[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5942-5947]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96743; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

January 24, 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 January 13, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding (1) fees and credits for
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') transactions and (2) the Floor
Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive Program (the ``FB Prepay
Program''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
January 13, 2023.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
December 30, 2022 (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-58) and withdrew such filing on
January 13, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of this filing to amend the Fee Schedule to (1) modify
the fees and credits for QCC transactions \5\ and (2) modify the FB
Prepay Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on
January 13, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A QCC is defined as an originating order to buy or sell at
least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000 mini-options contracts, that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade (as that
term is defined in Commentary .01 to Rule 900.3NY), coupled with a
contra side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts.
See Rule 900.3NY(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications to QCC Fees and Credits
    The table in Section I.F. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the per
contract fees and credits applicable to volume executed as part of a
QCC trade.\6\ Currently, Customers and Professional Customers do not
incur a fee or earn a credit; Non-Customers, excluding Specialists and
e-Specialists, are subject to a $0.20 per contract fee; and Specialists
and e-Specialists are subject to a $0.13 per contract fee. Floor
Brokers earn a credit for executed QCC orders of ($0.11) per contract
for the first 500,000 contracts or ($0.14) per contract in excess of
500,000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.F., QCC Fees & Credits.
    \7\ QCC executions in which a Customer or Professional Customer,
or both, is on both sides of the QCC trade are not eligible for the
Floor Broker credit. The current Floor Broker credit is paid only on
volume within the applicable tier and is not retroactive to the
first contract traded. See Fee Schedule, Section I.F., QCC Fees &
Credits at Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the table in Section I.F. to
replace the term ``Non-Customer'' with ``Market Maker, Firm, or Broker
Dealer'' and eliminate the exception of Specialists and e-Specialists,
which would add clarity to the Fee Schedule regarding which market
participants are considered ``Non-Customers'' for purposes of QCC fees
and credits. The table would thus provide for a $0.20 fee on QCC
transactions by a Market Maker, Firm, or Broker-Dealer (as such terms
are defined in the KEY TERMS and DEFINITIONS section of the Fee
Schedule). Consistent with this change, the Exchange also proposes to
eliminate the $0.13 fee currently applicable to QCC transactions by
Specialists and e-Specialists; as Specialists and e-Specialists are
registered with the Exchange as Market Makers, they would, as proposed,
be charged as such for QCC transactions.
    The Exchange further proposes to modify the table in Section I.F.
regarding credits applicable to Floor Brokers' QCC transactions and
proposes to provide Floor Brokers with credits based on the account
type of the parties to the trade.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that Floor Brokers may earn a credit of ($0.12) per contract
for QCC transactions of a Customer or Professional Customer vs. a
Market Maker, Firm, or Broker Dealer, and a credit of ($0.18) per
contract for QCC transactions of a Market Maker, Firm, or Broker Dealer
vs. a Market Maker, Firm, or Broker Dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the sentence in
Footnote 1 to Section I.F. providing that the Floor Broker credit is
paid only on volume within the applicable tier and is not
retroactive to the first contract traded, as such concept would not
apply to the proposed Floor Broker credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the last sentence of
Footnote 1 to Section I.F., which currently provides that the maximum
Floor Broker credit paid for QCC transactions is $525,000 per month per
Floor Broker firm. The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 1 to instead
provide that Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid
through the Manual Billable Rebate Program (as proposed below) shall
not combine to exceed $2,000,000 per month per Floor Broker firm.
    Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether the
proposed change would encourage Floor Brokers to increase their QCC
volume, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would continue
to incent additional QCC executions by Floor Brokers by offering
increased credits on QCC transactions and raising the maximum monthly
amount that a Floor Broker firm could earn from Floor Broker QCC
credits (or rebates via the proposed Manual Billable Rebate Program),
and all Floor Brokers are eligible for the proposed credits, including
the proposed higher credit on QCC transactions with a Market Maker,
Firm or Broker on both sides of the trade, without any minimum volume
requirement. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change with
respect to the fee for QCC transactions by a Market Maker (including a
Specialist or e-Specialist), Firm, or Broker-Dealer would improve the
clarity of the Fee Schedule and, although the proposed change would
increase the fee for QCC transactions by Specialists and e-Specialists,
is reasonable and equitable because it would provide for the same fee
on QCC transactions for all Market Makers, Firms, and Broker-Dealers.

