straightforward, and leverages a one-to-one relationship between
billable events (trades) and billable parties.'' \211\ CAT LLC argued
that, for a single trade event, there may be many originating brokers,
and each trade must be broken down on a pro-rata basis to ``account[]
for one or more layers of aggregation, disaggregation, and
representation of the underlying orders.'' \212\ Therefore, CAT LLC
stated that the commenter's ``suggestion of a model that begins the
funding analysis with new order events (e.g., MENO or MONO events) and
then looks for any execution or fulfillment that is directly associated
with that event does not reduce or mitigate the complexity associated
with aggregation.'' \213\ Further, CAT LLC argued that the commenter's
recommendation would not work with the design of the CAT system,
stating that ``[w]hile CAT is indeed designed to capture and unwind
complex aggregation scenarios, the data and linkages are structured to
facilitate regulatory use, and not a billing mechanism that assesses
fees on a distinct set of executed trades; it is not simply a matter of
using existing CAT linkages.'' \214\ Finally, CAT LLC stated that
charging originating brokers would implicate issues related to
lifecycle linkage rates, and issues related to corrections,
cancellations and allocations, but charging CAT Executing Brokers would
avoid such complications.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Id. at 5.
    \210\ Id.
    \211\ Id.
    \212\ See CAT LLC Response Letter at 5.
    \213\ Id.
    \214\ Id.
    \215\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Prospective CAT Fees

a. Budgeted CAT Costs
    One commenter argued that the budget line item categories are too
high level.\216\ The commenter urged the inclusion of much greater
detail and specificity on the budget spending choices, especially in
technology,\217\ to allow Industry Members and the public to understand
and evaluate CAT spending decisions.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 6.
    \217\ The commenter stated that CAT spending on technology
should be broken into further refined cost breakdowns of the
following categories: cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS
operating fees and change request fees. Id.
    \218\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that an independent cost review mechanism
is necessary to ensure future CAT fees are fair and reasonable and to
safeguard against unchecked spending.\219\ The commenter urged the
inclusion of a mechanism to allow the public to review the annual CAT
budget before it is finalized, since, as proposed, the public would
only have the opportunity to review the CAT budget when the
Participants submit proposed rule changes, pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act,\220\ to implement CAT fees on Industry Members.\221\
The commenter also stated that it is unlikely that the Commission would
decide that a proposed CAT fee does not meet Exchange Act fee standards
and require the Participants to modify the CAT budget because it would
be a lengthy, time-consuming process and due to ``the regulatory value
of CAT data and the CAT system to the Commission.'' \222\ The commenter
stated that the Commission is ``directly conflicted in its role as the
user and beneficiary of the CAT system for regulatory functions and its
role as the reviewer of the CAT budget and fee filings, a conflict that
is only heightened due to a lack of a Commission funding obligation for
CAT.'' \223\ As a result, the commenter urged the adoption of an
independent cost review mechanism to ensure that CAT spending will be
appropriate and consistent with the Exchange Act.\224\ The commenter
also requested that ``the Participants' proposed budget include as a
separate line-item projected usage costs and system change costs
related to the Commission's use and design of the CAT system.'' \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ See SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 3, 8-10. See also SIFMA
October 2022 Letter at 5-6; SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 2, 5-6;
SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 2, n.10, 4.
    \220\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \221\ See SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 8-9. See also SIFMA June 2022
Letter at 8-9; SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 6; SIFMA January 2023
Letter at 5, 6.
    \222\ SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 9.
    \223\ Id. at 9-10.
    \224\ Id. at 10.
