[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69910-69918]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27906]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70892; File No. 4-668]

Joint Industry Plan; BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.,
BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,
EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc.,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and Topaz
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed National Market System Plan
Governing the Process of Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a
Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail

November 15, 2013.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder (``Rule
608''),\2\ notice is hereby given that on September 3, 2013, BATS
Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX
Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange, LLC, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and Topaz Exchange, LLC
(collectively, ``SROs'' or ``Participants'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed National Market
System (``NMS'') Plan Governing the Process of Selecting a Plan
Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``Plan''). A copy of the Plan is attached as Exhibit A hereto. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 under the
Exchange Act \3\ to require the SROs to jointly submit an NMS plan (the
``CAT NMS Plan'') to create, implement, and maintain a consolidated
order tracking system, or consolidated audit trail, with respect to the
trading of NMS securities, that would capture customer and order event
information for orders in NMS securities, across all markets, from the
time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or
execution.\4\ Rule 613 outlines a broad framework for the creation,
implementation, and maintenance of the consolidated audit trail,
including the minimum elements the Commission believes are necessary
for an effective consolidated audit trail.\5\ In instances where Rule
613 sets forth minimum requirements for the consolidated audit trail,
the Rule provides flexibility to the SROs to draft the requirements of
the CAT NMS Plan in a way that best achieves the objectives of the
Rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.613.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18, 2012),
77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012) (``Adopting Release'').
    \5\ Id. at 45742.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in more detail below, the SROs concluded that
publication of a request for proposal was necessary to ensure that
potential alternative solutions to creating the consolidated audit
trail can be presented and considered by the SROs and that a detailed
and meaningful cost/benefit analysis can be performed, both of which
are required considerations to be addressed in the CAT NMS Plan. The
SROs also decided, for the reasons set forth below, to file the Plan to
govern how the SROs will proceed with formulating and submitting the
CAT NMS Plan--and, as part of that process, how to review, evaluate,
and narrow down the bids submitted in response to the request for
proposal--and ultimately choosing the plan processor that would build,
operate, and maintain the consolidated audit trail.

III. Description of the Plan

    Set forth in this Section III is the statement of the purpose of
the Plan, along with the information required by Rule 608(a)(4) and (5)
under the Exchange Act,\7\ prepared and submitted by the SROs with the
Plan to the Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
    \8\ See Letter from the SROs, to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statement of Purpose

    Rule 613 requires the Participants to ``jointly file . . . a
national market system plan to govern the creation,

implementation, and maintenance of a consolidated audit trail and
central repository.'' \9\ The Plan being submitted for approval by the
Participants governs the process of selecting a Plan Processor for the
consolidated audit trail and developing the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 242.613(a)(1). Rule 613(a) requires that the
Participants jointly file the CAT NMS Plan ``on or before 270 days
from the date of publication of the Adopting Release in the Federal
Register.'' The release adopting Rule 613 was published in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2012. See Adopting Release, supra note
4. On March 7, 2013, the Commission provided a temporary exemption
to the Participants to permit them to file the CAT NMS Plan by
December 6, 2013. See Exchange Act Release No. 69060 (March 7,
2013), 78 FR 15771 (March 12, 2013) (``Exemptive Order''); see also
Letter from Robert L.D. Colby, Chief Legal Officer, FINRA, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
dated February 7, 2013 (``Exemptive Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As adopted, Rule 613 ``expand[ed] the set of solutions that could
be considered by the SROs for creating, implementing, and maintaining a
consolidated audit trail and [provided] the SROs with increased
flexibility in how they choose to meet the requirements of the adopted
Rule.'' \10\ As the Commission noted in the Adopting Release, because
of this expanded solution set, ``the adopted Rule now requires the
[Participants] to provide much more information and analysis to the
Commission as part of their [CAT NMS Plan] submission.'' \11\
Specifically, these requirements were incorporated into Rule 613 as a
series of twelve ``considerations'' that the Participants must address
in the CAT NMS Plan, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Adopting Release, supra note 4 at 45725.
    \11\ Id. See also id. at 45789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the specific details and features of the CAT NMS Plan;
     the Participants' analysis of the CAT NMS Plan's costs and
impact on competition, efficiency, and capital formation;
     the process in developing the CAT NMS Plan;
     information about the implementation of the CAT NMS Plan;
and
     milestones for the creation of the consolidated audit
trail.
    As part of the discussion of these ``considerations,'' the
Participants must include ``cost estimates for the proposed solution,
and a discussion of the costs and benefits of alternative [sic]
solutions considered but not proposed.'' \12\ In addition, the
Commission noted that Rule 613 requires that the [Participants]: (1)
Provide an estimate of the costs associated with creating,
implementing, and maintaining the consolidated audit trail under the
terms of the [CAT NMS Plan] submitted to the Commission for its
consideration; (2) discuss the costs, benefits, and rationale for the
choices made in developing the [CAT NMS Plan] submitted; and (3)
provide their own analysis of the submitted [CAT NMS Plan's] potential
impact on competition, efficiency, and capital formation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 45789.
    \13\ Id. at 45726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission stated that these detailed requirements are
``intended to ensure that the Commission and the public have
sufficiently detailed information to carefully consider all aspects of
the [CAT NMS Plan] ultimately submitted by the [Participants].'' \14\
Indeed, the Commission expressed its expectation that ``the
[Participants] will seriously consider various options as they develop
the [CAT NMS Plan] to be submitted to the Commission for its
consideration.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 45725.
    \15\ Id. at 45725 and 45789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the numerous specific requirements of Rule 613, on
March 7, 2013, the Commission granted the Participants an extension of
the time in which to file the CAT NMS Plan so that the Participants
could ensure that all potential options for the consolidated audit
trail could be considered. As noted in the Exemptive Letter, the
Participants concluded that publication of a request for proposal
(``RFP'') was necessary to ensure that potential alternative solutions
to creating the consolidated audit trail can be presented and
considered by the Participants and that a detailed and meaningful cost/
benefit analysis can be performed, both of which are required
considerations to be addressed in the CAT NMS Plan.
    The Participants published the RFP on February 26, 2013, and
requested that any potential bidders notify the Participants of their
intent to bid by March 5, 2013. Thirty-one firms submitted an intent to
bid in response to the publication of the RFP; four of the firms were
Participants or Affiliates of Participants.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Since that time, six firms--including one Participant and
one Affiliate of a Participant--have formally notified the
Participants that they will not submit Bids as primary bidders. A
list of firms that submitted an intent to bid is located on the
Participants' Web site at catnmsplan.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is intended to govern how the Participants will proceed
with formulating and submitting the CAT NMS Plan--and, as part of that
process, reviewing, evaluating, and narrowing down the Bids submitted
in response to the RFP--and ultimately choosing the Plan Processor.
Because of the important regulatory obligations that exist for each
Participant with respect to the creation and operation of the
consolidated audit trail, it is essential that each Participant
contribute to the development of the CAT NMS Plan. The Participants
recognize, however, that Participants or Affiliates of Participants may
also be Bidders seeking to serve as the Plan Processor or may be
included as part of a Bid. The Participants have sought to mitigate
these potential conflicts of interest by including in the Plan multiple
provisions, which are described below, designed to balance these
competing factors. The Participants believe that the Plan achieves this
balance by allowing all Participants to participate meaningfully in the
process of creating the CAT NMS Plan and choosing the Plan Processor
while imposing strict requirements to ensure that the participation is
independent and that the process is fair and transparent.
    Section III of the Plan establishes the overall governance
structure the Participants have chosen.\17\ Specifically, the
Participants propose establishing an Operating Committee responsible
for formulating, drafting, and filing with the Commission the CAT NMS
Plan and for ensuring the Participants' joint obligations under Rule
613 are met in a timely and efficient manner. As set forth in Section
III(B) of the Plan, each Participant will select one individual and one
substitute to serve on the Operating Committee; however, other
representatives of each Participant are permitted to attend Operating
Committee meetings. Section III of the Plan also establishes the
procedures for the Operating Committee, including provisions regarding
meetings, Participants' voting rights, and voting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Section I of the Plan sets forth the definitions used
throughout the Plan. Section II of the Plan lists the Participants,
as well as establishing the requirements to admit new Participants
or to withdraw as a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections V and VI of the Plan \18\ set forth the process for the
Participants' evaluation of Bids and the selection process for
narrowing down the Bids and choosing the Plan Processor.\19\

