[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 91 (Monday, May 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27798-27805]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petitions for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard

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

ACTION: Grant of petitions for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full eight manufacturers' petitions
for exemption for eight model lines from the Federal Motor Vehicle
Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard) beginning in
model years (MYs) 2020 and 2021. The manufacturers, vehicle lines, and
model years are as follows: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) for its 2
series vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; Jaguar Land Rover North
America LLC (Jaguar Land Rover) for its Jaguar E-Pace vehicle line
beginning in MY 2020; Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) for its QX55
beginning in MY 2020; Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla) for its Model Y vehicle
line beginning in MY 2020; General Motors Corporation (GM) for its
Chevrolet Trailblazer vehicle line beginning in MY 2021; Mazda Motors
Corporation (Mazda) for its CX-30 vehicle line beginning in MY 2021;
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi) for its Outlander vehicle
line beginning in MY 2021; and Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
(Toyota) for its Venza vehicle line beginning in MY 2021.

DATES: The exemptions granted by this notice are effective beginning
with the 2020 model year for BMW, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, and Tesla,
and effective beginning with the 2021 model year for General Motors,
Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Toyota.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [NHTSA] by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at Part 541 (Theft Prevention
Standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers
that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may petition the
Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a line of passenger
motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an anti-theft device
that the Secretary decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process through which manufacturers may
seek an exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard.
    49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the anti-
theft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes
the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7 permits a
manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined process
if the vehicle line is equipped with an anti-theft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.
    Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition it will
process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant the
petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of Part 541.
    Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\1\
Exemptions granted under Part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and are equipped with the antitheft
device on which the line's exemption was based and is effective for the
model year beginning after the model year in which NHTSA issues the
notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption specifies a later
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    543.8(f) and (g) apply to how NHTSA's decisions on petitions are to
be made known. Under (f), if the petition is sought under section
543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of its decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition in the Federal Register and notifies the petitioner
in writing. Under (g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7,
NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to
grant or deny the exemption petition.
    This grant of petitions for exemption considers the following
manufacturers' petitions for the following model years: BMW of North
America, LLC (BMW) for its 2 series vehicle line beginning in MY 2020;
Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC (Jaguar Land Rover) for its Jaguar
E-Pace vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; Nissan North America, Inc.
(Nissan) for its QX55 beginning in MY 2020; Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla)
for its Model Y vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; General Motors
Corporation (GM) for its Chevrolet Trailblazer vehicle line beginning
in MY 2021; Mazda Motors Corporation (Mazda) for its CX-30 vehicle line
beginning in MY 2021; Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi) for
its Outlander vehicle

line beginning in MY 2021; and Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
(Toyota) for its Venza vehicle line beginning in MY 2021.
    As explained below, the petitions for all eight manufacturers'
vehicle lines are granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106, which states that if
the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a
decision about a petition within 120 days of the petition submission,
the petition shall be deemed to be approved and the manufacturer shall
be exempt from the standard for the line covered by the petition for
the subsequent model year. Separately, based on the information
provided in each manufacturer's petition, NHTSA has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on each line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.

I. Petition Approval Under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d)

    As outlined above, if NHTSA does not make a decision on a complete
exemption petition within the 120-day period after the date that the
petition was filed,\2\ the petition shall be deemed to be approved and
the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for the line covered
by the petition for the subsequent model year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 51 FR 706; 52 FR 33821. Since the interim final rule
implementing the Theft Prevention Standard, NHTSA has interpreted
the filing date as meaning the date on which NHTSA receives a
manufacturer's complete petition.
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each manufacturer covered in this notice for the specified model
year submitted a petition for exemption to NHTSA more than 120 days
prior to this decision. Although each petition is accordingly approved
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106(d), for continuity for manufacturers that
petitioned for MYs past (i.e., we are now approximately 7-8 months into
MY 2020), or MYs for which production is likely to begin 8 months prior
to the start of this notice,\4\ NHTSA evaluated the specific
information provided by each manufacturer in accordance with the
requirements in 49 CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content requirements.
Based on this information, NHTSA separately determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on each line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention,
the eight manufacturers described below petitioned for their specified
vehicle lines an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard, beginning in MYs 2020 or 2021. Each
manufacturer petitioned under 49 CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content
requirements, which as described above, requires manufacturers to
provide specific information about the anti-theft device installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption
is sought, the anti-theft device's capabilities, and the reasons the
petitioner believes the device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements.
    More specifically, 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to include a
statement that an antitheft device will be installed as standard
equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption is
sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and a diagram showing the location
of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by section
543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the means and
process by which the device is activated and functions, including any
aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage its
activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by an
unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other than a
key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an unauthorized
person has entered using means other than a key; and (5) ensure the
reliability and durability of the device.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 CFR 543.6 (a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for the
petitioner's belief that the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data
and other data that are available to the petitioner and form a basis
for that belief,\6\ and the reasons for the petitioner's belief that
the agency should determine that the antitheft device is likely to be
as effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any
statistical data that are available to the petitioner and form the
basis for the petitioner's belief that a line of passenger motor
vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is likely to have a theft
rate equal to or less than that of passenger motor vehicles of the
same, or a similar, line which have parts marked in compliance with
Part 541.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
    \7\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe each manufacturer's petition
information provided pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle
Theft Prevention. Some manufacturers requested confidential treatment
for specific information in their petition. Therefore, no confidential
information provided for purposes of this notice has been disclosed.

a. BMW

    In a petition dated February 22, 2019, BMW requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
for its 2 series vehicle line beginning with MY 2020. Pursuant to
543.6(a)(1), BMW stated that the antitheft device described in its
petition will be standard equipment on 100% of its 2 series vehicle
line produced for the U.S. beginning with MY 2020 and beyond.
    In accordance with 543.6(a)(2), BMW provided a detailed description
and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of
the antitheft device for its 2 series vehicle line. Under 543.6(a)(3),
BMW stated that its 2 series vehicle line will be installed with a
passive, electronically-coded, vehicle immobilizer system (EWS) as
standard equipment that will prevent the vehicle from being driven away
under its own engine power. Key features of the antitheft device will
include a passive immobilizer, remote-control w/transponder including a
mechanical key, ring antenna (transponder coil), low frequency antenna
(LF), engine control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded start release input,
transmission control unit (EGS) and an EWS (BDC) control unit. BMW
stated that it will not offer an audible or visible alarm feature on
the proposed device.
    BMW also provided information on the reliability and durability of
its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of its
device, BMW stated that it conducted tests on the antitheft device
which complied with its own