    \225\ Id. See also SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, CAT LLC stated that such an independent cost review is
not necessary, because such a review process would go beyond what is
required by either Rule 613 or the CAT

NMS Plan, and would be superfluous since any CAT fees must, prior to
being implemented, undergo the review process detailed in Rule 608 and
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.\226\ CAT LLC also noted that the
Commission is entitled to request additional budget or cost information
it views as necessary to better evaluate those fees.\227\ CAT LLC also
stated that it already provides significant cost transparency through
the public disclosure of its quarterly budget information and its
financials, and that it is already actively engaged in cost discipline
efforts, including through a designated cost-management working
group.\228\ CAT LLC further explained that Participants are subject to
regulatory requirements to implement CAT and oversee their members and
cannot have their compliance subject to a third party without such
restrictions.\229\ CAT LLC added that the Commission itself could have
its ability to oversee the securities markets undermined if CAT is
subject to review by a third party without regulatory
restrictions.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ CAT LLC Response Letter at 10.
    \227\ Id.
    \228\ Id.
    \229\ Id.
    \230\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the commenter stated that the CAT LLC Response Letter
did not meaningfully address its concerns about the lack of a cost
control mechanism.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the suggested inclusion of the Commission's line
item costs associated with its usage and design of the CAT in the
budget,\232\ CAT LLC responded that, because all costs related to CAT
are a result of the Commission's adoption of Rule 613 and the total
costs are reflected in the budget, it would be impractical to break out
Commission-specific costs and would not be useful as a practical
matter.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ See SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 10.
    \233\ CAT LLC Response Letter at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Reserve
    One commenter argued that the proposed reserve of not more than 25%
of the CAT budget is excessive.\234\ The commenter noted that the
support provided for the proposed change was the Participants'
difficulty in forecasting CAT costs, which the commenter stated
demonstrates a need for an independent cost review mechanism.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 6, n.15.
    \235\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Historical CAT Assessment

    One commenter disagreed with the proposed method of calculating the
Historical CAT Assessment using current transaction activity ``due to
difficulty of using current volumes and trading activity by individual
Industry Members as a mechanism for assessing costs in the past where
the trading volumes and individual Industry Member trading activity
likely were different.'' \236\ The commenter also argued that the
proposed assessment of Past CAT Costs on current Industry Members based
on their current trading activity is not fair or reasonable because new
Industry Members would be assessed a share of Past CAT Costs even if
they were not in operation when those costs were incurred, and that
such costs would be attributable to Industry Members that are no longer
in business.\237\ The commenter added that the Proposed Amendment has
not explained how allocating ``approximately $350 million in historical
costs . . . to a small group of executing broker firms based on current
market volumes'' is consistent with the Exchange Act or how it would
impact liquidity and competition.\238\ The commenter stated that since
the proposed allocation would be based on current market share and
unrelated to the firms or activity that contributed to historical
costs, there would be little ability for executing brokers to pass on
such costs.\239\ The commenter also stated that the assessment of
``retroactive liability for monies spent that private parties had no
control over'' for public purposes would violate the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 5.
    \237\ See SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 7.
    \238\ SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 4.
    \239\ See id.
    \240\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter recommended a reevaluation of the use of transaction
fees to assess Past CAT Costs,\241\ and suggested an alternative
approach in which Past CAT Costs would be assigned to Industry Members
``based on the lesser of (i) the CAT Fees that would be assessed on an
Industry Member under the Participants' proposed approach of using
current trading activity or (ii) the CAT Fees that would be assessed on
such member based on their prior trading activity in the years since
2016 when the CAT was being built and then operationalized . . .''
\242\ The commenter stated that the share of Past CAT Costs belonging
to Industry Members that are no longer in business could be calculated
using this approach and then divided equally among the current Industry
Members, while Industry Members that entered into business after
certain Past CAT Costs were incurred would be assessed Past CAT Costs
starting in the year after which they started operating based on the
above approach.\243\ The commenter acknowledged that, while this
approach would require more effort by the Participants, it would be
``significantly closer to the fair and reasonable standard in the
Exchange Act than the approach set forth by the Participants in the
Executed Share Model.'' \244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ See SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 5.
    \242\ SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 7.
    \243\ Id.
