[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58544-58552]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20827]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95848; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Disapproving the Fifty-First Amendment
to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis

September 21, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On November 5, 2021,\1\ the Participants \2\ in the Joint Self-
Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation
and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis (``UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'') \3\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \4\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation National Market System (``NMS'') thereunder,\5\ a proposal
(the ``Proposed Amendment'') to amend the UTP Plan to implement the
non-fee-related aspects of the Commission's Market Data Infrastructure
Rules (``MDI Rules'').\6\ The Proposed Amendment was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 26, 2021.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, UTP Operating
Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (Nov. 5,
2021).
    \2\ The ``Participants'' are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
Investors Exchange LLC; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.; MEMX LLC;
MIAX PEARL, LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX LLC;
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
American LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; and NYSE
National, Inc.
    \3\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for its Participants. The
Plan serves as the required transaction reporting plan for its
Participants, which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible
Securities. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (Apr. 19,
2007), 72 FR 20891 (Apr. 26, 2007).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \6\ The ``MDI Rules'' as used in this Order, and as relevant to
the Proposed Amendment, are Rules 600, 603, and 614 of Regulation
NMS. 17 CFR 242.600, 603, 614. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90610 (Dec. 9, 2020), 86 FR 18596 (Apr. 9, 2021) (File
No. S7-03-20) (``MDI Rules Release''); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90610A (May 24, 2021), 86 FR 29195 (June 1, 2021) (File
No. S7-03-20) (technical correction to MDI Rules Release). Several
exchanges filed petitions for review challenging the MDI Rules
Release in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, which were denied on May 24, 2022. See The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, et al. v. SEC, No. 21-1100 (D.C. Cir. May 24, 2022).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93620 (Nov. 19,
2021), 86 FR 67541 (Nov. 26, 2021) (``Notice''). Comments received
in response to the Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-24-89/s72489.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 24, 2022, the Commission instituted proceedings
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\8\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment or to approve
the Proposed Amendment with any changes or subject to any conditions
the Commission deems necessary or appropriate after considering public
comment.\9\ On May 19, 2022, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of
Regulation NMS,\10\ the Commission extended the period within which to
conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed

Amendment to July 24, 2022,\11\ and on July 21, 2022, the Commission
further extended the period within which to conclude proceedings
regarding the Proposed Amendment to September 22, 2022.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94308 (Feb. 24,
2022), 87 FR 11755 (Mar. 2, 2022) (``OIP''). Comments received in
response to the OIP are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-24-89/s72489.htm.
    \10\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94954 (May 19,
2022), 87 FR 31922 (May 25, 2022).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95347 (July 21,
2022), 87 FR 45142 (July 27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order disapproves the Proposed Amendment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Participants have filed similar amendments to the
Second Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'')
Plan and the Restated Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan, which
the Commission is also disapproving. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 95850 (Sept. 21, 2022) (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-02).
Separately, certain Participants have also filed amendments to
implement the fee-related aspects of the MDI Rules. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 93625 (Nov. 19, 2021), 86 FR 67517 (Nov.
26, 2021) (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-03), and 93618 (Nov. 19, 2021),
86 FR 67562 (Nov. 26, 2021) (File No. S7-24-89) (together, the
``Proposed Fee Amendments''). The Commission is, by separate orders,
also disapproving the Proposed Fee Amendments. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 95851 (Sept. 21, 2022) (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-
2021-03), and 95849 (Sept. 21, 2022) (File No. S7-24-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview

    Pursuant to Regulation NMS and the Equity Data Plans,\14\ the
national securities exchange and national securities associations
(``self-regulatory organizations'' or ``SROs'') must provide certain
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks (``NMS information'') to an exclusive plan securities
information processor (``exclusive SIP''), which consolidates the NMS
information and makes it available to market participants on the
consolidated tapes. The purpose of the Equity Data Plans is to
facilitate the collection and dissemination of SIP data so that the
public has ready access to a ``comprehensive, accurate, and reliable
source of information for the prices and volume of any NMS stock at any
time during the trading day.'' \15\ Because the infrastructure for the
collection, consolidation, and dissemination of this data had not been
significantly updated since its initial implementation in the 1970s,
the Commission adopted amendments to Regulation NMS that increase the
content of NMS information and amend the manner in which such NMS
information is collected, consolidated, and disseminated by the Equity
Data Plans.\16\ In the MDI Rules Release, the Commission stated,
``[t]he widespread availability of timely market information promotes
fair and efficient markets and facilitates the ability of brokers and
dealers to provide best execution to their customers.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The three effective national market system plans that
govern the collection, consolidation, processing, and dissemination
of certain NMS information are: (1) the CTA Plan; (2) the CQ Plan;
and (3) the UTP Plan (collectively, the ``Equity Data Plans''). Each
of the Equity Data Plans is an effective national market system plan
under 17 CFR 242.608 (Rule 608) of Regulation NMS. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28146 (June 26, 1990), 55 FR
27917 (July 6, 1990) (order approving UTP Plan).
    \15\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3593 (Jan. 21,
2010).
    \16\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 6.
    \17\ Id. at 18599.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MDI Rules increase the content of NMS information and modify
the manner in which NMS information is collected, consolidated, and
disseminated. Significantly, under the MDI Rules, the Commission
required the introduction of a competitive decentralized consolidation
model under which competing consolidators and self-aggregators will
replace the exclusive SIPs that collect, consolidate, and disseminate
equity market data under the Equity Data Plans.\18\ Although the
exclusive SIPs will no longer disseminate consolidated information for
an individual NMS stock, the Equity Data Plans will continue to play an
important role--they will develop and propose fees for the data content
underlying consolidated market data, collect and allocate revenues
collected for this data, develop the monthly performance metrics for
competing consolidators, and provide an annual assessment of competing
consolidator performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 18637 (``The Commission is adopting a
decentralized consolidation model in which competing consolidators,
rather than the exclusive SIPs, will collect, consolidate, and
disseminate consolidated market data.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 614(e) of Regulation NMS requires the participants of the
effective national market system plan(s) for NMS stocks to file an
amendment pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS to conform the plan(s)
to the decentralized consolidation model.\19\ Specifically, Rule
614(e)(1) directs the participants to file an amendment to conform the
plan(s) to reflect the provision of information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks that is necessary to
generate consolidated market data by the SROs to competing
consolidators and self-aggregators. The Proposed Amendment was filed by
the Participants pursuant to this requirement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 242.614(e). See also MDI Rules Release, supra note
6, 86 FR at 18680-81.
    \20\ The Participants have filed the Proposed Amendment under
the Equity Data Plans. See supra note 14. While the Commission
issued an order on August 6, 2020, approving, as modified, a new
national market system plan regarding equity market data--the CT
Plan--to replace the existing Equity Data Plans, that order was
stayed on October 13, 2021, see The Nasdaq Stock Market, et al. LLC
v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 21-1167 (D.C. Cir. Oct.
13, 2021), which was before the Participants filed the Proposed
Amendment. The Commission's order approving the CT Plan was
subsequently vacated. See The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, et al. v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Nos. 21-1167, 21-1168, 21-1169
(D.C. Cir., July 5, 2022) (vacating Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 92586 (Aug. 6, 2021), 86 FR 44142 (Aug. 11, 2021) (Order
Approving, as Modified, a National Market System Plan Regarding
Consolidated Market Data)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below, however, the Proposed Amendment does not comply
with Rule 614(e)(1) because it does not conform the Plan to reflect the
provision of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks that is necessary to generate consolidated
market data by the SROs to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators. For example, inconsistent with the decentralized
consolidation model and with the requirements of Rule 614(e), the
Proposed Amendment: (1) amends the Plan to reflect that it will
disseminate consolidated market data to competing consolidators and
self-aggregators, even though the Plan will not be disseminating any
consolidated market data; \21\ (2) fails to amend the Plan to reflect
that the Processor will no longer have the responsibility to
disseminate regulatory halt notices once the decentralized
consolidation model has been implemented; \22\ (3) fails to include
requirements for the Participants to timestamp every element of data
necessary to generate consolidated market data; \23\ and (4) fails to
amend the Plan to remove references to a single processor.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 242.603(b). See also MDI Rules Release, supra note
6, 86 FR at 18653 (``[T]hese changes to Rule 603(b) are appropriate
to establish the decentralized consolidation model.'').
    \22\ See, e.g., MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18633-
35 (discussing the provision of ``regulatory data'' by the primary
listing exchange for an NMS stock to competing consolidators and
self-aggregators under the decentralized consolidation model).
    \23\ 17 CFR 242.614(e)(2).
    \24\ The MDI Rules Release amended Rule 603(b) to remove the
requirement that ``all consolidated information for an individual
NMS stock [be disseminated] through a single plan processor.'' See
MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18652-53. See also supra
note 21; MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18701 (discussing
the retirement of the exclusive SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Proposed Amendment is inconsistent with the MDI Rules,
specifically Rule 614(e), the Commission must disapprove the Proposed
Amendment under Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS because it cannot find
that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect

the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendment

    The Participants propose to amend the Plan to comply with Rule
614(e) of the MDI Rules. Under Rule 614(e), participants to the
effective national market system plan(s) for NMS stocks were required
to file by November 5, 2021, an amendment with the Commission that
includes each of the requirements of Rule 614(e)(1)-(5).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 242.614(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Rule 614(e)(1) requires the amendment to conform the
effective national market system plan(s) for NMS stocks to reflect
that, under the decentralized consolidation model, the national
securities exchange and national securities association participants
will provide to competing consolidators and self-aggregators the
information, with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks, that is necessary to generate consolidated market data.
    Rule 614(e)(2) requires the amendment to include the application of
timestamps by the national securities exchange and national securities
association participants on all information with respect to quotations
for and transactions in NMS stocks that is necessary to generate
consolidated market data, including the time that such information was
generated as applicable by the national securities exchange or national
securities association and the time the national securities exchange or
national securities association made such information available to
competing consolidators and self-aggregators.
    Rule 614(e)(3) requires the amendment to include assessments of
competing consolidator performance, including speed, reliability, and
cost of data provision and the provision of an annual report of such
assessment to the Commission.
    Rule 614(e)(4) requires the amendment to include the development,
maintenance, and publication of a list that identifies the primary
listing exchange for each NMS stock.
    Rule 614(e)(5) requires the amendment to include the calculation
and publication on a monthly basis of consolidated market data gross
revenues for NMS stocks as specified by (i) listed on the NYSE; (ii)
listed on Nasdaq; and (iii) listed on exchanges other than NYSE or
Nasdaq.
    The following is a summary of the changes proposed to be made to
the Plan by the Proposed Amendment.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The full text of the Proposed Amendment appears as
Attachment A to the Notice. See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at
67543-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section III. Definitions

    Under the Proposed Amendment, the Plan would include the following
new provision: ``Terms used in this plan have the same meaning as the
terms are defined in Rule 600(b) under the Act.''
    The Proposed Amendment amends the definitions of ``News Service,''
``Subscriber,'' and ``Vendor'' to add competing consolidators as a
source of Transaction Reports and Quotation Information.
    The Proposed Amendment defines ``Primary Listing Exchange,'' to
mean ``the national securities exchange on which an Eligible Security
is listed.'' The proposed definition further states, ``[i]f an Eligible
Security is listed on more than one national securities exchange,
Primary Listing Exchange means the exchange on which the security has
been listed the longest.'' The Participants explain that this
definition is being added to comply with the requirements of the MDI
Rules and to replace the definition of ``Listing Market.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 67541. The Proposed Amendment deletes a
definition of ``Primary Listing Market'' from former Section X.
(Section XI., as proposed), Regulatory and Operational Halts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Amendment amends the definition of ``Quotation
Information'' to define it as ``all information with respect to
quotations for Eligible Securities required to be collected and made
available to the Processor, Competing Consolidators, and Self-
Aggregators pursuant to this Plan, including all data necessary to
generate consolidated market data.'' Similarly, the Proposed Amendment
amends the definition of ``Transaction Reports'' to mean ``all
information with respect to transactions in Eligible Securities
required to be collected and made available to the Processor, Competing
Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators pursuant to this Plan, including
all data necessary to generate consolidated market data.'' The
Participants explain that these amendments are intended to track the
MDI Rules more closely.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section IV. Administration of Plan

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section IV.B., Operating Committee:
Authority, to add references to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators. Specifically, the Proposed Amendment states that the
Operating Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the
consolidation \30\ of Quotation Information and Transaction Reports in
Eligible Securities from the Participants for dissemination to
competing consolidators and self-aggregators, among other entities;
that the Operating Committee shall be responsible for periodically
evaluating the Processor and competing consolidators; and that the
Operating Committee shall be responsible for setting the level of fees
to be paid by competing consolidators and self-aggregators, among other
entities, for services relating to Quotation Information or Transaction
Reports in Eligible Securities, and for taking action in respect
thereto in accordance with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Under the decentralized consolidation model, the Operating
Committee would no longer oversee the consolidation of data by the
Processor, but rather the provision of data underlying consolidated
market data to competing consolidators and self-aggregators. See
Rule 603(b), 17 CFR 242.603(b); Rule 614(e)(1), 17 CFR
242.614(e)(1). See also MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at
18682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Amendment also amends Section IV.B. to require the
Operating Committee to publish on the Plan's website the Primary
Listing Exchange for each Eligible Security and to calculate and
publish, on a monthly basis, consolidated market data gross revenues
for Eligible Securities. The Participants explain that these amendments
are intended to comply with Rule 614(e)(4) and Rule 614(e)(5)(ii).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section VII. Administrative Functions

