[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32382-32383]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13855]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64562; File No. SR-ISE-2011-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Second Market Fees

 May 27, 2011.
    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 May 18, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and II
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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE is proposing to amend its fees for executions in the
Exchange's Second Market. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 currently has rules for the listing and trading of
low-volume option classes that qualify for listing under ISE Rule 502.
These option classes trade in the Exchange's ``Second Market.'' \3\ The
Exchange currently lists eligible equity option classes (excluding
options on exchange traded funds) that trade on another options
exchange and that have an average daily volume below 500 contracts over
a six-month period in the Second Market. When the Exchange launched the
Second Market, it adopted Second Market fees that varied from those
that were and still are currently applicable to the Exchange's primary
market. Specifically, for Second Market transactions, Members are
currently charged an execution fee of $.05 per contract for Priority
Customer \4\ orders. Priority Customer orders executed in the
Exchange's primary market, on the other hand, are, for the most part,
not charged an execution fee.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-54580 (October 6, 2006), 71
FR 60781 (October 16, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-40).
    \4\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    \5\ Priority Customer orders in Singly Listed Indexes, Singly
Listed ETFs and FX Options that are not a part of the FX Options
Incentive Plan are charged $0.18 per contract. Priority Customer
orders in FX Options that are part of the FX Options Incentive Plan
are charged $0.40 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange currently has a payment-for-order-flow
(``PFOF'') program that helps its market makers establish PFOF
arrangements with an Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') in exchange for
that EAM preferencing some or all of its order flow to that market
maker. The Exchange's PFOF fees are currently set at $0.65 per contract
for all option classes that are not in the penny pilot program. For
penny pilot classes, the Exchange charges a PFOF fee of $0.25 per
contract. The Exchange currently does not charge a PFOF fee for option
classes that are subject to the Exchange's maker/taker fees.\6\ And
since the launch of the Second Market, ISE has not charged and
currently does not charge a PFOF fee for Second Market transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The exclusion applies to option classes that are subject to
Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select
Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend its Second Market fees to
standardize them with the fees charged for executions in the Exchange's
primary market. Specifically, ISE proposes to lower the execution fee
for Priority Customer orders in the Second Market from $0.05 per
contract to $0.00 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a
PFOF fee for Second Market transactions. In addition to standardizing
theses fees, the Exchange believes these fee changes will make the
Exchange's transaction fees simpler and more concise to Exchange
Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes for Second
Market transactions will encourage more order flow to the Exchange and
also allow ISE market makers to better compete for order flow.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on June
1, 2011.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes will generally allow the Exchange and its
market makers to better compete for order flow and thus enhance
competition. More specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal
to assess a $0.00 per contract fee for Second Market transactions is
equitable and reasonable as it will standardize the fee charged by the
Exchange for all market participants that trade in Second Market
options. The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a PFOF fee
for Second Market transactions is also equitable and reasonable because
the fee will serve to encourage order flow to the Exchange much like
the PFOF fee does for option classes in the Exchange's primary market.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are equitable
and reasonable as they will apply universally to all market
participants who trade in Second Market options on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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)(ii) of the Act.\9\ 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2011-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2011-29 and should be submitted by June 27, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13855 Filed 6-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22367-22368]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA--2016-0042]

Request for Information

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: Section 24105 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94 (2015), requires NHTSA to implement a
two-year pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
a State process for informing consumers of open motor vehicle recalls
at the time of motor vehicle registration. This notice requests
information from interested parties to help inform the agency's
approach as it moves forward to implement the pilot program.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by: May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this notice
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief
Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send email to Mr.
DiMarsico at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by regular mail at the Office
of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-
326, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice requests information to assist
NHTSA in implementing a pilot grant program required under the FAST
Act. See Public Law 114-94, Sec.  24105 (2015). The FAST Act requires
that, by October 1, 2016, NHTSA must implement a two-year pilot program
with up to six States to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
a State process for informing consumers of open motor vehicle recalls
at the time of motor vehicle registration. NHTSA plans to solicit grant
applications following the receipt and consideration of comments and
information submitted in response to this notice.

Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101
et. seq. as amended, requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer notify
the owners and purchasers of its vehicles of a safety-related defect or
that the vehicle does not comply with an applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118. A vehicle manufacturer must
provide notice of a recall in a manner prescribed through regulation by
NHTSA to each person registered under State law as the owner and whose
name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer
through State records or other available source or (if a registered
owner is not notified through State registration information) to the
most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d). In
order to identify owners of vehicles subject to a safety-related recall
and provide notification to them, a motor vehicle manufacturer
typically contracts with a third party that obtains vehicle
registration data for the affected vehicles from State motor vehicle
administrations. The motor vehicle manufacturer then notifies owners
and purchasers, typically by U.S. Mail, about the safety recall and,
among other things, about how to obtain a remedy to fix the defect. See
49 U.S.C. 30119(d); 49 CFR part 577.
    NHTSA and the motor vehicle industry have sought to improve notice
of safety-related defects to owners and to develop ways to increase the
rate at which owners complete the remedy identified in the notice.\1\
Section 24105 of the recently enacted FAST Act provides for the two-
year pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a
State process for informing consumers of open motor vehicle recalls at
the time of motor vehicle registration in the State. To carry out this
program, the FAST Act permits NHTSA to make a grant to up to six
States. To be eligible for a grant, the Act requires a State to: (i)
Submit an

application in such form and manner as the Secretary prescribes; (ii)
agree to notify, at the time of registration, each owner or lessee of a
motor vehicle presented for registration in the State of any open
recall on that vehicle; (iii) provide the open motor vehicle recall
information at no cost to each owner or lessee of a motor vehicle
presented for registration in the State; and (iv) provide such other
information as the Secretary may require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In April 2015, NHTSA hosted a workshop called ``Retooling
Recalls'' to explore ways to increase recall remedy completion
rates. See http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-retooling-recalls-workshop-04282015. Recently, the agency
published an ANPRM requesting public comment on, among other things,
additional ways by which manufacturers could not only notify owners,
but also influence owners to have recalls completed. See 81 FR 81 FR
4007 (January 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering a State for a grant under this provision, the FAST
Act requires NHTSA to consider the State's methodology for determining
open recalls on a motor vehicle, for informing consumers of the open
recalls, and for determining performance. Following the two-year
performance period, the FAST Act requires that the State grantee
provide to NHTSA a report of performance containing information
necessary to evaluate the extent to which open recalls have been
remedied. Within six months after the completion of the pilot program,
the FAST Act requires NHTSA to evaluate the extent to which identified
open recalls have been remedied.

Request for Information

    The agency is interested in information that would be helpful in
implementing a successful pilot grant. This includes information about,
among other things: A State's process for registering motor vehicles;
the application(s) in use by the States to facilitate its access to
open recall data and to notify consumers; how a notice to consumers
should be provided to raise awareness of the open recall; performance
criteria; and the estimated costs for a State to fulfill the pilot
program requirements. Because the FAST Act requires NHTSA to consider a
State's methodology for determining performance, the agency is
interested in comments from parties on how to determine such
performance, including ways to measure whether a consumer had a defect
remedied following notification of an open recall, and metrics for
comparing pre-pilot and post-pilot performance. The agency is also
interested in hearing from States, based upon the current status of
their vehicle registration systems, about the requirements and
challenges to adapt their systems to conduct the pilot program. And,
because Congress requires NHTSA to evaluate the pilot program, we seek
information and suggestions about how to ensure a successful
assessment.
    In addition to the topics discussed above, we seek information
related to the questions posed below. This list is not exhaustive, and
we encourage commenters to provide any further information they believe
is relevant to inform the agency as it seeks to implement a successful
pilot program. While the agency welcomes all comments, we do not
envision the use of NHTSA's VIN look-up tool as a source of information
for the pilot program. The VIN look-up tool was created for consumers.
An increase in the demand on NHTSA's VIN look-up tool from a large
enterprise submitting numerous queries could compromise its performance
for its intended purpose.

Registration Process

     How often do States require a vehicle to be registered?
     What mechanisms exist for an owner to register a vehicle
with the State? In-person, On-line? Mail-in?
     What other conditions or requirements exist in connection
with the registration process in a State (e.g. vehicle emissions or
safety inspection)?
     If additional conditions or requirements exist, how are
they linked to the vehicle registration process? Would the systems that
link to the vehicle registration process be available for the pilot
program? What modifications might be required?

Notice to the Consumer

     What sources of information about an open safety recall
are available to a State?
     What form should notice of an open recall take and what
flexibilities should considered in the event a State allows multiple
methods for registration?
     At what point in the registration process should a State
provide notice of an open recall?
     What information about an open recall should a State
provide?

Registration System Functionality

     Do State registration systems have the capability to:
    [cir] Communicate with a third-party system? If so, what third-
party system does the State use, and can it be used for the pilot
program. What modifications might be required?
    [cir] Provide real time notice of an open recall?
    [cir] Track that notice was provided?
    [cir] Query or track that a recall was completed on a vehicle?

Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods discussed
above.

    This notice is for information purposes only. The agency will
review and consider information provided in response to this notice as
it implements the pilot grant program, but will not separately respond
to comments.

    Authority: S. 24105, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 12, 2016 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-08831 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P