specific standards. BMW further stated that its antitheft device
fulfills the requirements of the January 1995 European vehicle
insurance companies. In further addressing the reliability and
durability of its device, BMW provided information on the uniqueness of
its mechanical keys to be used on the 2 series vehicle line.
Specifically, BMW stated that the vehicle's mechanical keys are unique
because they require a special key blank, cutting machine and a unique
vehicle code to allow for key duplication. BMW also stated that the
mechanical keys cannot be used to deactivate the device but that
activation must be done electronically. BMW further stated that the new
keys will only be issued to authorized persons and will incorporate
special guide-way millings, making the locks almost impossible to pick
and the keys impossible to duplicate on the open market.
    BMW stated that activation of its antitheft device occurs
automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is
removed from the ignition system. BMW stated that a transponder
(transmitter/receiver) in the radio frequency remote control
communicates with the EWS (BDC) control unit providing the interface to
the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. After an
initial starting value, the authentication uses the challenge response
technique with symmetric secret key. BMW further stated that when the
control unit identifies the correct release signal, the ignition signal
and fuel supply are released allowing operation of the vehicle.
    BMW also stated that the vehicle is equipped with a central-locking
system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock
only the driver's door, preventing forced entry into the vehicle
through the passenger doors. BMW further stated that the vehicle can be
further secured by locking the doors and hood using either the key-lock
cylinder on the driver's door or the remote frequency remote control.
BMW stated that the frequency for the remote control constantly changes
to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by
intercepting the signals of its remote control.
    BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped
with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including its 2 series
vehicle line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device
with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. Specifically, BMW has
installed its antitheft device on several of its vehicle lines which
have been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency.

b. Jaguar Land Rover

    In a petition dated December 14, 2018, Jaguar Land Rover requested
an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for its Jaguar E-Pace vehicle line beginning with
MY 2020. Pursuant to 543.6(a)(1), Jaguar Land Rover stated that the
antitheft device described in its petition will be standard equipment
on the Jaguar E-PACE model for MY 2020.
    In accordance with 543.6(a)(2), Jaguar Land Rover provided a
detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location
of the components of the antitheft device for the Jaguar E-Pace vehicle
line. Under 543.6(a)(3), Jaguar Land Rover stated that the Jaguar E-
Pace vehicle line will be installed with a passive, transponder-based,
electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment beginning
with the 2020 model year. Key components of its antitheft device will
include a Smart Key, power train control module (PCM), instrument
cluster, body control module (BCM), remote frequency receiver (RFR),
Immobilizer Antenna Unit (IAU), Remote Frequency Actuator (RFA),
Security Horn and Vehicle Horn, Smart Key, Door Zone Modules (Passenger
and Driver) (DMZs) and a Security Warning LED. Jaguar Land Rover stated
that its antitheft device will also include a vehicle security system
that includes an audible and visual perimeter alarm system as standard
equipment on the entire vehicle line. The horn will sound and the
vehicle's exterior lights will flash if unauthorized entry is attempted
by opening the hood, doors or luggage compartment. Jaguar Land Rover
further stated that its perimeter alarm system can be armed with its
Smart Key or programmed to be passively armed.
    Jaguar Land Rover provided information on the reliability and
durability of its proposed device as required by 543.6(a)(3)(v). To
ensure reliability and durability of the device, Jaguar Land Rover
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Jaguar Land Rover
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., temperature and
humidity cycling, high and low temperature cycling, mechanical shock,
random vibration, thermal stress/shock tests, material resistance
tests, dry heat, dust and fluid ingress tests). Jaguar Land Rover
stated that it believes that its device is reliable and durable because
it complied with specified requirements for each test. Additionally,
Jaguar Land Rover stated that its key recognition sequence includes
over a billion code combinations with encrypted data that are secure
against duplication. Jaguar Land Rover further stated that the coded
data transfer between modules use a unique secure identifier and public
algorithm. Jaguar Land Rover also stated that since its Jaguar E-Pace
vehicle line will utilize a push button vehicle ignition, it does not
have a conventional mechanical key barrel, and therefore, a thief will
have no means of forcibly bypassing the key-locking system.
    Jaguar Land Rover stated that its immobilizer device is
automatically activated when the Smart Key is removed from the vehicle.
Jaguar Land Rover also stated that its Smart key is programmed and
synchronized to each vehicle through an identification key code and a
secret, randomly-generated code unique to each vehicle.
    Jaguar Land Rover stated that there are three methods of antitheft
device deactivation and engine starting. Method one consists of
automatic detection of the Smart Key via a remote frequency challenge
response sequence. Specifically, when the driver approaches the vehicle
and pulls the driver's door handle following authentication of the
correct Smart Key, the doors will unlock. When the ignition start
button is pressed, the device searches to find and authenticate the
Smart Key within the vehicle interior. If successful, this information
is passed to the BCM via the Remote Function Actuator by coded data
transfer. The BCM will pass the ``valid key'' status to the instrument
cluster, via a coded data transfer and then send the key valid message
code to the PCM initiating a coded data transfer and engine
authorization to start. Method two consists of unlocking the vehicle
with the Smart Key unlock button. As the driver approaches the vehicle,
the Smart Key unlock button is pressed and the doors will unlock. Once
the driver presses the ignition start button, the operation process is
the same as method one. Method three involves using the emergency key
blade. If the Smart Key has a discharged battery or is damaged, there
is an emergency key blade that can be removed from the Smart Key and
used to unlock the doors. When the ignition start button is pressed,
the device searches to find and authenticate the Smart Key within the
vehicle interior. If successful, the Smart Key needs to be docked. Once
the Smart Key is docked/placed in the correct position, and the
ignition start button is pressed again, the BCM and Smart key enter a
coded data exchange via the Immobilizer Antenna Unit. The BCM

then passes the valid key status to the instrument cluster, via the
Immobilizer Antenna Unit and sends the key valid message to the PCM
which initiates a coded data transfer. If successful, engine starting
is authorized.
    Jaguar Land Rover stated that its immobilizer system on the Jaguar
E-Pace is substantially similar to the antitheft devices using similar
technology installed on the Jaguar F-Pace, Jaguar XJ, Jaguar F-Type,
Jaguar XF, Jaguar XE, Land Rover Discovery Sport and the Land Rover
Range Rover Evoque.

