[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70900-70903]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28083]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73671; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-97]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 311--Equities and 313--Equities To
Add Limited Liability Companies as Eligible Member Organizations and
Delineate the Information Limited Liability Companies Must Submit to
the Exchange as Part of the Membership Process; Eliminate the
Requirement That a Member Corporation Be Created or Organized, and
Maintain Its Principal Place of Business, in the United States; and
Make Additional Related Amendments To Update Its Membership Rules

November 21, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 12, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 311--Equities and 313--
Equities to add limited liability companies as eligible member
organizations and delineate the information limited liability companies
must submit to the Exchange as part of the membership process;
eliminate the requirement that a member corporation be created or
organized, and maintain its principal place of business, in the United
States; and make additional related amendments to update its membership
rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 311--Equities (``Rule 311'')
and 313--Equities (``Rule 313'') to add limited liability companies
(``LLCs'') to the types of eligible member organizations and delineate
the information LLCs must submit to the Exchange as part of the
membership process; eliminate the requirement that a member corporation
be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business,
in the United States; and make additional related amendments to update
its membership rules.
Rule 311
    NYSE MKT Rule 311 governs the formation and approval of member
organizations. The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 311 to explicitly
provide for LLCs to apply to become member organizations and eliminate
the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and
maintain its principal place of business, in the United States.
    First, the Exchange's membership rules currently provide for member
organizations to be corporations or partnerships, but have not
explicitly provided for LLCs.\4\ The Exchange proposes to add LLCs to
the types of potential member organizations and require LLCs to meet
the same

requirements currently applicable to partnerships and corporations set
forth in Rule 311(b). As part of the proposed revision, the Exchange
seeks to add a new section (4) to Rule 311(b) requiring every member of
an LLC to be a member, principal executive or approved person.\5\
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 311(b)(6) to
reflect that proposed LLC member organizations must, like corporations
and partnerships, also comply with any additional requirements as the
rules of the Exchange may prescribe. The Exchange also proposes to add
new Supplementary Material .16 to Rule 311 to specify that LLC
applicants for Exchange membership are subject to Rule 313.24 regarding
the submission of copies of proposed or existing limited liability
company documents and other agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Current Rule 311(f) permits the Exchange to approve
``entities that have characteristics essentially similar to
corporations, partnerships, or both'' as a member organization ``on
such terms and conditions as the Exchange may prescribe.''
    \5\ Rule 311(b)(2) and (b)(3) currently impose the same
requirement on the relevant control persons at corporations and
partnerships, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 311(f) to eliminate the
geographic limitation on incorporation and domicile of corporation
members. The first sentence of Rule 311(f) currently provides that
every member corporation be a corporation ``created or organized under
the laws of, and shall maintain its principal place of business in, the
United States or any State thereof.'' \6\ The Exchange does not believe
that the Exchange's restriction on whether foreign entities may be a
member organization is consistent with either Federal rules or those of
other self-regulatory organizations (``SRO''). For an example
supporting its belief, the Exchange states that rules promulgated
pursuant to the Act require, under certain circumstances, a foreign
broker-dealer to register with the Commission.\7\ The Exchange also
states that other SROs, including the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), do not require their members to be
domiciled in the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The first sentence of Rule 311(f) also provides that every
member firm organization shall be a partnership or corporation. This
statement is redundant to Rule 311(b), which the Exchange is
amending to add LLCs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete
the first sentence of Rule 311(f) in its entirety.
    \7\ See 17 CFR 240.15a-6 and Commission Guide to Broker-Dealer
Registration, Division of Trading and Markets, available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdguide.htm (foreign broker-dealers
that, from the outside of the United States, induce or attempt to
induce securities transactions by any person in the United States,
or that use the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce in
the United States for this purpose, must register as broker-dealers
with the Commission).
    \8\ See e.g., NASD Membership and Registration Rules (1000
Series). NASD Rule 1090 imposes specific requirements on members
that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for
preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be
filed with the SEC and the Exchange, which the Exchange proposes to
import into Rule 313. See the discussion infra. See also BATS
Exchange, Inc. Rules 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current restriction in Rule 311(f)
puts it at a competitive disadvantage because it restricts foreign
broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission and are members
of another SRO from also becoming Exchange member organizations. The
Exchange notes that its rules already require member organizations to
meet prerequisites as specified in Rule 2(b). Specifically, regardless
of corporate form, all member organizations must be registered broker-
dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities
exchange. If a registered broker-dealer transacts business with public
customers or conducts business on the Floor of the Exchange, such
member organization must be a member of FINRA.
    The Exchange further notes that a member organization will be
subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction for misconduct
whether or not it is based in the United States. However, for the
avoidance of doubt, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to add
supplementary material to Rule 313 based on NASD Rule 1090 that imposes
certain requirements on foreign members that do not maintain an office
in the United States.
Rule 313
    Rule 313 sets forth certain corporate or partnership documents that
each member organization must submit to enter into and continue in NYSE
membership. The Rule also sets forth certain restrictions on capital
withdrawals and distributions applicable to member corporations and
partnerships. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 313 to delineate the
types of documents LLCs must submit that, as noted, mirror the
requirements currently in place for member corporations and
partnerships.
    First, the Exchange proposes to add a subsection (d) to Rule 313
requiring all articles of organization and operating documents for LLCs
to be submitted for Exchange approval prior to becoming effective.
Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .24
setting forth that existing LLCs must promptly submit certified copies
(to the extent possible) of articles of organization and operating
agreements to the Exchange.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .25
providing restrictions on capital withdrawals by LLC members that are
substantially the same as those applicable to corporations and
partnerships. The Supplementary Material would provide that the capital
contribution of any LLC member may not be withdrawn on less than six
months' written notice of withdrawal given no sooner than six months
after such contribution was first made without the prior written
approval of the Exchange. The Supplementary Material would also specify
that each member firm shall promptly notify the Exchange of the receipt
of any notice of withdrawal of any part of a member's capital
contribution or if any withdrawal is not made because prohibited under
the provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .26
providing that LLCs not organized under the laws of New York State must
subject themselves to the following restrictions: no distributions
shall be declared or paid that impair the LLC's capital; and no
distribution of assets shall be made to any member unless the value of
the LLC's assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at
least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including
capital. These proposed restrictions are based on existing restrictions
applicable to member corporations and partnerships.
    In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to add new
Supplementary Material .27 to Rule 313 specifying the requirements
applicable to Foreign Member Organizations. The proposed new rule text
would adopt, without substantive change, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of NASD Rule 1090 (Foreign Members), which impose specific requirements
on FINRA members that do not maintain an office in the United States
responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports
required to be filed by the SEC and FINRA.\9\ As proposed, foreign

