[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68718-68725]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22042]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98666; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-35]

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

September 29, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on September 28, 2023, 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) modify fee
rates and requirements for transactions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange; (2) offer a monthly rebate for Designated Market Maker
(``DMM'') units with 150 or fewer assigned securities along with
incentives for affiliated Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs'');
and (3) eliminate an underutilized fee for transactions that remove
liquidity from the Exchange in Tape B and C securities. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee changes effective September 25, 2023. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) modify fee
rates and requirements for transactions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange; (2) offer a monthly rebate for DMM units with 150 or fewer
assigned securities along with incentives for affiliated SLPs; and (3)
eliminate an underutilized fee for transactions that remove liquidity
from the Exchange in Tape B and C securities.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
by incentivizing submission of additional liquidity in Tape A, B and
Tape C securities to a public exchange and offering an additional
incentive to smaller DMM units and affiliated SLPs to quote on the
Exchange. The proposed incentive also seeks to attract potential new
DMM units and affiliated SLPs in order to expand and diversify the pool
of Exchange marker makers.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
September 28, 2023.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Price List on
September 1, 2023 (SR-NYSE-2023-31). SR-NYSE-2023-31 was withdrawn
on September 13, 2023 and replaced by SR-NYSE-2023-32. SR-NYSE-2023-
32 was withdrawn on September 22, 2023 and replaced by SR-NYSE-2023-
33. SR-NYSE-2023-33 was withdrawn on September 28, 2023 and replaced
by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. 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.'' \6\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 17% market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume
of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 12%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ 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.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which the firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces
compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits
because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if
they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    In response to the competitive environment described above, the
Exchange has established incentives for its member organizations who
submit orders that remove liquidity on the Exchange. 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. The Exchange has also established incentives for DMM
units to quote at specified levels. The proposed fee change is designed
to encourage market maker quoting by offering an additional incentive
to smaller DMM units and affiliated SLPs to quote on the Exchange. The
proposed change could also have the added benefit of potentially
attracting new DMM units and affiliated SLPs to the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to revise the rates and requirements for fees
for transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange and pay DMM
units with 150 or fewer assigned securities a new, monthly rebate based
on the number of assigned securities and time at the National Best Bid
(``NBB'') and National Best Offer (``NBO,'' together the ``NBBO'') in
the applicable security in the applicable month, along with a minimum
SLP credit for adding displayed liquidity. The Exchange also proposes
to eliminate an underutilized fee for transactions that remove
liquidity from the Exchange in Tape B and C securities.