c. Nissan

    On October 19, 2017, Nissan was granted an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle
Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard) by the agency
beginning with its MY 2019 vehicles (see 82 FR 48744). The exemption in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard was granted because the agency determined that the antitheft
device placed on the vehicle line as standard equipment is likely to be
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements. The QX50 vehicle line is installed
with a passive, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment but does not provide an audible and visible alarm
system, although the system provides a security indicator light.
    On July 29, 2019, Nissan sent the agency a letter informing the
agency of its plans to add the new QX55 luxury sport utility coupe
model to its existing Infiniti QX50 sports utility vehicle line
beginning with MY 2020. Nissan stated that there will be slight
exterior styling differences between the QX50 and the QX55 vehicles,
however, the vehicle specifications and platform/chassis will remain
the same. Nissan further confirmed that its new QX55 model will also
maintain the same antitheft device as utilized on the QX50 vehicle line
for which its original exemption was granted.

d. Tesla

    In a petition dated August 9, 2019, Tesla requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
for its Model Y vehicle line beginning with MY 2020. Pursuant to
543.6(a)(1), Tesla stated that the antitheft device described in its
petition will be installed as standard equipment on Model Y line
vehicles starting with MY 2020.
    In accordance with 543.6(a)(2), Tesla provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device for the Model Y vehicle line. Tesla
stated that the Model Y vehicle line will be installed with a passive,
transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard
equipment beginning with its MY 2020 model year. Key components of the
antitheft device include an engine immobilizer, central body
controller, security controller, gateway function, drive inverters and
a passive entry transponder (PET). Tesla also stated that the new
design of its immobilizer device will have enhanced security
communication between its components, prevent tampering and provide
additional features to enhance its overall effectiveness. Tesla further
stated that in addition to its immobilizer device, it will incorporate
an audible alarm (horn) as standard equipment, but will not include a
visual feature with the alarm system. Tesla stated that forced entry
into the vehicle or any type of unauthorized entry without the correct
PET will trigger the audible alarm. Tesla further stated that in
addition to an unauthorized access through the doors, the alarm will
also trigger when a break-in is attempted to both the front and rear
cargo areas.
    Tesla provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device as required by 543.6(a)(3)(v). Tesla stated that the
antitheft device will be an upgraded version of the successful
antitheft system currently installed as standard equipment in all Tesla
Model S/X/3 vehicles. To ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Tesla conducted tests based on its own specified standards.
Tesla provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated that
it believes that its device is reliable and durable because it complied
with its design standards. Additionally, Tesla stated that it has also
incorporated other measures of ensuring reliability and durability of
the device to protect the immobilizer device from exposure to the
elements and limits its access by unauthorized personnel. Furthermore,
Tesla stated that the immobilizer relies on electronic functions and
not mechanical functions, and therefore expects the components to last
at least the life of the vehicle or longer.
    Tesla stated that its antitheft device will have a two-step
activation process with a vehicle code query conducted at each stage.
The first stage allows access to the vehicle when an authorization
cycle occurs between the PET and the central body controller, as long
as the PET is in close proximity to the car and the driver either
pushes the lock/unlock button on the key fob, pushes the exterior door
handle to activate the handle sensors or inserts a hand into the handle
to trigger the latch release. During the second stage, vehicle
operation will be enabled when the driver has depressed the brake pedal
and moves the gear selection stalk to drive or reverse, when one of
these actions is performed, the security controller will poll to verify
if the appropriate PET is inside the vehicle. Upon location of the PET,
the security controller will run an authentication cycle with the key
confirming the correct PET is being used inside the vehicle. Tesla
stated that once authentication is successful, the security controller
initiates a coded message through the gateway. If the code exchange
matches the code stored in the drive inverters, the exchange will
authorize the drive inverter to deactivate immobilization allowing the
vehicle to be driven under its own power. Tesla stated that the
immobilizer functions to ensure maximum theft protection when the
immobilizer is active, the vehicle is off and the doors are locked.
Tesla stated that it will incorporate an additional security measure
that performs when the car is unlocked and immobilization is
deactivated. Specifically, immobilization will reactivate when there
are no user inputs to the vehicle within a programmed period of time.
Tesla stated that any attempt to operate the vehicle without performing
and completing each task, will render the vehicle inoperable.
    Tesla stated that its immobilizer system on the Model Y vehicle
line will be similar to the version designed to deter theft on the
Model S and X vehicle lines. Tesla also stated that it expects similar
results with the Model Y vehicles equipped with a modern immobilizer
system that is state of the art in both design and function.

e. General Motors

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention, GM
requested, in a petition dated July 19, 2019, an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for its
Chevrolet Trailblazer vehicle line beginning with MY 2021. GM stated
that its ``PASS-KEY III+'' antitheft device, discussed further below,
would be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
Chevrolet Trailblazer line.''
    In accordance with 49 CFR 543.6(a)(2), GM stated that its PASS-Key
III+ anti-theft device is a passive, transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer, with the following major components: A PASS-Key III+
controller

