[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65124-65127]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22706]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90123; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Rebate Tiers in the Fee Schedule

October 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 5, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') to amend certain Step-Up
Tiers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. The Exchange in particular operates a
``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays credits to members that provide
liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove liquidity. The
Exchange's fee schedule sets forth the standard rebates and rates
applied per share for orders that provide and remove liquidity,
respectively. Particularly, for orders priced at or above $1.00, the
Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.0020 per share for orders
that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders
that remove liquidity. In response to the competitive environment, the
Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides Members
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where
certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides
an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or

discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
    One of the tiered pricing models is set forth in Footnote 2 of the
fee schedule (Step-Up Tiers), which provides Members an opportunity to
qualify for an enhanced rebate on their orders that add liquidity where
they increase their relative liquidity each month over a predetermined
baseline. Tier 1 of the Step-Up Tiers provides an enhanced rebate of
$0.0030 per share for Members with Step-Up Add TCV \4\ from April 2019
equal to or greater than 0.05%. Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers provides an
enhanced rebate of $0.0032 per share for Members that have an MPID that
(1) has a Step-Up Add TCV from May 2019 equal to or greater than 0.10%
and (2) has an ADAV \5\ as a percentage of TCV equal or greater than
0.25%. Lastly, Step-Up Tier 3 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0033
per share where a Member has a Step-Up Add TCV from April 2020 equal to
or greater than 0.30%. The Exchange notes that step-up tiers are
designed to encourage Members that provide displayed liquidity on the
Exchange to increase their order flow, which would benefit all Members
by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \5\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to eliminate Step-Up Tier 1. The
Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is it required to, maintain such tier
and therefore proposes to eliminate Step-Up Tier 1 from the fee
schedule and re-number Step-Up Tiers 2 and 3 to reflect the elimination
of Step-Up Tier 1. Specifically, the proposed rule change removes this
tier as the Exchange would rather redirect resources and funding into
other programs and tiers intended to incentivize increased order flow.
The Exchange next proposes to amend one of the criteria required under
current Step-Up Tier 2 (proposed to be renumbered to Step-Up Tier 1).
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to change the threshold of ADAV
(i.e., add volume) as a percentage of TCV requirement in the second
prong to a threshold of ADV \6\ (i.e., add and remove volume) of TCV
and also change the threshold amount from 0.25% to 0.50%. (i.e., the
second prong will require that a Member's MPID increase their overall
order flow, both adding and removing liquidity, as a percentage greater
than or equal to 0.50% of the TCV). The Exchange believes the proposed
change incentivizes increased overall order flow to the Book, which may
contribute to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of all market
participants by creating a more robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem. Additionally, to achieve the Step-Up Tier 2, even as
modified (to be renumbered to Step-Up Tier 1), Members are still
required to increase the amount of liquidity that they provide on BZX
on an MPID basis, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid
market, which benefits all market participants. The Exchange also notes
that Step-Up 2 tier (to be renumbered to Step-Up Tier 1), as modified,
continues to be available to all Members and provide Members an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate, albeit using a more
stringent criteria. Moreover, the amount of the current enhanced
rebates under Step-Up Tiers 2 and 3 (to be renumbered to Step-Up Tiers
1 and 2) are not changing (i.e., the Exchange proposes to change only
the criteria under current Step-Up Tier 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADAV and ADV are
calculated on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes
reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to
remove Step-Up Tier 1 is reasonable because the Exchange is not
required to maintain this tier and Members still have a number of other
opportunities and a variety of ways to receive enhanced rebates for
displayed liquidity adding orders, including via the existing Step-Up
Tiers 2 and 3 (to be renumbered to Step-Up Tiers 1 and 2). The Exchange
believes the proposal to eliminate this tier is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (i.e., the
tier won't be available for any Member). The Exchange notes that in the
past several members satisfied Step-Up Tier 1, but that more recently
one Member satisfied Step-Up Tier 1. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed change does not preclude any Member, including the Member that
was receiving the rebate under Step-Up Tier 1, from achieving the
remaining Step-Up tiers to qualify for the remaining enhanced rebates
or other available enhances rebates under other incentive tiers.\9\
Additionally, that Member is still entitled to a rebate for its
displayed orders adding liquidity (i.e., the standard rebate), albeit a
rebate that is lower than the amount under Step-Up Tier 1. The proposed
rule change merely results in a Member not receiving a particular
enhanced rebate, which as noted above, the Exchange is not required to
offer or maintain. Additionally, as noted above, the Member, along with
all Members, are eligible to qualify for the remaining Step-Up Tier
rebates should they satisfy the respective criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Cboe BYX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, which
provides various Add/Remove Volume Tiers applicable to fee codes B,
V, and Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the
criteria in Step-Up Tier 2 (to be renumbered to Step-Up Tier 1) is
reasonable because the tier continues to provide an opportunity for
Members to receive an enhanced rebate (which amount is not changing),
albeit using more stringent criteria. The Exchange notes that relative
volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by
exchanges,\10\ including the Exchange,\11\ and are reasonable,
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all members
on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated higher levels of growth patterns. Additionally, as
noted above, the Exchange operates in highly competitive market. The
Exchange is only one of 16 equity venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of
the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-taker
exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply

based upon members achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds.
These competing pricing schedules, moreover, are presently comparable
to those that the Exchange provides, including the pricing of
comparable tiers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities, Fees and Charges, Step Up
Tiers.
    \11\ See e.g., Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 2, Step-Up Tiers 1-3.
    \12\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities, Fees and Charges, Step Up
Tiers which offers rebates between $0.0022--$0.0034 per share if the
corresponding required criteria per tier is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes the Step-Up Tier 2 (to be
renumbered Step-Up Tier 1) continues to be a reasonable means to
encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange based on
increasing their relative volume above a predetermined baseline on an
MPID basis and now will also incentivize increased overall order flow
on an MPID basis. Increased liquidity benefits all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the
quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection. The Exchange also believes that the enhanced
corresponding rebate is still reasonable based on the difficulty of
satisfying the tier's criteria, even as modified, and appropriately
reflects the incremental difficulty to achieve the existing Step-Up
Tiers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Step-Up Tier 2
(to be renumbered Step-Up Tier 1) represents an equitable allocation of
fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members will be
eligible for the tier, even as modified, and the corresponding enhanced
rebate will apply uniformly to all Members that reach the proposed tier
criteria. That is, the proposed tier is designed as an incentive to any
and all Members interested in meeting the tier criteria to submit
additional order flow to the Exchange and each will receive the
proposed enhanced rebate if the tier criteria is met. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that a couple of Members have a reasonable
opportunity to satisfy the tier's criteria, even as modified. While the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
definitively result in any particular Member qualifying for the
proposed tier, the Exchange anticipates at least two to three Members
meeting, or being reasonably able to meet, the proposed criteria;
however, the proposed tier is open to any Member that satisfies the
tier's criteria. The Exchange also notes that the proposed change will
not adversely impact any Member's pricing or their ability to qualify
for other rebate tiers. Rather, should a Member not meet the proposed
criteria, the Member will merely not receive the corresponding enhanced
rebate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
not impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage increased overall order flow to the Book,
thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for all Members. As a result,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
changes apply to all Members equally and all Members are eligible for
the enhanced rebates offered for Step-Up Tiers 2 and 3 (to be
renumbered to Step-Up Tiers 1 and 2, respectively) and will all receive
the enhanced rebate if such criteria is met. Additionally, the proposed
change is designed to attract additional adding and removing order flow
to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on
the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and encourages
Members to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity, which benefits all market participants.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 15 other equities exchanges and
off-exchange venues, including 32 alternative trading systems.
Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall
market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities
exchange has more than 19% of the market share.\14\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. Indeed, 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. Moreover, the Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \15\ The fact that this market is competitive
has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\16\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(September 28, 2020), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \16\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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 pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeBZX-2020-073 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-CboeBZX-2020-073. 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-CboeBZX-2020-073 and should be submitted
on or before November 4, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22706 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14946-14948]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.'s (Volkswagen) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its
Audi e-tron GT vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2023. The
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard. Volkswagen also requested confidential treatment
for specific information in its petition. Therefore, no confidential
information provided for purposes of this notice has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2023 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger
motor vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106,
manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may
petition the Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a line of
passenger motor vehicles equipped with an antitheft device as standard
equipment that the Secretary decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. In accordance with this statute, NHTSA
promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which establishes the process through
which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the theft prevention
standard.
    49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under Sec.
543.6 or Sec.  543.7. Under Sec.  543.6, a manufacturer may request an
exemption by providing specific information about the antitheft device,
its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to
be as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7 permits a manufacturer to
request an exemption under a more streamlined process if the vehicle
line is equipped with an antitheft device (an ``immobilizer'') as
standard equipment that complies with one of the standards specified in
that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards: (1) The
performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of C.R.C, c.
1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March
30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543]; (2) National
Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile Theft Deterrent
Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998); (3)
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation
No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle
Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm
System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or (4) UN/ECE Regulation No.
116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the
Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use in effect on
February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in Sec.
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with Sec.  543.8(b), will grant the
petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is likely to