member organizations that do not maintain an office in the United
States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other
reports required to be filed with the Commission and the Exchange would
be required to: (1) Prepare all such reports, and maintain a general
ledger chart of account and any description thereof, in English and
U.S. dollars; (2) reimburse the Exchange or its representatives for
expenses incurred in connection with examinations of the member
organization to the extent that such expenses exceed the cost of
examining a member organization located within the continental United
States in the geographic location most distant from the Exchange's
principal office or, in such other amount as the Exchange may deem to
be an equitable allocation of such expenses; and (3) ensure the
availability of an individual fluent in English and knowledgeable in
securities and financial matters to assist representatives of the
Exchange during examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange is not proposing to adopt a rule similar to
NASD Rule 1090(d), which requires foreign members to ``utilize,
either directly or indirectly, the services of a broker/dealer
registered with the Commission, a bank or a clearing agency
registered with the Commission located in the United States in
clearing all transactions involving members of the Association,
except where both parties to a transaction agree otherwise.'' The
Exchange agrees with FINRA, which similarly recommended skipping
paragraph (d) as part of its contemplated adoption of NASD Rule
1090, that the provision is ``outdated'' and that clearing
arrangements are better addressed by FINRA Rule 4311 (Carrying
Agreements), which is based in part on Rule 382--Equities that FINRA
Rule 4311 replaced. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-29 (September
2013). FINRA Rule 4311 governs the requirements applicable to
members when entering into agreements for the carrying of any
customer accounts in which securities transactions can be effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate certain restrictions, which
the Exchange considers redundant, on member organizations and
prospective member organizations organized as partnerships and
corporations. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in
Rule 313.11 that the partnership articles of each member firm provide
that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior
written approval of the Exchange. Rule 313.11 already requires the
Exchange's prior written approval for any such capital withdrawals, and
member organizations need to monitor for and comply with the
prohibition, including whether particular withdrawals violate net
capital requirements. The Exchange believes that because Exchange rules
already govern this behavior, a partnership seeking approval as a
member organization would not need to amend its partnership articles to
reflect this existing rule requirement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See also footnote 11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule
313.20 that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of
counsel stating, among other things, that the corporation is duly
organized and existing, that its stock is validly issued and
outstanding, and that the restrictions and provisions required by the
Exchange on the transfer, issuance, conversion and redemption of its
stock have been made legally effective. Corporate members are required
under the Rule to submit relevant corporate documents, including
articles of incorporation, that contain the same information required
in the opinion of counsel. The Exchange represents that requiring a
legal opinion attesting to facts contained in a corporation's public
filings is redundant and, given the expense, potentially a disincentive
to smaller entities applying for Exchange membership.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement in Rule
313.23 that the opinion of counsel submitted to the Exchange at the
time the corporation applies for approval under Rule 313.20 state the
extent to which the corporation has made the following prohibitions
legally effective: the prohibition on declaring or paying a dividend
that impairs the capital of the corporation and the prohibition on
distributing assets to any stockholder unless the value of the
corporate assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at
least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including
capital. Rule 313.23 would continue to prohibit corporation members
from declaring or paying dividends or distributing corporate assets
that impair the corporation's capital, and member corporations would
not be relieved of the obligation to monitor and enforce these
prohibitions. The Exchange believes that requiring these
representations in a separate legal opinion is redundant and serves no
necessary regulatory or other purpose.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FINRA Rule 4110 (Capital Compliance) contains similar
prohibitions on capital withdrawals by FINRA members without
requiring that the prohibitions be reflected in a firm's partnership
articles or requiring a legal opinion that the member has made the
prohibitions legally effective. See FINRA Rule 4110 (c)(1) (``No
equity capital of a member may be withdrawn for a period of one year
from the date such equity capital is contributed, unless otherwise
permitted by FINRA in writing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain miscellaneous
amendments to Rule 313. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace
outdated references to ``Regulation and Surveillance'' with ``the
Exchange'' in Rules 313.10 and 313.20.\12\ Similarly, the Exchange
proposes to replace outdated references to ``photostatic'' copies in
Rules 313.10 and 313.20 in connection with the submission of documents
to the Exchange and replace them with ``electronically or mechanically
reproduced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under Rule 0--Equities, references to the Exchange also
refer to FINRA staff and FINRA departments acting on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'').
FINRA currently provides member application proceedings services to
the Exchange pursuant to an RSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that adding LLCs to the list of eligible member
organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system by expanding the
types of organizational forms a member organization may take. The
Exchange also believes that permitting LLCs to become member
organizations subject to the same restrictions and requirements
currently applicable to corporations and partnerships also protects
investors and the public interest by holding LLCs to the same high
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that permitting non-United
States-based registered broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or
another registered securities exchange and that do not have their
principal place of business in the United States to become Exchange
member organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market by removing geographic restrictions
on Exchange membership that are not required by FINRA or other
exchanges. The Exchange further believes that broadening the Exchange
membership pool by facilitating the participation of additional
foreign-based U.S. registered broker-dealers would benefit investors
and the public interest by increasing market participation and depth at
the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that adoption of specific
requirements for foreign members that do not maintain an office in the
United States based on NASD Rule 1090 would further assure that foreign
Exchange members, once approved, remain subject to regulatory
examination and jurisdiction.
    Similarly, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange's
rules to remove requirements, which the Exchange believes are
redundant, that a member firm's partnership articles