module, engine control module (ECM), an electronically-coded ignition
key, a radio frequency (RF) receiver, an immobilizer exciter module,
three low frequency antennas, and a passive antenna module and provided
a diagram of the locations of the components.
    As required by 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3), GM stated that the PASS-Key III+
immobilizer device is designed to be active at all times without direct
intervention by the vehicle operator. GM further stated that activation
of the device occurs immediately after the ignition has been turned off
and the key has been removed and deactivation of the antitheft device
occurs automatically when the engine is started. GM stated that the
Chevrolet Trailblazer vehicle line will be equipped with one of two
ignition versions. Specifically, the Chevrolet Trailblazer will be
equipped with either a keyed or keyless ignition version of its PASS-
Key III+ immobilizer antitheft device. GM also stated that the
``keyed'' ignition version utilizes a special ignition key and decoder
module and its electrical code must be sensed and properly decoded by
the controller module before the vehicle can be operated. GM further
stated that with the ``keyless'' ignition version, an electronic key
fob performs normal remote keyless entry functions and communicates
with the vehicle without direct owner intervention. Specifically,
during operation of the vehicle, when the owner presses the engine
start/stop switch, the vehicle transmits a randomly generated challenge
and vehicle identifier within the passenger compartment of the vehicle
via three low-frequency antennas, controlled by the passive antenna
module. The electronic key receives the data and if the vehicle
identifier matches that of the vehicle, the electronic key will
calculate the response to the vehicle using the challenge and secret
information shared between the key and the vehicle. The electronic key
then transmits the response via a radio frequency channel to a vehicle
mounted receiver, conveying the information to the PASS-Key III+
control module. The PASS-Key III+ control module compares the received
response with an internally calculated response. If the values match,
the device will allow the vehicle to enter functional modes and
transmit a fixed code pre-release password to the engine controller
over the serial data bus, and enable computation and communication of a
response to any valid challenge received from the engine controller. If
a valid key is not detected, the system will not transmit a fixed code
pre-release password to the engine controller and fuel will not be
delivered to the engine and the starter will not be enabled, so the
vehicle will be immobilized.
    As required in section 543.6 (a)(3)(v), GM provided information on
the reliability and durability of its proposed device. GM followed its
own standards in assessing reliability and durability and conducted
tests to validate the integrity, durability and reliability of the
PASS-Key III+ device, including tests for high temperature storage, low
temperature storage, thermal shock, humidity, frost, salt fog,
flammability and others. GM further stated that the design and assembly
processes of the PASS-Key III+ subsystem and components are validated
for 10 years of vehicle life and 150,000 miles of performance.
    GM noted in its petition that its proposed device lacks an audible
or visible alarm and, therefore, does not perform one of the functions
listed in 49 CFR part 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to
unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. However, GM stated
that based on comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of
Chevrolet Corvettes using a passive antitheft device along with an
audible/visible alarm system to the reduction in theft rates for the
Chevrolet Camaro models equipped with a passive antitheft device
without an alarm, GM did not find that the lack of an alarm or
attention-attracting device compromised the theft deterrent performance
of a device such as PASS-Key III+ device. GM stated that in these
instances, the agency has previously concluded that the lack of an
audible or visible alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from
being effective protection against theft.
    To support its assertion that the antitheft device would be as
effective at reducing and deterring theft as parts-marking, as required
by 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4), GM referenced data provided by the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) in support of the
effectiveness of GM's PASS-Key devices in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft and stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has been
designed to enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by
its first, second and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-
Key III devices. Specifically, GM stated that data which provide the
basis for GM's confidence that the PASS-Key III+ system will be
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft are contained
in the response of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) to Docket 97-042; Notice I (NHTSA Request for Comments on its
preliminary Report to Congress on the effects of the Anti Car Theft Act
of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984). In
the Report to Congress, AAMA stated the more recent antitheft systems
are more effective in reducing auto theft. AAMA also cited the Highway
Loss Data Institute (HLDI) findings on the effectiveness of antitheft
devices in reducing theft. AAMA noted that vehicles with antitheft
devices are less likely to be stolen for joyriding or transportation
and therefore, their recovery rates are lower.
    GM also stated that theft rate data have indicated a decline in
theft rates for vehicle lines equipped with comparable devices that
have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. GM
stated that the theft rate data, as provided by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and compiled
by the agency, show that theft rates are lower for exempted GM models
equipped with the PASS-Key-like systems than the theft rates for
earlier models with similar appearance and construction that were
parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II,
and PASS-Key III devices on other GM models, and the advanced
technology utilized in PASS-Key III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key
III+ device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

f. Mazda

    In a petition dated October 1, 2019, Mazda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
for its Mazda CX-30 vehicle line beginning with MY 2021.
    In its petition, Mazda provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the CX-30 vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY
2021 CX-30 vehicle line will be installed with a passive, transponder
based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard
equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include a
powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key
(transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF)
receiver and a low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide
any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm) as standard equipment however, Mazda

stated that its device will incorporate a light-emitting diode (LED)
indicator which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection
status of the antitheft device.
    As required in section 543.6 (a)(3)(v), Mazda provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Mazda conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. Mazda provided a detailed list of the
tests conducted (i.e., low/high temperature exposure operation, high
temperature endurance, thermal cycling, thermal shock resistance,
thermal shock endurance, humidity temperature cycling, high temperature
and humidity endurance, water, dust, vibration, connector and lead/lock
strength, chemical resistance, electromagnetic field, power line
variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge and push button start
strength) and stated that it believes the device is reliable and
durable since it complied with its own specified requirements for each
test. Additionally, Mazda stated that its device is extremely reliable
and durable because it is computer-based and does not rely on any
mechanical or moving parts. Mazda further stated that any attempt to
slam-pull its vehicle's ignition will have no effect on a thief's
ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being transmitted
to the electronic control modules.
    According to Mazda, there are two methods of initiating the
antitheft device operation process. Specifically, Mazda stated that the
immobilizer system checks up on two codes; (1) the transponder code
which the immobilizer control module checks with the transponder
located in the transmitter; and (2) the immobilizer code, which the
immobilizer control module checks with the powertrain's electronic
control module. Mazda also stated that there are two means of checking
the transponder code; (1) when the immobilizer control module
communicates with the transmitter which includes a transponder by LF
antenna and receives a reply of transmitter in the RF receiver; and (2)
when the immobilizer control module communicates with the transponder
by coil antenna which is located in the push button start. If a code of
the transponder matches with the immobilizer control module by either
method mentioned above, and the ignition is turned to the ON position,
the immobilizer control module checks the powertrain's electronic
control module with immobilizer code. Mazda further stated that the
vehicle's engine can only be started if the immobilizer code matches
the code previously programmed into the immobilizer control module. If
the immobilizer code does not match, the engine will be disabled.
Communications between the immobilizer system control function and the
powertrain's electronic control module are encrypted. Mazda also stated
that there are more than 15 x 10 \6\ different transponder codes, and
each transponder is hard coded with a unique code at the time of
manufacture.
    Mazda provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft
devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its
device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices.
Specifically, Mazda stated that its device was installed on certain MY
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT
and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford Sable LS
models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed its immobilizer device on the
entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. When comparing
1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers) with MY
1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the
National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft information which
showed that there was a 70% reduction in theft experienced when
comparing MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 1995
Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers).

