore, a
residential/non-occupational exposure assessment is not required. As a
result, the clofentezine aggregate risk assessment includes only dietary
exposure (food and water).

D. Cumulative Effects Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed
a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA
has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to clofentezine
and any other substances. For the purposes of this assessment,
therefore, EPA has not assumed that clofentezine has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. An acute dietary exposure assessment was not
performed as no appropriate endpoints were identified from the available
clofentezine toxicity studies for the acute dietary scenario. A somewhat
refined chronic dietary exposure assessment was previously performed
that directly incorporated potential drinking water residues. The
estimated exposure to the general U.S. population resulted in an
estimated risk of <1% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).

	2. Infants and children. The estimated exposure to the highest
population subgroup (children 1 < 2 years old) resulted in an estimated
risk of <1% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).

F. International Tolerances At present, no Canadian, Mexican, or CODEX
maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for clofentezine on
avocado.

Codex maintains a clofentezine MRL of 0.5ppm set on “stone fruit”
which could impact sweet and tart cherries.

The tolerance for Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F, is set at 1.0ppm. This does not harmonize with the
2.0ppm Codex tolerance. We would like to keep the tolerance at 1.0ppm
because several countries including Japan and Korea also maintain a
1.0ppm tolerance and it would create export issues were the tolerance
changed.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15769-15771]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0100; Notice 1]

Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Nissan filed a
noncompliance report dated August 26, 2020. Nissan subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on September 18, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Nissan's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before April 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and

will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received
after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the
fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Nissan has determined that certain MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor
vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associate
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Nissan filed a noncompliance report dated
August 26, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Nissan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
September 18, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Nissan's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Motor Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 5,520 MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles,
manufactured between November 26, 2019, and March 24, 2020, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Nissan explains that the noncompliance is that the right-hand LED
headlamp aim in the subject vehicle may be misaligned resulting in a
vertical gradient value below 0.13 as required by paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Vertical gradient. The gradient of the
cutoff measured at either 2.5[deg] L or 2.0[deg] R must be not less
than 0.13 based on the procedure of S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.

V. Summary of Nissan's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Nissan's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Nissan. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Nissan describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Nissan provided NHTSA with the
following:
    1. Nissan states that the supplier (Ichikoh) did not apply the
correct aiming logic when setting the head lamp aim parameters in the
subject vehicles and, as a result, the right-hand LED headlamp aim may
be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient value below 0.13. Nissan
asserts that a lower G-Value will lead to a headlamp cut line that is
slightly less sharp. Ichikoh inspected 3,506 lamps and found 572 lamps
with a G-Value below 0.13. However, when the cut-off value is brought
down to two decimals instead of three (per the express requirement in
FMVSS No. 108), only 286 lamps (about 8%) fall below the 0.13 minimum
threshold. Of the 286 lamps, 248 (about 87%) are at a gradient value of
0.12.
    2. Ichikoh has also confirmed that, even when the G-Value is below
0.13, all points of the Light Distribution achieve the required
specifications of FMVSS No. 108 for both the low and high beam
performance.
    3. Nissan states that it has not received any reports from the
field of customer complaints, warranty claims, crashes, injuries, or
fatalities related to this issue.
    4. Nissan contends that the purpose of the gradient requirement is
to assist in headlamp re-aiming. Nissan says that the vehicles
potentially affected by this issue were aimed properly at the factory
using a different aiming method. Therefore, the only potential concern
would relate to re-aiming performed after the vehicle has been in use.
Aiming of the headlamps by a service technician in the field is an
event that is expected to occur infrequently. To confirm this, Nissan
searched its repair order database for repair orders on the previous
generation Sentra that involved re-aiming of the headlamps. Out of
1,389,330 vehicles, only 161 repair orders were found that involved
headlamp aiming. This rate of repair would be 0.011% of vehicles. If
the same rate of repair is applied to the expected 420 vehicles in the
subject population, we would expect only 0.05 vehicles of the subject
population to require a re-aiming in the field.
    5. Nissan asserts that the difference in gradient values between
0.12 and 0.13 does not materially affect the ability of a service
technician to properly aim the lamp in the rare case that this would
need to be done in the field.
    6. Even if the lamps had to be re-aimed at some point, according to
Nissan, it is unlikely the driver or other motorists would notice any
glare or observable difference in operation between a fully compliant
lamp and the subject lamps, based on the conditions described above.
    7. In the subject parts, all points of the light distribution
achieve the required specifications of FMVSS No. 108 for both the low
and high beam performance.
    Nissan concludes by again contending that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Nissan no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Nissan
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-06025 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P