    The Proposed Amendment amends this section by deleting references
to the Processor. Additionally, under the Proposed Amendment, the
Administrator, not the Processor, shall be responsible for carrying out
all administrative functions necessary to the operation and maintenance
of the consolidated information collection and dissemination system
provided for in the Plan. The Participants explain that the
Administrative Functions described in the section are more
appropriately ascribed to the Administrator.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section VIII. Evaluation of Competing Consolidators

    The Proposed Amendment adds new Section VIII to require the
Operating Committee to assess the performance of competing
consolidators and to submit an annual report to the Commission

containing the assessment.\33\ The Proposed Amendment requires this
annual report to include an analysis with respect to competing
consolidators' speed, reliability, and cost of data provision. The
Participants explain that these changes are intended to comply with the
requirements of Rule 614(e)(3).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As a result of this addition, the Proposed Amendment
renumbers the remaining sections of the Plan.
    \34\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Proposed Amendment requires the Operating
Committee, in conducting the analysis, to review the monthly
performance metrics to be published by competing consolidators pursuant
to Rule 614(d)(5).\35\ Rule 614(d)(5) requires competing consolidators
to publish on their websites monthly performance metrics as defined by
the effective national market system plan(s) for NMS stocks.\36\ The
Proposed Amendment adds the following monthly performance metrics to
this section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 242.614(d)(5).
    \36\ See id.

    A. Capacity statistics, including system tested capacity, system
output capacity, total transaction capacity, and total transaction
peak capacity;
    B. Message rate and total statistics, including peak output
rates on the following bases: 1-millisecond, 10-millisecond, 100-
millisecond, 500-millisecond, 1-second, and 5-second;
    C. System availability statistics, including system up-time
percentage and cumulative amount of outage time;
    D. Network delay statistics, including quote and trade zero
window size events, quote and trade retransmit events, and quote and
trade message total; and
    E. Latency statistics, including distribution statistics up to
the 99.99th percentile, for the following:
    1. When a Participant sends an inbound message to a competing
consolidator and when the competing consolidator receives the
inbound message;
    2. When the competing consolidator receives the inbound message
and when the competing consolidator sends the corresponding
consolidated message to a customer of the competing consolidator;
and
    3. When a Participant sends an inbound message to a competing
consolidator and when the competing consolidator sends the
corresponding consolidated message to a customer of the competing
consolidator.

    The Participants explain that they have proposed to amend Section
VIII to define the monthly performance metrics in accordance with Rule
614(d)(5).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67541-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section IX. (Previously Section VIII.), Transmission of Information to
Processor, Competing Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators by
Participants

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section IX.A., Quotation Information,
to add the requirement that each Participant collect and transmit to
competing consolidators and self-aggregators all quotation information
required to be made available by such Participant by Rule 603(b) of
Regulation NMS,\38\ including all data necessary to generate
consolidated market data. Additionally, the Proposed Amendment requires
each Participant to make available quotation information, and changes
in any such information, to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators in the same manner and using the same methods, including
all methods of access and the same format, as such Participant makes
available any information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks to any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 242.603(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the Proposed Amendment, each bid and offer with
respect to an Eligible Security furnished to competing consolidators
and self-aggregators by any Participant pursuant to the Plan would be
accompanied by the time (reported in microseconds) the Participant made
such bid and offer available to Competing Consolidators and Self
Aggregators. With respect to FINRA, the Proposed Amendment states that
if FINRA's quotation facility provides a proprietary feed of its
quotation information, then the quotation facility shall also furnish
the Processor, competing consolidators, and self-aggregators with the
time of the quotation as published on the quotation facility's
proprietary feed, and that FINRA shall convert any quotation times
reported to it in seconds or milliseconds to microseconds and shall
furnish such times to the Processor, competing consolidators, and self-
aggregators in microseconds.
    Similarly, the Proposed Amendment amends Section IX.B., Transaction
Reports, to require each Participant to make available Transaction
Reports to competing consolidators and self-aggregators in the same
manner and using the same methods, including all methods of access and
the same format, as such Participant makes available any information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks to any
person.
    The Proposed Amendment also amends Section IX.B. to require
Transaction Reports to competing consolidators and self-aggregators to
include the time (in microseconds) that the Participant made such
information available to competing consolidators and self-aggregators.
With respect to FINRA, the Proposed Amendment states that if FINRA's
trade reporting facility provides a proprietary feed of trades reported
by the trade reporting facility to the Processor, competing
consolidators and self-aggregators, then the FINRA trade reporting
facility shall also furnish the Processor with the time of the
transmission as published on the facility's proprietary feed.
Additionally, the Proposed Amendment requires FINRA to convert times
that its members report to it in seconds or milliseconds to
microseconds and to furnish such times to the Processor, Competing
Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators in microseconds. The Participants
state that the amendments to Sections IX.A. and IX.B. are designed to
comply with the requirements of Rule 614(e)(1) and (2).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67542. The Participants
state that the Proposed Amendment amends Section IX.B., Transaction
Reports, to add the requirement that each Participant agrees to
collect and transmit to competing consolidators and self-aggregators
all transaction reports required to be made available pursuant to
Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS; however, the Proposed Amendment does
not actually propose to make this change to the text of the Plan.
See id. at 67550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Amendment also deletes the following statement from
Section IX.B.: ``The Participants shall seek to reduce the time period
for reporting last sale prices to the Processor as conditions
warrant.''
    In addition, Section IX.B. currently includes a list of types of
transactions that are not required to be reported to the Processor
pursuant to the Plan. The Proposed Amendment adds competing
consolidators and self-aggregators as entities to which these types of
transactions are not required to be reported.
    Finally, the Proposed Amendment amends Section IX.D. to include
references to competing consolidators and self-aggregators. Section
IX.D., as amended would read: ``Whenever a Participant determines that
a level of trading activity or other unusual market conditions prevent
it from collecting and transmitting Quotation Information or
Transaction Reports to the Processor, Competing Consolidators, and
Self-Aggregators, or where a trading halt or suspension in an Eligible
Security is in effect in its Market, the Participant shall promptly
notify the Processor, Competing Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators of
such condition or event and shall resume collecting and transmitting
Quotation Information and

Transaction Reports to it as soon as the condition or event is
terminated. In the event of a system malfunction resulting in the
inability of a Participant or its members to transmit Quotation
Information or Transaction Reports to the Processor, Competing
Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators, the Participant shall promptly
notify the Processor, Competing Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators of
such event or condition. Upon receiving such notification, the
Processor shall take appropriate action, including either closing the
quotation or purging the system of the affected quotations.''