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 the rates and requirements for
certain fees for removing liquidity in Tapes B and C securities.
    First, for non-Floor broker transactions that remove liquidity from
the Exchange (i.e., when taking liquidity from the NYSE), the Exchange
currently offers a fee of $0.00290 in Tape A securities and a fee of
$0.00295 for Tape B and C securities where the member organization has
an Adding ADV,\11\ excluding liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least
2,000,000 ADV on the NYSE in Tape A securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The terms ``ADV'' and ``CADV'' are defined in footnote * of
the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change the fee for Tape A securities and
revise the requirements to qualify for the fees, as follows. As
proposed, for non-Floor broker transactions that remove liquidity from
the Exchange, the Exchange would offer a fee of $0.00300 in Tape A
securities and the current fee of $0.00295 for Tape B and C securities
where the member organization has 0.05% Adding ADV of Tape A CADV.
    Second, the Exchange currently offers a fee of $0.00285 in Tape A
securities and a fee of $0.00290 in 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 7,000,000 in Tape
A and 500,000 ADV in Tape B and Tape C combined during the billing
month.
    The Exchange proposes to change the fee for Tape A securities and
revise the requirements to qualify for the fees, as follows. As
proposed, for non-Floor broker transactions that remove liquidity from
the Exchange, the Exchange would offer a fee of $0.00295 in Tape A
securities and the current fee of $0.00290 for Tape B and C securities
where the member organization has 0.10% Adding ADV of Tape A CADV and
0.007% Adding ADV in Tape B and Tape C CADV combined during the billing
month.
    Third, the Exchange currently offers 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 during the billing month.
    The Exchange proposes to change the fee for Tape A securities and
revise the requirements to qualify for the fees, as follows. As
proposed, for non-Floor broker transactions that remove liquidity from
the Exchange, the Exchange would offer a fee of $0.00290 in Tape A
securities and the current fee of $0.00285 for Tape B and C securities
where the member organization has 0.30% Adding ADV in Tape A CADV and
0.01% Adding ADV in Tape B and Tape C CADV combined during the billing
month.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes a new tier for non-Floor broker
transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange. As proposed,
member organizations would be eligible for a fee of $0.00285 in Tape A,
Tape B and Tape C securities for non-Floor broker transactions if the
member organization (1) has 1.05% Adding ADV in Tape A CADV and 0.01%
Adding ADV in Tape B and Tape C CADV combined during the billing month,
or (2) is affiliated \12\ with a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of the Price List, ``affiliate'' means any
member organization under 75% common ownership or control of that
member organization. See NYSE Price List, General, II(c), available
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed change is to encourage member
organizations to send liquidity to the Exchange. Specifically, the
first proposed qualification method seeks to encourage member
organizations to send adding liquidity as way to achieve eligibility
for a lower remove fee, which could in turn incentivize those member
organizations to send removing liquidity to the Exchange in response to
the lower remove fee. The second proposed qualification method seeks to
encourage member organizations that are affiliated with new and
existing DMM units to send removing liquidity to the Exchange as a way
to capture the lower remove fee. Because the tier would be new, the
Exchange does not know how many member organizations could qualify
based on the proposed Adding ADV criteria set out in the first prong.
Similarly, there are 3 member organizations affiliated with a DMM unit
that would be eligible for the lower remove based on that affiliation.
The Exchange does not know, however, whether any of these member
organizations would send sufficient Adding ADV volume to the Exchange
to be eligible for the proposed fee based on the first qualification
method. Whether member organizations become eligible for the proposed
fee based on the proposed Adding ADV criteria or DMM affiliation, the
Exchange believes that both ways incentivize greater participation on
the Exchange and are thus reasonable. In particular, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to offer a lower remove fee based on
affiliation with a DMM unit because if the affiliated member
organization does not qualify for the fee based on adding liquidity,
the member organization's eligibility based on affiliation could
provide an incentive to send removing liquidity to the Exchange in
response to the lower remove fee. The Exchange believes that
eligibility for the proposed fee based on affiliation with a DMM unit
is not unfairly discriminatory because member organizations that are
not affiliated with a DMM unit can still qualify for the lower remove
fee by sending adding liquidity to the Exchange and meeting the ADV
requirements for all Tapes set out in the first qualification method.
The Exchange also notes that it currently offers discounts to member
organizations affiliated with DMM units through its SLP tiered pricing.
Specifically, SLPs that are also DMMs subject to Rule 107B(h)(2)(A)
\13\ and that are registered as a DMM in at least 500 Tape A issues
have lower requirements for Adding Liquidity to qualify for SLP Adding
Tiers 1-6.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 107B(h)(2)(A) prohibits a DMM from acting as a SLP in
the same securities in which it is registered as a DMM. The Exchange
proposes to correct the reference in the Price List, which
incorrectly cites subsection (i).
    \14\ See NYSE Price List, SLP Adding Tiers, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes an approach for the removing tiers that will
compare the liquidity added by member organizations from one based on
ADV to a percentage threshold based on Tape A CADV and combined Tape B
and C CADV. As proposed, the percentage threshold will adjust each
calendar month based on the US average daily consolidated share volume
in Tape A securities and Tape B and Tape C securities CADV for that
month. By allowing tiers to move in sync with consolidated volume, the
proposed change will provide a more consistent floor against which to
measure member organizations' adding volume on the Exchange. In
addition, the proposed change will provide a more straightforward way
to communicate floating volume tiers while maintaining a minimum
threshold, an approach similar to that adopted by other