be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541.
    Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under Sec.  543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under Sec.  543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under Sec.  543.8(g),
if the petition is sought under Sec.  543.7, NHTSA notifies the
petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
    This grant of petition for exemption considers Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.'s (Volkswagen) petition for its Audi e-tron GT vehicle
line beginning in MY 2023.

I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6

    Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Volkswagen petitioned for an exemption for its specified
vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard, beginning in MY 2023. Volkswagen petitioned under
49 CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as
described above, requires manufacturers to provide specific information
about the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all
vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft
device's capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements.
    More specifically, Sec.  543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to include
a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as standard
equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption is
sought. Under Sec.  543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each component
in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the location of
each of those components within the vehicle. As required by Sec.
543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the means and
process by which the device is activated and functions, including any
aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage its
activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by an
unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other than a
key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an unauthorized
person has entered using means other than a key; and (5) ensure the
reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which have parts-marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
    \5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe Volkswagen's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Volkswagen's
petition is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Volkswagen's Petition for Exemption

    In a petition dated November 29, 2021, Volkswagen requested an
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard for its Audi e-tron GT vehicle line beginning with MY 2023.
    In its petition, Volkswagen provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for its Audi e-tron GT vehicle line. Volkswagen stated
that its fifth generation transponder-based electronic engine
immobilizer antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on
the entire MY 2023 Audi e-tron GT vehicle line, including any sport or
special editions within the line. Key components of the antitheft
device will include an adapted ignition key (ID-transmitter or ``key
fob''), body computer 2 (BMC2) as the immobilizer's primary control
unit, park lock actuator as a secondary control unit and power control
units one and two as secondary control units.
    Pursuant to Sec.  543.6(a)(3), Volkswagen explained that its
immobilizer device actively incorporates the power control unit into
the evaluation and monitoring process. Volkswagen also stated that
activation of its immobilizer device occurs automatically after the
engine is switched off. Deactivation of the immobilizer device occurs
when the ignition is turned on or the key fob is recognized by the
immobilizer control unit. Specifically, when turning on the ignition
on/off switch, the key transponder sends a fixed code to the
immobilizer control unit. If this is identified as the correct code, a
variable code is generated in the immobilizer control unit and sent to
the transponder. Volkswagen stated that a secret arithmetic process is
then started according to a set of specific equations and that a new
variable code is generated every time the immobilizer goes through the
secret computing process. The results of the computing process are
evaluated in the control unit and if verified, the vehicle key is
acknowledged as correct. The engine control unit then sends a variable
code to the immobilizer control unit for mutual identification. If all
the data matches, the vehicle can be started.
    As required in Sec.  543.6(a)(3)(v), Volkswagen provided
information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Volkswagen stated
that the antitheft device has been tested for compliance with its
corporate requirements, including those for electrical and

electronic assemblies in motor vehicles related to performance
requirements including electrical system temperature stability,
mechanical integrity, electrical performance, electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), environmental compatibility and service life.
    In accordance with 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5), Volkswagen provided data on
the theft rate of similarly-sized vehicle lines that had been granted
an exemption from the parts-marking requirement. Volkswagen also
referenced the effectiveness of immobilizer devices installed on other
vehicles for which NHTSA has granted exemptions. Specifically,
Volkswagen referenced information from the Highway Loss Data Institute
which showed that BMW vehicles experienced theft loss reductions
resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim frequency and a 78% lower
average loss payment per claim for vehicles equipped with an
immobilizer. Volkswagen also stated that the National Crime Information
Center's (NCIC) theft data showed that there was a 70% reduction in
theft experienced when comparing the MY 1987 Ford Mustang vehicle
thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 1995 Ford Mustang vehicle thefts
(without immobilizers).