    \244\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the commenter stated that the Participants have
failed to justify the allocation of Past CAT Costs to Industry Members
during the period when only Participants were reporting to the
CAT.\245\ The commenter argued that Industry Members should not be
assessed any fees related to the decision to employ Thesys
Technologies, LLC as the Plan Processor or legal or consulting fees
incurred by the Participants in the creation of the CAT NMS Plan.\246\
The commenter stated that the Proposed Amendment fails to provide how
of much of the allocation to Industry Members is related to Thesys
Technologies, LLC, and, therefore, the Participants have not
demonstrated how the Executed Share Model is consistent with the
Exchange Act.\247\ The commenter also argued that Industry Members were
not subject to CAT obligations before the CAT NMS Plan's approval, had
no input into the selection of the service providers, and that ``it is
difficult to envision how the Participants could demonstrate that such
an allocation provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees
due to the fact that the CAT NMS Plan did not exist during the period
prior to its approval.'' \248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 7.
    \246\ See SIFMA June 2022 Letter at 7; SIFMA January 2023 Letter
at 6-7.
    \247\ See SIFMA June 2022 Letter at 7.
    \248\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also argued that the Participants have not analyzed
different alternatives to collecting Past CAT Costs and the costs
associated with such alternatives or the costs associated with the
proposed approach.\249\ The commenter urged collaboration between the
Participants and Industry Members on the allocation of Past CAT
Costs.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 5.
    \250\ Id. See also SIFMA October 2022 Letter at 2 (``[w]e also
reiterate our call for the Participants to work with SIFMA and the
industry in a collaborative manner to establish a viable CAT funding
model.'').

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

    With respect to the commenter's criticisms of the calculation and
assessment of the Historical CAT Assessment,\251\ CAT LLC stated that
the commenter had a ``persistent misunderstanding'' of the Historical
CAT Assessment, explaining that, contrary to the commenter's assertions
in its comment letters, the Historical CAT Assessment would be assessed
based on current market activity, not past market activity.\252\ While
the fee rate would be calculated based on Historical CAT Costs, the fee
rate would be applied to current market transactions.\253\ CAT LLC
stated that the process of assessing fees for the Historical CAT
Assessment would be exactly the same as with CAT Fees related to
Prospective CAT Costs, and could be passed through in the same manner
if a CEBB or CEBS so chooses.\254\ CAT LLC also stated that it would
provide CAT Executing Brokers with details of their CAT fees to
facilitate this process.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 8; SIFMA October 2022 Letter
at 4-5; supra notes 87-88 and accompanying text.
    \252\ See CAT LLC Response Letter at 9.
    \253\ Id.
    \254\ Id.
    \255\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the commenter stated that the CAT LLC Response Letter
did not meaningfully address the concerns it raised about ``the
inability of firms defined as `executing brokers' to transfer fees to
those who may be more appropriate to bear certain historical CAT costs
in the first place.'' \256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Comments

a. Lack of Industry Input
    Two commenters argued that the Proposed Amendment lacks input from
the industry.\257\ One commenter stated that the Participants did not
meaningfully solicit input from the industry when developing the
Executed Share Model.\258\ Another commenter stated that the Proposed
Amendment reflects a lack of representation by executing brokers and
offered its participation in future discussions and advisory committees
on the topic of CAT funding.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ See DASH April 2023 Letter at 2; DASH January 2023 Letter
at 3; SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 4; SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 2; SIFMA
June 2022 Letter at 2; SIFMA January 2023 Letter at 2. See also
FINRA June 2022 Letter at 8, 9 (advocating for a more inclusive
development process that would include input from the industry).
    \258\ See SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 2; see also SIFMA June 2023
Letter at 4, 5; SIFMA June 2022 Letter at 2; SIFMA January 2023
Letter at 2.
    \259\ See DASH April 2023 Letter at 2; DASH January 2023 Letter
at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, CAT LLC stated that it has engaged with the industry
on the funding model over the past seven years, explaining that it has
discussed funding model issues with the CAT Advisory Committee, which
includes representation from the industry, as well as with industry
associations such as SIFMA and the Financial Information Forum, and
with individual Industry Members; analyzed and responded to comment
letters on the prior proposals; and hosted webinars for the industry on
funding issues.\260\ CAT LLC stated that it welcomes industry input on
the funding model but believes a decision on the model is overdue.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ See CAT LLC Response Letter at 12.