exchanges.\15\ Although the percentage thresholds will result in lower
minimum share volume requirements for the removing tiers when
consolidated volumes are lower, they will also result in higher minimum
share volume requirements when consolidated volumes are higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') charges fees
for removing liquidity of $0.0030, or $0.0029 in Tape B securities
for ETP Holders meeting the requirements of Adding Tiers 1--4, or
$0.0029 in Tape C securities for ETP Holders meeting the
requirements of Tape C Tier 1. See NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the proposed percentages of CADV are comparable
to the current ADV levels. For example, Tape A CADV in May 2023 was 4
billion shares. The current Tape A Add ADV requirements of 14 million
shares ADV, 7 million shares ADV, and 2 million shares ADV would equate
to 12 million shares ADV (using 0.30% of Tape A CADV), 4.0 million
shares ADV (using 0.10% of Tape A CADV), and 2 million shares ADV
(using 0.05% of Tape A CADV), respectively. The Exchange further notes
that changing the 7 million share requirement to 0.10% of Tape A CADV
represents a significant reduction in the requirement, which the
Exchange believes should encourage more member organizations to
participate in that tiered pricing.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes, taken together,
will incentivize submission of 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 involves the introduction of new fees, incentives, 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. In short, 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.
Small DMM Incentive
    The Exchange proposes to pay DMM units with 150 or fewer assigned
securities a new, monthly rebate based on the number of assigned
securities and time at the NBBO in the applicable security in the
applicable month. The proposed rebate would be payable for each
security assigned to such a DMM in the previous month (regardless of
whether the stock price exceeds $1.00) for which that DMM provides
quotes at the NBBO at least 15% of the time in the applicable month,
which the Exchange proposes to define in the Price List as the
``Incentive Quoting Requirement'').\16\ The proposed monthly rebate
would be in addition to the current rate on transactions and would be
prorated to the number of trading days in a month that an eligible
security is assigned to a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes of the Price List, DMM NBBO Quoting means DMM
quoting at the NBBO. See NYSE Price List, General, third bullet,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf. Time at the NBBO or ``inside'' is calculated as
the average of the percentage of time the DMM unit has a bid or
offer at the inside. Reserve or other non-displayed orders entered
by the DMM are not included in the inside quote calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, a DMM unit that has at least 1 and not more than 24
assigned securities that meets the Incentive Quoting Requirement would
be eligible for a monthly rebate of $250 per qualifying symbol.
    A DMM unit that has a least 25 and no more than 74 assigned
securities that meets the Incentive Quoting Requirement would be
eligible for a monthly rebate of $500 per qualifying symbol. SLPs
affiliated with a DMM unit that has between 25 and 74 assigned
securities that meet the Incentive Quoting Requirement are eligible for
a minimum display credit for SLP Adding of $0.0023 in SLP symbols that
meet the 10% average quoting requirement in an assigned security
pursuant to Rule 107B.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Under Rule 107B, a SLP can be either a proprietary trading
unit of a member organization (``SLP-Prop'') or a registered market
maker at the Exchange (``SLMM''). For purposes of the 10% average or
more quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule
107B, quotes of an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member
organization are not aggregated. However, for purposes of adding
liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate, shares of
both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization are
included. SLPs affiliated with a DMM unit that has between 1 and 24
assigned securities would not be eligible for a minimum display
credit for SLP Adding. It should be noted that eligible SLPs would
receive the better of the proposed minimum display credit or the
applicable current SLP tiered credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a DMM unit that has at least 75 but no more than 150
assigned securities that meets the Incentive Quoting Requirement would
be eligible for a monthly rebate of $1,000 per qualifying symbol. SLPs
affiliated with a DMM unit that has between 75 and 150 assigned
securities that meet the Incentive Quoting Requirement are eligible for
a minimum display credit for SLP Adding of $0.0026 in SLP symbols that
meet the 10% average quoting requirement in an assigned security
pursuant to Rule 107B.
    For example, assume a DMM has 35 assigned securities. Further
assume the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% of the time in 30 of
those assigned securities and quotes under the NBBO 15% of the time in
the remaining 5 assigned securities. For a billable month in those 30
assigned securities that meet the Incentive Quoting Requirement, the
DMM would receive a per qualified symbol credit of $500, with a total
combined credit of $15,000 (30 securities x $500). In addition, a SLP
affiliated with that DMM would receive a minimum credit of $0.0023 for
displayed adding, and would receive a higher credit if that SLP
qualified for higher credits under the SLP Tiers.
    The proposed rule change is designed to provide smaller market
makers (i.e., DMM units with 150 or fewer assigned securities) with an
added incentive to quote in their assigned securities at the NBBO at
least 15% of the time in a given month and increase SLP displayed
adding volume. As described above, member organizations have a choice
of where to send order flow. The Exchange believes that incentivizing
DMM units on the Exchange to quote at the NBBO more frequently could
attract additional orders to the Exchange and contribute to price
discovery which benefits all market participants. In addition,
additional liquidity-providing quotes benefit all market participants
because they provide greater execution opportunities on the Exchange
and improve the public quotation. Moreover, the Exchange believes the
proposed change could have the added benefit of attracting additional
DMM units to the Exchange. Currently, the Exchange has three DMM units,
only one of which has fewer than 150 assigned securities and therefore
could qualify for the rebate.\18\