g. Mitsubishi

    On February 2, 2009, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a
notice granting in full a petition from Mitsubishi for an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR 541) for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with its MY 2011
vehicles (see 74 FR 5891). The Mitsubishi Outlander is currently
equipped with a passive, transponder-based, electronic engine
immobilizer device and an audible and visible alarm.
    On August 6, 2012, Mitsubishi submitted a petition to modify the
previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line. On
November 28, 2012 (see 77 FR 71030), the agency granted a petition for
modification of the previously granted exemption for the Outlander
vehicle line beginning with its MY 2014 vehicles. On August 1, 2019,
Mitsubishi submitted a second petition to modify the previously
approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line.
    In accordance with 543.6(a)(2), Mitsubishi's petition for
modification provides a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device proposed for installation beginning with the 2021 MY.
    For the current antitheft device installed on the Mitsubishi
Outlander, Mitsubishi stated that it will continue to offer the
wireless control module (WCM) as standard equipment for the entry
models for the Outlander vehicle line, but all models other than the
entry models will be equipped with one touch starting system (OSS). The
features of the OSS are the engine electronic control unit (ECU),
electronic time and alarm control system (ETACS ECU), OSS ECU, keyless
operation system (KOS) ECU, engine (power) switch keyless operation key
(transponder key) and low-frequency (LF) antenna. Mitsubishi stated
that the OSS utilizes a keyless system that allows the driver to press
a button located on the instrument panel to activate and deactivate the
ignition (instead of using a traditional key in the key cylinder) as
long as the transponder is located in close proximity to the driver.
Once the ignition switch is pushed to the ``on'' position, the
transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code for the vehicle
and transmits an encrypted message containing the key code to the ECU
which verifies that the key is correct. The immobilizer then sends a
separate encrypted state-code signal to the engine ECU to allow the
driver to start the vehicle. The engine will only function if the key
code matches the unique identification key code previously programmed
into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the engine and fuel system
will be disabled.
    In its 2021 modification, Mitsubishi stated that it will offer the
one touch starting system (OSS 2) as standard equipment for all
Outlander vehicles. The features of the OSS 2 are the engine control
module (ECM), intelligent power distribution module engine room (IPDM-
ER), body control module (BCM), hands free module (HFM) w/antenna,
engine (power) switch w/ring antenna, iKey Fob (transponder key) and a
LF antenna. The OSS 2 is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer
system that starts the engine without using a mechanical key as long as
the registered iKey Fob is located in close proximity to the driver.
Mitsubishi stated that it will also introduce another model into the
Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2021.
    When the ignition key is pushed to the ignition ``on'' position,
the transceiver module reads the specific

ignition key code for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message
containing the key code to the ECU or HFM which verifies that the key
is correct. The immobilizer then sends a separate encrypted start-code
signal to the engine ECU or HFM to allow the driver to start the
vehicle. The engine will only function if the key code matches the
unique identification key code previously programmed into the ECU or
HFM. If the codes do not match, the engine and fuel system will be
disabled. Mitsubishi also stated that if the iKey Fob battery is
functioning at low power, once the ignition key is pushed and the iKey
Fob is close to the engine switch, the ring antenna in the engine
switch will supply power by transmitting electromagnetic waves to a
transponder built into the iKey Fob by using magnetic coupling. After
power is supplied to the iKey Fob it will transmit the ID code to the
HFM via the engine switch, once authentication is successfully at the
HFM, the HFM will send the outcome to the BCM turning the ignition on
and sending the ignition on request to the IPDM-ER.
    Mitsubishi further stated that there are 4.3 billion different
possible key codes for the WCM system, 250 million for the OSS 1 system
and 268 million for the new OSS 2 system making a successful key code
duplication nearly impossible. Mitsubishi stated that the immobilizer
device and the ECU or HFM share security data when first installed
during vehicle assembly, making them a matched set. These matched
modules will not function if taken out and reinstalled separately on
other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that the device is extremely
reliable and durable because there are no moving parts, the key does
not require a separate battery and it is impossible to mechanically
override the device and start the vehicle.
    Mitsubishi stated that the Mitsubishi Outlander has been equipped
with the immobilizer device since MY 2007. Mitsubishi also stated that
the Eclipse, Galant, Endeavor, Lancer, Outlander Sport, I-MiEv, Mirage,
and the Eclipse Cross vehicle lines have been equipped with a similar
type of immobilizer device since January 2000, January 2004, April
2004, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011, July 2013 and December
2017 respectively, and they have all been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency. Mitsubishi further stated that its Eclipse
vehicle line has been equipped with a similar device since introduction
of its MY 2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi further stated that the theft rate
for the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that
of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer
device).

h. Toyota

    In a petition dated August 19, 2019, Toyota requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
for the Venza vehicle line beginning with MY 2021.
    In its petition, Toyota provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Venza vehicle line. Toyota stated that its MY
2021 Venza vehicle line will be installed with an engine immobilizer
device as standard equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1). Toyota also
stated that it will offer an HV with ``smart entry and start'' system
on its Venza vehicle line. Specifically, key components of the ``smart
entry and start'' system will include, a certification engine control
unit (ECU), power switch, steering lock ECU, security indicator, door
control receiver, electrical key, HV-ECU, ID code box, and an engine
control module (ECM). Toyota stated that there will also be position
switches installed on the vehicle to protect the hood and doors from
unauthorized tampering/opening. Toyota further explained that locking
the doors can be accomplished through use of a key, wireless switch or
its smart entry system, and that unauthorized tampering with the hood
or door without using one of these methods will cause the position
switches to trigger its antitheft device to operate. Toyota stated that
its antitheft device will also include an alarm system as standard
equipment. Toyota stated that once its alarm system is activated, the
horn will sound and its exterior and interior lights will flash if
unauthorized entry is attempted.
    As required in section 543.6 (a)(3)(v), Toyota provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Toyota conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. Toyota provided a detailed list of the
tests conducted (i.e., high and low temperature operation, strength,
impact, vibration, electro-magnetic interference, etc.). Toyota stated
that it believes that its device is reliable and durable because it
complied with its own specific design standards and the antitheft
device is installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has
granted a parts-marking exemption. As an additional measure of
reliability and durability, Toyota stated that its vehicle key
cylinders are covered with casting cases to prevent the key cylinder
from easily being broken. Toyota further explained that there are
approximately 10,000 combinations for inner cut keys which makes it
difficult to unlock the doors without using a valid key because the key
cylinders would spin out and cause the locks to not operate.
    Toyota stated that its HV with ``smart entry and start'' system is
activated when the power switch is pushed from the ``ON'' ignition
status to any other status. The certification ECU then performs the
calculation for the immobilizer and the immobilizer signals the ECM to
activate the device. Toyota also stated that key verification is also
performed after the driver pushes the power switch. Deactivation occurs
after the driver pushes the power switch, the certification ECU and
steering lock ECU receive confirmation of a valid key, and the
certification ECU allows the ECM to start the engine. Toyota also
stated that a security indicator is installed notifying the users and
others inside and outside the vehicle with the status of the
immobilizer. Toyota further explained that the security indicator
flashes continuously when the immobilizer is activated, and turns off
when it is deactivated.
    Toyota stated that currently, there is no theft rate data available
for its new Venza vehicle line. However, Toyota compared its proposed
device to other Toyota antitheft devices that NHTSA has determined to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Toyota compared its
proposed device to that which has been installed on the Camry, Corolla,
Prius, Prius v, RAV4, Highlander, Sienna, Avalon, C-HR, Lexus LS, GS,
RX, NX vehicle lines. Toyota also stated that the MY 2014 theft rate
data for the Toyota RAV4 and RAV4 HV is similar to its proposed device
for the Venza vehicle line. Therefore, Toyota has concluded that the
antitheft device proposed for its Venza vehicle line is no less
effective than those devices on the lines for which NHTSA has already
granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.