provide that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the
prior written approval of the Exchange, that prospective member
corporations submit an opinion of counsel reciting facts contained in
its public filings, and that certain prohibitions have been made
legally effective would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that
potential member organizations, persons subject to the Exchange's
jurisdiction, regulators, and the public could more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand what obligations attach and
when. Further, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange's
rules to remove what the Exchange considers redundant requirements is
also designed to protect investors as well as the public interest by
providing transparency and reducing potential confusion regarding the
Exchange membership process that may result from having what the
Exchange characterizes as obsolete rules and outdated guidelines in the
Exchange's rulebook. For the same reasons, the Exchange represents that
updating the Exchange's rules to remove requirements that the Exchange
considers outdated would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and is
equally designed to protect investors as well as the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would foster competition by expanding the
types of organizational forms a member organization may take and, by
removing geographic restrictions on corporate Exchange membership,
permitting foreign broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another
SRO and that do not have their principal place of business in the
United States to become Exchange member organizations. The Exchange
represents that, by removing outdated and redundant provisions from the
Exchange membership rules not found in the rules of other SROs and
adding a provision found in the rules of another SRO, the proposed rule
change also would foster competition by providing greater harmonization
between Exchange membership requirements and the requirements of other
SROs, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient and consistent
standards for prospective member organizations.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-97 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-97. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-97 and should be submitted on or before
December 19, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28083 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 19967]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0350; Control No. 1625-0041]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the sixty-day notice for the
Information Collection Request (ICR) regarding Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number 1625-0041, for Various International
Agreement Pollution Prevention Certificates and Documents, and
Equivalency Certificates. The Coast Guard published a notice of ICR in
the Federal Register on November 29, 2022, titled ``Information
Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control
Number: 1625-0041''. We are withdrawing that notice because it is a
duplicate submission of the subsequent sixty-day notice and request for
public comment associated with this ICR that we published in the
Federal Register on January 31, 2023.

DATES: The sixty-day notice published on November 29, 2022 (87 FR
73316) is withdrawn on April 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The notices discussed in this document are available at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. The notice
published on November 29, 2022 (87 FR 73316) is available in docket
USCG-2022-0350. The subsequent duplicate ICR notice and supporting
materials that Coast Guard will use going forward for this OMB approval
are located in docket USCG-2023-0094.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, email [email protected], telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 29, 2022, the Coast Guard
published a sixty-day notice in the Federal Register (87) for the ICR
entitled ``1625-0041, Various International Agreement Pollution
Prevention Certificates and Documents, and Equivalency Certificates.
The intent of the notice was to request an extension of an existing
collection of information without change. The Coast Guard is
withdrawing the sixty-day notice published on November 29, 2022 (87 FR
73316), due to an administrative oversight which resulted in duplicate
submissions. The sixty-day notice associated with this ICR titled
``Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget''
that subsequently published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2023
(88 FR 6291), remains in effect for public comment. The Coast Guard
will use the docket related to the second publication, docket USCG-
2023-0094, going forward for actions related to this ICR extension
request.
    This notice is issued under the authority of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
1901-1911.

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-06960 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8923-8930]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88172; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2020-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Schedule of Wireless
Connectivity Fees and Charges With Wireless Connections

February 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on January 30, 2020, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a schedule of Wireless
Connectivity Fees and Charges (the ``Wireless Fee Schedule'') with
wireless connections between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and
other data centers. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish the Wireless Fee Schedule with
wireless connections between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and
three data centers that are owned and operated by third parties
unaffiliated with the Exchange: (1) Carteret, New Jersey, (2) Secaucus,
New Jersey, and (3) Markham, Canada (collectively, the ``Third Party
Data Centers''). Market participants that purchase such a wireless
connection (a ``Wireless Connection'') are charged an initial and
monthly fee. In addition, the Exchange proposes to include a General
Note to the Wireless Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange does not believe that the present proposed change is a
change to the ``rules of an exchange'' \4\ required to be filed with
the Commission under the Act. The definition of ``exchange'' under the
Act includes ``the market facilities maintained by such exchange.'' \5\
Based on its review of the relevant facts and circumstances, and as
discussed further below, the Exchange has concluded that the Wireless
Connections are not facilities of the Exchange within the meaning of
the Act, and therefore do not need to be included in its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27) (defining the term ``rules of an
exchange'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1). See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2) (defining the
term ``facility'' as applied to an exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is making the current proposal solely because the
Staff of the Commission has advised the Exchange that it believes the
Wireless Connections are facilities of the Exchange and so must be
filed as part of its rules.\6\ The Staff has not set forth the basis of
its conclusion beyond verbally noting that the Wireless Connections are
provided by an affiliate of the Exchange and a market participant could
use a Wireless Connection to trade on, or receive the market data of,
the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation between Commission staff and
representatives of the Exchange, December 12, 2019.
    \7\ Id. The Commission has previously stated that services were
facilities of an exchange subject to the rule filing requirements
without fully explaining its reasoning. In 2010, the Commission
stated that exchanges had to file proposed rule changes with respect
to co-location because ``[t]he Commission views co-location services
as being a material aspect of the operation of the facilities of an
exchange.'' The Commission did not specify why it reached that
conclusion. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January
14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (concept release on equity
market structure), at note 76.
    In addition, in 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule change by The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') on the basis that Nasdaq's ``provision
of third-party market data feeds to co-located clients appears to be
an integral feature of its co-location program, and co-location
programs are subject to the rule filing process.'' Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 72654 (July 22, 2014), 79 FR 43808 (July
28, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-034). In its order, the Commission did not
explain why it believed that the provision of third party data was
an integral feature of co-location, or if it believed that it was a
facility of Nasdaq, although the Nasdaq filing analyzed each prong
of the definition of facility in turn. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 71990 (April 22, 2014), 79 FR 23389 (April 28, 2014)
(SR-NASDAQ-2014-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange expects the proposed change to be operative 60 days
after the present filing becomes effective.
The Exchange and the ICE Affiliates
    To understand the Exchange's conclusion that the Wireless
Connections are not facilities of the