The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether and how many member
organizations would avail themselves of the opportunity to become an
Exchange DMM unit. However, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rebate could incentivize additional firms to become DMM units on the
Exchange by increasing incentives for new and smaller entrants.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed minimum display
credits for SLPs affiliated with a DMM unit is reasonable because it
would incentivize greater adding liquidity by SLPs affiliated with a
DMM unit, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In contrast, there are 14 competing Lead Marker Makers on
NYSE Arca. See https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse-arca/membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Underutilized Remove Tier Fee
    In August 2019, the Exchange adopted a new, lower fee of $0.0026
per share for removing liquidity from the Exchange in both Tapes B and
C securities as an alternative way for member organizations to qualify
for the Remove Tier for Tape B and C Securities. The purpose of the
change was to incentivize member organizations to remove additional
liquidity from the Exchange, thereby increasing the number of orders
adding liquidity that are executed on the Exchange and improving
overall liquidity on a public exchange, resulting in lower costs for
member organizations that qualify for the rate.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate and remove the fee of $0.0026
per share for removing liquidity from the Exchange in both Tapes B and
C and the associated requirements. The fee has been underutilized by
member organizations insofar as only three have achieved the fee since
it was adopted. The Exchange does not anticipate that any additional
member organization in the near future would qualify for the tiered fee
that is the subject of this proposed rule change.
    The proposed change is 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,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change is Reasonable
    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.'' \21\ 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.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
    \22\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to revise the rates and
requirements for fees for transactions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange 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 modifications
to the qualification requirements, including replacing a fixed volume
number with a percentage of Adding ADV, and the new fees will
incentivize additional liquidity in Tape B and Tape C securities to a
public exchange to qualify for lower fees for removing liquidity on
those tapes, 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. As noted, the Exchange
believes that replacing a fixed volume number with a percentage of
Adding ADV is reasonable because the proposed percentages of Adding ADV
are comparable to the current levels with one exception that represents
a significant reduction in the requirement, which the Exchange believes
is reasonable because it should encourage more member organizations to
participate in that tiered pricing.
    With respect to the addition of percentage ADV thresholds to the
existing share thresholds for the remove pricing tiers, the Exchange
believes that the change is reasonable because the levels of liquidity
provision required to receive the applicable credits will move month to
month with respect to the levels of market volumes. The Exchange
believes the levels of activity required to achieve higher tiers will
be generally consistent with existing requirements for these tiers.
    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable
to offer a lower fee of $0.00285 fee in Tape A, B and C securities for
non-Floor broker transactions if the member organization has 1.05%
Adding ADV in Tape A CADV and 0.01% Adding ADV in Tape B and Tape C
CADV combined during the billing month, or is affiliated with a DMM
unit. As noted above, the proposed fee is designed to encourage member
organizations to send liquidity to the Exchange, which would be
accomplished by member organizations sending adding liquidity to the
Exchange to meet the proposed tier requirements, or based on
affiliation with a DMM unit. In either case, by qualifying for the
lower remove fee, the Exchange believes the member organization would
have an incentive to send removing liquidity to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes both methods are a reasonable way to increase
liquidity on a public exchange. As noted, because the proposed fee is
new, the Exchange does know how many member organizations would qualify
for the proposed fee based on their current Exchange trading profile.
Offering the proposed fee to a small number of member organizations
based on affiliation with a DMM unit would be a reasonable way to
encourage those member organizations to send removing liquidity to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the lower fee irrespective of their
trading profile. Moreover, the Exchange believes the alternative
qualification method based on affiliation alone is reasonable and fair
because member organizations that do not qualify for the proposed lower
fee based on DMM affiliation can still qualify by meeting the proposed
adding