III. Decision to Grant the Petitions

    As discussed above, the petitions for all eight manufacturers'
vehicle lines are considered approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106.
Separately, NHTSA believes, based on the supporting evidence submitted
by each manufacturer, that the antitheft device described for each
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-

marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that each manufacturer has provided adequate reasons for its
belief that the antitheft device for each vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard. This conclusion is based on the information each manufacturer
provided about its antitheft device.
    The agency concludes that each described device will provide four
of the five types of performance listed in section 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device
by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    Moving forward, to facilitate the agency's consideration of
complete petitions in a timely manner, NHTSA is planning to publish a
Federal Register notice clarifying the type of information that can
serve as a valid basis for granting a request for exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, NHTSA will be providing this
clarification because it has received a few petitions in which the
petitioners have sought to support their request for exemption with
data comparing the theft rate of a particular vehicle line to the
industry median or average vehicle theft rate. The notice will not
impose any new requirements for manufacturers seeking exemptions from
the parts-marking requirement or otherwise change Part 541. As will be
explained further in that notice, 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5) does not refer to
NHTSA's considering comparisons of the theft rate of the subject
vehicle in a petition to the industry-wide median or average theft rate
when evaluating a request for exemption under Part 543. Instead, under
49 CFR 543.6(a)(5), NHTSA is to consider ``any statistical data that
are available to the petitioner and form a basis for petitioner's
belief that a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the
antitheft device is likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than
that of passenger motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which
have parts marked in compliance with part 541'' (emphasis added).\8\
The notice will clarify this provision of Part 541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is because, to make a valid comparison, NHTSA must
carefully choose two sets of vehicles that are as nearly similar as
possible so that the agency can be reasonably certain that any
differences or similarities in the theft rates of the two sets of
vehicles can be attributed to the presence of an anti-theft device
or parts marking and not to extraneous, confounding variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR part 543.8(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates,
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If any manufacturer listed in this notice decides not to use the
exemption for their requested vehicle line, the manufacturer must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of
major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if any manufacturer listed in this notice wishes
in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based,
the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption.
Section 543.8(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to
vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped
with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based.
Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions
``to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one specified in the exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if any
manufacturer listed in this notice contemplates making any changes, the
effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to
modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full the
following petitions for exemption for the following manufacturers'
vehicle lines for the following model years: BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW) for its 2 series vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; Jaguar Land
Rover North America LLC (Jaguar Land Rover) for its Jaguar E-Pace
vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan)
for its QX55 beginning in MY 2020; Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla) for its
Model Y vehicle line beginning in MY 2020; General Motors Corporation
(GM) for its Chevrolet Trailblazer vehicle line beginning in MY 2021;
Mazda Motors Corporation (Mazda) for its CX-30 vehicle line beginning
in MY 2021; Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi) for its
Outlander vehicle line beginning in MY 2021; and Toyota Motor North
America, Inc. (Toyota) for its Venza vehicle line beginning in MY 2021.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2020-10028 Filed 5-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66913]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 35022; File No. 812-15481]

T. Rowe Price OHA Select Private Credit Fund and OHA Private
Credit Advisors LLC

September 25, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and section 61(a) of the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
closed-end management investment companies that have elected to be
regulated as business development companies (``BDCs'') to issue
multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based
service and/or distribution fees.

Applicants: T. Rowe Price OHA Select Private Credit Fund and OHA
Private Credit Advisors LLC.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 5, 2023, and amended on
September 13, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October
20, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Gregory S. Rubin, Esq., OHA Private Credit Advisors LLC,
[email protected], with copies to Richard Horowitz, Esq.,
Dechert, LLP, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel or
Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application,
dated September 13, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the file number at the top of this document,
or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's
EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21286 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76618]
[DOCID:fr21de06-12]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 270

[Release No. IC-27600; File No. S7-03-04]
RIN 3235-AJ05

Investment Company Governance

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for additional comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is reopening the comment period on its June
2006 request for comment regarding amendments to investment company
(``fund'') governance provisions. The purpose of the additional comment
period is to permit public comment on two papers prepared by the Office
of Economic Analysis on this topic that will be made public by
including them in the comment file. The comments the Commission
receives will be used to inform our further consideration of the
matter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before 60 days after publication
of the second of the two staff economic papers in the public comment
file. When the second of the two staff economic papers in the public
comment file is published, the Commission will publish a document
announcing the comment deadline.

ADDRESSES: To help us process and review your comments more
efficiently, comments should be sent by one method only.

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number S7-03-04 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-03-04. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml
). Comments are also available for

public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. All comments received
will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Sokobin, Deputy Chief
Economist, Office of Economic Analysis,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Vincent
Meehan, Staff Attorney, or Penelope Saltzman, Branch Chief, Office of
Regulatory Policy,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Investment Management,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2006, the Commission requested
additional comment \1\ regarding amendments to fund governance
provisions of rules under the Investment Company Act.\2\ We received
many comments in response to our request, some of which provided
information on the costs of the provisions. Few, however, directly
addressed in a meaningful way the economic implications of the
provisions. Before considering further rulemaking on this matter, the
Commission wishes to develop a more comprehensive record and a more
thorough understanding of the economic consequences of the provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Investment Company Governance, Investment Company Act
Release No. 27395 (June 13, 2006) [71 FR 35366 (June 19, 2006)].
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To that end, the Commission invites comment on any aspect of the
two staff economic papers that will be published shortly after the
issuance of this release. Specifically, our staff economists have
reviewed existing relevant economic literature related to conflicts of
interest that advisers have with regard to mutual funds they advise, as
well as literature related to mutual fund governance, independent
chairmen, and board independence. Our staff economists also have
performed an analysis of the statistical properties of mutual fund
returns and potential limitations inherent in any empirical analysis
designed to identify a relationship between those returns and fund
governance. We will include their papers in the public comment file,
and we request comment on them. In addition, in order to facilitate our
assessment of the economic implications of the fund governance
provisions and any alternative approaches available to us, we also seek
comment on any other extant analyses, and we request that commenters
provide us their best assessment of these.