Pursuant to these Sections, the evaluation of Bids and selection of the
Plan Processor will be performed by a Selection Committee composed of
one senior officer from each Participant (referred to as the ``Voting
Senior Officer'').\20\ Because of the potential conflicts of interest
noted above, the Plan includes multiple requirements to increase the
independence of the Voting Senior Officer who participates on the
Selection Committee on behalf of a Bidding Participant.\21\ The
criteria set forth in Section V(D) of the Plan include requirements
concerning the Voting Senior Officer's job responsibilities, decision-
making authority, and reporting, and require that the Bidding
Participant establish functional separation between its Plan
responsibilities and its business/commercial (including market
operations) functions. In addition, the criteria prohibit any
disclosure of information regarding the Bid to the Voting Senior
Officer and prohibit the Voting Senior Officer from disclosing any non-
public information gained in his or her role as such. These criteria
are intended to insulate the Voting Senior Officer from any inside
knowledge regarding the Bid (while also preventing any information
about the evaluation process from being shared with staff preparing the
Bidding Participant's Bid) and to reduce any potential personal
motivation that may exist that could improperly influence a Voting
Senior Officer's decisions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section IV of the Plan governs amendments to the Plan. In
general, except with respect to the addition of new Participants,
any change to the Plan requires a written amendment that sets forth
the change, is executed by over two-thirds of the Participants, and
is approved by the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 or otherwise
becomes effective under Rule 608.
    \19\ Initial steps in the evaluation and selection process will
be performed pursuant to the Plan; the final two rounds of
evaluation and voting, as well as the final selection of the Plan
Processor, will be performed pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. The
sections of the CAT NMS Plan governing these final two voting rounds
are set forth in Sections VI(D) and (E) of the Plan and will be
incorporated into the CAT NMS Plan. The Participants believe it is
essential that the entire process be laid out in the Plan so that
the Commission can consider and approve the entire evaluation and
selection process, even though the final two voting rounds,
including the selection of the Plan Processor, will not be conducted
until after the approval of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \20\ In the case of Affiliated Participants, one individual may
be (but is not required to be) the Voting Senior Officer for more
than one or all of the Affiliated Participants.
    \21\ The Plan defines a ``Bidding Participant'' broadly to
include any Participant that (1) submits a Bid; (2) is an Affiliate
of an entity that submits a Bid; or (3) is included, or is an
Affiliate of an entity that is included, as a Material Subcontractor
as part of a Bid. A ``Material Subcontractor'' is ``any entity that
is known to the Participant to be included as part of a Bid as a
vendor, subcontractor, service provider, or in any other similar
capacity and, excluding products or services offered by the
Participant to one or more Bidders on terms subject to a fee filing
approved by the SEC, (1) is anticipated to derive 5% or more of its
annual revenue in any given year from services provided in such
capacity; or (2) accounts for 5% or more of the total estimated
annual cost of the Bid for any given year.'' The Plan provides that
``[a]n entity will not be considered a `Material Subcontractor'
solely due to the entity providing services associated with any of
the entity's regulatory functions as a self-regulatory organization
registered with the SEC.''
    \22\ As described below, even with the independence criteria in
place, the Plan also requires recusal from certain votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the integral role played by the Selection Committee, any
action requiring a vote by the Selection Committee under the Plan can
only be taken in a meeting in which all Participants entitled to vote
are present. All votes taken by the Selection Committee are
confidential and non-public, and a Participant's individual votes will
not be disclosed to other Participants or to the public. For this
reason, the Plan provides that votes of the Selection Committee will be
tabulated by an independent third party approved by the Operating
Committee. Moreover, the Participants do not anticipate that aggregate
votes or anonymized voting distribution numbers will be provided to the
Participants following votes by the Selection Committee.
    The Plan divides the review and evaluation of Bids and selection of
the Plan Processor into four separate stages. After Bids are
received,\23\ Section VI(A) of the Plan provides that the Selection
Committee will review all submitted Bids to determine which Bids are
Qualified Bids (i.e., Bids that contain sufficient information to allow
the Voting Senior Officers to meaningfully assess and evaluate the
Bid).\24\ At this initial stage, if two-thirds or more of the
Participants determine that a Bid does not meet the threshold for a
Qualified Bid, the Bid will be eliminated from further consideration.
The Participants believe this initial step will ensure that only those
Bids meeting a minimum level of detail and sufficiency will move
forward in the process, and insufficient Bids can be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Participants anticipate that Bids must be submitted
four weeks after the Commission approves the Plan.
    \24\ The Plan defines a Qualified Bid as ``a Bid that is deemed
by the Selection Committee to include sufficient information
regarding the Bidder's ability to provide the necessary capabilities
to create, implement, and maintain a consolidated audit trail so
that such Bid can be effectively evaluated by the Selection
Committee.'' The Plan provides that, ``[w]hen evaluating whether a
Bid is a Qualified Bid, each member of the Selection Committee shall
consider whether the Bid adequately addresses the evaluation factors
set forth in the RFP, and apply such weighting and priority to the
factors as such member of the Selection Committee deems appropriate
in his or her professional judgment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the elimination of Bids that are not Qualified Bids, each
Qualified Bidder will be provided the opportunity to present its Bid to
the Selection Committee. After the Qualified Bidders have made their
presentations, the Selection Committee will establish a ``shortlist''
of Bids that will move on in the process. The Plan provides that, if
there are six or fewer Qualified Bids submitted, all of those Bids will
be selected as ``Shortlisted Bids.'' \25\ If there are more than six
but fewer than eleven Qualified Bids, the Selection Committee will
choose five Shortlisted Bids, and if there are eleven or more Qualified
Bids, the Selection Committee will choose 50% of the Qualified Bids as
Shortlisted Bids.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In the Letter submitted by the SROs describing the Plan,
the SROs state that the Plan provides that, if there are fewer than
six Qualified Bids submitted, all of those bids will be selected as
Shortlisted Bids. See supra note 8. The Commission notes, however,
that Section IV(B)(2) of the Plan states, ``If there are six or
fewer Qualified Bids, all such Qualified Bids shall be Shortlisted
Bids.'' (emphasis added)
    \26\ The Plan provides that, if there is an odd number of
Qualified Bids, the number of Shortlisted Bids to be chosen will be
rounded up to the next whole number (e.g., if there are thirteen
Qualified Bids, seven Shortlisted Bids will be selected). In the
event of a tie to select the Shortlisted Bids, all such tied
Qualified Bids will be Shortlisted Bids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When voting to select the Shortlisted Bids from among the Qualified
Bids, each Voting Senior Officer must rank his or her selections, and
the points assigned to the rankings increase in single-point
increments. Thus, for example, if five Shortlisted Bids are to be
chosen, each Participant will vote for its top five choices in rank
order, with the first choice being given five points, the second choice
four points, the third choice three points, the fourth choice two
points, and the fifth choice one point. The Participants considered
numerous alternative voting procedures but determined that the proposed
process appropriately balances the need to differentiate among
Qualified Bids while also ensuring that each Qualified Bid receives due
consideration for inclusion as a Shortlisted Bid since each Voting
Senior Officer must select multiple Qualified Bids for inclusion as a
Shortlisted Bid. Further, while the Participants believe that the
independence indicia sufficiently address any potential conflicts of
interest that may arise with respect to Bids with which a Participant
is affiliated, the proposed process will further mitigate potential
conflicts because each Voting Senior Officer must select multiple
unaffiliated Qualified Bids. The Participants believe this step is
appropriate both to ensure that Bidders submit a complete and thorough
Bid initially and so that Qualified Bidders will know whether they have
a realistic opportunity to be selected as the Plan Processor after the
CAT NMS Plan is approved.
    To further reduce the impact of potential conflicts of interest in