FB Prepay Program
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the FB Prepay Program, a
prepayment incentive program that allows Floor Brokers to prepay
certain of their annual Eligible Fixed Costs in exchange for volume
rebates.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1., Floor Broker Fixed Cost
Prepayment Incentive Program (the ``FB Prepay Program''). ``Eligible
Fixed Costs'' include monthly ATP Fees, the Floor Access Fee, and
certain monthly Floor communication, connectivity, equipment and
booth or podia fees, as set forth in the table in Section III.E.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the FB Prepay Program offers participating Floor Brokers
an opportunity to qualify for rebates by achieving growth in billable
manual volume by a certain percentage as measured against one of two
benchmarks (the ``Percentage Growth Incentive''). Specifically, the
Percentage Growth Incentive is designed to encourage Floor Brokers to
increase their average daily volume (``ADV'') in billable manual
contract sides to qualify for a Tier; each Tier of the FB Prepay
Program corresponds to an annual rebate equal to the greater of the
``Total Percentage Reduction of pre-paid annual Eligible Fixed Costs''
or the annualization of the monthly ``Alternative Rebate.'' \10\ In
either case, participating Floor Brokers receive their annual rebate
amount in the following January.\11\ Floor Brokers that wish to
participate in the FB Prepay Program for the following calendar year
must notify the Exchange no later than the last business day of
December in the current year.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. The Percentage Growth Incentive excludes Customer
volume, Firm Facilitation trades, and QCCs. Any volume calculated to
achieve the Firm Monthly Fee Cap and the Strategy Execution Fee Cap,
regardless of whether either of these caps is achieved, will
likewise be excluded from the Percentage Growth Incentive because
fees on such volume are already capped and therefore do not increase
billable manual volume. See id.
    \11\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify the FB Prepay Program to
eliminate the Percentage Growth Incentive and accompanying annual
rebates \13\ and instead provide Floor Brokers participating in the
program with monthly rebates based on manual billable transaction
volume (the ``Manual Billable Rebate Program''). The calculation of
volume on which rebates earned through the Manual Billable Rebate
Program would be paid is based on transactions including at least one
side for which manual transaction fees are applicable and excludes
volume from QCC transactions.\14\ The Exchange proposes to continue to
exclude any volume calculated to achieve the Strategy Execution Fee
Cap, regardless of whether the cap is achieved, from the Manual
Billable Rebate Program because fees on such volume are already capped
and therefore such volume does not increase billable manual volume.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To effect the proposed change to eliminate the Percentage
Growth Incentive and related rebates, the Exchange also proposes to
delete the last sentence in Section III.E.1., which currently
provides that Floor Brokers in the FB Prepay Program will receive
their rebate in the following January, as no longer applicable.
    \14\ The Exchange proposes to continue to exclude volume from
QCC transactions from the calculation of eligible volume for rebates
paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program, as proposed,
because Floor Brokers would be eligible for separate credits and
rebates for QCC transactions.
    \15\ The Exchange proposes to remove references to the exclusion
of Customer volume and Firm Facilitation trades as redundant because
such volume is not billable. The Exchange also proposes that it
would no longer exclude volume calculated to achieve the Firm
Monthly Fee Cap from the Manual Billable Rebate Program and proposes
conforming changes to reflect the deletion of the reference to the
Firm Monthly Fee Cap in Section III.E.1. The Exchange proposes to
include volume calculated to achieve the Firm Monthly Fee Cap in
calculations for the Manual Billable Rebate Program in light of the
recent change to increase the amount of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap and
eliminate lower fee caps for firms that qualify for American
Customer Engagement Program tiers, which results in more non-
facilitation Firm volume being subject to regular transaction fees.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96501 (December 15, 2022)
(SR-NYSEAMER-2022-55) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of a Proposed Rule Change to Modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants in the FB Prepay Program that achieve the following
monthly qualifications will be eligible for rebates through the Manual
Billable Rebate Program, payable on a monthly basis:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate per
         Manual billable rebate qualification            billable side
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Execute 1 million combined manual billable and QCC               ($0.05)
 billable contracts..................................
Execute 3 million combined manual billable and QCC                (0.08)
 billable contracts..................................
Execute 5 million combined manual billable and QCC                (0.10)
 billable contracts..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FB Prepay Program also currently offers participating Floor
Brokers that increase their QCC credit eligible contracts in a month by
at least 20% over the greater of their second half of 2021 average
monthly QCC credit eligible volume or 1,500,000 contracts an additional
credit of $0.04 per contract on the first 300,000 QCC credit eligible
QCC trades and an additional credit of $0.01 per contract on all QCC
credit eligible QCC trades above 300,000, subject to the monthly
maximum credit per Floor Broker firm. The Exchange now proposes to
eliminate these QCC credits currently offered through the FB Prepay
Program, and provide that program participants would instead be
eligible to qualify for monthly rebates on QCC transactions in addition
to the credits set forth in Section I.F. (as modified in this filing)
(the ``QCC Billable Bonus Rebate''), as described in the table below,
provided that they execute the required number of billable QCC
transactions in a month. The Exchange proposes that the QCC Billable
Bonus Rebate (including the Additional Bonus) would be payable back to
the first billable side.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Additional rebate
     QCC billable bonus rebate          on single      Additional rebate
           qualification            billable side QCC   on two billable
                                         contract      side QCC contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepay Bonus Level--achieved with             ($0.02)            ($0.04)
 2 million QCC billable contracts.
Additional Bonus Level--achieved               (0.04)             (0.06)
 with 100% above Prepay Bonus
 Level............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to provide in Section III.E.1.,
consistent with Section I.F., that the maximum Floor Broker credits
paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the Manual Billable Rebate
Program shall not combine to exceed $2,000,000 per month per Floor
Broker firm.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the date it will use for
the calculation of a Floor Broker's Eligible Fixed Costs for the
following calendar