ADV requirements for all Tapes. As noted above, the Exchange currently
has lower requirements for SLPs that are also DMMs subject to Rule
107B(h)(2)(A) and that are registered as a DMM in at least 500 Tape A
issues in order to qualify for SLP Adding Tiers 1-6.\23\ In addition,
DMM units are currently eligible for a 0.00275 charge for removing
liquidity from the Exchange.\24\ The Exchange believes that offering
the proposed tiered remove fee to member organizations that are
affiliated with a DMM unit could incentivize other member organizations
to become DMM units in order for their DMM unit affiliates to become
eligible for the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NYSE Price List, SLP Adding Tiers, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
    \24\ See NYSE Price List, Other Equity Per Share Charges,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small DMM Incentive
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to offer an additional
rebate to a DMM with 150 or fewer assigned securities if it increases
its quoting at the NBBO, and associated incentives for affiliated SLPs,
is a reasonable means to improve market quality, attract additional
order flow to a public market, and enhance execution opportunities for
member organizations on the Exchange, to the benefit of all market
participants. The Exchange notes that the proposal would also foster
liquidity provision and stability in the marketplace and reduce smaller
DMM's reliance on transaction fees. The proposal would also reward DMM
units, who have greater risks and heightened quoting and other
obligations than other market participants. The proposed change is also
a reasonable attempt to potentially attract additional DMM units to the
Exchange by providing financial incentives for smaller firms to become
DMM units. Moreover, offering minimum display credits for SLPs
affiliated with a DMM unit is a reasonable method to incentivize
greater adding liquidity by SLPs that are affiliated with a DMM unit,
thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange. The
Exchange further believes that it is reasonable to offer the proposed
minimum display credits to SLPs affiliated with an DMM unit because the
proposed credits are in line with the current adding credits for all
SLPs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NYSE Price List, SLP Provide Tiers, available at
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf. See note 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Underutilized Remove Tier Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the
underutilized remove tier fee is reasonable because member
organizations have underutilized this fee. As noted, only three member
organizations have achieved the fee since it was adopted. The Exchange
does not anticipate that any additional member organization in the near
future would qualify for the tiered fee that is the subject of this
proposed rule change. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
eliminate fee when such incentives become underutilized. The Exchange
also believes eliminating underutilized incentives would add clarity
and transparency to the Price List.
The Proposal is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
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, Tape 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 from the Exchange. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that providing a new lower fee when removing
liquidity from the Exchange based on Adding ADV in all Tapes or
affiliation with a DMM is equitable because it the proposed lower fee
would apply equally to all similarly situated member organizations. The
Exchange believes that alternatively providing the lower fee based on
affiliation with a DMM unit is also equitable because it would apply to
all similarly situated member organizations that are affiliated with a
DMM unit. Further, the proposed alternative qualification is equitable
because a member organization that would not qualify for the lower fee
based on affiliation has the ability to qualify for the lower fee based
on the proposed Adding ADV criteria.
    The proposed change also is equitable because it would be in line
with the applicable rates on other marketplaces.\26\ As previously
noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly
as it relates to attracting orders, which add or remove 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 requirements and/or new fees, 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. As noted, although there are
currently 3 member organizations affiliated with a DMM unit that could
qualify for the proposed new $0.00285 fee in all Tapes, the Exchange
does not know whether any of these member organizations or how many
additional member organizations could qualify for the proposed rate
based on the member organization's trading profile on the Exchange.
Hence, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') charges fees
for removing liquidity of $0.0030, or $0.0029 in Tape B securities
for ETP Holders meeting the requirements of Adding Tiers 1--4, or
$0.0029 in Tape C securities for ETP Holders meeting the
requirements of Tape C Tier 1. See NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nysearca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small DMM Incentive
    The Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants by fostering liquidity provision and
stability in the marketplace and reducing smaller DMM's reliance on
transaction fees. Moreover, the proposal is an equitable allocation of
fees because it would reward DMM units for their increased risks and
heightened quoting and other obligations. As such, it is equitable to
offer smaller DMM units an additional flat, per security credit for
orders that add liquidity. Moreover, the proposal is an equitable
allocation of fees because it would reward DMM units for their
increased risks and heightened quoting requirements and other
obligations. As such, it is equitable to offer smaller DMM units an
additional flat, per qualified security credit for orders that add
liquidity. The proposed rebate is also equitable because it would apply