choosing Shortlisted Bids, the Plan also provides that at least two
Non-SRO Bids must be included as Shortlisted Bids, provided there are
two Non-SRO Bids that are Qualified Bids.\27\ If, following the vote,
no Non-SRO Bids have been selected as Shortlisted Bids, the Plan
requires that the two Non-SRO Bids receiving the highest cumulative
votes be added as Shortlisted Bids. If, in this scenario, a single Non-
SRO Bid was a Qualified Bid, that Non-SRO Bid would be added as a
Shortlisted Bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Plan defines a ``Non-SRO Bid'' as ``a Bid that does not
include a Bidding Participant.'' See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the selection of Shortlisted Bids, the Participants will
identify the optimal proposed solution(s) for the consolidated audit
trail for inclusion in the CAT NMS Plan for submission to the
Commission. Following approval of the CAT NMS Plan by the Commission,
the Selection Committee will determine, by majority vote, which
Shortlisted Bidders will be provided the opportunity to revise their
Bids in light of the provisions in the final, approved CAT NMS Plan. In
making a decision whether to permit a Shortlisted Bidder to revise its
Bid, the Selection Committee will consider the provisions in the CAT
NMS Plan as well as the content of the Shortlisted Bidder's initial
Bid. To reduce potential conflicts of interest, the Plan also provides
that if a Bid submitted by or including a Bidding Participant or an
Affiliate of a Bidding Participant is a Shortlisted Bidder, that
Bidding Participant will be recused from all votes regarding whether a
Shortlisted Bidder will be permitted to revise its Bid.
    After any permitted revisions have been received, the Selection
Committee will select the Plan Processor from the Shortlisted Bids in
two rounds of voting where, subject to the recusal provision described
below, each Participant has one vote. In the first round, each
Participant will select a first and second choice, with the first
choice receiving two points and the second choice receiving one point.
The two Shortlisted Bids receiving the highest cumulative scores in the
first round will advance to the second round.\28\ In the event of a
tie, the tie will be broken by assigning one point per vote to the tied
Shortlisted Bids, and the Shortlisted Bid with the most votes will
advance. If this procedure fails to break the tie, a revote will be
taken on the tied Bids with each vote receiving one point. If the tie
persists, the Participants will identify areas for discussion, and
revotes will be taken until the tie is broken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Each round of voting throughout the Plan is independent of
other rounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once two Shortlisted Bids have been chosen, the Participants will
vote for a single Shortlisted Bid from the final two to determine the
Plan Processor. If one or both of the final Bids is submitted by or
includes a Bidding Participant or an Affiliate of a Bidding
Participant, the Bidding Participant must recuse itself from the final
vote. In the event of a tie, a revote will be taken. If the tie
persists, the Participants will identify areas for discussion and,
following these discussions, revotes will be taken until the tie is
broken. As set forth in Section VII of the Plan, following the
selection of the Plan Processor, the Participants will file with the
Commission a statement identifying the Plan Processor and including the
information required by Rule 608.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Plan

    The terms of the Plan will be operative immediately upon approval
of the Plan by the Commission. The Participants have announced that
Bids must be submitted four weeks after the Commission's approval of
the Plan. The Participants will begin reviewing and evaluating the Bids
pursuant to Section VI of the Plan upon receipt of the Bids.
    The Participants anticipate that it will take seven months to
evaluate the Bids and submit the CAT NMS Plan to the Commission
pursuant to Sections VI(A) and (B) of the Plan.\29\ As noted above,
upon approval of the CAT NMS Plan, the Plan will automatically
terminate. The review of revised Shortlisted Bids and the selection of
the Plan Processor will be undertaken as set forth in Sections VI(D)
and (E) of the Plan as those sections are incorporated into the CAT NMS
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Participants recognize that a seven-month timeframe is
inconsistent with the current obligation to submit the CAT NMS Plan
by December 6, 2013. The Participants anticipate filing an exemptive
request with the Commission to extend the date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Plan does not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act. The Participants do not believe that the Plan introduces terms
that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section
11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act. As noted in Section A, the
Participants are aware that potential conflicts of interest are raised
because a Participant, or an affiliate of a Participant, may be both
submitting a Bid (or participating in a Bid) and participating in the
evaluation of Bids to select the Plan Processor. As described in
Section A, the Plan includes multiple provisions designed to mitigate
the potential impact of these conflicts by imposing restrictions on the
Voting Senior Officer and by requiring the recusal of Bidding
Participants for certain votes taken by the Selection Committee. In
addition, the Plan requires that at least two Non-SRO Bids be
Shortlisted Bids to ensure Non-SRO Bids are given full and fair
consideration.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to interpretations of, or participation in, the Plan other
than those set forth in the Plan itself. Section III(F)(2)(a) of the
Plan provides that interpretations of the Plan require approval by a
majority of Participants entitled to vote. Section II(B) of the Plan
sets forth how any entity registered as a national securities exchange
or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a
Participant.