Exchange within the meaning of the Act, it is important to understand
the very real distinction between the Exchange and its corporate
affiliates (the ``ICE Affiliates''). The Exchange is an indirect
subsidiary of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''). Around the
world, ICE operates seven regulated exchanges in addition to the
Exchange and its four national securities exchange affiliates,\8\
including futures markets, as well as six clearing houses. Among
others, the ICE Affiliates are subject to the jurisdiction of
regulators in the U.S., U.K., E.U., the Netherlands, Canada and
Singapore.\9\ In all, the ICE Affiliates include hundreds of ICE
subsidiaries, including more than thirty that are significant legal
entity subsidiaries as defined by Commission rule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange's four national securities exchange affiliates
are the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the ``Affiliate SROs'').
    \9\ Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2018, Exhibit 21.1 (filed February
7, 2019), at 15-16.
    \10\ Id. at Exhibit 21.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through its ICE Data Services (``IDS'') business,\11\ ICE operates
the ICE Global Network (``IGN''), a global connectivity network whose
infrastructure provides access to over 150 global markets, including
the Exchange and Affiliate SROs, and over 750 data sources. All the ICE
Affiliates are ultimately controlled by ICE, as the indirect parent
company, but generally they do not control each other. In the present
case, it is IDS, not the Exchange, that provides the Wireless
Connections to market participants. The Exchange does not control IDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The IDS business operates through several different ICE
Affiliates, including NYSE Technologies Connectivity, Inc., an
indirect subsidiary of the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Connections
    If a market participant wants a connection between one of the Third
Party Data Centers and the Mahwah data center, it may opt to purchase a
Wireless Connection, for which it will be charged an initial and
monthly fee.
    Once requested, IDS establishes a Wireless Connection between the
IDS equipment in the Third Party Data Center and IDS equipment in the
Mahwah data center. IDS contracts with a non-ICE entity to provide the
Wireless Connections between the Secaucus and Carteret Third Party Data
Centers and the Mahwah data center, through a series of towers equipped
with wireless equipment. IDS uses its own wireless network for the
Wireless Connection between the Markham Third Party Data Center and the
Mahwah data center. At either end of the Wireless Connection, the
customer uses a cross connect or other cable to connect its own
equipment to the IDS equipment.\12\ In the Mahwah data center, the
cross connect leads to the customer's server in co-location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A cable connects the IDS and customer equipment in the
Markham Third Party Data Center. Elsewhere, the customer buys a
cross connect from IDS. The cross connects utilized in the Mahwah
data center are filed with the Commission. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87408 (October 28, 2019), 84 FR 58778 (November 1,
2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-12), at 58783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Wireless Connection does not connect to the Exchange trading
and execution systems, nor is it a system of communication from the
customer's server in co-location to the trading and execution systems
of the Exchange or the Affiliate SROs (collectively, the ``SRO
Systems''). Rather, a Wireless Connection facilitates the customer's
interaction with itself. Essentially, a Wireless Connection is an empty
pipe that a customer can use to communicate between its equipment in
co-location and its equipment in the Third Party Data Center.
    Customers have control over the data they send over their Wireless
Connections. They may, but are not required to, use them to send
trading orders to their equipment in co-location; relay Exchange market
data, third party market data and public quote feeds from Securities
Information Processors; send risk management, billing, or compliance
information to their preferred location; or to carry any other market
information or other data they wish to and from their equipment in the
Third Party Data Centers and Mahwah data center. The Exchange does not,
and cannot, know what data customers send over the Wireless
Connections. The Exchange does not send or receive any data over the
Wireless Connections.
    Market participants that want a connection between a Third Party
Data Center and the Mahwah data center have options. There are
currently at least three other vendors that offer market participants
wireless network connections between the Mahwah data center and the
Carteret and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers using wireless equipment
installed on towers and buildings near the Mahwah data center. Some
market participants have their own proprietary wireless networks. A
market participant may create a new proprietary wireless connection,
connect through another market participant, or utilize fiber
connections offered by the Exchange, ICE Affiliates, other service
providers and third party telecommunications providers.
The Wireless Connections Are Not Facilities of the Exchange

The Definition of ``Exchange''

    The definition of ``exchange'' focuses on the exchange entity and
what it does: \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``exchange'' means any organization, association, or group
of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which constitutes,
maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing
together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise
performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed
by a stock exchange as that term is generally understood, and includes
the market place and the market facilities maintained by such exchange.
    If the ``exchange'' definition included all of an exchange's
affiliates, the ``Exchange'' would encompass a global network of
futures markets, clearing houses, and data providers, and all of those
entities worldwide would be subject to regulation by the Commission.
That, however, is not what the definition in the Act provides.
    The Exchange and the Affiliate SROs fall squarely within the Act's
definition of an ``exchange'': They each provide a market place to
bring together purchasers and sellers of securities and perform with
respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock
exchange.
    That is not true for the non-exchange ICE Affiliates. Those ICE
Affiliates do not provide such a marketplace or perform ``with respect
to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange,''
and therefore they are not an ``exchange'' or part of the ``Exchange''
for purposes of the Act. Accordingly, in conducting its analysis, the
Exchange does not automatically collapse the ICE Affiliates into the
Exchange. The Wireless Connections are also not part of the Exchange,
as they are services, and as such cannot be part of an ``organization,
association or group of persons'' with the Exchange.
    In Rule 3b-16 the Commission further defined the term ``exchange''
under the Act, stating that: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.3b-16(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) An organization, association, or group of persons shall be
considered to constitute, maintain, or provide ``a market place or
facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities
or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions
commonly performed by a stock exchange,'' as those terms are used in

section 3(a)(1) of the Act . . . if such organization, association, or
group of persons:
    (1) Brings together the orders for securities of multiple buyers
and sellers; and
    (2) Uses established, non-discretionary methods (whether by
providing a trading facility or by setting rules) under which such
orders interact with each other, and the buyers and sellers entering
such orders agree to the terms of a trade.
    The non-exchange ICE Affiliates do not bring ``together orders for
securities of multiple buyers and sellers,'' and so are not an
``exchange'' or part of the ``Exchange'' for purposes of Rule 3b-16.
    The relevant question, then, is whether the Wireless Connections
are ``facilities'' of the Exchange.

The Definition of ``Facility''