Section XI. (Previously Section X.), Regulatory and Operational Halts

    The Proposed Amendment revises this section to delete the
definition of ``Primary Listing Market'' from Section XI.A.,
Definitions for Purposes of Section XI. The Proposed Amendment also
replaces references to ``Primary Listing Market'' with ``Primary
Listing Exchange'' throughout Section XI.\40\ The Participants state
that this change would align the text of the Plan with terminology in
the MDI Rules.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The Proposed Amendment does not replace a reference to
Primary Listing Market in the definition of ``Regulatory Halt'' in
this section.
    \41\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section XI.B., Operational Halts, to
state that competing consolidators and self-aggregators shall be
notified by a Participant if that Participant has concerns about its
ability to collect and transmit Quotation Information or Transaction
Reports, or where it has declared an Operational Halt or suspension of
trading in one or more Eligible Securities, pursuant to the procedures
adopted by the Operating Committee. Similarly, the Proposed Amendment
amends Section XI.H., Communications, to state that if a Primary
Listing Exchange for an Eligible Security determines it appropriate to
initiate a Regulatory Halt, it will notify competing consolidators and
self-aggregators of such Regulatory Halt as well as provide notice that
a Regulatory Halt has been lifted using such protocols and other
emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating
Committee and the Primary Listing Exchange. The Participants state that
these changes are consistent with Rule 614(e)(1) and would ensure that
competing consolidators and self-aggregators are notified of
information related to Regulatory and Operational Halts and that
competing consolidators can disseminate this information to their
customers.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section XII. (Previously Section XI.), Hours of Operation

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section XII.B.(ii) and (iii) to add
references to competing consolidators and self-aggregators.
Specifically, with respect to the reporting obligations of
Participants, proposed Section XII.B.(ii)provides that transactions in
Eligible Securities executed after 8:00 p.m. and before 12:00 a.m.
(midnight) shall be reported to the Processor, competing consolidators,
and self-aggregators between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. ET on
the next business day (T+1), and shall be designated ``as/of'' trades
to denote their execution on a prior day, and be accompanied by the
time of execution. And proposed Section XII.B.(iii) provides that
transactions in Eligible Securities executed between 12:00 a.m.
(midnight) and 4:00 a.m. ET shall be transmitted to the Processor,
competing consolidators, and self-aggregators between 4:00 a.m. and
9:30 a.m. ET, on trade date, shall be designated as ``.T'' trades to
denote their execution outside normal market hours, and shall be
accompanied by the time of execution.
    The Proposed Amendment also amends Section XII.D. to require
Participants that enter Quotation Information or submit Transaction
Reports to competing consolidators and self-aggregators between 4:00
a.m. and 9:30 a.m. ET, and after 4:00 p.m. ET until 8:00 p.m. ET, to do
so for all Eligible Securities in which they enter quotations.

Section XIV. (Previously Section XIII.), Financial Matters

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section XIV.C., Maintenance of
Financial Records, by replacing references to the Processor with
references to the Administrator. The Participants explain that the
responsibilities described in that section are more appropriately
ascribed to the Administrator.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section XV. (Previously Section XIV.), Indemnification

    The Proposed Amendment amends this section to add references to
Competing Consolidators and Self-Aggregators and to remove a reference
to Vendors as a recipient of Transaction Reports, Quotation
Information, or other information disseminated by the Processor.
Specifically, the first paragraph in this section now states: ``Each
Participant agrees, severally and not jointly, to indemnify and hold
harmless each other Participant, Nasdaq, and each of its directors,
officers, employees and agents (including the Operating Committee and
its employees and agents) from and against any and all loss, liability,
claim, damage and expense whatsoever incurred or threatened against
such persons as a result of any Transaction Reports, Quotation
Information or other information reported to the Processor, Competing
Consolidators, and Self-Aggregators by such Participant and
disseminated by the Processor, Competing Consolidators, and Self-
Aggregators. This indemnity agreement shall be in addition to any
liability that the indemnifying Participant may otherwise have.''

Section XVIII. (Previously Section XVII.), Applicability of Securities
Exchange Act of 1934

    The Proposed Amendment amends this section to include Competing
Consolidators and Self-Aggregators as subject to any applicable
provisions of the Act, as amended, and any rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.

Section XIX. (Previously Section XVIII.), Operational Issues

    The Proposed Amendment amends Section XIX.A. to include references
to Competing Consolidators and Self-Aggregators to require each
Participant to collect and validate quotes and last sale reports within
its own system prior to transmitting this data to Competing
Consolidators and Self-Aggregators.

Section XXI. Depth of Book Display

    The Proposed Amendment deletes this section. The Participants
explain that this provision is obsolete given the MDI Rules.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

A. The Applicable Standard of Review

    Under Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS, the Commission shall
approve a national market system plan or proposed amendment to an
effective national market system plan, with such changes or subject to
such conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate, if
it finds that the plan or amendment is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act.\45\ The Commission shall disapprove a national
market system plan or proposed amendment if it does not make such a
finding.\46\ Furthermore, Rule 700(b)(3)(ii) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \46\ Id.

    The burden to demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent
with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued
thereunder that are applicable to NMS plans is on the plan
participants that filed the NMS plan filing. Any failure of the plan
participants that filed the NMS plan filing to provide such detail
and specificity may result in the Commission not having a sufficient
basis to make an affirmative finding that an NMS plan filing is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
issued thereunder that are applicable to NMS plans.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3)(ii).

    For the reasons discussed below, the Commission does not find that
the Participants have met their burden to demonstrate that the Proposed
Amendment is consistent with the Act.\48\ Specifically, the Commission
does not find that the Participants have demonstrated that the Proposed
Amendment is consistent with either Rule 614(e) of Regulation NMS or
Rule 608 of Regulation NMS. The Proposed Amendment clearly does not
comply with the requirements of the MDI Rules.\49\ Accordingly, the
Commission cannot make a finding that the Proposed Amendment is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market
system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \49\ As discussed below, the Proposed Amendment does not comply
with MDI Rules 603(b), 614(e)(1), and 614(e)(2). 17 CFR 242.603(b),
17 CFR 242.614(e)(1), 17 CFR 242.614(e)(2).
    \50\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Requirements of the MDI Rules Regarding the Proposed Amendment

    As adopted by the Commission, the MDI Rules implement a
decentralized consolidation model in which competing consolidators
would replace the exclusive plan processors of the Equity Data Plans as
the entities responsible for disseminating consolidated market
data.\51\ The MDI Rules Release provides for an ``initial parallel
operation period'' of 180 days during which the existing exclusive SIPs
for the Equity Data Plans would operate in parallel with the competing
consolidators,\52\ and further provides for the transition from the
initial parallel operation period to the retirement of the exclusive
SIPs for equity market data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18637.
    \52\ See id. at 18700.