III. Decision To Grant the Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Volkswagen has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for its vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. This
conclusion is based on the information the Volkswagen provided about
its antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Volkswagen, that the antitheft device described for its
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the theft prevention standard.
    The agency concludes that Volkswagen's antitheft device will
provide the five types of performance features listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts
of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other
than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    If Volkswagen decides not to use the exemption for its requested
vehicle line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such
a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Volkswagen wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.10(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
the exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if
Volkswagen contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might
be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Volkswagen's petition for exemption for the Audi e-tron GT vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with
its MY 2023 vehicles.
    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-05571 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21635-21636]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting
on Thursday, April 14, 2016, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.
Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at
9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will
be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

    On March 23, 2016, the Commission issued notice of the Committee
meeting (Release No. 33-10058), indicating that the meeting is open to
the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to
submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is
being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a
discussion of a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser
subcommittee regarding mutual fund cost disclosure; an update from the
Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations;
subcommittee reports; a discussion regarding cybersecurity and related
investor protection concerns; reflections on the first full term of
Investor Advisory Committee membership; and a nonpublic administrative
work session during lunch.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 7, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08445 Filed 4-8-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48618-48620]
[DOCID:fr11au10-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0781; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-49-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS-365N2, AS
365 N3, and SA-365N1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified Eurocopter France model helicopters. This proposed AD would
require replacing the aluminum tail rotor (T/R) blade pitch control
shaft with a steel T/R blade pitch control shaft. This proposed AD is
prompted by an incident involving a Eurocopter France Model AS-365N2
helicopter on which there was a loss of control of the T/R due to a
broken shaft. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to
prevent failure of the T/R blade pitch control shaft, loss of T/R
control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
http://www.eurocopter.com.
    You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2010-0781,
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-49-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of the docket Web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No. 2007-0220, dated August 13, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition
for Eurocopter AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, and SA 365 N1 helicopters, all
serial numbers, equipped with an aluminum T/R blade pitch control
shaft, part number (P/N) 365A33.6161.20 or P/N 365A33.6161.21. The EASA
advises of an incident in which the pilot of a Model AS 365 N2
helicopter encountered a loss of control of the T/R, but executed an
uneventful run-on landing. A subsequent investigation revealed that the
T/R blade pitch control shaft, P/N 365A33.6161.21, had broken in the
main section of the shaft sliding area, which appeared to be damaged by
peening. The origin of the crack, which developed under fatigue
loading, could not be determined. However, accidental damage (i.e.,
shock impact), is believed to have caused the initiation of a crack.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.00.59, dated
June 21, 2007, which specifies removing any T/R blade pitch control
shaft, P/N 365A33.6161.20 or P/N 365A33.6161.21, and replacing it with
a steel T/R blade pitch control shaft, P/N 365A33.6214.20. The EASA
classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and issued EASA AD
No. 2007-0220, dated August 13, 2007, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
France, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with France, the EASA, their technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by the EASA and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs. This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours
time-in-service, removing any aluminum T/R blade pitch control shaft,
P/N 365A33.6161.20 or P/N 365A33.6161.21, and replacing it with a steel
T/R blade pitch control shaft, P/N 365A33.6214.20. The actions would be
required to be accomplished by following specified portions of the
alert service bulletin described previously.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    Our proposed AD differs from the EASA AD in that we require
compliance within 100 hours time-in-service instead of no later than
December 31, 2007, since that date has passed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 36 helicopters of
U.S. registry and the proposed actions would take approximately 12 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $85 per
work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $3,525. Based on
these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $163,620 to replace the aluminum T/R blade pitch
control shaft on the entire fleet, or $4,545 per helicopter.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed
AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with

this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2010-0781; Directorate Identifier
2007-SW-49-AD.