G. Approval of Amendment of the Plan

    Not applicable.

H. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Each currently approved national securities exchange and national
securities association subject to Rule 613(a)(1) is a Participant in
the Plan. Section II(B) of the Plan provides that any entity approved
by the Commission as a national securities exchange or national
securities association under the Exchange Act after the effectiveness
of the Plan shall become a Participant by satisfying each of the
following requirements: (1) Effecting an amendment to the Plan by
executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the only change
being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II of the
Plan) and submitting such amendment to the Commission for approval; and
(2) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such
executed Plan.

I. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

J. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

K. Dispute Resolution

    The Plan does not include specific provisions regarding resolution
of disputes between or among Participants. Section III(B) of the Plan
provides for each Participant to designate an individual to represent
the Participant as a member of an Operating Committee. Section III(A)
of the Plan provides that the Operating Committee is responsible for:
(1) Formulating, drafting, and filing with the Commission the CAT NMS
Plan; and (2) ensuring the Participants' obligations under Rule 613 are
met in a timely and efficient manner. Within the areas of its
responsibilities and authority as set forth in the Plan, decisions made
or actions taken by the Operating Committee, directly or by duly
delegated individuals or Subcommittees, shall be binding upon each
Participant, without prejudice to the rights of any Participant to seek
redress from the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 or in any other
appropriate forum.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Plan 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 4-668 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-668. 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 Plan that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the Plan 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 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
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
Participants' principal offices. 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 4-668 and should be
submitted on or before December 23, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.

EXHIBIT A

NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM PLAN GOVERNING THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A PLAN
PROCESSOR AND DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR THE CONSOLIDATED AUDIT TRAIL
SUBMITTED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE
608 OF REGULATION NMS UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                            Table of Contents

                         Section                               Page

Preamble................................................               1
I. Definitions..........................................               2
II. Participants........................................               4
III. Operating Committee................................               7
IV. Plan Amendments.....................................              11
V. Selection Committee..................................              12
VI. RFP Bid Evaluation and Plan Processor Selection.....              16
VII. Implementation.....................................              21
VIII. Applicability of the Exchange Act.................              21
IX. Counterparts and Signatures.........................              22

Consolidated Audit Trail: Plan Processor Evaluation and Selection Plan

Preamble

    This Plan governs the process of: (1) Evaluating and selecting a
Plan Processor for the consolidated audit trail; and (2) developing
a national market system plan pursuant to SEC Rule 613 to create,
implement, and maintain a consolidated audit trail. This Plan will
automatically terminate upon the SEC's approval of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Participants developed this Plan pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of
Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, which authorizes the
Participants to act jointly in preparing, filing, and implementing
national market system plans.

I. Definitions

    (A) An ``Affiliate'' of an entity means any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with such entity.
    (B) ``Affiliated Participant'' means any Participant
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with another
Participant.
    (C) ``Bid'' means a proposal submitted by a Bidder in response
to the RFP.
    (D) ``Bidder'' means any entity, or any combination of separate
entities, submitting a Bid.
    (E) ``Bidding Participant'' means a Participant that: (1)
Submits a Bid; (2) is an Affiliate of an entity that submits a Bid;
or (3) is included, or is an Affiliate of an entity that is
included, as a Material Subcontractor as part of a Bid.
    (F) ``CAT NMS Plan'' means the NMS Plan to be jointly submitted
to the Commission by the Participants pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
of SEC Rule 613.
    (G) ``Commission'' or ``SEC'' means the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission.
    (H) ``Exchange Act'' means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
    (I) ``Material Contract'' means any contract resulting in a
total cost to all Participants of more than $1,000,000.
    (J) ``Material Subcontractor'' means any entity that is known to
the Participant to be included as part of a Bid as a vendor,
subcontractor, service provider, or in any other similar capacity
and, excluding products or services offered by the Participant to
one or more Bidders on terms subject to a fee filing approved by the
SEC,

(1) is anticipated to derive 5% or more of its annual revenue in any
given year from services provided in such capacity; or (2) accounts
for 5% or more of the total estimated annual cost of the Bid for any
given year. An entity will not be considered a ``Material
Subcontractor'' solely due to the entity providing services
associated with any of the entity's regulatory functions as a self-
regulatory organization registered with the SEC.
    (K) ``NMS Plan'' shall have the same meaning as ``[n]ational
market system plan'' provided in Rule 600(b)(43) of Regulation NMS
under the Exchange Act.
    (L) ``Non-SRO Bid'' means a Bid that does not include a Bidding
Participant.
    (M) ``Operating Committee'' shall have the meaning provided in
Section III of the Plan.
    (N) ``Participant'' means a party to the Plan.
    (O) ``Plan'' means the plan set forth in this instrument, as
amended from time to time in accordance with its provisions.
    (P) ``Plan Processor'' means the entity jointly selected by the
Participants pursuant to SEC Rule 613, the Plan, and the CAT NMS
Plan to perform the consolidated audit trail processing functions
required by SEC Rule 613 and set forth in the RFP.
    (Q) ``Qualified Bid'' means a Bid that is deemed by the
Selection Committee to include sufficient information regarding the
Bidder's ability to provide the necessary capabilities to create,
implement, and maintain a consolidated audit trail so that such Bid
can be effectively evaluated by the Selection Committee. When
evaluating whether a Bid is a Qualified Bid, each member of the
Selection Committee shall consider whether the Bid adequately
addresses the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, and apply
such weighting and priority to the factors as such member of the
Selection Committee deems appropriate in his or her professional
judgment. The determination of whether a Bid is a Qualified Bid
shall be determined pursuant to the process set forth in Section VI
of the Plan.
    (R) ``Qualified Bidder'' means a Bidder that has submitted a
Qualified Bid.
    (S) ``RFP'' means the ``Consolidated Audit Trail National Market
System Plan Request for Proposal'' published by the Participants on
February 26, 2013, as amended from time to time.
    (T) ``Selection Committee'' means the committee formed pursuant
to Section V of the Plan.
    (U) ``SEC Rule 608'' means Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act.
    (V) ``SEC Rule 613'' means Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act.
    (W) ``Shortlisted Bid'' means a Bid submitted by a Qualified
Bidder and selected as a Shortlisted Bid by the Selection Committee
pursuant to Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    (X) ``Shortlisted Bidder'' means a Qualified Bidder that has
submitted a Bid selected as a Shortlisted Bid.
    (Y) ``Voting Senior Officer'' means the senior officer of a
Participant chosen to serve on the Selection Committee pursuant to
Section V of the Plan.