equally to any DMM unit of a certain size. The Exchange notes that at
this time there is currently only one DMM unit that could qualify for
the proposed rebate based on its number of assigned securities. The
Exchange believes that the proposal would provide an equal incentive to
any member organization to maintain a DMM unit, and that the proposal
constitutes an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly
situated member organizations would be eligible for the same rebate.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is equitable to offer minimum
display credits to SLPs affiliated with a DMM because the proposed
credits would apply to all similarly situated member organizations that
are affiliated with a DMM unit on a full and equal basis. Further, the
Exchange believes the proposed minimum display credits are equitable
because, as noted, the proposed rates are in line with the current
adding tiered rates for all SLPs and thus an SLP that is not affiliated
with a DMM unit could qualify for comparable rates by satisfying the
current SLP adding requirements.
Deletion of Underutilized Remove Tier Fee
    The Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates fees among
its market participants because the underutilized fee the Exchange
proposes to eliminate would be eliminated in its entirety, and would no
longer be available to any member organization in any form. Similarly,
the Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates fees among its
market participants because elimination of the underutilized fee would
apply to all similarly-situated member organizations that remove
liquidity from the Exchange on an equal basis. All such member
organizations would continue to be subject to the same fee structure,
and access to the Exchange's market would continue to be offered on
fair and nondiscriminatory terms.
The Proposal is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
Charges for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that that reconfiguring the fee for member
organizations that remove liquidity from the Exchange will incentivize
submission of additional liquidity in Tape B and Tape C securities to a
public exchange to qualify for the lower 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 credits on an equal basis.
Moreover, the new lower fee when removing liquidity also neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant. The proposal does not permit unfair
discrimination because the proposed alternative criteria would be
applied to all similarly situated member organizations, who would all
be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Member organizations
could qualify the new lower rate either by meeting the proposed Adding
ADV requirements in all Tapes or based on affiliation with a DMM unit.
In both cases, the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the proposed criteria apply equally to all similarly situated
member organizations, and all member organizations eligible for the new
fee under either criteria would be eligible for the same credit on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. Accordingly, no member organization
already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the
proposed allocation of fees.
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
higher fees for removing liquidity in Tape A securities insofar as the
proposed fees 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 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 in line with the
applicable rates on other marketplaces.\27\ It should be noted that 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.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small DMM Incentive
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, member
organizations are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. For example, member
organizations could display quotes on competing exchanges rather than
quoting sufficiently on the Exchange to meet the 15% NBBO quoting
requirement. The Exchange believes that offering a rebate for DMM units
with 150 or fewer assigned securities in the previous month would
provide a further incentive for smaller DMM units to quote and trade
their assigned securities on the Exchange, and will generally allow the
Exchange and DMM units to better compete for order flow, thus enhancing
competition. The Exchange also believes that the requirement of 150 or
fewer assigned securities to qualify for the credit is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all existing and
prospective member organizations with 150 or fewer assigned securities
that choose to maintain a DMM unit on the Exchange. The Exchange does
not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to offer incentives
based on a maximum threshold. The Exchange notes that it currently
offers incentives that apply equally to all member organizations that
cannot or choose not to exceed a certain volume threshold.\28\ The
Exchange believes that the proposal would provide an equal incentive to
any member organization to maintain a DMM unit, and that the proposal
would not be unfairly discriminatory because the threshold-based
incentive would be offered on equal terms to all similarly situated
member organizations. Finally, the proposed minimum display credits for
SLPs affiliated with a DMM unit neither targets nor will it have a
disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The
proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the proposed
minimum display credits would be applied to all similarly situated SLPs
that are affiliated with a DMM unit, who would all be eligible for the
same credit on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. Moreover, the
proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because SLPs that are
not affiliated with a DMM