year. The FB Prepay Program currently specifies that a Floor Broker
that commits to the program will be invoiced in January for Eligible
Fixed Costs, based on annualizing their Eligible Fixed Costs incurred
in November 2020. The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to
specify that the annualization of Eligible Fixed Costs would be based
on costs incurred in November 2022, which the Exchange believes would
more accurately reflect Eligible Fixed Costs for the coming calendar
year.
    Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether the
proposed changes to the FB Prepay Program would encourage Floor Brokers
to participate in the program or to increase either their manual
billable volume or QCC volume, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would continue to incentivize Floor Brokers to participate in
the FB Prepay Program by simplifying the structure of the program,
modifying the qualifying criteria and rebates offered through the
program to be on a monthly (rather than annual) basis, and offering
rebates on manual billable volume and QCC transactions, thereby
encouraging additional manual billable volume and QCC executions by
Floor Brokers. All Floor Brokers are eligible to participate in the FB
Prepay Program and qualify for the proposed rebates, and the rebates
are achievable in any given month without regard to volumes from any
other month.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    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.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\19\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in November 2022, the Exchange had less than 7%
market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options trades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \20\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options was 7.06%
for the month of November 2021 and 6.98% for the month of November
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed credits offered to Floor
Brokers on QCC transactions, as well as the additional rebates on QCC
transactions and manual billable volume offered through the FB Prepay
Program, as proposed, are reasonable because they are designed to
continue to incent Floor Brokers to increase the number of QCC
transactions and manual billable orders executed on the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed increase in the maximum
monthly amount that a Floor Broker firm could earn from Floor Broker
QCC credits or from rebates via the proposed Manual Billable Rebate
Program is reasonable because it is likewise intended to encourage
Floor Brokers to direct QCC transactions and manual billable volume to
the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to QCC transaction
fees and credits, as set forth in Section I.F., are reasonable because
they are designed to improve the clarity of the Fee Schedule regarding
the fee applicable to ``Non-Customer'' QCC transactions and to apply a
consistent fee to QCC transactions by Market Makers (including
Specialists and e-Specialists), Firms, and Broker-Dealers. The Exchange
also believes it is reasonable to provide an increased credit to Floor
Brokers on QCC transactions with a Market Maker, Firm, or Broker-Dealer
on both sides because such transactions are billable on both sides. To
the extent that the proposed change attracts more volume to the
Exchange and does not disincentivize Specialists and e-Specialists from
directing orders to the Exchange, this order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution, which,
in turn, promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.
    With respect to the FB Prepay Program, the Exchange also believes
that the proposed changes are reasonable because participation in the
program is optional, and Floor Brokers can elect to participate in the
program to be eligible to earn the proposed rebates on manual billable
transactions and QCC transactions or not. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed modification of the FB Prepay Program is reasonable
because it is designed to simplify the program, to continue to
encourage Floor Brokers to participate in the FB Prepay Program, and to
provide liquidity on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposed qualifying thresholds for the Manual Billable Rebate
Program and QCC Bonus Rebate are achievable by Floor Broker firms based
on recent Floor Broker activity and in consideration of the proposed
changes in this filing (including the proposed modification to Floor
Broker QCC credits). The Exchange further believes that the proposed
change to focus the FB Prepay Program on manual billable volume and QCC
transactions is reasonable because it is intended to encourage Floor
Brokers to increase manual billable volume and QCC transactions to the
Exchange, and any increase in such volume would benefit all market
participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebate
amounts are reasonable and comparable to rebate amounts offered by
another options exchange to Floor Brokers on