    Applicability: Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-365N1
helicopters, with an aluminum tail rotor (T/R) blade pitch control
shaft, part number (P/N) 365A33.6161.20 or P/N 365A33.6161.21,
installed, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required within 100 hours time-in-service, unless
accomplished previously.
    To prevent failure of the T/R blade pitch control shaft, loss of
T/R control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,
accomplish the following:
    (a) Remove the aluminum T/R blade pitch control shaft, P/N
365A33.6161.20 or P/N 365A33.6161.21, and replace it with a steel T/
R blade pitch control shaft, P/N 365A33.6214.20, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, Operational Procedure, paragraphs
2.B.1. through 2.B.3., of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No.
01.00.59, dated June 21, 2007.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Jim Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6500:
Tail Rotor Drive System.

    Note:  The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency AD No. 2007-0220, dated August 13, 2007.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 2, 2010.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19823 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48559-48562]
[DOCID:fr24au07-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175; FRL-8459-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Reading 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania
ozone nonattainment area (Reading Area) be redesignated as attainment
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the PADEP submitted SIP
revisions consisting of a maintenance plan for the Reading Area that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for
the Reading Area which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving
the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the Reading Area maintenance plan for
purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.
EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan,
and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 10,
2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the electronic

docket, 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 for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. Background

    On May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29901), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Reading Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007. Other
specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and SIP
revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationale for EPA's proposed
actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the
Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the
Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard
in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185
penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to
attain that NAAQS. In addition the June 8, 2007 decision clarified that
the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding
purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor
vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-
hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
    For the reasons set forth in the May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29901)
proposed rulemaking, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings
alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June
8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with the
redesignation of this Area to attainment, because even in light of the
Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8, 2007 decision clarified
that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in
their 1-hour maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that
those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations
until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must continue to comply with the
applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part
93. As discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA is approving 8-hour
MVEBs for the Reading Area. Approval of the 8-hour MVEBs means that the
1-hour budgets no longer apply under anti-backsliding. The court
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

II. Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received one comment. The comment did not object to the
proposed approvals of the redesignation request, maintenance plan or
the 2002 base year inventory. The comment merely pointed out that EPA's
notice had incorrectly identified the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) with jurisdiction over the Reading Area. EPA
acknowledges that, as the commenter notes, we mistakenly identified the
MPO as the ``Northern Tier RPO'' in the notice. The MPO, however, is
identified correctly in the maintenance plan for the Reading Area
(Berks County). The reference to the ``Northern Tier RPO'' on page
29911 of the May 30, 2007 notice therefore should have been to Reading
Metropolitan Planning Organization (``Berks County MPO'').

III. Effective Date

    EPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation to
attainment, and SIP revisions to become effective fifteen days after
publication because a more delayed effective date is unnecessary due to
the nature of a redesignation to attainment which relieves the area
from certain Clean Air Act requirements that would otherwise apply to
it. The effective date for this redesignation is authorized under both
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.''

IV. Final Actions

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on
January 25, 2007, and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA
believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate
that the Reading Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final
approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of
the Reading Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Reading Area
submitted on January 25, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania

SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction
with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002
base-year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007,
as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is
notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
in the Reading Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate
and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the
Reading Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and
approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:

  Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day
                                  (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Budget year                        NOX        VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..............................................       22.3       14.3
2018..............................................        9.0        7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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. For this
reason, 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). 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.). 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). 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). Because this action affects the status of
a geographical area or allows the state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements and because this action does not impose
any new requirements on sources, 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). This action
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. 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.
    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 and 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. 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.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 October 23, 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, approving the redesignation of the Reading
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year emissions inventory, and the MVEBs
identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 9, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for

the 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year Emissions
Inventory for the Reading, Pennsylvania Area at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                 Additional
            revision                geographic area    submittal date    EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan     Reading Area (Berks       1/25/2007  8/24/2007 [Insert
 and 2002 Base Year Emissions      County).                             page number where
 Inventory.                                                             the document
                                                                        begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Reading, PA Area
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                      Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Designation \a\                   Category/classification
           Designated area           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date \1\               Type                Date \1\           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Reading, PA: Berks County...........       9/10/2007  Attainment..............

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-16683 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P