II. Participants

(A) List of Participants

    The Participants are as follows:

(1) BATS Exchange, Inc.
(2) BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.
(3) BOX Options Exchange LLC
(4) C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(5) Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(6) Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
(7) EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(8) EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(9) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(10) International Securities Exchange, LLC
(11) Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(12) NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(13) NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(14) The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(15) National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(16) New York Stock Exchange LLC
(17) NYSE MKT LLC
(18) NYSE Arca, Inc.
(19) Topaz Exchange, LLC

(B) Admission of New Participants

    Any entity approved by the SEC as a national securities exchange
or national securities association under the Exchange Act after the
effectiveness of the Plan shall become a Participant by satisfying
each of the following requirements: (1) effecting an amendment to
the Plan by executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the
only change being the addition of the new Participant's name in
Section II of the Plan) and submitting such amendment to the SEC for
approval; and (2) providing each then-current Participant with a
copy of such executed Plan. The amendment shall be effective when it
is approved by the SEC in accordance with SEC Rule 608 or otherwise
becomes effective pursuant to SEC Rule 608.

(C) Withdrawal of Participants

    (1) A Participant may withdraw from the Plan upon written notice
to each of the other Participants of no less than 30 days. The
written notice must include the legal basis for the Participant's
withdrawal from the Plan, including, if applicable, any required
approvals or orders issued by the SEC.
    (2) Withdrawal of a Participant shall be effectuated by an
amendment to the Plan, including, if applicable, approval of any
such amendment by the SEC.
    (3) Notwithstanding a Participant's withdrawal from the Plan,
the Participant shall remain liable for, and shall pay upon demand:
    (a) its proportionate share of any costs, including those
resulting from any Material Contracts, accrued or incurred before
the effectiveness of the Participant's withdrawal;
    (b) its proportionate share of any liabilities arising while the
organization was a Participant that are based on actions jointly
undertaken by the Participants pursuant to the Plan or in
furtherance of the Participants' obligations pursuant to SEC Rule
613; and
    (c) any costs incurred as a result of the Participant's
withdrawal from the Plan.
    (4) Except as aforesaid, a withdrawing Participant shall have no
further obligation under the Plan or to any of the other
Participants with respect to the period following the effectiveness
of its withdrawal.

III. Operating Committee

(A) Authority

    The Operating Committee shall be responsible for: (1)
formulating, drafting, and filing with the SEC the CAT NMS Plan; and
(2) ensuring the Participants' obligations under SEC Rule 613 are
met in a timely and efficient manner. Within the areas of its
responsibilities and authority as set forth in the Plan, decisions
made or actions taken by the Operating Committee, directly or by
duly delegated individuals or Subcommittees, shall be binding upon
each Participant, without prejudice to the rights of any
Participants to seek redress from the SEC pursuant to SEC Rule 608
or in any other appropriate forum.

(B) Composition

    (1) Each Participant shall select from its staff one individual
(the ``primary representative'') to represent the Participant as a
member of the Operating Committee, together with a substitute(s) for
such individual. In the case of Affiliated Participants, one
individual may be the primary representative for all or some of the
Affiliated Participants, and another individual may be the
substitute for all or some of the Affiliated Participants.
    (2) Regular meetings of the Operating Committee may be attended
by each Participant's primary representative and its substitute(s),
and may be attended by other representatives of the Participant.
    (3) Any organization that is not a Participant but has an
actively pending Form 1 Application on file with the Commission to
become a national securities exchange will be permitted to appoint
one primary representative and one alternate representative to
attend regularly scheduled Operating Committee meetings in the
capacity of a non-voting observer/advisor. If the organization's
Form 1 Application is withdrawn, returned, or otherwise not actively
pending with the Commission for any reason, then the organization
will no longer be eligible to be represented in the Operating
Committee meetings. The Operating Committee shall have the
discretion, in limited instances, to deviate from this policy if, as
indicated by majority vote, the Operating Committee agrees that
circumstances so warrant.
    (4) Nothing in this section or elsewhere within the Plan shall
authorize any person or organization other than Participants and
their representatives to participate on the Operating Committee in
any manner.

(C) Meetings

(1) Quorum

    (a) Any action requiring a vote can only be taken at a meeting
in which a quorum of all Participants is present. For actions
requiring a majority vote of all Participants, a quorum of greater
than 50% of all Participants entitled to vote must be present at the
meeting before such a vote may be taken. For actions requiring at
least a two-thirds vote of all Participants, a quorum of at least
two-

thirds of all Participants entitled to vote must be present at the
meeting before such a vote may be taken.
    (b) For purposes of establishing a quorum, a Participant is
considered present at a meeting only if a Participant's primary
representative or substitute is either in physical attendance at the
meeting or is participating by conference telephone or other
acceptable electronic means.
    (c) Any Participant recused from voting on a particular action
pursuant to Paragraph (E) below shall not be considered to be
``entitled to vote'' for purposes of establishing whether a quorum
is present for a vote to be taken on that action.

(2) Frequency

    Meetings of the Operating Committee shall be held as needed at
such times and locations as shall from time to time be determined by
the Operating Committee. Meetings may be held by conference
telephone or other acceptable electronic means if all Participants
entitled to vote consent thereto in writing or by other means the
Operating Committee deems acceptable.

(3) Written Consent

    Any action may be taken without a meeting if a consent in
writing, setting forth the action so taken, is sent to, via physical
or electronic means, and agreed to by all Participants entitled to
vote with respect to the subject matter thereof. The action taken
shall be effective when the minimum number of Participants entitled
to vote have approved the action, unless the consent specifies a
different effective date.

(4) Minutes

    Minutes of each meeting of the Operating Committee shall be
taken.

(5) Subcommittees

    In addition to the Selection Committee established pursuant to
Section V of the Plan, the Operating Committee may establish any
Subcommittees it deems necessary in fulfilling its obligations under
the Plan. Membership on any Subcommittee is open to any Participant
indicating a desire to participate. Minutes of each meeting of any
Subcommittee shall be taken.

(D) Voting Rights

    (1) Unless recused pursuant to Paragraph (E) below, each
Participant shall have one vote on all matters considered by the
Operating Committee.
    (2) Where one individual represents more than one Affiliated
Participant, either as the primary representative or as a
substitute, such individual will have the right to vote on behalf of
each such Affiliated Participant. The substitute(s) may participate
in deliberations of the Operating Committee and shall be considered
a voting member thereof only in the absence of the primary
representative.

(E) Conflicts and Recusals

    A Participant may recuse itself from voting on any matter under
consideration by the Operating Committee if the Participant
determines that voting on such matter raises a conflict of interest.
Except as provided in Sections V(B)(2) and V(B)(3) of the Plan, no
Participant is automatically recused from voting on any matter.