    The Act defines a ``facility'' \15\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``facility'' when used with respect to an exchange
includes [1] its premises, [2] tangible or intangible property whether
on the premises or not, [3] any right to the use of such premises or
property or any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or
reporting a transaction on an exchange (including, among other things,
any system of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or
otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the exchange), and [4]
any right of the exchange to the use of any property or service.
    In 2015 the Commission noted that whether something is a
``facility'' is not always black and white, as ``any determination as
to whether a service or other product is a facility of an exchange
requires an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances.'' \16\
Accordingly, the Exchange understands that the specific facts and
circumstances of the Wireless Connections must be assessed before a
determination can be made regarding whether or not they are facilities
of the Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76127 (October 9,
2015), 80 FR 62584 (October 16, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-36), at note 9
(order approving proposed rule change amending Section 907.00 of the
Listed Company Manual). See also 79 FR 23389, supra note 7, at note
4 (noting that that the definition of the term ``facility'' has not
changed since it was originally adopted) and 23389 (stating that the
SEC ``has not separately interpreted the definition of `facility'
'').
    \17\ As with the definition of ``exchange,'' the ICE Affiliates
do not automatically fall within the definition of a ``facility.''
The definition focuses on ownership and the right to use properties
and services, not corporate relationships. Indeed, if the term
``exchange'' in the definition of a facility included ``an exchange
and its affiliates,'' then the rest of the functional prongs of the
facility definition would be meaningless. Fundamental rules of
statutory construction dictate that statutes be interpreted to give
effect to each of their provisions, so as not to render sections of
the statute superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first prong of the definition is that ``facility,'' when used
with respect to an exchange, includes ``its premises.'' That prong is
not applicable in this case, because the Wireless Connections are not
premises of the Exchange. The term ``premises'' is generally defined as
referring to an entity's building, land, and appurtenances.\18\ The
wireless network that runs between IDS equipment in the Mahwah data
center and IDS equipment in Third Party Data Centers, much of which is
actually owned, operated and maintained by a non-ICE entity,\19\ does
not connect to the Exchange trading and execution systems and is not
the premises of the Exchange. The portion of the Mahwah data center
where the ``exchange'' functions are performed--i.e., the SRO Systems
that bring together purchasers and sellers of securities and perform
with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock
exchange--could be construed as the ``premises'' of the Exchange, but
the same is not true for a wireless network that is almost completely
outside of the Mahwah data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., definition of ``premises'' in Miriam-Webster
Dictionary, at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premises,
and Cambridge English Dictionary, at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/premises.
    \19\ A non-ICE entity owns, operates and maintains the wireless
network between the Mahwah data center and the Carteret and Secaucus
Third Party Data Centers pursuant to an agreement between the non-
ICE entity and an ICE Affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second prong of the definition of ``facility'' provides that a
facility includes the exchange's ``tangible or intangible property
whether on the premises or not.'' The Wireless Connections are not the
property of the Exchange: They are services. The underlying wireless
network is owned by ICE Affiliates and a non-ICE entity. As noted, the
Act does not automatically collapse affiliates into the definition of
an ``exchange.'' A review of the facts set forth above shows that there
is a real distinction between the Exchange and its ICE Affiliates with
respect to the Wireless Connections, and so something owned by an ICE
Affiliate is not owned by the Exchange.
    The third prong of the definition of ``facility'' provides that a
facility includes any right to the use of such premises or property or
any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or reporting a
transaction on an exchange (including, among other things, any system
of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or otherwise,
maintained by or with the consent of the exchange).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This prong does not capture the Wireless Connections because the
Exchange does not have the right to use the Wireless Connections to
effect or report a transaction on the Exchange. ICE Affiliates and a
non-ICE entity own and maintain the wireless network underlying the
Wireless Connections, and ICE Affiliates, not the Exchange, offer and
provide the Wireless Connections to customers. The Exchange does not
know whether or when a market participant has entered into an agreement
for a Wireless Connection and has no right to approve or disapprove of
the provision of a Wireless Connection, in the same way that the
Exchange would have no right to approve or disapprove of the provision
of connectivity to a market participant in co-location or elsewhere by
any other provider. The Exchange does not put content onto the Wireless
Connections. When a customer terminates a Wireless Connection, the
Exchange does not consent to the termination.
    The Wireless Connections do not connect to the Exchange trading and
execution systems. As such, the Wireless Connections are not provided
for ``the purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction on'' the
Exchange. Rather, a Wireless Connection facilitates the customer's
interaction with itself. Each Wireless Connection connects the IDS
equipment in the Third Party Data Center and IDS equipment in the
Mahwah data center. At either end of the Wireless Connection, the
customer uses a cross connect or other cable to connect its own
equipment to the IDS equipment. In the Mahwah data center, the cross
connect leads to the customer's server in co-location, not the Exchange
trading and execution systems.
    It is important to remember that the customers' equipment in the
Mahwah data center is not provided by, part of, or a facility of, the
Exchange. The Exchange provides the space in which customers' equipment
is housed, and permits customers to use their equipment to communicate
with the SRO Systems through services, such as connections to the local
area networks, that are filed with the Commission.\21\