    Within 90 days of the end of the initial parallel operation
period, the Operating Committee will make a recommendation to the
Commission as to whether the exclusive SIPs should be
decommissioned. The Commission will consider an effective national
market system plan amendment to effectuate a cessation of the
operations of the exclusive SIPs and, if consistent with the
requirements of Rule 608 and the Exchange Act, approve such an
amendment.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id. at 18701.

    Pursuant to Rule 614(e)(1) of Regulation NMS, and as discussed in
the MDI Rules Release, the Participants to the Plan were required to
file an amendment to conform the Plan to reflect the provision of
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks that is necessary to generate consolidated market data by the
national securities exchange and national securities association
participants to competing consolidators and self-aggregators.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See id. at 18700-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Whether the Proposed Amendment Is Consistent With Rule 614(e)(1) of
Regulation NMS

1. Consistency With the Decentralized Consolidation Model
    Two commenters recommend disapproval of the Proposed Amendment
because the amendment does not properly conform the Plan to the MDI
Rules in that the amendments fail to accurately reflect the
decentralized consolidation model.\55\ One commenter states, ``[t]he
MDI rule represents a fundamental shift to a decentralized
consolidation model. The Plan amendments need to reflect that
throughout the body and exhibits of the Plans.'' \56\ The commenter
also argues that the Proposed Amendment must ``[a]cknowledge that the
Plan is no longer responsible for the creation, distribution and
pricing of consolidated market data.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Letter from Patrick Flannery, Chief Executive Officer,
MayStreet, Inc., to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (Dec.
17, 2021) (``MayStreet Letter I''); Letter from Manisha Kimmel,
Chief Policy Officer, MayStreet, Inc., to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission (Mar. 23, 2022) (``MayStreet Letter II'');
Letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equity and Options
Market Structure, and William C. Thum, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Asset Management Group, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission (Dec. 17, 2021) (``SIFMA Letter I'').
    \56\ MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 2.
    \57\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter states, ``[d]espite the fact that competing
consolidators generate consolidated market data, the Nasdaq/UTP Plan as
amended at IV(B) states that consolidated data is disseminated to
competing consolidators.'' \58\ The commenter reiterates that only
competing consolidators would externally distribute and charge for
consolidated market data and that the Plan would only be selling
underlying content.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ MayStreet Letter I, supra note 55, at 4, n.5.
    \59\ See MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also argues that the sections of the Plan that
discuss vendors' and subscribers' contractual relationships with the
Plan should be ``removed or significantly altered to reflect that the
Plan no longer has agreements with vendors and end users and instead
have agreements with the competing consolidators and self-aggregators
related specifically to the cost of content underlying core market
data.'' \60\ This commenter states that ``the relationship between
competing consolidators and their customers should not include a
contractual relationship with the plan'' because vendors would be
receiving consolidated market data from competing consolidators rather
than from the Plan.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 55, at 3.
    \61\ Id. See also MayStreet Letter II, supra note 54, at 9
(arguing that, since the Plan would only be selling underlying
content to competing consolidators and self-aggregators, vendor and
subscriber agreements should not be required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also objects to the continued references to
subscribers and vendors in the Plan as recipients of data from the
Processor, arguing that under the decentralized consolidation model,
``only competing consolidators would sell consolidated market data to
vendors and subscribers.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ MayStreet Letter I, supra note 55, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter objects to the retention of the concept of a single
processor in the Proposed Amendment.\63\ Another commenter also states
that ``it is worth noting that the Plans do not reflect the
decentralized consolidation model nor do they acknowledge the parallel
period.'' \64\ This commenter requests clarification of how the Plan
will operate during the parallel operation period, such as the
inclusion in the Plan of objective criteria for ending the parallel
period and the addition of a section devoted to competing consolidators
and self-

aggregators to help distinguish between their obligations and the
obligations of the exclusive SIPs during the parallel period.\65\ The
commenter recommends that the Proposed Amendment clarify that all
content underlying consolidated market data will be provided to
competing consolidators and self-aggregators, and provide validation
procedures to be followed by competing consolidators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 55, at 8.
    \64\ MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 8.
    \65\ See id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants submitted a comment letter in which they argue
that maintaining the exclusive SIPs through the parallel operation
period is consistent with the MDI Rules Release, stating:

    [P]ursuant to the phased transition period set forth in the MDI
Rules Release, the Plans must operate a parallel operation period
during which the decentralized consolidation model introduced by the
MDI Rules will run in parallel to the existing exclusive SIP model.
. . . After completion of the parallel operation period, the Plans
are required to submit an amendment to effectuate a cessation of the
operations of the exclusive SIPs, which would include removing
references of the exclusive SIPs from the text of the Plans.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Letter from James P. Dombach, Counsel for CTA, CQ, and UTP
Plans, McGonigle, P.C., to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, at 2 (Mar. 25, 2022) (``McGonigle Letter'').