    Dated: December 15, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21903 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 21, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	October 16, 2014 Panel Presentation at a conference sponsored by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

      A panel presentation was made by EPA at a conference sponsored by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid on October 16, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.  The meeting was in New Orleans, Louisiana.

ATTENDEES

Participants:		Large general audience

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10154-10157]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91116; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, To Amend Rules 5.37 and 5.73 Related to the Solicitation of Market
Makers for SPX Initiating Orders in the Automated Improvement Mechanism
and FLEX Automated Improvement Mechanism

February 11, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On June 3, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
permit orders for the accounts of market makers with an appointment in
S&P 500[supreg] Index Options (``SPX'') to be solicited for the
initiating order submitted for execution against an agency order into
an Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') auction or a FLEX AIM
auction. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 18, 2020.\3\ On July 2, 2020, the Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced
and superseded the proposed rule change in its entirety.\4\ On July 22,
2020, the Exchange submitted

Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ On July 27, 2020,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On August
21, 2020, the Commission published notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and
instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \8\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.\9\ On December 8, 2020, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.\11\ This order approves the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89062 (June 12,
2020), 85 FR 36907. Comments received on the proposed rule change
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050.htm.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Limited the scope of
its original proposal, which would have permitted orders for the
accounts of market makers with an appointment in any class to be
solicited for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX AIM auction in
that class, to only allow market makers with an appointment in SPX
to be solicited for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX AIM
auction in SPX; and (2) provided additional data, justification, and
support for its modified proposal. The full text of Amendment No. 1
is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050-7382058-218888.pdf.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Provided additional
data, justification, and support for its proposal; and (2) made
technical corrections and clarifications to the description of the
proposal. The full text of Amendment No. 2 is available on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050-7464399-221161.pdf.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89398, 85 FR 46197
(July 31, 2020). The Commission designated September 16, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89635, 85 FR 53051
(August 27, 2020).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90593, 85 FR 80842
(December 14, 2020). The Commission designated February 13, 2021 as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    The Exchange proposes to permit orders for the accounts of market
makers with an appointment in SPX to be solicited for the initiating
order submitted for execution against an agency order in SPX options
into a simple AIM auction pursuant to Rule 5.37 or a simple FLEX AIM
auction pursuant to Rule 5.73.\12\ Currently, the introductory
paragraphs of Rules 5.37 and 5.73 prohibit orders for the accounts of
market makers with an appointment in the applicable class to be
solicited to execute against the agency order in a simple AIM or FLEX
AIM auction, respectively. The Exchange states that no similar
restriction applies to crossing transactions in open outcry trading,
where a significant portion of SPX options trade.\13\ The Exchange
represents that brokers seeking liquidity to execute against customer
orders on the trading floor regularly solicit appointed SPX market
makers for this liquidity, as they are generally the primary source of
pricing and liquidity for those options.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The initiating order is the order comprised of principal
interest or a solicited order(s) submitted to trade against the
order the submitting trading permit holder (the ``Initiating TPH''
or ``Initiating FLEX Trader,'' as applicable) represents as agent
(the agency order). The Exchange states that AIM is currently not
activated for SPX options, although FLEX AIM is currently activated
for FLEX SPX options. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 4 & n.2.
    \13\ See Rules 5.86 and 5.87. See also Amendment No. 1, supra
note 4, at 4.
    \14\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that, during a period of time in which it
suspended open outcry trading to help prevent the spread of the novel
coronavirus and began operating in an all-electronic configuration, it
activated AIM for SPX options and adopted a temporary rule change to
permit market makers to be solicited for electronic crossing
transactions in its exclusively-listed index options (including SPX
options) when the Exchange's trading floor was inoperable.\15\
According to the Exchange, while AIM was activated for SPX options, the
Exchange observed price improvement benefits in AIM auctions for
smaller, retail-sized SPX options.\16\ Although the Exchange has
deactivated AIM for SPX options with the reopening of its trading
floor, the Exchange further states that, if it determines to reactivate
AIM for SPX options, it believes it is appropriate to permit orders for
the account of an appointed SPX market maker to be submitted as the
contra order, as the Exchange believes the liquidity provided by SPX
market makers is necessary for brokers to initiate AIM auctions and
create potential price improvement opportunities for those retail-sized
orders.\17\ The Exchange also states that with additional market
participants available for solicitation to represent the initiating
order, the increased competition may encourage these participants to
provide more aggressive prices to initiate an auction in SPX.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 4-5. See also Rule 5.24(e)(1)(A); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88886 (May 15, 2020), 85 FR 31008 (May 21,
2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-047).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89058 (June 12,
2020), 85 FR 36918 (June 18, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-051).
    \17\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 5-6.
    \18\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further states that, in multi-list classes, many
market makers serve as both appointed market makers on the Exchange and
as market makers on other options exchanges and, as a result, can use
their away market maker accounts to be solicited as a contra order for
AIM auctions.\19\ The Exchange provides data from April 2020
demonstrating that approximately 99.6% of the orders submitted into all
AIM auctions had initiating orders comprised of orders for accounts of
away market makers, making up approximately 86.2% of the volume
executed through AIM auctions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, however, because SPX is an exclusively-
listed class on the Exchange, a firm cannot serve as an SPX market
maker at another options exchange.\21\ The Exchange represents that
there are currently 28 trading permit holders with SPX appointments
that would be available to participate in AIM auctions through both
contra orders and auction responses.\22\ The Exchange provides data
showing that during April and May 2020, when initiating orders could be
comprised of orders for accounts of SPX market makers pursuant to a
temporary rule, approximately 22% of initiating orders executed in SPX
AIM auctions were comprised of orders for SPX market makers,
representing approximately 45% of SPX volume executed in AIM
auctions.\23\ The Exchange's data further demonstrates that during
April and May 2020, while approximately 76% of initiating orders
executed in SPX AIM auctions were comprised of orders for accounts of
away market makers, those orders represented only approximately 5% of
the SPX volume executed through AIM auctions.\24\ The Exchange's data
also shows that during April and May 2020, SPX market makers executed
approximately 31% of SPX volume executed through AIM auctions with
auction responses.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5, at 3.
    \23\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also states that SPX market makers frequently serve as
contra parties to crossing transactions on the trading floor and the
proposed rule change will further align AIM auctions with SPX crossing
executions that occur on the trading floor. According to the Exchange,
for example, during February 2020, approximately 76% of SPX orders
crossed on the trading floor (consisting of 2,944,161 contracts)
included an order of an SPX