(F) Voting Requirements

(1) Supermajority Voting Requirements

    The following actions require approval by at least two-thirds of
Participants entitled to vote:
    (a) Amendments to the Plan, other than amendments to add a new
Participant; and
    (b) Material Contracts.

(2) Majority Voting Requirements

    The following actions require approval by a majority of
Participants entitled to vote:
    (a) Interpretations of the Plan; and
    (b) Any other matters not specified as requiring a supermajority
vote.

(G) Interpretations of Regulations

    Interpretative questions arising during the time for which the
Plan is operative will be presented to the Operating Committee,
which will determine whether to seek interpretive guidance from the
Commission or other regulatory body and, if so, in what form.

(H) Delegated Authority

    Within the areas of its responsibilities, the Operating
Committee may delegate an individual or Subcommittee to make
decisions or take action on behalf of the Operating Committee. Any
decision made or action taken by such duly delegated individual or
Subcommittee within the scope of such delegation shall be binding
upon each Participant.

IV. Plan Amendments

(A) General Amendments

    Except with respect to the addition of new Participants, any
proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from the Plan shall be
effected by means of a written amendment to the Plan that: (1) sets
forth the change, addition, or deletion; (2) is executed by over
two-thirds of the Participants; and (3) is approved by the SEC
pursuant to SEC Rule 608, or otherwise becomes effective under SEC
Rule 608.

(B) New Participants

    With respect to new Participants, an amendment to the Plan may
be effected by the new national securities exchange or national
securities association in accordance with Section II of the Plan.

V. Selection Committee

    The Participants shall establish a Selection Committee in
accordance with this Section V to: (1) evaluate and review Bids; and
(2) select the Plan Processor.

(A) Composition

    Each Participant shall select from its staff one senior officer
(``Voting Senior Officer'') to represent the Participant as a member
of a Selection Committee. In the case of Affiliated Participants,
one individual may be (but is not required to be) the Voting Senior
Officer for more than one or all of the Affiliated Participants.
Where one individual serves as the Voting Senior Officer for more
than one Affiliated Participant, such individual will have the right
to vote on behalf of each such Affiliated Participant.

(B) Voting

    (1) Unless recused pursuant to Paragraph (2) or (3) below, each
Participant shall have one vote on all matters considered by the
Selection Committee.
    (2) No Bidding Participant shall vote on whether a Shortlisted
Bidder will be permitted to revise its Bid pursuant to Section
VI(D)(1) below if a Bid submitted by or including the Participant or
an Affiliate of the Participant is a Shortlisted Bid.
    (3) No Bidding Participant shall vote in the second round set
forth in Section VI(E)(4) below if a Bid submitted by or including
the Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant is part of the
second round.
    (4) All votes by the Selection Committee shall be confidential
and non-public. All such votes will be tabulated by an independent
third party approved by the Operating Committee, and a Participant's
individual votes will not be disclosed to other Participants or to
the public.

(C) Quorum

    (1) Any action requiring a vote by the Selection Committee can
only be taken at a meeting in which all Participants entitled to
vote are present. Meetings of the Selection Committee shall be held
as needed at such times and locations as shall from time to time be
determined by the Selection Committee. Meetings may be held by
conference telephone or other acceptable electronic means if all
Participants entitled to vote consent thereto in writing or by other
means the Selection Committee deems acceptable.
    (2) For purposes of establishing a quorum, a Participant is
considered present at a meeting only if the Participant's Voting
Senior Officer is either in physical attendance at the meeting or is
participating by conference telephone or other acceptable electronic
means.
    (3) Any Participant recused from voting on a particular action
pursuant to Paragraph (B) above shall not be considered ``entitled
to vote'' for purposes of establishing whether a quorum is present
for a vote to be taken on that action.

(D) Qualifications for Voting Senior Officer of Bidding
Participants

    The following criteria must be met before a Voting Senior
Officer is eligible to represent a Bidding Participant and serve on
the Selection Committee:
    (1) the Voting Senior Officer is not responsible for the Bidding
Participant's market operations, and is responsible primarily for
the Bidding Participant's legal and/or regulatory functions,
including functions related to the formulation and implementation of
the Bidding Participant's legal and/or regulatory program;
    (2) the Bidding Participant has established functional
separation of its legal and/or regulatory functions from its market
operations and other business or commercial objectives;
    (3) the Voting Senior Officer ultimately reports (including
through the Bidding Participant's CEO or Chief Legal Officer/General
Counsel) to an independent governing body that determines or
oversees the Voting Senior Officer's compensation,

and the Voting Senior Officer does not receive any compensation
(other than what is determined or overseen by the independent
governing body) that is based on achieving business or commercial
objectives;
    (4) the Voting Senior Officer does not have responsibility for
any non-regulatory functions of the Bidding Participant, other than
the legal aspects of the organization performed by the Chief Legal
Officer/General Counsel or the Office of the General Counsel;
    (5) the ultimate decision making of the Voting Senior Officer
position is tied to the regulatory effectiveness of the Bidding
Participant, as opposed to other business or commercial objectives;
    (6) promotion or termination of the Voting Senior Officer is not
based on achieving business or commercial objectives;
    (7) the Voting Senior Officer has no decision-making authority
with respect to the development or formulation of the Bid submitted
by or including the Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant;
however, the staff assigned to developing and formulating such Bid
may consult with the Voting Senior Officer, provided such staff
members cannot share information concerning the Bid with the Voting
Senior Officer;
    (8) the Voting Senior Officer does not report to any senior
officers responsible for the development or formulation of the Bid
submitted by or including the Participant or by an Affiliate of the
Participant; however, joint reporting to the Bidding Participant's
CEO or similar executive officer by the Voting Senior Officer and
senior staff developing and formulating such Bid is permissible, but
the Bidding Participant's CEO or similar executive officer cannot
share information concerning such Bid with the Voting Senior
Officer;
    (9) the compensation of the Voting Senior Officer is not
separately tied to income earned if the Bid submitted by or
including the Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant is
selected; and
    (10) the Voting Senior Officer, any staff advising the Voting
Senior Officer, and any similar executive officer or member of an
independent governing body to which the Voting Senior Officer
reports may not disclose to any person any non-public information
gained during the review of Bids, presentation by Qualified Bidders,
and selection process. Staff advising the Voting Senior Officer
during the Bid review, presentation, and selection process may not
include the staff, contractors, or subcontractors that are
developing or formulating the Bid submitted by or including a
Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant.

VI. RFP Bid Evaluation and Plan Processor Selection

(A) Initial Bid Review to Determine Qualified Bids

    (1) The Selection Committee shall review all Bids in accordance
with the process developed by the Selection Committee.
    (2) After review, the Selection Committee shall vote on each Bid
to determine whether such Bid is a Qualified Bid. A Bid that is
deemed unqualified by at least a two-thirds vote of the Selection
Committee will not be deemed a Qualified Bid and will be eliminated
individually from further consideration.