manual transactions.\21\ Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed modification of the qualifying criteria for and rebates
offered through the FB Prepay Program to be on a monthly basis is
reasonable and could increase opportunities for participating Floor
Brokers to qualify for and receive the benefit of the incentives
offered. To the extent that the proposed changes attract more volume to
the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution, which, in turn,
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to
benefit from any increase in volume by Floor Brokers, which could
promote market depth, facilitate tighter spreads and enhance price
discovery, to the extent the proposed change encourages Floor Brokers
to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue, and may lead to a
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. In
addition, any increased liquidity on the Exchange would result in
enhanced market quality for all participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., BOX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Section V.C.
(offering rebates to Floor Brokers on orders presented on the
Trading Floor, including a $0.075 rebate for Broker Dealer and
Market Maker orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to update the
date used for the calculation of Eligible Fixed Costs from November
2020 to November 2022 is reasonable because it expects Floor Broker
organizations' more recent November 2022 costs to provide a more
accurate basis for annualizing Eligible Fixed Costs for the coming
calendar year based on anticipated fixed costs in 2023.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed changes continue to attract
greater volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed
changes would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and
strengthen its market quality for all market participants. In the
backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates,
the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase the depth of its market and improve its market share relative
to its competitors. The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket
competition, as Floor Brokers may direct their order flow to any of the
16 options exchanges, including those offering rebates on QCC orders
\22\ and Floor Broker rebates on manual billable orders.\23\ Thus,
Floor Brokers have a choice of where they direct their order flow,
including their QCC transactions and manual billable orders. The
proposed rule changes are designed to continue to incent Floor Brokers
to direct liquidity (and, in particular, QCC orders and manual billable
orders) to the Exchange; to the extent Floor Brokers are incentivized
to aggregate their trading activity at the Exchange, that increased
liquidity could promote market depth, price discovery and improvement,
and enhanced order execution opportunities for market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, QCC
Initiator/Solicitation Rebate Tiers (applying ($0.14) per contract
rebate up to 999,999 contracts for QCC transactions when only one
side of the transaction is a non-customer or ($0.22) per contract
rebate up to 999,999 contracts for QCC transactions with non-
customers on both sides); BOX Options Fee Schedule at Section
IV.D.1. (QCC Rebate) (providing for ($0.14) per contract rebate up
to 1,499,999 contracts for QCC transactions when only one side of
the QCC transaction is a broker-dealer or market maker or ($0.22)
per contract rebate up to 1,499,999 contracts for QCC transactions
when both parties are a broker-dealer or market maker); Nasdaq ISE,
Options 7, Section 6.B. (QCC Rebate) (offering rebates on QCC
transactions of ($0.14) per contract when only one side of the QCC
transaction is a non-customer or ($0.22) per contract when both
sides of the QCC transaction are non-customers).
    \23\ See note 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange; Floor Brokers are not
obligated to participate in the FB Prepay Program and can choose to
execute QCC transactions or manual billable transactions to earn the
various proposed credits and rebates or not. In addition, the proposed
credits and rebates are available to all Floor Brokers equally, and the
proposed monthly limit on the amount that Floor Brokers could earn from
credits and rebates on QCC transactions and manual billable
transactions would apply to all Floor Brokers equally. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed modification of the qualifying criteria
for and rebates offered through the FB Prepay Program to be on a
monthly basis is equitable because it could provide participating Floor
Brokers opportunities each month to qualify for and receive the benefit
of the incentives offered through the program.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed increased credit for
QCC transactions with a Market Maker, Firm, or Broker-Dealer on both
sides is equitable because such transactions are billable on both sides
(whereas a QCC transaction with a Customer or Professional Customer on
one side is only billable on one side). In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes with respect to the fees for QCC
transactions executed by Market Makers (including Specialists and e-
Specialists), Firms, and Broker-Dealers modify the Fee Schedule to
provide clarity regarding QCC transaction fees for ``Non-Customers''
and are equitable because they provide that these similarly-situated
market participants would be equally subject to a $0.20 fee on their
QCC transactions.
    The Exchange also notes that the proposed changes are designed to
encourage Floor Brokers that have previously enrolled in the FB Prepay
Program to reenroll for the upcoming year, as well as to attract Floor
Brokers that have not yet participated in the program. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the FB Prepay
Program are an equitable allocation of fees and credits because they
would apply to participating Floor Brokers equally and are intended to
encourage the role performed by Floor Brokers in facilitating the
execution of orders via open outcry, a function which the Exchange
wishes to support for the benefit of all market participants. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change with respect to the
calculation of Eligible Fixed Costs is equitable because it would
continue to be based on each Floor Broker organization's annualized
costs and because the November 2022 basis for annualizing costs would
provide a more accurate reflection of Eligible Fixed Costs for the
coming calendar year based on anticipated fixed costs in 2023.
    Moreover, the proposed changes are designed to continue to incent
Floor Brokers to encourage ATP Holders to aggregate their executions--
including QCC transactions and manual orders--at the Exchange as a
primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change
achieves its purpose in attracting more Floor Broker volume to the
Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange
a more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution.
Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would improve
market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery.