The Exchange provides the space, but not the equipment. Accordingly,
even if a customer were to use a Wireless Connection to send
instructions to trade or to receive a report of a trade, the customer
would not be sending instructions to the Exchange, but rather to its
own equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 83 FR 26314, supra note 12. As described by the
Commission, co-location is when a ``trading center . . . rents rack
space to market participants that enables them to place their
servers in close physical proximity to a trading center's matching
engine.'' 75 FR 3594, supra note 7, at 3610 (noting that ``[c]o-
location helps minimize network and other types of latencies between
the matching engine of trading centers and the servers of market
participants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the example in the parenthetical in the third
prong of the definition of ``facility'' cannot be read as an
independent prong of the definition. Such a reading would ignore that
the parentheses and the word ``including'' clearly indicate that ``any
system of communication to or from an exchange . . . maintained by or
with the consent of the exchange'' is explaining the preceding text. By
its terms, the parenthetical is providing a non-exclusive example of
the type of property or service to which the prong refers, and does not
remove the requirement that there must be a right to use the premises,
property or service to effect or report a transaction on an exchange.
It is making sure the reader understands that ``facility'' includes a
ticker system that an exchange has the right to use, not creating a new
fifth prong to the definition. In fact, if the ``right to use''
requirement were ignored, every communication provider that connected
to an exchange, including any broker-dealer system and
telecommunications network, would become a facility of that exchange so
long as the exchange consented to the connection, whether or not the
connection was used to trade or report a trade, and whether or not the
exchange had any right at all to the use of the connection.
    The fourth prong of the definition provides that a facility
includes ``any right of the exchange to the use of any property or
service.'' \22\ As described above, the Exchange does not have the
right to use the Wireless Connections. Instead, the customers of the
Wireless Connections are customers who enter into an agreement with ICE
Affiliates for connections over a wireless network, much of which is
owned, operated and maintained by a non-ICE entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed above, the Wireless
Connections provided by ICE Affiliates are not facilities of the
Exchange.
    The legal conclusion that the Wireless Connections are not
facilities of the Exchange is strongly supported by the facts. The
Wireless Connections are neither necessary for, nor integrally
connected to, the operations of the Exchange. They are empty pipes that
customers can use as they like. In this context, IDS simply acts as a
vendor selling connectivity, just like the other vendors that offer
wireless connections in the Carteret and Secaucus Third Party Data
Centers and fiber connections to all the Third Party Data Centers. The
fact that in this case it is ICE Affiliates that offer the Wireless
Connections does not make the Wireless Connections facilities of the
Exchange any more than are the connections offered by other parties.
    Further, the Exchange believes that requiring it to file this
proposed rule change is not necessary in order for the Commission to
ensure that the Exchange is satisfying its requirements under the Act.
Because, as described above, the Wireless Connections are not necessary
for, nor connected to, the operations of the Exchange, and customers
are not required to use the Wireless Connections, holding the Wireless
Connections to the statutory standards in Section 6(b) serves no
purpose.
    Instead, the sole impact of the requirement that the Exchange file
the Wireless Connections is to place an undue burden on competition on
the ICE Affiliates that offer the connections, compared to their market
competitors. This filing requirement, thus, itself is inconsistent with
the requirement under Section 6(b)(8) of the Act that the rules of the
exchange not ``impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].'' \23\ This
burden on competition arises because IDS would be unable, for example,
to offer a client or potential client a different bandwidth it
requests, without the delay and uncertainty of a filing, but its
competitors will. Similarly, if a competitor decides to undercut IDS'
fees because IDS, unlike the competitor, has to make its fees public,
IDS will not be able to respond quickly, if at all. Indeed, because its
competitors are not required to make their services or fees public, and
are not subject to a Commission determination of whether such services
or fees are ``not unfairly discriminatory'' or equitably allocated, IDS
is at a competitive disadvantage from the very start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Service and Fees
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to add to its rules a
Wireless Fee Schedule setting forth the fees charged by IDS related to
the Wireless Connections between the Mahwah data center and the Third
Party Data Centers.
    For each Wireless Connection, a customer would be charged a non-
recurring initial charge and a monthly recurring charge (``MRC'') that
would vary depending upon bandwidth and the location of the connection.
The proposal would waive the first month's MRC, to allow customers to
test a new Wireless Connection for a month before incurring any MRCs,
and the Exchange proposes to add text to the Wireless Fee Schedule
accordingly. If a customer had an existing Wireless Connection and
opted to upgrade or downgrade to a different size circuit connecting to
the same Third Party Access Center, it would not be subject to the
initial charge.
    The Exchange proposes to establish the Wireless Fee Schedule with a
section under the heading ``A. Wireless Connectivity'' setting forth
the fees charged by IDS related to the Wireless Connections, as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Type of service                           Description                      Amount of charge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    10 Mb Circuit.....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Secaucus access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $9,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    50 Mb Circuit.....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Secaucus access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $13,500.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    100 Mb Circuit....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Secaucus access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $23,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    200 Mb Circuit....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Secaucus access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $44,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    10 Mb Circuit.....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Carteret access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $10,000.

Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    50 Mb Circuit.....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Carteret access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $15,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    100 Mb Circuit....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Carteret access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $25,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    200 Mb Circuit....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Carteret access center.                                             charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $45,000.
Wireless Connections between (a) Mahwah    50 Mb Circuits....................  $15,000 initial charge for both
 Data Center and Carteret access center                                         connections plus monthly charge
 and (b) Mahwah Data Center and Secaucus                                        for both connections of $22,000.
 Data Center.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    1 Mb Circuit......................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Markham access center.                                              charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $6,000.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    5 Mb Circuit......................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Markham access center.                                              charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $15,500.
Wireless Connection between Mahwah Data    10 Mb Circuit.....................  $10,000 per connection initial
 Center and Markham access center.                                              charge plus monthly charge per
                                                                                connection of $23,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed General Note
    The Exchange and each of the Affiliate SROs are filing the Wireless
Connections. Although each such market will have a Wireless Fee
Schedule, a market participant that obtains a Wireless Connection will
not be charged more than once for that service, irrespective of whether
it is a member of one, some or none of the Exchange and the Affiliate
SROs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that the Wireless Fee Schedule
include a General Note that describes the billing practice for market
participants, as follows:
    A market participant that incurs fees from the New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc. or
NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the ``Affiliate SROs'') for a
particular service pursuant to this Fee Schedule shall not be subject
to fees for the same service charged by the other Affiliate SROs.
    The proposed General Note would be consistent with the first
general note in the co-location section of the Exchange and Affiliate
SROs' price lists and fee schedule,\24\ as well as the Nasdaq Stock
Market rules.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70206 (August 15,
2013), 78 FR 51765 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59); 70176
(August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-
67); 70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-
NYSEArca-2013-80); and 83351 (May 31, 2019), 83 FR 26314 June 6,
2018) (SR-NYSENAT-2018-07), and 84 FR 58778, supra note 12, at
58778.
    \25\ See, e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market General Equity and
Options Rules, General 8, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application and Impact of the Proposed Change
    The proposed change would apply to all market participants equally.
The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Market participants that require other
types or sizes of network connections between the Mahwah data center
and the Third Party Data Centers could still request them. The purchase
of the service is completely voluntary and the Wireless Fee Schedule
will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
Competitive Environment
    There are currently at least three other vendors that offer market
participants wireless network connections between the Mahwah data
center and the Secaucus and Carteret Third Party Access Centers using
wireless equipment installed on towers and buildings near the Mahwah
data center. In addition, some market participants have their own
proprietary wireless networks. Based on the information available to
it, the Exchange believes that the wireless connections offered by non-
ICE entities provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the
Wireless Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The Exchange
believes the Wireless Connections between the Mahwah data center and
the Markham Third Party Data Center are the first public, commercially
available wireless connections between the two points, creating a new
connectivity option for customers in Markham.
    Market participants that want a connection between a Third Party
Data Center and the Mahwah data center have additional options. A
market participant may create a new proprietary wireless connection,
connect through another market participant, or utilize fiber
connections offered by the Exchange, ICE Affiliates, other service
providers and third party telecommunications providers.
    Wireless connections involve beaming signals through the air
between antennas that are within sight of one another. Because the
signals travel a straight, unimpeded line, and because light waves
travel faster through air than through glass (fiber optics), wireless
messages have lower latency than messages travelling through fiber
optics. At the same time, as a general rule wireless networks have less
uptime than fiber networks. Wireless networks are directly and
immediately affected by adverse weather conditions, which can cause
message loss and outage periods. Wireless networks cannot be configured
with redundancy in the same way that fiber networks can. As a result,
an equipment or weather issue at any one location on the network will
cause the entire network to have an outage. In addition, maintenance
can take longer than it would with a fiber based network, as the
relevant tower may be in a hard to reach location, or weather
conditions may present safety issues, delaying technicians servicing
equipment. Even under normal conditions, a wireless network will have a
higher error rate than a fiber network of the same length.
    The proposed Wireless Connections traverse wireless connections
through a series of towers equipped with wireless equipment, including,
in the case of the Carteret and Secaucus connections, a pole on the
grounds of the Mahwah data center. With the exception of the non-ICE
entity that owns the wireless network used for the Wireless Connections
to Secaucus and Carteret,\26\ third parties do not have access to such
pole. However, access to such pole is not required for third parties to
establish wireless networks that can compete with the Wireless
Connections to the Carteret and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers, as
witnessed by the existing wireless connections offered by non-ICE
entities currently serving market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Proximity to a data center is not the only determinant of a
wireless network's latency. Rather, the latency of a wireless network
depends on several factors. Variables include the wireless equipment
utilized; the route of, and