(B) Selection of Shortlisted Bids

    (1) Each Qualified Bidder shall be given the opportunity to
present its Bid to the Selection Committee. Following the
presentations by Qualified Bidders, the Selection Committee shall
review and evaluate the Qualified Bids to select the Shortlisted
Bids in accordance with the process in this Paragraph (B).
    (2) If there are six or fewer Qualified Bids, all such Qualified
Bids shall be Shortlisted Bids.
    (3) If there are more than six Qualified Bids but fewer than
eleven Qualified Bids, the Selection Committee shall select five
Qualified Bids as Shortlisted Bids, subject to the requirement in
Paragraph (d) below. Each Voting Senior Officer shall select a
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth choice from among the
Qualified Bids.
    (a) A weighted score shall be assigned to each choice as
follows:

 First--5 points
 Second--4 points
 Third--3 points
 Fourth--2 points
 Fifth--1 point

    (b) The five Qualified Bids receiving the highest cumulative
scores will be Shortlisted Bids.
    (c) In the event of a tie to select the five Shortlisted Bids,
all such tied Qualified Bids will be Shortlisted Bids.
    (d) To the extent there are Non-SRO Bids that are Qualified
Bids, the Shortlisted Bids selected pursuant to this Section
VI(B)(3) must, if possible, include at least two Non-SRO Bids. If,
following the vote set forth in this Section VI(B)(3), no Non-SRO
Bid was selected as a Shortlisted Bid, the two Non-SRO Bids
receiving the highest cumulative votes (or one Non-SRO Bid if a
single Non-SRO Bid is a Qualified Bid) shall be added as Shortlisted
Bids. If one Non-SRO Bid was selected as a Shortlisted Bid, the Non-
SRO Bid receiving the next highest cumulative vote shall be added as
a Shortlisted Bid.
    (4) If there are eleven or more Qualified Bids, the Selection
Committee shall select fifty percent of the Qualified Bids as
Shortlisted Bids, subject to the requirement in Paragraph (d) below.
If there is an odd number of Qualified Bids, the number of
Shortlisted Bids chosen shall be rounded up to the next whole number
(e.g., if there are thirteen Qualified Bids, then seven Shortlisted
Bids will be selected). Each Voting Senior Officer shall select as
many choices as Shortlisted Bids to be chosen.
    (a) A weighted score shall be assigned to each choice in single
point increments as follows:

 Last--1 point
 Next-to-Last--2 points
 Second-from-Last--3 points
 Third-from-Last--4 points
 Fourth-from-Last--5 points
 Fifth-from-Last--6 points

For each additional Shortlisted Bid that must be chosen, the points
assigned will increase in single point increments.
    (b) The fifty percent of Qualified Bids (or, if there is an odd
number of Qualified Bids, the next whole number above fifty percent
of Qualified Bids) receiving the highest cumulative scores will be
Shortlisted Bids.
    (c) In the event of a tie to select the Shortlisted Bids, all
such tied Qualified Bids will be Shortlisted Bids.
    (d) To the extent there are Non-SRO Bids that are Qualified
Bids, the Shortlisted Bids selected pursuant to this Section
VI(B)(4) must, if possible, include at least two Non-SRO Bids. If,
following the vote set forth in this Section VI(B)(4), no Non-SRO
Bid was selected as a Shortlisted Bid, the two Non-SRO Bids
receiving the highest cumulative votes (or one Non-SRO Bid if a
single Non-SRO Bid is a Qualified Bid) shall be added as Shortlisted
Bids. If one Non-SRO Bid was selected as a Shortlisted Bid, the Non-
SRO Bid receiving the next highest cumulative vote shall be added as
a Shortlisted Bid.

(C) Formulation of the CAT NMS Plan

    (1) The Selection Committee shall review the Shortlisted Bids to
identify optimal proposed solutions for the consolidated audit trail
and provide descriptions of such proposed solutions for inclusion in
the CAT NMS Plan. This process may, but is not required to, include
iterative discussions with Shortlisted Bidders to address any
aspects of an optimal proposed solution that were not fully
addressed in a particular Bid.
    (2) The Participants shall incorporate information on optimal
proposed solutions in the CAT NMS Plan, including cost-benefit
information as required by SEC Rule 613.

(D) Review of Shortlisted Bids Under the CAT NMS Plan

    (1) Following approval of the CAT NMS Plan by the SEC,
Shortlisted Bidders may be permitted to revise their Bids based on
the provisions in the approved CAT NMS Plan, including further
discussions if determined to be necessary by the Selection
Committee. A Shortlisted Bidder will be permitted to revise its Bid
only upon approval by a majority of the Selection Committee, subject
to the recusal provision in Section V(B)(2) above, that revisions
are necessary or appropriate in light of the content of the
Shortlisted Bidder's initial Bid and the provisions in the approved
CAT NMS Plan. A Shortlisted Bidder may not revise its Bid unless
approved to do so by the Selection Committee pursuant to this
paragraph.
    (2) The Selection Committee shall review and evaluate all
Shortlisted Bids, including any permitted revisions thereto
submitted by Shortlisted Bidders. In performing the review and
evaluation, the Selection Committee may consult with the Advisory
Committee established pursuant to paragraph (b)(7) of SEC Rule 613.

(E) Selection of Plan Processor Under the CAT NMS Plan

    (1) Under the CAT NMS Plan, there will be two rounds of voting
by the Selection Committee to select the Plan Processor from among
the Shortlisted Bidders. Each round shall be scored independently of
prior rounds of voting, including the scoring to determine the
Shortlisted Bids under Section VI(B) of the Plan.

    (2) Each Participant shall have one vote in each round, except
that no Bidding Participant shall be entitled to vote in the second
round if the Participant's Bid, a Bid submitted by an Affiliate of
the Participant, or a Bid including the Participant or an Affiliate
of the Participant is considered in the second round. Until the
second round, Bidding Participants may vote for any Shortlisted Bid.
    (3) First Round Voting by the Selection Committee
    (a) In the first round of voting, each Voting Senior Officer
shall select a first and second choice from among the Shortlisted
Bids.
    (b) A weighted score shall be assigned to each choice as
follows:

 First--2 points
 Second--1 point

    (c) The two Shortlisted Bids receiving the highest cumulative
scores in the first round will advance to the second round.
    (d) In the event of a tie that would result in more than two
Shortlisted Bids advancing to the second round, the tie will be
broken by assigning one point per vote, with the Shortlisted Bid(s)
receiving the highest number of votes advancing to the second round.
If, at this point, the Shortlisted Bids remain tied, a revote will
be taken with each vote receiving one point. If the revote results
in a tie, the Participants shall identify areas for further
discussion and, following any such discussion, voting will continue
until two Shortlisted Bids are selected to advance to the second
round.
    (4) Second Round Voting by the Selection Committee
    (a) In the second round of voting, each Voting Senior Officer,
subject to the recusal provisions in Paragraph (E)(2) above, shall
vote for one Shortlisted Bid.
    (b) The Shortlisted Bid receiving the most votes in the second
round shall be selected, and the proposed entity included in the
Shortlisted Bid to serve as the Plan Processor shall be selected as
the Plan Processor.
    (c) In the event of a tie, a revote will be taken. If the revote
results in a tie, the Participants shall identify areas for further
discussions with the two Shortlisted Bidders. Following any such
discussions, voting will continue until one Shortlisted Bid is
selected.