The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees, credits, and rebates
applicable to Floor Brokers on QCC transactions and manual billable
transactions are not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on
the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Floor
Brokers are not obligated to execute QCC or manual billable volume, or
to participate in the FB Prepay Program. Rather, the proposal is
designed to streamline the structure of the FB Prepay Program and to
encourage Floor Brokers to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading
venue for all transactions (if they have not done so previously) and
increase QCC and manual billable volume sent to the Exchange. In
addition, the proposed changes, including the modification of the
monthly maximum Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates
paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program, would apply to all
similarly-situated Floor Brokers on an equal and non-discriminatory
basis. The proposed credits and rebates are also not unfairly
discriminatory to non-Floor Brokers because Floor Brokers serve an
important function in facilitating the execution of orders on the
Exchange, which the Exchange wishes to encourage and support to promote
price improvement opportunities for all market participants.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change relating to
``Non-Customer'' QCC transactions is not unfairly discriminatory
because it is intended to clarify that the existing $0.20 fee is
applicable to QCC transactions by Market Makers, Firms, and Broker-
Dealers and further believes that the proposed change with respect to
Specialists and e-Specialists is not unfairly discriminatory because it
would modify the Fee Schedule to charge the same fee on any QCC
transactions executed by Market Makers (including Specialists and e-
Specialists), Firms, and Broker-Dealers.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change with respect
to the calculation of Eligible Fixed Costs is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would continue to be based on each Floor
Broker organization's annualized costs and because the Exchange expects
that using November 2022 as the basis for annualizing costs would
provide a more accurate reflection of Eligible Fixed Costs for the
coming calendar year.
    To the extent that the proposed changes attract more QCC orders and
manual orders to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue
to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution.
Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve
market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\24\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would 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 all market participants. 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.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \25\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 18, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed modification of the FB Prepay
Program and the proposed credits and rebates offered to Floor Brokers
on QCC transactions and manual billable orders are designed to incent
participation in the FB Prepay Program and to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange, which could increase the volumes of contracts
traded on the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange, and increased QCC and manual billable
transactions could increase opportunities for execution of other
trading interest. The proposed QCC credits would be available to all
similarly-situated Floor Brokers that execute QCC trades and the
rebates available through the Manual Billable Rebate Program and QCC
Billable Bonus Rebate would be available to all Floor Brokers that
choose to participate in the FB Prepay Program and meet the qualifying
criteria for such rebates. The modification of the monthly maximum
Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the
Manual Billable Rebate Program, would likewise apply equally to all
similarly-situated Floor Brokers. To the extent that there is an
additional competitive burden on non-Floor Brokers, the Exchange
believes that any such burden would be appropriate because Floor
Brokers serve an important function in facilitating the execution of
orders and price discovery for all market participants. Finally, the
Exchange believes the elimination of a lower QCC fee for Specialists
and e-Specialists could also promote intramarket competition by
establishing the same fee for all Market Makers, Firms, and Broker
Dealers on QCC transactions.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\26\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in November 2022, the Exchange had less than 7% market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See note 19, supra.
    \27\ See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect this
competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's fees and
credits in a manner designed to continue to incent Floor Brokers to
direct trading interest (particularly QCC transactions and manual
orders) to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order
flow. To the extent that Floor Brokers are encouraged to participate in
the FB Prepay Program and/or incentivized to

utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for all transactions,
all of the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the
improved market quality and increased opportunities for price
improvement. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change could
promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues,
including those that currently offer rebates on QCC transactions and
Floor Broker rebates on manual billable volume,\28\ by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See notes 21 & 22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-08 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-NYSEAMER-2023-08. 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-NYSEAMER-2023-08, and should be
submitted on or before February 21, 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. 2023-01745 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57829-57830]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0189]
RIN 2127-AL53