unit can qualify for comparable rates by satisfying the current SLP
adding requirements. Accordingly, no member organization already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For instance, the first 750,000 ADV of the aggregate of
executions at the close by a member organization are not charged.
See NYSE Price List, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Underutilized Remove Tier Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because it neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed elimination of the underutilized fee would affect all
similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that eliminating a fee that
is underutilized and ineffective would no longer be available to any
member organization on an equal basis. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed change would protect investors and the public interest
because the deletion of an underutilized fee would make the Price List
more accessible and transparent.
    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,\29\ 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.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \30\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow and new potential DMM units to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes, including the DMM rebate
that would continue to incentivize smaller DMM units to quote at the
NBBO more frequently, would continue to incentivize market participants
to direct order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all
market participants on the Exchange by providing more execution
opportunities on the Exchange and encourages member organizations to
send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which
benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The proposed fees and
rebate would be available to all similarly-situated market
participants, and, as such, the proposed changes 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 has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \31\ of the Act and paragraph (f) thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSE-2023-35 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-2023-35. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-35 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22042 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53421]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-1028]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 9, 2017, the Coast Guard published a rule
establishing temporary safety zones in the Atlantic Ocean, off the
coast of Rehoboth Beach, DE and in Breakwater Harbor near Cape
Henlopen. The rule was made enforceable from November 6, 2017, through
February 28, 2018. However, in regulatory text the February date was
mistakenly given as February 28, 2017. This document corrects that
error.

DATES: Effective November 16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Waterways Management Branch,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its temporary final rule published on
November 9, 2017, the Coast Guard established temporary safety zones
near dredging and pipe laying operations, diving operations, and
underwater construction operations (82 FR 52005). The DATES section of
the rule and the preamble both gave the expiration date of the
temporary rule as February 28, 2018. In the regulatory text provided
for the Code of Federal Regulations, however, that date was mistakenly
given as February 28, 2017. This document corrects the error. Because
the temporary final rule uses the correct date in all other instances,
and because February 2017 has already passed, the Coast Guard finds it
unnecessary to offer prior notice and opportunity for public comment on
this correction.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

Sec.  165.T05-1028  [Amended]

0
 2. In Sec.  165.T05-1028(d), remove the date ``February 28, 2017'' and
add in its place the date ``February 28, 2018''.

Katia G. Kroutil,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-24805 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36426]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 175, 176, 177, and 178

[Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1253]

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.; Denial of Food
Additive Petition; Denial Without Prejudice of Food Additive Petition;
Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notification; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a
notification that appeared in the Federal Register of May 20, 2022. The
notification inadvertently mislabeled the copyright status of certain
references. This document corrects that error.

DATES: This notification is effective June 17, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meadow Platt, Office of Regulations
and Policy (HFS-024), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,
240-402-2378.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, May 20,
2022 (87 FR 31066), in FR. Doc. 2022-10530, the following corrections
are made:
    On page 31078, in the third column, under ``VI. References,''
asterisks are removed from reference numbers 5, 8, and 9 because these
references are subject to copyright restrictions.

    Dated: June 10, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-13076 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31327-31328]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13400]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0119; FRL-9313-2]