    \261\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, one commenter stated that Industry Members are willing
to work with the Commission and the Participants to develop a CAT
funding model.\262\ The commenter urged collaboration and dialogue
between the Participants and the Industry Members before the filing of
a formal proposal with the Commission.\263\ The commenter stated that
limiting industry input to the notice and comment process for NMS plan
amendments is an inefficient process resulting in significant
delays.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 4.
    \263\ Id.
    \264\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Implementation
    One commenter suggested that upon approval of any CAT funding
model, Industry Members should be given at least a year ``to implement
any necessary changes to systems and processes for them to be able to
capture their portion of CAT costs.'' \265\ CAT LLC responded that it
was unlikely to take Industry Members a year to implement any needed
changes, particularly given the relatively small fees likely to be
incurred by most small Industry Members that would not require
extensive new processes to pay.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ SIFMA May 2023 Letter at 2.
    \266\ See CAT LLC Response Letter at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan
    One commenter stated that the Proposed Amendment is not what was
originally envisioned by the Commission in Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
and in the CAT NMS Plan as approved in 2016,\267\ and recommended that
the Commission come up with a new structure for the CAT.\268\ The
commenter argued that Rule 613 and the 2016 CAT NMS Plan do not support
CAT as it is currently structured \269\ and provided examples where it
believes that subsequent changes to the CAT requested by the Commission
have caused the CAT to become inconsistent with the requirements of
Rule 613 and the 2016 CAT NMS Plan.\270\ The commenter stated that the
changes resulted from discussions between the Commission and the
Participants, that such changes ``significantly increased CAT costs,''
and that Industry Members with ``no voice and little transparency''
into the building of the CAT system would be allocated most of the
increased CAT costs.\271\ The commenter stated that the Commission
cannot approve a funding proposal for a system that is not consistent
with Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan, stating that this would be
arbitrary and capricious action.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 2, 6.
    \268\ Id. at 6.
    \269\ Id. at 6-7.
    \270\ Id. at 6.
    \271\ Id. at 7.
    \272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Funding in the Appropriation Process
    The commenter stated that the Proposed Amendment would ``evade''
\273\ the separation of powers established by the Constitution, arguing
that since the CAT is a ``Commission system used for enforcement''
\274\ and that law enforcement ``is an executive prerogative,'' \275\
Congress must approve public funds to build the CAT through the
appropriations process.\276\ The commenter stated ``[t]he Constitution
does not permit the Commission to fund its own enforcement apparatus
through the backdoor--to require the SROs to raise and spend hundreds
of millions of dollars to build a new law enforcement tool for the
Commission.'' \277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 8.
    \274\ Id.
    \275\ Id.
    \276\ Id.
    \277\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Rule 608 of Regulation NMS and Rule 19b-4
    One commenter preliminarily believes the assessment of CAT fees
through filings submitted by each exchange under Rule 19b-4 is likely
inconsistent with Rule 608.\278\ The commenter stated that the
Commission amended Rule 608 in 2020 to remove the effective-upon-filing
procedure for NMS plan fees by requiring that NMS plan fees be subject
to notice and comment and Commission approval

prior to becoming effective.\279\ The commenter stated that Rule 608
was amended by the Commission due to concerns about the assessment of
SIP market data fees by the SROs without a meaningful review
opportunity.\280\ The commenter also stated that the 2020 amendment
specifically contemplates that CAT fees would be subject to Rule
608.\281\ The commenter stated that the Commission was considering
approving a process for CAT fees that would not permit a meaningful
review opportunity, contrary to the Rule 608 amendment.\282\ The
commenter acknowledged that the CAT NMS Plan provides for Section 19(b)
fee filings but also stated that the CAT NMS Plan is silent about
whether Section 19(b) fee filings would need to be made after the CAT
Operating Committee receives approval to assess the fees under Rule
608.\283\ The commenter suggested that the CAT Operating Committee
create a new funding process consistent with Rule 608 and stated that
the Commission cannot find that the Proposed Amendment is consistent
with the Exchange Act.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ Id. at 4, 9.