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating
Positions

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of
the agency's November 2013 final rule making amendments to the
procedures for determining which areas of a vehicle are designated
seating positions and the procedure for determining the number of
seating positions. Global Automakers petitioned the agency for
reconsideration, seeking to correct what it believes is an error in
formula for determining the number of designated seating positions in
longer seating positions. The agency agrees that the change was
inadvertent and is issuing this final rule to correct this mistake.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is September 26, 2014.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than
November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Petitions must be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Louis Molino of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 8, 2008, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a final rule (October 2008 final rule) revising the
definition of ``designated seating position'' (DSP), as that term is
used in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), and
providing a calculation procedure for determining the number of seating
positions at a seat location.\1\ The revised definition specifies more
clearly the areas within the interior of a vehicle that are regarded as
being designated seating positions for trucks, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, passenger cars, and buses. The rule also established a
calculation procedure for determining the number of DSPs at a seat
location for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds),
passenger cars, and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 58887 (Oct. 8, 2008) (Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received ten petitions for reconsideration of the October 2008
final rule. In a December 23, 2009 final rule,\2\ we provided a partial
response to these petitions, which provided one year additional lead
time, removed language from the text of the DSP definition preempting
any State requirement premised on there being more DSPs than the number
contemplated in the new definition, and corrected an erroneous cross
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 68185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a November 15, 2013 final rule,\3\ the agency completed its
response to the petitions for reconsideration of the October 2008 final
rule. That final rule made clarifying changes to the manner in which
designated seating positions are measured. It also included technical
corrections addressing side-facing seats and longer seating surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 68748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to longer seating surfaces, the new procedure for
calculating the number of DSPs uses one of two calculations depending
on the overall seating surface width. For adjacent seats with a
continuous seating surface with a width less than 1,400 mm, the seating
surface width is divided by 350 mm and rounded down to the nearest
whole number to determine the number of DSPs. For adjacent seats with a
continuous seating surface width of 1,400 mm or more, the seating
surface width is divided by 450 mm and rounded down to the nearest
whole number.
    We made a technical correction to the calculation of the number of
DSPs for seating locations with a seating surface width of 1,400 mm.
This issue arose in interpretation requests received by the agency from
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) and Girardin Minibus (Girardin).\4\
Nissan and Girardin both raised the issue of seating surfaces longer
than 1,400 mm (1,700 mm and 1,778 mm, respectively) and asked NHTSA to
confirm that such a seating surface could have four DSPs. Using the
formula set forth in section 571.10(b)(2), the seating surfaces would
have three DSPs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA's response to these interpretation requests can be
found at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/09-003169%20nissan.draft.dj.aug20.htm and http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/09-000724%20fortin.draft.dj.aug20.htm.
    \5\ A seating surface width of at least 1,800 mm would be
required to have four DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the issue raised by Nissan and Girardin, we clarified
in the regulatory text that the calculation procedure in section
571.10(b)(2) for seating surfaces of 1,400 mm or more was intended to
be a minimum and manufacturers can provide more DSPs than the number
calculated by the formula for these longer seating surfaces. However,
in the final rule's regulatory text, we also inadvertently changed the
divisor for seating surfaces of 1,400 mm or more from 450 to 350.
    Global Automakers petitioned the agency for reconsideration of the
November 2013 final rule. Global Automakers states that it believes
that it was the agency's intent to continue to use 450 as the divisor
for seating surfaces of 1,400 mm or more and petitioned the agency to
amend section 571.10(b)(2) to reflect this intent.
    NHTSA is granting Global Automakers' petition. The agency agrees
that it was not our intent in the November 2013 final rule to change
the divisor for calculating the number of DSPs for seating surfaces
with a width of 1,400 mm or more. We are issuing this final rule to
restore the 450 mm divisor consistent with the agency's intent, as
stated in the preamble to the November 2013 final rule.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agency has
considered the impact of this action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not ``significant''
under them.
    This action corrects an error in the November 2013 final rule
regarding the procedure for calculating the number of designated
seating positions to reflect the agency's intent as stated in the
preamble text. This rulemaking action is

consistent with the requirement in Executive Order 13,563 that agencies
conduct retrospective analyses of existing regulations. Today's action
will not have any cost impacts for vehicle manufacturers. This action
will not have any safety impacts.

B. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the October 2008 final rule and in the December 2009 final rule
providing a partial response to the petitions for reconsideration, the
agency discussed relevant requirements related to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism),\6\ Civil Justice
Reform, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction
Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks). As today's final rule merely clarifies regulatory
text to reflect the agency's intent in the November 2013 final rule, it
will not have any effect on the agency's analyses in those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The issue of preemption was addressed in the preamble of the
December 2009 final rule. See 74 FR 68187-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.10 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  571.10  Designation of seating positions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) For seat locations with a seating surface width, as described
in paragraph (c), greater than or equal to 1400 mm (55.2 inches): N =
No less than [seating surface width (in mm)/450] rounded down to the
nearest whole number.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2014 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
David J. Friedman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-23010 Filed 9-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43660-43661]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0030; Notice 1]