VII. Implementation

    Within two months after effectiveness of the CAT NMS Plan, the
Participants will jointly select the winning Shortlisted Bid and the
Plan Processor pursuant to the process set forth in Section VI of
the Plan and as incorporated into the CAT NMS Plan. Following the
selection of the Plan Processor, the Participants will file with the
Commission a statement identifying the Plan Processor and including
the information required by SEC Rule 608.

VIII. Applicability of the Exchange Act

    The rights and obligations of the Participants in respect of the
matters covered by the Plan shall at all times be subject to any
applicable provisions of the Exchange Act, as amended, and any rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder.

IX. Counterparts and Signatures

    The Plan may be executed in any number of counterparts, no one
of which need contain all signatures of all Participants, and as
many of such counterparts as shall together contain all such
signatures shall constitute one and the same instrument.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Plan has been executed as of the 23rd
day of August 2013 by each of the parties hereto.

BATS EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

BATS Y-EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX OPTIONS EXCHANGE LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

C2 OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INCORPORATED

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INCORPORATED

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGA EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGX EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

MIAMI INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NASDAQ OMX BX, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE MKT LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE ARCA, INC.

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

TOPAZ EXCHANGE, LLC

BY:--------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-27906 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Total Antimony Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Total Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method	Total Concentration Result	Units	Total Non-Detect Indicator	Total Detection Limit mg/kg	Total Detection Limit Data Qualifier	Description

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-2	N	antimony	actual

36	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	antimony	actual

20	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	antimony	actual

41	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	antimony	actual

174	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	6.1	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	7.4	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	6.3	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	5.5	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	3.5	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N	antimony actual	Method 6020	5.4	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N antimony	actual

10.8	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N antimony	actual

10.6	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-03	N antimony	actual

8.5	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N antimony	actual

12.6	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-05	N antimony	actual

5.2	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N	antimony actual

5.5	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N	antimony actual

0.8	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	antimony actual

1.4	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-02	N	antimony actual

1	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-03	N	antimony actual

0.86	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-04	N	antimony actual

0.69	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-05	N	antimony actual

0.89	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	antimony	actual

0.97	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	antimony	actual

0.83	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4103788/255-008 - RB-4	N	antimony	actual

5	mg/kg

n 	25

	MAXIMUM	174

	MEAN	14.8336

	MEDIAN	5.5

	Std. Dev.	34.7040856

	90th Percentile	29.6

	50th Percentile	5.5


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37619-37621]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013; FRL-10010-38-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fridley Commons Park Well
Field Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Fridley Commons Park Well Field
Superfund Site (Fridley Well Field Site or Site) located in Fridley,
Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Minnesota, through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1999-0013, by one of the following methods:
    https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily suspended and no
hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the public to submit
comments via email or at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1999-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-1999-0013 and at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id=0506449 or you may contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cibulskis, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 at (312)
886-1843 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 announces its intent to delete the Fridley Well Field
Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action.
The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP,
which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as
amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III of this document discusses the
procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV of this
document discusses where to access and review information that
demonstrates how the deletion criteria have been met at the Fridley
Well Field Site.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA may initiate
further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if
new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Fridley Well
Field Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Minnesota prior to developing
this Notice of Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review
of this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Minnesota, through the MPCA, has concurred with
deletion of the Fridley Well Field Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, an announcement of the availability of
the Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local
newspaper, the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Columbia Heights/Fridley Life.
The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period
concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Fridley Well Field Site
from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013 and at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id=0506449.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site from the NPL, the EPA will
publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions, and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
docket listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The EPA placed copies of EPA's Final Close Out Report for the Site
and other documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion
docket. The material provides explanation of EPA's rationale for the
deletion and demonstrates how the Fridley Well Field Site meets the
deletion criteria. This information is made available for public
inspection in the docket identified above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300:

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 4, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-12538 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Document has been coded “C” Claimed Confidential Must be Requested
Under the Freedom of Information Act.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40078-40080]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Burns Flat, OK;
Revocation of Class D Airspace; Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and
Amendment of E Airspace for the Following Oklahoma Towns: Burns Flat,
OK; Clinton, OK; and Elk City, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Clinton-
Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove Class D airspace at Clinton-
Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and amend Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton-
Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal Airport, Clinton,
OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City, OK. The FAA is
proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Sayre co-
located VHF omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC)
facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument
procedures to these airports. The VORTAC is being decommissioned as
part of the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network
(MON) Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A,

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish
Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove
Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport,
OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal
Airport, Clinton, OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City,
OK, to enhance the safety and support the management of IFR operations
at these airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0618;
Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:
    Establish Class D airspace within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-
Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, to replace the airspace designation of
Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK, and bring the
airspace descriptions in line with the requirements of FAA Order
7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;
    Remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman
Airport, OK; and Modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface as follows:
    Within a 7.2-mile radius (reduced from an 8.2-mile radius) of
Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, and remove the Burns Flat
VORTAC and extensions to the south and north of the airport from the
airspace description;
    Correcting the airspace header to Clinton, OK, (formerly Clinton
Municipal Airport, OK) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, remove the
extension south of Clinton Regional Airport (formerly Clinton Municipal
Airport), add an extension 2 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing
from the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the
airport, and update the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database; and
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Elk
City Regional Business Airport (formerly Elk City Municipal Airport),
Elk City, OK, remove the extension to the northeast of the airport,
remove the Elk City RBN from the airspace description, and update the
name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Sayre VORTAC as part of the VOR MON Program, and to bring the
airspace and airspace descriptions into compliance with FAA Order
7400.2L. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management
of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these
airports.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000
and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016,
and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW OK D Burns Flat, OK [New]

Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]20'23'' N., long. 99[deg]12'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,500 feet within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.
* * * * *

ASW OK D Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Burns Flat, OK [Amended]

Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]20'23'' N., long. 99[deg]12'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport.
* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Clinton, OK [Amended]

Clinton Regional Airport, OK
    (lat. 35[deg]32'18'' N., long. 98[deg]55'58'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Clinton Regional Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport.
* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Elk City, OK [Amended]

Elk City Regional Business Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]25'51'' N., long. 99[deg]23'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Elk City Regional Business Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 16, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17753 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P