    \279\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 9.
    \280\ Id.
    \281\ Id.
    \282\ Id.
    \283\ Id. at 9, n.45.
    \284\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Miscellaneous
    One commenter stated that the Commission failed to address data
security concerns associated with the CAT,\285\ and that the Commission
is rushing to approve the Proposed Amendment without careful
consideration.\286\ The commenter also argued that the Commission is
prematurely moving forward with the Proposed Amendment while
simultaneously considering revisions of the rules governing equity and
options market structure and proceeding with other proposals that will
impose costs on Industry Members.\287\ The commenter stated that
``[t]he unequitable distribution of CAT costs contemplated by the
Funding Proposal will exacerbate these problems, harming the
functioning of U.S. securities markets.'' \288\ The commenter argued
that the Commission cannot determine whether the proposed allocation of
costs is equitable without assessing the distribution of costs and
benefits under the other pending proposals.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ See SIFMA June 2023 Letter at 2.
    \286\ Id. at 3.
    \287\ Id.
    \288\ Id.
    \289\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proceedings to Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Amendment

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\290\ and Rules 700 and 701 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice,\291\ to determine whether to disapprove
the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment with any
changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or
appropriate. The Commission is instituting proceedings to have
sufficient time to consider the complex issues raised by Proposed
Amendment, including comments received. Institution of proceedings does
not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
Proposed Amendment to inform the Commission's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \291\ 17 CFR 201.700; 17 CFR 201.701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that 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 such 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 Exchange Act.'' \292\ Rule 608(b)(2)
further provides that the Commission shall disapprove a national market
system plan or proposed amendment if it does not make such a
finding.\293\ In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on the
Proposed Amendment, including whether the Proposed Amendment is
consistent with the Exchange Act.\294\ In this order, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\295\ the Commission is providing notice
of the grounds for disapproval under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \293\ Id.
    \294\ See Notice, supra note 6.
    \295\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the
Participants have demonstrated how 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 Exchange Act; \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \297\ and Section
15A(b)(5),\298\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities'' and that the rules of a
national securities association ``provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers
and other persons using any facility or system which the association
operates or controls;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \298\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \299\ and Section
15A(b)(6),\300\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange or national securities association
``promote just and equitable principles of trade. . . protect investors
and the public interest; and [to be] not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \300\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) \301\ and Section
15A(b)(9) \302\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange or national securities association ``do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of [the Exchange Act];'' and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \301\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \302\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with the funding principles of the CAT
NMS Plan that are not proposed to be amended by the Proposed Amendment,
which principles state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among
other things, ``to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for
the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build,
operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company,''
\303\ ``to provide for ease of billing and other administrative

functions,'' \304\ ``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality,'' \305\ and ``to build financial stability to support the
Company as a going concern.'' \306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 1, at Section 11.2(a).
    \304\ Id. at Section 11.2(d).
    \305\ Id. at Section 11.2(e).
    \306\ Id. at Section 11.2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder. . . is on the plan
participants that filed the NMS plan filing.'' \307\ The description of
the NMS plan filing, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding.\308\ 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 the NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rules and regulations thereunder.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 17 CFR 201.701(b)(3)(ii).
    \308\ Id.
    \309\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the Proposed Amendment. In particular, the Commission invites the
written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed
Amendment is consistent with Section 11A, Section 6(b)(4), Section
6(b)(5), Section 6(b)(8), Section 15A(b)(5), Section 15A(b)(6), Section
15A(b)(9), or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder, or the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\310\ any request for an opportunity to
make an oral presentation.\311\ The Commission asks that commenters
address the sufficiency and merit of the Participants' statements in
support of the Proposed Amendment,\312\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule changes. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \311\ Rule 700(c)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(ii).