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2019 Audi A6 and Audi A7 motor vehicles do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance
report dated March 27, 2019, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April
17, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces receipt of Volkswagen's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Volkswagen has determined that certain MY 2019 Audi A6 and Audi A7
motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.135).
Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated March 27, 2019, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 17, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 3,908 MY 2019 Audi A6 and Audi A7 vehicles
manufactured between July 27, 2018, and November 6, 2018, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is that a small number
of the affected vehicles may have a European-specification brake fluid
reservoir cap instead of the one required for the North American/United
States market as required by paragraph S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 135.
Specifically, the subject brake fluid reservoir caps may not include
the required warning label.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.4.3 of FMVSS 135, includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. Each vehicle equipped with hydraulic brakes shall
have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters
at least 3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch) high: ``WARNING: Clean filler cap before
removing. Use only ______fluid from a sealed container.'' (Inserting
the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116,
e.g., ``DOT 3.'' The lettering shall be permanently affixed, engraved,
or embossed, located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or
within 100 mm (3.94 inches) of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or
cap, and of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is not
engraved or embossed.

V. Summary of Petition

    Volkswagen described the subject noncompliance and stated its
belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Volkswagen submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The brake fluid cap shows clearly the specification of brake
fluid required.
    2. The brake fluid cap conforms to the requirements of
ISO9128:2006, which is a requirement of UN-ECE Regulations 13 and 13h.
    3. Volkswagen asserts that NHTSA has previously granted the
following petitions to accept ISO symbols in the absence of FMVSS
labelling.
    (a) Jaguar Land Rover petition regarding light vehicle brake
systems, re: Brake fluid cap (84 FR 13095,13098);
    (b) Ford petition regarding controls and displays including brake
system-related telltales (78 FR 69931, 69932); and
    (c) Hyundai petition regarding lower anchorage identification (73
FR 38290, 38291).
    4. Volkswagen states that the brake fluid cap provides clear
symbols including one for caution and one for referring to owner manual
instructions. The manual indicates the proper brake fluid specification
for use in the vehicle.
    5. Service to the brake system involving an exchange of the brake
fluid is not a standard maintenance activity for an owner/user. Repairs
to the brake system, which includes evacuating and refilling the brake
fluid, requires basic technical knowledge regarding the brake system
and should be performed by a trained technician.
    6. Volkswagen has not received any field or customer complaints
related to this condition.
    7. Volkswagen has not received notification of any accidents or
injuries resulting from this issue.
    Volkswagen's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
    Volkswagen concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-17948 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60565-60566]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25076]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-PX, SEC File No. 270-524, OMB Control No. 3235-0582.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-PX (17 CFR
274.129) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Annual Report of
Proxy Voting Record.'' Rule 30b1-4 (17 CFR 270.30b1-4) under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires every
registered management investment company, other than a small business
investment company registered on Form N-5 (``Funds''), to file Form N-
PX not later than August 31 of each year. Funds use Form N-PX to file
annual reports with the Commission containing their complete proxy
voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 2,500 Funds
registered with the Commission, representing approximately 10,000 Fund
portfolios, which are required to file Form N-PX.\1\ The 10,000
portfolios are comprised of 6,200 portfolios holding equity securities
and 3,800 portfolios holding no equity securities. The staff estimates
that portfolios holding no equity securities require approximately a
0.17 hour burden per response and those holding equity securities
require 7.2 hours per response. The overall estimated annual burden is
therefore approximately 45,300 hours ((6,200 responses x 7.2 hours per
response for equity holding portfolios) + (3,800 responses x 0.17 hours
per response for non-equity holding portfolios)). Based on the
estimated wage rate, the total cost to the industry of the hour burden
for complying with Form N-PX would be approximately $14.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimate of 2,500 Funds is based on the number of
management investment companies currently registered with the
Commission. We estimate, based on data from the Investment Company
Institute and other sources, that there are approximately 5,700 Fund
portfolios that invest primarily in equity securities, 500
``hybrid'' or bond portfolios that may hold some equity securities,
3,200 bond Funds that hold no equity securities, and 600 money
market Funds, for a total of 10,000 portfolios required to file Form
N-PX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also estimates that portfolios holding equity
securities will bear an external cost burden of $1,000 per portfolio to
prepare and update Form N-PX. Based on this estimate, the

Commission estimates that the total annualized cost burden for Form N-
PX is $6.2 million (6,200 responses x $1,000 per response =
$6,200,000).
    The collection of information under Form N-PX is mandatory. The
information provided under the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 23, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25076 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7642-7645]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0731; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-020-AD;
Amendment 39-17334; AD 2013-02-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (type certificate previously held by The New Piper
Aircraft Inc.) PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of control cable assembly failures that may lead to
failure of the horizontal stabilator control system and could result in
loss of pitch control. This AD requires inspections of the stabilator
control system and replacement of parts as necessary. We are issuing
this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 11, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 11,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone:
(772) 567-4361; Internet: http://www.piper.com/pages/publications.cfm.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2012 (77 FR
45979). That NPRM proposed to require inspections of the stabilator
control system and replacement of parts as necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Rescind the AD