market maker on one side of the transaction.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to FLEX AIM, the Exchange states that, unlike in
simple non-FLEX markets, FLEX market makers have no obligations to
provide liquidity to FLEX classes and there is no book into which FLEX
market makers may submit quotes to rest. According to the Exchange,
therefore, appointed market makers in FLEX markets are on equal footing
with all other market participants with respect to FLEX AIM auctions
and permitting FLEX market makers to be solicited as the contra order
in a FLEX AIM auction would provide all market participants with the
opportunity to provide liquidity to execute against agency orders in
FLEX AIM auctions in the same manner (i.e., through solicitation and
responses).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rules 5.37(c)(5) and 5.73(c)(5)
to codify that any user or FLEX Trader, respectively, other than the
Initiating TPH or FLEX Trader, respectively, may submit responses to
AIM and FLEX AIM auctions. The Exchange also proposes to specify that
the system will reject a response with the same EFID as the initiating
order.\28\ The Exchange represents that if the same user submits a
response to an auction in which that same user had an order comprising
the initiating order (even with a different EFID), the Exchange may
take regulatory action against that user for a violation of the
proposed rule.\29\ Further, with respect to any potential misuse of
non-public information by an SPX market maker regarding an upcoming SPX
AIM auction, the Exchange represents that it has existing rules that
prohibit a pattern or practice of submitting orders or quotes for the
purpose of disrupting or manipulating AIM auctions and that require
trading permit holders to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Rule 1.1 (defining EFID as an ``Executing Firm ID'').
The Exchange states that, although the system is only able to reject
responses with the same EFID as the initiating order, the rule
prohibits all responses from the same user that represents the
initiating order, even if orders for the same user have different
EFIDs. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 10.
    \29\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 10.
    \30\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5, at 5. See also Rules
5.37.02 and 8.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\31\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\32\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(8)
of the Act,\33\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes to permit orders for the
accounts of market makers with an appointment in SPX to be solicited
for the initiating order submitted for execution against an agency
order in SPX options into an AIM auctions. In support of its proposal,
the Exchange states that brokers seeking liquidity to execute against
customer orders on the trading floor regularly solicit appointed SPX
market makers for this liquidity, as they are generally the primary
source of pricing and liquidity for those options. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes the liquidity provided by SPX market makers is
necessary for brokers to initiate AIM auctions and would create
potential price improvement opportunities for retail-sized orders in
SPX. As summarized in more detail above, the Exchange collected data
during the time open outcry trading was temporarily suspended and SPX
options traded in AIM auctions while the trading floor was inoperable.
The data demonstrates that significant price improvement opportunities
for retail-sized orders occurred during this time.
    Two commenters agreed with Cboe that the proposal would increase
liquidity for AIM auctions and thereby would increase execution and
price improvement opportunities for retail investors.\34\ One such
commenter argued that removing the market maker solicitation
prohibition would eliminate an inequity against market makers that
unduly curtails liquidity to customer orders.\35\ Commenters also
supported the proposal because it would better align the execution and
price improvement opportunities in electronic crossing auctions with
those available in open outcry trading, where no similar solicitation
prohibition exists.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Richard J. McDonald, Susquehanna International Group, LLP,
dated July 8, 2020, at 2 (``SIG Letter'') and Ellen Greene, Managing
Director, Equities & Options Market Structure, The Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated July 9, 2020, at 3
(``SIFMA Letter''). The SIG Letter and SIFMA Letter commented on
Cboe's original proposal, which would have applied the proposed rule
change to all classes, not just SPX.
    \35\ See SIG Letter, supra note 34, at 1.
    \36\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 34, at 3; SIG Letter, supra
note 34, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission believes that the
proposal is reasonably designed to protect investors and the public
interest. The data provided by the Exchange supports the Exchange's
conclusion that the proposal could provide additional execution and
price improvement opportunities for customer orders in SPX options
submitted through the Exchange's AIM auctions. As described above, the
Exchange provided data demonstrating market maker participation in SPX
AIM auctions during April and May 2020, the temporary period when SPX
market makers were permitted to be solicited as contra side to the
agency order in AIM auctions.\37\ The Commission believes that the
Exchange's data shows that SPX market makers represented a significant
amount of SPX AIM volume during this period, both as initiating orders
and through auction responses. Accordingly, the Exchange's data
supports a finding that permanently permitting initiating orders from
SPX market makers is designed to increase the number of AIM auctions
and consequently, provide a larger number of agency orders with the
opportunity for price improvement. For example, an AIM agency order for
less than 50 contracts is guaranteed price improvement of at least one
minimum increment better than the then-current National Best Bid or
National Best Offer.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra notes 23-25 and accompanying text.
    \38\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposed rule change will
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. SPX market makers frequently
serve as contra parties to crossing transactions on the trading floor.
For example, during February 2020 (when the trading floor was open),
approximately 76% of SPX orders crossed on the trading floor
(consisting of 2,944,161 contracts) included an order of an SPX market
maker one side of the transaction.\39\ Cboe states that this
demonstrates the importance of appointed SPX market makers to the
provision of liquidity in the SPX market with respect to crossing
transactions, which liquidity would not be available to initiate
electronic crossing transactions under the current AIM rule.\40\ Thus,
the proposed rule change will further align open outcry and electronic
crossing auctions in SPX and provide execution and price improvement
opportunities in both auctions by permitting all market participants,
not just Cboe SPX market makers, to be solicited to participate in AIM
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 8.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, because the Exchange's rules no longer restrict the group
of participants that may provide responses to AIM auctions,\41\ there
are a number of appointed SPX market makers on the Exchange that would
remain eligible to provide competitive responses to AIM auctions.\42\
According to the Exchange, there are currently 28 trading permit
holders with SPX appointments that would be available to participate in
AIM auctions through both contra orders and auction responses.\43\
Further, the proposal would allow for an increased number of
participants to provide the contra-side interest necessary to initiate
a competitive AIM auction, particularly in an exclusively-listed class
such as SPX where away market makers are unavailable to provide such
interest. The Exchange's data demonstrated that during the temporary
period, SPX market makers executed approximately 31% of SPX volume
executed through AIM auctions with auction responses.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Rules 5.37(c)(5) (AIM) and 5.38(c)(5).
    \42\ See text accompanying supra note 22.
    \43\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5, at 3.
    \44\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements
of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\45\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 (SR-CBOE-2020-050), be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03219 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P