number of towers or buildings in, the network; and the fiber equipment
used at either end of the connection. Moreover, latency is not the only
consideration that a market participant may have in selecting a
wireless network. Other considerations may include the bandwidth of the
offered connection; amount of network uptime; the equipment that the
network uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable
contractual provisions. Indeed, fiber network connections may be more
attractive to some market participants as they are more reliable and
less susceptible to weather conditions.
2. Statutory Basis
    Although the Exchange does not believe that the present proposed
change is a change to the ``rules of an exchange'' \27\ required to be
filed with the Commission under the Act, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\28\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\30\ because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27) (defining the term ``rules of an
exchange'').
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable.
    There are currently at least three other vendors that offer market
participants wireless network connections between the Mahwah data
center and the Secaucus and Carteret Third Party Access Centers using
wireless equipment installed on towers and buildings near the Mahwah
data center. In addition, some market participants have their own
proprietary wireless networks. Based on the information available to
it, the Exchange believes that the wireless connections offered by non-
ICE entities provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the
Wireless Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The Exchange
believes the Wireless Connections between the Mahwah data center and
the Markham Third Party Data Center are the first public, commercially
available wireless connections between the two points, creating a new
connectivity option for customers in Markham.
    The Wireless Connections provide market participants with one means
of connectivity, but substitute products are available, as witnessed by
the existing wireless connections offered by non-ICE entities currently
serving market participants. A market participant may create a new
proprietary wireless connection, connect through another market
participant, or utilize fiber connections offered by the Exchange, ICE
Affiliates, other service providers and third party telecommunications
providers.
    Market participants' considerations in determining what
connectivity to purchase may include latency; bandwidth size; amount of
network uptime; the equipment that the network uses; the cost of the
connection; and the applicable contractual provisions. Indeed, fiber
network connections may be more attractive to some market participants
as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for the Wireless
Connections is reasonable because it allows market participants to
select the connectivity options that best suit their needs. A market
participant that opts to connect with a Wireless Network would be able
to select the route and bandwidth that better suit its needs, thereby
helping it tailor its operations to the requirements of its business
operations. The fees also reflect the benefit received by customers in
terms of lower latency over the fiber optics options.
    Only market participants that voluntarily select to receive
Wireless Connections are charged for them, and those services are
available to all market participants. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes that the services and fees proposed herein are reasonable
because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they
are available to all market participants on an equal basis (i.e., the
same products and services are available to all market participants).
All market participants that voluntarily select Wireless Connections
would be charged the same amount for the same services and would have
their first month's MRC for Wireless Connections waived.
    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because the Wireless Connections described herein are
offered as a convenience to market participants, but offering them
requires the provision, maintenance and operation of the Mahwah data
center, wireless networks and access centers in the Third Party Data
Centers, including the installation and monitoring, support and
maintenance of the services.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the first month's
MRC is reasonable as it would allow customers to test a Wireless
Connection for a month before incurring any monthly recurring fees and
may act as an incentive to market participants to connect to a Wireless
Connection. The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the
initial charge if a customer has an existing Wireless Connection and
opted to upgrade or downgrade to a different size circuit at the same
Third Party Data Center is reasonable because the change in Wireless
Connection would not require IDS to do any physical work to implement
the connection.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed General Note is reasonable
because it would provide transparency regarding how the billing
practice for Wireless Connections functions. The Exchange believes that
a customer should not be charged more than once for a Wireless
Connection. For example, to charge one customer twice for a Wireless
Connection because that customer is a member of two Affiliate SROs, and
so subject to the rules of both Affiliate SROs, when another customer
that buys the same Wireless Connection only pays once, would not
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and could result in the
Exchanges and Affiliate SROs receiving the proceeds from multiple fees
despite only providing a service once.
The Proposed Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants.
    The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market
participants equally. As is currently the case, the