    Gregory E. Sniegowski, Carl Poplawsky, and Eric Stendahl stated
that since inspections of the control systems and pulleys are already
part of the annual inspection, the requirements of this AD would seem
to be redundant and that the NPRM should be withdrawn.
    We do not agree. The service difficulty report (SDR) database shows
that certain Piper models have multiple reports of cracks, corrosion,
failure of the turnbuckle, control cable fraying, or cable swage end
breaks. This AD was prompted by reports concerning an accident on a
Piper Model PA-32R-301T and an incident on a Piper Model PA-32R-300
airplane.

NTSB Support

    Deborah A.P. Hersman, Chairman, National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), stated that two special airworthiness information
bulletins (SAIBs) have been issued that recommend inspecting the entire
surface of each cable terminal, turnbuckle, or other cable fittings for
corrosion or cracking. Within the past 2 years, the NTSB has
investigated two accidents and one incident involving Piper airplanes
where control cable assembly failures due to stress corrosion cracking
led to failures of the horizontal stabilator control system. She stated
that the fact these events continue to occur more than 10 years after
the SAIBs were issued shows that the SAIBs were not effective. The NTSB
supports the need for this AD.
    We concur with the findings by the NTSB.

Removal of Surface Corrosion

    Joseph Boenzi stated that we should revise the AD to allow an
individual to remove the surface corrosion on a turnbuckle by using a
cleaning agent and then making a determination if the part is
airworthy. There have been reports that surface corrosion on
turnbuckles could be easily removed with scotch-brite.
    We agree because Piper investigated the possibility of using
scotch-brite to remove surface corrosion and found it to be acceptable.
We will change this AD to reference the revised Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1245A, dated November 28, 2012, which
incorporated cleaning agents and scotch-brite.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 45979, August 2, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45979, August 2, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 34,013 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost             Parts cost            product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the horizontal      5 work-hours x $85   Not applicable.........            $425      $14,455,525
 stabilator control system.        per hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of all stabilator control cable    10 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $608           $1,458
 system--per set of cables.                     $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-02-13 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-17334; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0731; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-020-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 11, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Models PA-28-236, PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-
28-151, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, PA-28-181, PA-28-201T, PA-
28R-201, PA-28-235, PA-28R-201T, PA-28S-160, PA-28S-180, PA-28R-180,
PA-28R-200, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, PA-32-301, PA-32-
301T, PA-32-300, PA-32R-300, PA-32R-301T, PA-32R-301 (SP), PA-32R-
301 (HP), PA-32RT-300, PA-32RT-300T, PA-32S-300, PA-32-301FT, PA-32-
301XTC, PA-34-200, PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T, PA-44-180, and PA-44-180T
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2740, Stabilizer Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of control cable assembly
failures that may lead to failure of the horizontal stabilator
control system and could result in loss of pitch control. This AD
requires inspections of the stabilator control system and
replacement of parts as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    (1) Initially inspect the stabilator control system following
instructions 1 through 10 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 1245A, dated November 28, 2012, as follows:
    (i) If the age of the airplane is at or exceeds 15 years as of
March 11, 2013 (the effective date of this AD): At the next annual
inspection or within the next 12 months after March 11, 2013 (the
effective date of this AD).
    (ii) If the age of the airplane is less than 15 years as of
March 11, 2013 (the effective date of this AD): When the age of the
airplane reaches 15 years, then at the next annual inspection or
within 12 months after the airplane reaches 15 years of age.
    (iii) If the age of the airplane cannot be determined as of
March 11, 2013 (the effective date of this AD): At the next annual
inspection or within the next 12 months after March 11, 2013 (the
effective date of this AD).

    Note for paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of
this AD: To assist in determining the age of the airplane, you may
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida
32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.piper.com; or access
the FAA airplane registry database at: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Serial_Inquiry.aspx.

    (2) After the applicable initial inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 2,000 hours time-in-service or 7 years, whichever
occurs first, inspect the stabilator control system following
instructions 1 through 10 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 1245A, dated November 28, 2012.

(h) Repair

    If any cracks, corrosion, or cable fraying are found during any
inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, replace the damaged part with an airworthy
part.

(i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD provides credit for the actions required in this AD if
already done before March 11, 2013 (the effective date of this AD)
following Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1245,
dated May 3, 2012.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

 (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hector Hernandez,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1245A
dated November 28, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in
this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.piper.com/pages/publications.cfm.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 22, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02075 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P