    The Participants also maintain that the exclusive SIPs will
continue to provide market data under the current Equity Data Plans
during the parallel operation period and that the inclusion of the
exclusive SIPs in the Equity Data Plans (as provided for in the
Proposed Amendment) until the submission of a further amendment after
the parallel operation period is consistent with the MDI Rules
Release.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with the commenters who argue that the
Proposed Amendment does not properly conform the Plan to the
decentralized consolidation model. First, under the MDI Rules, the SROs
are required to make available to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators the data necessary to generate consolidated market
data,\68\ and competing consolidators and self-aggregators will then
generate consolidated market data, rather than receive consolidated
market data from the Plan.\69\ The Participants, however, propose to
amend the UTP Plan to give the Operating Committee the authority to
oversee the consolidation of Quotation Information and Transaction
Reports from the Participants to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators.\70\ This is not consistent with the decentralized
consolidation model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Rule 603(b), 17 CFR 242.603(b). See also Rule
600(b)(19), which defines ``consolidated market data'' as the
following data, consolidated across all national securities
exchanges and national securities associations: (i) Core data; (ii)
Regulatory data; (iii) Administrative data; (iv) Self-regulatory
organization-specific program data; and (v) Additional regulatory,
administrative, or self-regulatory organization-specific program
data elements defined as such pursuant to the effective national
market system plan or plans required under Sec.  242.603(b). See 17
CFR 242.600(b)(19).
    \69\ See Rule 614(d)(1)-(3). 17 CFR 242.614(d)(1)-(3).
    \70\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67545 (UTP Plan Proposed
Amendment at Section IV.B.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Rule 614(d) provides that competing consolidators
shall collect any information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks as provided in Rule 603(b) that is necessary
to create a consolidated market data product from each national
securities exchange and national securities association,\71\ calculate
and generate a consolidated market data product,\72\ and make the
consolidated market data product available to subscribers.\73\ Self-
aggregators will receive information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks, including all data necessary to generate
consolidated market data, and generate consolidated market data solely
for their internal use.\74\ Additionally, pursuant to Rule 603(b), the
Participants shall make available to all competing consolidators and
self-aggregators ``all data necessary to generate consolidated market
data.'' \75\ Accordingly, the Plan's modified role under the
decentralized consolidation model will be to develop and file with the
Commission the fees associated with the underlying data, to collect and
allocate revenues for that data, to develop monthly performance metrics
for competing consolidators, and to provide an annual assessment of
competing consolidator performance.\76\ Therefore, the Proposed
Amendment impermissibly provides for the dissemination by the Plan of
consolidated market data to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators, which is inconsistent with Rule 603(b), which requires the
Participants to make available the data necessary to generate
consolidated market data to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators so that, pursuant to Rule 614(d), those entities can
generate consolidated market data themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Rule 614(d)(1), 17 CFR 242.614(d)(1).
    \72\ See Rule 614(d)(2), 17 CFR 242.614(d)(2).
    \73\ See Rule 614(d)(3), 17 CFR 242.614(d)(3). The MDI Rules
also define ``competing consolidator'' as a securities information
processor required to be registered pursuant to Sec.  242.614 (Rule
614) or a national securities exchange or national securities
association that receives information with respect to quotations for
and transactions in NMS stocks and generates a consolidated market
data product for dissemination to any person. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(16).
    \74\ The definition of ``self-aggregator'' was added by the MDI
Rules. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(83). A self-aggregator may make
consolidated market data available to its affiliates that are
registered with the Commission for their internal use. Id.
    \75\ 17 CFR 242.603(b).
    \76\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18604, 18681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Proposed Amendment is inconsistent in certain other
ways with the decentralized consolidation model provided for in the MDI
Rules. Under the decentralized consolidation model, the primary listing
exchanges will be required to collect, calculate, and make available
regulatory data, which includes information relating to regulatory
halts, to competing consolidators and self-aggregators in accordance
with the definition of ``regulatory data'' in Rule 600(b)(78).\77\ The
Proposed Amendment, however, does not reflect this requirement with
respect to regulatory data. For example, the Proposed Amendment fails
to amend the Plan to reflect that the Processor will no longer have the
responsibility to disseminate regulatory halt notices once the
decentralized consolidation model has been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(78) defines ``Regulatory Data'' as, among
other things: (A) Information regarding Short Sale Circuit Breakers
pursuant to Sec.  242.201; (B) Information regarding Price Bands
required pursuant to the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility . . . (C) Information relating to regulatory halts or
trading pauses (news dissemination/pending, LULD, Market-Wide
Circuit Breakers) and reopenings or resumptions; (D) The official
opening and closing prices of the primary listing exchange; and (E)
An indicator of the applicable round lot size. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(78)(i). Regulatory data is one element of ``consolidated
market data,'' as defined in Rule 600(b)(19). See supra note 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Amendment also does not include requirements for the
Participants to timestamp every element of data necessary to generate
consolidated market data. Rule 614(e)(2) requires the application of
timestamps by the Participants on all information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks that is necessary to
generate consolidated market data, including the time that such
information was generated by the Participant and the time the
Participant made such information available to competing consolidators
and self-aggregators.\78\ While the Proposed Amendment amends the UTP
Plan's section governing the transmission of Quotation Information to
require any Participant that furnishes bids and offers to competing
consolidators and self-aggregators to timestamp the time the
Participant made such bid and offer

available to competing consolidators and self-aggregators,\79\ this
proposed timestamp provision does not apply to ``all information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks that is
necessary to generate consolidated market data.'' \80\ Additionally,
the Proposed Amendment does not specifically require that each
Participant timestamp the data necessary to generate consolidated
market data upon generation and upon the time it is made available to
competing consolidators and self-aggregators, as required by Rule
614(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 17 CFR 242.614(e)(2).
    \79\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67550 (UTP Plan Proposed
Amendment at Section IX.A.).
    \80\ In the MDI Rules Release, the Commission stated,
``[s]pecifically, the timestamps applied by the SROs must be to the
individual components of data content underlying consolidated market
data, i.e., all of the individual components of data content
underlying core data, regulatory data, administrative data, self-
regulatory organization-specific program data, and additional
elements defined as `consolidated market data.''' MDI Rules Release,
supra note 6, 86 FR at 18688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And finally, the Commission disagrees with the Participants'
statement that the continued references to the role of the Processor in
the Plan, as amended by the Proposed Amendment, comply with the MDI
Rules Release's implementation schedule for parallel operation of the
exclusive SIP and the competing consolidators.\81\ Rule 614(e)(1)
requires the Participants to amend the Plan to reflect the provision of
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks that is necessary to generate consolidated market data by the
SROs to competing consolidators and self-aggregators, i.e., to conform
the Plan to reflect the decentralized consolidation model.\82\ However,
the Proposed Amendment is not consistent with the decentralized
consolidation model and does not conform to the fact that a single
processor will no longer be in operation once the decentralized
consolidation model has been fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See McGonigle Letter, supra note 66, at 1-2. See also MDI
Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18700-01 (discussing the
parallel operation implementation schedule).
    \82\ 17 CFR 242.614(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And while the MDI Rules Release contemplates the filing of a second
amendment by the Plan ``to effectuate a cessation of the operations of
the exclusive SIPs,'' \83\ the current Proposed Amendment was required
to conform the Plan to reflect the provision of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks that is
necessary to generate consolidated market data by the SROs to competing
consolidators and self-aggregators, which, as discussed above, they
have failed to do. Moreover, the failure of the Participants to explain
in the Proposed Amendment how the Plan will function under the fully
implemented decentralized consolidation model upon cessation of the
exclusive SIPs not only denies market participants the opportunity to
comment on those proposed provisions now, but it increases the
uncertainty that firms face in determining whether to become competing
consolidators or self-aggregators during the initial parallel operation
period, thus hampering the implementation of the decentralized
consolidation model required by the MDI Rules.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ MDI Rules Release, supra note 6, 86 FR at 18701.
    \84\ See id. at 18699-700 (discussing the ``first wave''
registration period for competing consolidators, to begin on the
date the Commission approves the amendments to the effective
national market system plan(s) required under Rule 614(e) including
the fees for the SRO data content necessary to generate consolidated
market data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Proposed Amendment clearly does not comply with the
plain terms of the MDI Rules \85\ and is thus inconsistent with the
requirements of Rule 614(e)(1), the Commission also does not find that
the Participants have met their burden to demonstrate that the Proposed
Amendment is consistent with Rule 608 as necessary or appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Specifically, Rules 603(b), 614(e)(1) and (e)(2). 17 CFR
242.603(b), 17 CFR 242.614(e)(1), 17 CFR 242.614(e)(2).
    \86\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Technical Comments
    One commenter criticizes the failure of the Proposed Amendment to
incorporate the definitions of the MDI Rules.\87\ This commenter
states, ``[t]he definitions in each of the Plans should be updated to
reflect the decentralized consolidation model. It is insufficient to
simply refer to Rule 600(b), in large part because there seems to be
confusion within the Plans as to the role of competing consolidators,
self-aggregators, the exclusive SIPs and vendors.'' \88\ Specifically,
this commenter suggests that the Proposed Amendment add definitions of
the following terms: competing consolidator, self-aggregator,
consolidated market data, content underlying consolidated market data,
initial parallel period, and parallel period, as well as a definition
of the content that would be disseminated by the exclusive SIP to the
Plan.\89\ This commenter also suggests updating the existing definition
of Processor, and clarifying the existing definitions of Subscriber and
Vendor to reflect the decentralized consolidation model.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 5. This
commenter also recommends that the Commission issue guidance to the
Participants to aid in revising the Proposed Amendment. See id. at
4. The discussion and findings in this Order, in addition to the MDI
Rules Release and the MDI Rules themselves, provide sufficient
guidance to the Participants in amending the Plan.
    \88\ Id. at 5.
    \89\ See id. at 5-6.
    \90\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also describes several other technical criticisms of
the Proposed Amendment. The commenter states that the Proposed
Amendment should have removed the addition of a new SRO participant
from the Plan's ministerial amendment list,\91\ arguing that competing
consolidators and self-aggregators would need more time to update their
systems to handle the new Participant's data.\92\ The commenter also
states that the Proposed Amendment needs to support the timestamps
required by the MDI Rules to the microsecond,\93\ and that validation
procedures to be used by competing consolidators need to be added to
the Plan to describe the Participants' and the competing consolidator's
obligations.\94\ The commenter further suggests that the Plan's
capacity planning process needs to apply to competing consolidators and
self-aggregators so that these entities can meet SRO-expected capacity
requirements.\95\ Finally, the commenter states that the Plan's
conflict of interest and confidentiality provisions need to apply to
competing consolidators since they will be replacing the exclusive
SIPs.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ A ``ministerial amendment'' permits an amendment to the
Plan that is submitted by the Chairman of the UTP Plan Operating
Committee to the Commission with less than 48 hours advance notice
to the Participants. See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67554
(Proposed Amendment at Section XVII.).
    \92\ See MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 6-7.
    \93\ See id. at 5.
    \94\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 55, at 4; MayStreet
Letter II, supra note 55, at 8.
    \95\ See MayStreet Letter II, supra note 55, at 10.
    \96\ See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with the commenter that the failure to
include the definitions established by the MDI Rules contributes to
ambiguity within the Plan. In lieu of incorporating the MDI Rules'
definitions, the Proposed Amendment adds a statement that ``[t]erms
used in this plan have the same meaning as the terms defined in Rule