Draft National Coastal Condition Report IV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice invites public comment on the draft National
Coastal Condition Report IV (NCCR IV), which describes the condition of
the Nation's coastal waters. Clean coastal waters provide
environmental, public health, recreational, and economic value;
however, these waters are vulnerable to pollution and other stressors
from a variety of sources. According to the draft NCCR IV, the overall
condition of the Nation's coastal waters continues to be fair, with
marginal improvement from EPA's 2008 National Coastal Condition Report
III. EPA expects that this Report on the condition of coastal waters
will increase public awareness about the extent and seriousness of
pollution in these waters and will support more informed decisions
concerning protection of this resource.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-EPA-
HQ-OW-2007-0019], by one of the following methods:
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460,
    Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room
3334, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-EPA-HQ-OW-
2007-0019. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov.
    The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Colianni, Ocean and Coastal
Protection Division, Office of Water, 4504T, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Virginia Engle, Gulf Ecology
Division, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    This report is designed to help us better understand the condition
of the nation's coastal waters, whether that condition is getting
better or worse, and how different regions compare. This report,
however, cannot represent all individual coastal and estuarine systems
of the U.S. and is based on a limited number of ecological indices and
component indicators for which nationally consistent data sets are
available to support estimates of ecological condition. The assessments
provided in this report, and more importantly, the underlying data used
to develop the assessments, provides a picture of historical coastal
conditions at state, regional, and national scales. For example, the
National Coastal Assessment (NCA) data have been used to provide
insight into the conditions in the estuaries of Louisiana and
Mississippi prior to Hurricane Katrina. These data may also be used,
along with data and studies by others, to help us understand conditions
in Gulf of Mexico estuaries prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident and
subsequent BP oil spill. However, the methodology and data used in this
report were not designed to assess all impacts related to oil spills as
an ecological stressor. This report does not include, for example,
indicators for all oil-related contaminants such as oil itself, grease,
alkylated PAHs, or volatile organic compounds, dispersant compounds, or
other indicators of oil spill-related

exposure that might be required in a comprehensive environmental
assessment. Any comparisons to environmental data collected to assess
the impact of the BP oil spill on Gulf of Mexico estuaries should be
limited to the indicators and methods presented in this report, and to
broad generalizations about coastal conditions at state, regional or
national scales.
    Nevertheless, in light of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, EPA recognizes that some may wish to use the 2003-2006 data
presented in the draft NCCR IV as a basis for comparison of ecological
conditions in Gulf of Mexico coastal waters following the oil spill.
EPA seeks comments from the scientific community on the utility and
limitations of the information presented in the draft NCCR IV for this
type of impact analysis.
    The National Coastal Condition Reports represent collaboration
among EPA (Office of Water (OW) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD)), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), and coastal state
agencies. The first National Coastal Condition Report published in 2001
in partnership with NOAA, USFWS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) included some data from about 70%
of the U.S. coastal waters. Based upon available data from 1990-1996,
the Report concluded that the Nation's coastal waters were in fair
condition. The second National Coastal Condition Report, released in
2005, included some data from all of the Nation's coastal waters in the
conterminous 48 states and Puerto Rico, and concluded that these waters
continued to be in fair condition. The third National Coastal Condition
Report, released in 2008, built upon the previous reports and provided
assessments based on data collected from 2001 to 2003. The third Report
similarly concluded that the overall condition of the Nation's coastal
waters was fair. According to the draft NCCR IV, the overall condition
of the Nation's coastal waters continues to be fair, with marginal
improvement from EPA's 2008 National Coastal Condition Report III.
    With each successive report the geographic scope of NCA coverage
has expanded. This fourth edition of the NCCR includes for the first
time an assessment of estuarine condition in American Samoa, Guam, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands along with updated assessment of coastal waters
of the conterminous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The NCCR IV
data were collected from 3,144 sites from 2003 through 2006. This
Report serves as a useful tool for analyzing the progress of coastal
programs implemented since the first Report and as a ``benchmark'' for
future comparisons and therefore allows for the analysis of trends in
condition over time.
    The information presented in the NCCR IV is more streamlined than
the NCCR III, with a greater focus on NCA indicators rather than
highlights of other coastal programs. In addition to expanded NCA
geographic coverage, the NCCR IV also includes several new sections:
Summaries of offshore ocean condition for three areas (Mid-Atlantic
Bight, South Atlantic Bight, and the West Coast) and comparisons of
these waters with near-shore condition, trends in regional beach
closures, a Great Lakes fisheries section, and a chapter on emerging
coastal issues.
    The Draft National Coastal Condition Report IV is also undergoing
an external peer review led by EPA's Office of Research and
Development. The peer review plan, including the peer review charge
questions, is available upon request by contacting Virginia Houk at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The draft document can be found on the Web at:
    http://nccr4.rti.org/
    Username = nccr4
    Password = Coastal10!

    Dated: May 20, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-13400 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P