    \312\ See Notice, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Commenters' views on any questions in the Solicitation of
Comments Section of the Order Instituting Proceedings related to a
prior funding model amendment that are relevant to the Proposed
Amendment; \313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95634 (Aug. 30,
2022), 87 FR 54558, 54577-79 (Sept. 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commenters' views on whether the proposed definition of ``CAT
Executing Broker'' is clear and whether identification of those brokers
who meet the definition is easily available through CAT Data; and
    3. Commenters' views on the incentives of the Participants to
control Prospective CAT Costs.
    The Commission also requests that commenters provide analysis to
support their views, if possible.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the Proposed Amendment should be approved
or disapproved by July 14, 2023. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
July 28, 2023. 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 protected]. Please include
file number 4-698 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number 4-698. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number 4-698 and should be submitted on or before
July 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13340 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Navari First: Letter from David Navari, Oct. 26, 2015.
Navari Second: Letter from David Navari, Dec. 15, 2015.
Navari Third: Letter from David Navari, Feb. 22, 2016.
Newman: Letter from Lance Newman, Dec. 15, 2015.
Nicholas: Letter from Patrick Nicholas, Apr. 20, 2016.
Nicolas F.: Letter from Nicolas F., Dec. 10, 2015.
Nispel First: Letter from Mark Nispel, Ph.D., Dec. 10, 2015.
Nispel Second: Letter from Mark Nispel, Ph.D, Dec. 14, 2015.
Nixon: Letter from Kasumi Nixon, Jan. 14, 2016.
Noack: Letter from Jared Noack, Dec. 12, 2015.
Noakes: Letter from Nate Noakes, Dec. 15, 2015.
Norges Bank: Letter from Oeyvind G. Schanke, CIO, Asset Strategies,
and Simon Emrich, Lead Analyst, Norges Bank Investment Management,
Dec. 16, 2015.
Nye: Letter from Joseph J. Nye, Dec. 15, 2015.
NYSE First: Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 12, 2015.
NYSE Second: Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, Feb. 8, 2016.
NYSE Third: Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel & Secretary,
New York Stock Exchange, Apr. 18, 2016.
NYSE Fourth: Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel &
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, Apr. 27, 2016.
NYSTRS: Letter from Thomas Lee, Executive Director and Chief
Investment Officer, and Fred Herrmann, Managing Director of Public
Equities, New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Feb. 26, 2016.
O'Connor Letter from Peter O'Connor, Dec. 14, 2015.
O'Malley: Letter from William J. O'Malley, Feb. 5, 2016.
O'Neill: Letter from Robert O'Neill, Dec. 19, 2015.
Odom: Letter from Terry Odom, Feb. 23, 2016.
Olson: Letter from Greg Olson, Dec. 14, 2015.
Oltean: Letter from Ieronim Oltean, Dec. 10, 2015.
Oorjitham: Letter from Jeyan D. Oorjitham, Jan. 30, 2016.
Oppenheimer Funds: Letter from Krishna Memant, Executive Vice
President & Chief Investment Officer, George R. Evans, Senior Vice
President & Chief Investment Officer of Equities, Keith Spencer,
Head of Equity Trading & Senior Vice President, and John Boydell,
Manager of Equity Trading & Vice President, OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
Nov. 5, 2015.
Papas: Letter from Gregory P. Papas, Dec. 16, 2015.
Park: Letter from Danielle Park, Dec. 10, 2015.
Parks: Letter from Gaelle Parks, Dec. 14, 2015.
Patton C.: Letter from Charles D. Patton, Dec. 14, 2015.
Patton H.D.: Letter from H.D. Patton, Dec. 14, 2015.
Paulikot: Letter from Cameron F. Paulikot, Jan. 12, 2016.
Pavkovic: Letter from Ivan Pavkovic, Dec. 17, 2015.
PDQ Enterprises: Letter from D. Keith Ross, Jr., Chairman and CEO,
PDQ Enterprises, LLC, Mar. 16, 2016.
Peck: Letter from Bob Peck, Dec. 30, 2015.
Penkman: Letter from David Penkman, Dec. 14, 2015.