600(b) under the Act.'' \97\ This creates ambiguity because the
Proposed Amendment uses terms adopted by the MDI Rules but does not
include definitions of those terms, so their applicability and the
obligations they create are unclear or are not reflected in the
Proposed Amendment. For example, the Proposed Amendment adds a
requirement for the collection and transmission of Quotation
Information, stating that each Participant agrees to collect and
transmit to competing consolidators and self-aggregators ``all data
necessary to generated [sic] consolidated market data.'' \98\ However,
the Proposed Amendment does not define ``consolidated market data'' or
even the data necessary to generate it. The Plan thus fails to include
an express requirement for the Participants to disseminate to competing
consolidators and self-aggregators all of the elements of consolidated
market data (e.g., core data,\99\ regulatory data, and administrative
data) in accordance with the definition of ``consolidated market data''
in Rule 600(b)(19) \100\ and Rule 603(b).\101\ The absence of that
definition in the Plan would lead to ambiguity about the Participants'
obligations with respect to consolidated market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Notice, supra note 7, 86 FR at 67543 (Proposed
Amendment at Section III.).
    \98\ Id. at 67549 (Proposed Amendment at Section IX.A.).
    \99\ Rule 600(b)(21) defines ``core data'' as (i) The following
information with respect to quotations for, and transactions in, NMS
stocks: (A) Quotation sizes; (B) Aggregate quotation sizes; (C) Best
bid and best offer; (D) National best bid and national best offer;
(E) Protected bid and protected offer; (F) Transaction reports; (G)
Last sale data; (H) Odd-lot information; (I) Depth of book data; and
(J) Auction information. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(21).
    \100\ See supra note 68 (defining ``consolidated market data'').
    \101\ 17 CFR 242.603(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, Rule 614(e)(2) requires the Participants to amend the
Plan to apply timestamps to all information with respect to quotations
for and transactions in NMS stocks that is necessary to generate
consolidated market data. However, because there is no definition of
``consolidated market data'' in the Plan, there is thus no requirement
in the language of the Plan for the Participants to timestamp the data
components that constitute consolidated market data,\102\ such as the
elements of core data \103\ (another definition established by the MDI
Rules that the Proposed Amendment failed to include in the Plan), which
include auction information, odd-lot information, and depth of book
data. This is another instance in which the absence of definitions in
the Plan would lead to ambiguity about the Participants' obligations
with respect to consolidated market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See supra note 68 (defining ``consolidated market data'').
    \103\ See supra note 99 (defining ``core data'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed above, under the MDI Rules, the primary
listing exchanges are required to collect, calculate, and make
available regulatory data to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators in accordance with the definition of ``regulatory data'' in
Rule 600(b)(78)(i).\104\ The Proposed Amendment, however, does not add
the definition of ``regulatory data'' to the Plan. Therefore, there is
no unambiguous requirement in the Plan that the primary listing
exchanges perform these functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See supra note 77 (defining ``regulatory data'').
Regulatory data is one element of ``consolidated market data,'' as
defined in Rule 600(b)(19). See supra note 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds, pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act, and Rule 608(b)(2) thereunder, that the
Proposed Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to an NMS plan
amendment.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act, and
Rule 608(b)(2) thereunder, that the Proposed Amendment (File No. S7-24-
89) be, and hereby is, disapproved.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20827 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20482-20483]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0025; Notice 1]

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, (Bridgestone),\1\
has determined that certain Firestone Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17,
light truck replacement tires manufactured between November 20, 2011
and December 10, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(d) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate
report dated January 9, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (Bridgestone), is
a Delaware corporation that manufactures and imports replacement
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Bridgestone has petitioned for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Bridgestone's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 467 Firestone brand
Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light truck replacement tires
manufactured between November 20, 2011 and December 10, 2011, at the
Bridgestone Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette, Quebec, Canada and
imported into the United States by Bridgestone.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 467 \2\ tires that Bridgestone no longer controlled
at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the
subject tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bridgestone's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Bridgestone as a
replacement equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 467 of the affected tires.
However, a decision on this petition will not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Bridgestone notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noncompliance: Bridgestone explains that the noncompliance is that
the

sidewall marking on the intended outboard sidewall of the subject tires
describes the maximum load in kilograms incorrectly. Specifically, the
tires in question were inadvertently marked with a maximum load of 1350
kg. The labeling should have read 1320 kg.
    Rule text: Paragraph S5.5(d) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent
part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (d) The maximum load rating and for LT tires, the letter
designating the tire load range; * * *