purchase of any connectivity service is completely voluntary and the
Wireless Fee Schedule will be applied uniformly to all customers.
    Without this proposed rule change, market participants seeking
connectivity to a Third Party Data Center would have fewer options.
With it, because the Wireless Connections are offered at different
bandwidths and price points, market participants have more choices with
respect to the form and price of the connectivity they use, allowing a
market participant that opts to connect with a wireless network to
select the connectivity and bandwidth that better suit its needs,
thereby helping it tailor its operations to the requirements of its
business operations.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed General Note is equitable
because a customer would not be charged more than once for a Wireless
Connection. For example, to charge one customer twice for a Wireless
Connection because that customer is a member of two Affiliate SROs, and
so subject to the rules of both Affiliate SROs, when another customer
that buys the same Wireless Connection only pays once, would not
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and could result in the
Exchanges and Affiliate SROs receiving the proceeds from multiple fees
despite only providing a service once. The Exchange believes that its
proposed General Note is reasonable because it would provide
transparency regarding how the billing practice for Wireless
Connections functions.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
    The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market
participants equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any
connectivity service is completely voluntary and the Wireless Fee
Schedule will be applied uniformly to all customers.
    Without this proposed rule change, market participants seeking
connectivity to a Third Party Data Center would have fewer options.
With it, because the Wireless Connections are offered at different
bandwidths and price points, market participants have more choices with
respect to the form and price of the connectivity they use, allowing a
market participant that opts to connect with a wireless network to
select the connectivity and bandwidth that better suit its needs,
thereby helping it tailor its operations to the requirements of its
business operations.
    There are currently at least three other vendors that offer market
participants wireless network connections between the Mahwah data
center and the Secaucus and Carteret Third Party Access Centers using
wireless equipment installed on towers and buildings near the Mahwah
data center. In addition, some market participants have their own
proprietary wireless networks. Based on the information available to
it, the Exchange believes that the wireless connections offered by non-
ICE entities provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the
Wireless Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The Exchange
believes the Wireless Connections between the Mahwah data center and
the Markham Third Party Data Center are the first public, commercially
available wireless connections between the two points, creating a new
connectivity option for customers in Markham.
    Market participants that want a connection between a Third Party
Data Center and the Mahwah data center have additional options. A
market participant may create a new proprietary wireless connection,
connect through another market participant, or utilize fiber
connections offered by the Exchange, ICE Affiliates, other service
providers and third party telecommunications providers.
    Market participants' considerations in determining what
connectivity to purchase may include latency; bandwidth size; amount of
network uptime; the equipment that the network uses; the cost of the
connection; and the applicable contractual provisions. Indeed, fiber
network connections may be more attractive to some market participants
as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed General Note would not be
unfairly discriminatory because a customer would not be charged more
than once for a Wireless Connection. For example, to charge one
customer twice for a Wireless Connection because that customer is a
member of two Affiliate SROs, and so subject to the rules of both
Affiliate SROs, when another customer that buys the same Wireless
Connection only pays once, would not promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and could result in the Exchanges and Affiliate
SROs receiving the proceeds from multiple fees despite only providing a
service once.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange believes that the only burden on competition of the
proposed change is on IDS and other commercial connectivity providers.
Solely because IDS is wholly owned by the same parent company as the
Exchange, IDS will be at a competitive disadvantage to its commercial
competitors, and its commercial competitors, without a filing
requirement, will be at a relative competitive advantage to IDS.
    By permitting IDS to continue to offer the Wireless Connectivity,
approval of the proposed changes would contribute to competition by
allowing IDS to compete with other connectivity providers, and thus
provides market participants another connectivity option. For this
reason, the proposed rule changes will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently at least three other vendors that offer market
participants wireless network connections between the Mahwah data
center and the Secaucus and Carteret Third Party Access Centers using
wireless equipment installed on towers and buildings near the Mahwah
data center. In addition, some market participants have their own
proprietary wireless networks. Based on the information available to
it, the Exchange believes that the wireless connections offered by non-
ICE entities provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the
Wireless Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The Exchange
believes the Wireless Connections between the Mahwah data center and
the Markham Third Party Data Center are the first public, commercially
available wireless connections between the two points, creating a new
connectivity option for customers in Markham. Importantly, the Exchange
does not control the Third Party Data Centers and could not preclude
other parties from creating new wireless or fiber connections to any of
the Third Party Data Centers.
    Market participants that want a connection between a Third Party
Data Center and the Mahwah data center have additional options. A
market participant may create a new proprietary wireless connection,
connect through another market participant, or utilize fiber
connections

offered by the Exchange, ICE Affiliates, other service providers and
third party telecommunications providers. Indeed, fiber network
connections may be more attractive to some market participants as they
are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions.
    The proposed Wireless Connections traverse wireless connections
through a series of towers equipped with wireless equipment, including,
in the case of the Carteret and Secaucus connections, a pole on the
grounds of the Mahwah data center. With the exception of the non-ICE
entity that owns the wireless network used for the Wireless Connections
to Secaucus and Carteret,\32\ third parties do not have access to such
pole, as the IDS wireless network has exclusive rights to operate
wireless equipment on the Mahwah data center pole. IDS does not sell
rights to third parties to operate wireless equipment on the pole, due
to space limitations, security concerns, and the interference that
would arise between equipment placed too closely together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See note 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access to the pole or roof is not required for other parties to
establish wireless networks that can compete with the Wireless
Connections, as witnessed by the existing wireless connections offered
by non-ICE entities currently serving market participants. The latency
of a wireless network depends on several factors, not just proximity to
a data center. Variables include the wireless equipment utilized; the
route of, and number of towers or buildings in, the network; and the
fiber equipment used at either end of the connection. In addition,
latency is not the only consideration that a market participant may
have in selecting a wireless network. Market participants'
considerations in determining what connectivity to purchase may include
latency; bandwidth size; amount of network uptime; the equipment that
the network uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable
contractual provisions.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors offer connectivity options between data
centers as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of market participants. The Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, at 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change does not affect competition among national
securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange, but rather
between IDS and its commercial competitors.
    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2020-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2020-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2020-02, and should be submitted
on or before March 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03099 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24842-24843]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1016]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended
Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves practices that permitted
certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes over long
range routes. The FAA uses this information collection to ensure that
aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize diversions, to
preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to ensure that all
personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandra Ray, Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-260, 1187
Thorn Run Road, Suite 200, Coraopolis, PA 15108.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0718.
    Title: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes.

    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The final rule codified the previous practices that
permitted certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes
over these long-range routes and extended the procedures for extended
operations to all passenger-carrying operations on routes beyond 180
minutes from an alternate airport. This option is voluntary for
operators and manufacturers. The FAA uses this information collection
to ensure that aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize
diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to
ensure that all personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts
of a diversion.
    Respondents: Approximately 22 Operators and 4 Manufacturers and 6
Future Operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Burden varies per operator.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 36,214 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19, 2023.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector. AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2023-08573 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 59752]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of a Record of Decision

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it
has issued a ROD for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS) that evaluated the effects of proposed improvements to runway
safety areas at the Kodiak Airport. This ROD constitutes the final
decision of the FAA regarding the proposed action and summarizes the
Final EIS analyses and selected mitigation measures.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be viewed online or during regular
business hours at the following locations:
    1. Online at www.kodiakairporteis.com.
    2. Holmes Johnson Memorial Library, 319 Lower Mill Bay Road,
Kodiak, AK 99615.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th
Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Grey, Environmental Protection
Specialist, FAA, Alaskan Region, Airports Division, address 222 W. 7th
Avenue Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Ms. Grey may be contacted
during business hours at<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) and<PHONE_NUMBER>
(fax), or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ROD, the FAA selected the following
alternatives for implementation:
     Runway 07/25 Alternative 2 which involves the placement of
fill off Runway end 25 and installation of an EMAS bed on the newly
constructed landmass.
     Runway 18/36 Alternative 7 which involves a landmass
extension to the south beyond Runway end 36, shifting the runway to the
south, and placing an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) bed
to the north beyond Runway end 18.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

     Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on September 18, 2013.
Byron K. Huffman,
Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-23518 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P