Peppers: Letter from Emmet Peppers, Dec. 10, 2015.
Phelps: Letter from Robert C. Phelps, Dec. 13, 2015.
Philip: Letter from Richard Philip, Ph.D., Lecturer of Finance,
University of Sydney, Feb. 9, 2016.
Phillips: Letter from Jeff Phillips, Dec. 17, 2015.
Pierce: Letter from William E. Pierce, Dec. 15, 2015.
Place: Letter from James C. Place, Mar. 16, 2016.
Plant: Letter from Phillip M. Plant, Jan. 8, 2016.
Poots: Letter from Emanuel Poots, Dec. 20, 2015.
Powell: Letter from David R. Powell, Jan. 5, 2016.
Pratt: Letter from William Pratt, Dec. 11, 2015.
Prihodka: Letter from Jonathan M. Prihodka, Feb. 8, 2016.
Prosser G.: Letter from Gabriel Prosser, Feb. 18, 2016.
Prosser W.: Letter from Warren Prosser, Feb. 2, 2016.
Proto: Letter from Paul E. Proto, Feb. 3, 2016.
PSRS/PEERS: Letter from Craig A. Husting, Chief Investment Officer,
Public School & Education Employee Retirement Systems of Missouri,
Mar. 22, 2016.
Punt: Letter from Ryan L. Punt, Dec. 10, 2015.
Quinlan: Letter from Michael Quinlan, Dec. 13, 2015.
Rademaker: Letter from Jaap Rademaker, Dec. 23, 2015.
Rainbeau: Letter from David Rainbeau, Dec. 10, 2015.
Raju: Letter from Muralidhara Raju, Mar. 1, 2016.
Ramirez First: Letter from Joe Ramirez, Dec. 10, 2015.
Ramirez Second: Letter from Joe Ramirez, Dec. 12, 2015.
Rayner: Letter from Geoff Rayner, Jan. 14, 2016.
Reich: Letter from Kyle Reich, Dec. 11, 2015.
Renterman: Letter from Lemco Renterman, Dec. 14, 2015.
Reynoso: Letter from J.W. Reynoso, Dec. 10, 2015.
Robeson: Letter from Paul Robeson, Jan. 8, 2016.
Romani: Letter from Marina Romani, Mar. 17, 2016.
Romer: Letter from Chris Romer, Mar. 25, 2016.
Rosson: Letter from Joseph C. Rosson, Sr., Dec. 14, 2015.
Rothschild: Letter from Evan Rothschild, Dec. 14, 2015.
Rowley: Letter from Robert P. Rowley, Jan. 5, 2016.
Rundle: Letter from John B. Rundle, Professor of Physics, University
of California, Davis, Dec. 31, 2015.
Sadera: Letter from Ernest Sadera, Dec. 16, 2015.
Sakato: Letter from Stacius Sakato, Feb. 15, 2016.
Sanitate: Letter from Frank Sanitate, Dec. 14, 2015.
Sarly: Letter from Alex E. Sarly, Mar. 18, 2016.
Scalici: Letter from Giovanni Scalici, Dec. 11, 2015.
Schlinger: Letter from Charles M. Schlinger, Dec. 15, 2015.
Schroeder M.: Letter from Michael A. Schroeder, Jan. 8, 2016.
Schroeder R. First: Letter from Roy Schroeder, Dec. 11, 2015.
Schroeder R. Second: Letter from Roy Schroeder, Dec. 13, 2015.
Schroeder R. Third: Letter from Roy Schroeder, Dec. 14, 2015.
Schwarz: Letter from Robert Schwarz, Jan. 8, 2016.
Schwefel: Letter from Scott Schwefel, Dec. 11, 2015.
Scott: Letter from Representative David Scott, Feb. 1, 2016.
Seabolt: Letter from Louie H. Seabolt, Feb. 22, 2016.
Seal: Letter from Matthew Seal, Dec. 11, 2015.
Seals: Letter from Devin F. Seals, Dec. 19, 2015.