Summary of Bridgestone's Analysis and Arguments

    Bridgestone explains that while the noncompliant tires are
mislabeled; the tires do in fact have the correct marking for the
maximum load in pounds on the intended outboard sidewall, and the
maximum load marking in both pounds and kg is correct on the intended
inboard sidewall. The tires also meet or exceed all other applicable
FMVSS.
    Bridgestone argues that the subject mismarking is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and is unlikely to have an
adverse impact on motor vehicle safety since the actual performance of
the subject tires will not be affected by the mismarking. Bridgestone
supports this belief by stating that the tires met the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139 for endurance and high speed when tested
at the 1350 kg load.
    Bridgestone also points out its belief that NHTSA has previously
granted similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    In summation, Bridgestone believes that the described noncompliance
of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: May 4, 2012.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 29, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-8050 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17403-17405]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0765; FRL-8792-3]
RIN 2040-AE99

Withdrawal of NPDES Voluntary Permit Fee Incentive for Clean
Water Act Section 106 Grants; Allotment Formula

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on withdrawal of a regulation
revising the allotment formula contained in EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 106 Water Pollution Control grant regulations. The current
regulations include a financial incentive for States to voluntarily
collect adequate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit fees. This final rule withdraws the financial incentive
for States to voluntarily collect permit fees.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 15, 2009 without further notice.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0765. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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, is
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Delehanty, Office of Water,
Office of Wastewater Management, 4201M, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Affected Entities: State Agencies that are eligible to receive
grants under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

II. Background

    Section 106 of the CWA authorizes the EPA to provide grants to
State and interstate agencies [footnote 1 (CWA Sections 106 and 518
authorize EPA to award such grants to eligible Indian Tribes, but this
rule does not affect those grants)] to administer programs for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution, including
the development and implementation of groundwater protection
strategies. Section 106(b) of the CWA directs the EPA Administrator to
make allotments ``in accordance with regulations promulgated by him on
the basis of the extent of the pollution problem in the respective
States.'' EPA's regulations implementing Section 106 can be found at 40
CFR 35.160 et seq. EPA's current allotment formula for Section 106
grants includes an allotment ratio for each State based on six
components selected to reflect the extent of the water pollution
problem in the respective States. These six components are surface
water area, ground water use, water quality impairment, potential point
sources, nonpoint sources, and the population of urbanized areas. 40
CFR 35.162(b)(1)(i). By including a component related to point sources,
EPA recognizes the important role they play in determining the extent
of pollution in a State.
    EPA proposed a rule amending the CWA Section 106 allotment formula
on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 293) and requested comments from interested
parties. EPA received 717 comments on the proposed rule. A summary of
the significant public comments and the Agency's responses can be found
at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0765. There were also two changes to the
final rule which EPA determined necessary. These changes involved
delaying implementation of the rule until FY 2009 and changing the base
fiscal year which the Agency would use to determine if an allotment for
this purpose should be made. EPA's responses to all comments received
on the rulemaking are included in the docket described above.
    The final rule promulgated September 10, 2008 (73 FR 52584) amended
the State allotment formula to incorporate financial incentives for
States to implement adequate NPDES fee programs. The Agency recognizes
the importance of States' flexibility in program management. Therefore,
the final rule was purely an incentive; it was voluntary and would not
have impacted States' base funds. The incentive allotment could only be
funded after an increase above the FY 2008 level in the total amount of
funds allotted to States under 40 CFR 35.162(b). Additionally, the
Agency had discretion regarding whether to fund the incentive
allotment.
    Today's final rule withdraws the ``Permit Fee Rule'' promulgated on
September 10, 2008.
    The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant from
point sources to waters of the U.S. except in compliance with other
provisions of the statute. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). One of these provisions
is CWA Section 402, under which pollutant discharges can be authorized
by an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a). EPA oversees the NPDES program
and also approves applications from States to administer and enforce
the NPDES program in those States. Currently, 46 States are authorized
by EPA to administer all or some parts of the NPDES program.
    Federal funds under the Water Pollution Control grants, together
with State resources, are used to establish and maintain adequate
measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate water pollution. As State
agencies carry out most of the day-to-day aspects of water quality
functions, their responsibilities are expanding while they are
simultaneously facing increasingly severe funding constraints. The
growing complexity of water quality issues has prompted more States to
implement NPDES permit fee programs. An estimated 42 States currently
have permit fee programs in place, with such fees paying for all or a
portion of the cost of the State's permit program.
    A number of States still operate their permit programs with little
or no reliance on permit fees. States can address permit program budget
shortfalls through the implementation of permit fee programs that
collect funds to cover the cost of issuing and administering permits.
Funding permit programs with the support of permit fees allows States
to use CWA Section 106 funds for other critical water quality programs,
which address the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution.

Conclusion

    After careful evaluation, EPA is withdrawing the Permit Fee Rule.
EPA has maintained an on-going discussion with the States throughout
the rulemaking process and has heard the States' concern with the rule.
EPA respects and values this feedback from the States and looks forward
to continuing the successful partnership with them. EPA also notes the
lack of congressional support for the rule. The FY 2008 Congressional
Budget language directed EPA to use the same allocation method as used
in prior years and the Conference Report for the Omnibus Appropriations
Act for 2009 includes language stating Congress does not support the
creation of an incentive pool with 2009 funds. At a time when State
budgets are already strained, EPA continues to encourage States to
develop sustainable programs that share the cost with those who benefit
from NPDES permits. The Agency applauds the 42 States that already
collect some form of fees for NPDES permits.
    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews: Under Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because
this rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Today's rule
contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title
2 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA)) for State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector that would subject the rule
to Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). The rule imposes
no enforceable duty on any

State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. In addition,
this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This rule does not create new binding legal requirements and does not
substantially and directly affect Indian Tribes under Executive Order
13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This rule will
not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. EPA has determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it is a grant
rule that does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. This rule is not a ``significant energy
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have
any adverse energy effects. This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This rule does not impose an additional information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may
take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report,
which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on April 15,
2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

0
EPA amends 40 CFR part 35 as follows:

PART 35-[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority for citation for part 35, subpart A continues to read
as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.;
15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Public Law 104-134,
110 Stat. 1321, 1321-299 (1966); Public Law 105-65, 111 Stat. 1344,
1373 (1997).

Sec.  35.162  [Amended]

0
2. Section 35.162 is amended by removing paragraph (e).
[FR Doc. E9-8644 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P