Secrist: Letter from Kyle Secrist, Dec. 9, 2015.
Sethi: Letter from Rajiv Sethi, Professor of Economics, Barnard
College, Columbia University, Jan. 3, 2016.
Sevcik: Letter from Karel Sevcik, Dec. 14, 2015.
Seward: Letter from William Seward, Jan. 3, 2016.

Shamess: Letter from Albie Shamess, Dec. 11, 2015.
Shapurjee: Letter from Rohintan Shapurjee, Feb. 2, 2016.
Shatto First: Letter from Suzanne Shatto, Oct. 7, 2015.
Shatto Second: Letter from Suzanne Shatto, Nov. 16, 2015.
Shatto Third: Letter from Suzanne Shatto, Dec. 7, 2015.
Shatto Fourth: Letter from Suzanne Shatto, Jan. 26, 2016.
Shaw: Letter from Robert Shaw, Jan. 21, 2016.
Sherman: Letter from Representative Brad Sherman, Mar. 7, 2016.
Sillcox: Letter from Robert L. Sillcox, Dec. 14, 2015.
Silva: Letter from Lucas S. Silva, Dec. 14, 2015.
Silver: Letter from David Silver, Feb. 8, 2016.
Simonelis: Letter from Alex Simonelis, Sep. 22, 2015.
Sinclair: Letter from Karen Sinclair, Mar. 15, 2016.
Sjoding: Letter from David W. Sjoding, Mar. 8, 2016.
Slosberg: Letter from Daniel D. Slosberg, Dec. 13, 2015.
Smith C.: Letter from Cale Smith, Jan. 23, 2016.
Smith G.: Letter from Gennifer Smith, Feb. 7, 2016.
Smith J.: Letter from James S. Smith, Dec. 10, 2015.
Smith N.: Letter from Nate Smith, Mar. 10, 2016.
Southeastern: Letter from O. Mason Hawkins, Chairman & CEO, Richard
W. Hussey, Principal & COO, Deborah L. Craddock, Principal & Head of
Trading, Jeffrey D. Engelberg, Principal & Senior Trader, and W.
Douglas Schrank, Principal & Senior Trader, Southeastern Asset
Management, Inc., Sep. 30, 2015.
Spear: Letter from Thomas C. Spear, Feb. 2, 2016.
Squires: Letter from Anthony Squires, Dec. 18, 2015.
Stanton: Letter from Carol A. Stanton, Feb. 22, 2016.
Stearns: Letter from Ian Stearns, Dec. 14, 2015.
Stehura: Letter from Tom Stehura, Feb. 2, 2016.
Stein J.: Letter from Jonathan Stein, Dec. 31, 2015.
Stein N.: Letter from Nicholas C. Stein, Jan. 6, 2016.
Steinham: Letter from Jackson Steinham, Dec. 11, 2015.
Stephens: Letter from Barry Stephens, Dec. 10, 2015.
Stevenin: Letter from Cynthia Stevenin, Dec. 10, 2015.
Stevens E.: Letter from Eric J. Stevens, Dec. 13, 2015.
Stevens J.: Letter from John Stevens, Dec. 27, 2015.
Stevens X.: Letter from Xavier Stevens, Dec. 9, 2015.
Stoesser: Letter from James C. Stoesser, Dec. 14, 2015.
Stork: Letter from Benjamin M. Stork, Mar. 27, 2016.
Street: Letter from Carol Street, Feb. 10, 2016.
Strom: Letter from Marlys Strom, Dec. 18, 2015.
Strongilis: Letter from Ioannis D. Strongilis, Dec. 12, 2015.
Sullivan: Letter from Brian S. Sullivan, Jan. 3, 2016.
Summers: Letter from Timothy Summers, Dec. 13, 2015.
T. Rowe Price: Letter from Clive Williams, Vice President and Global
Head of Trading, Andrew M. Brooks, Vice President and Head of U.S.
Equity Trading, and Christopher P. Hayes, Vice President and Legal
Counsel, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., Dec. 24, 2015.
TABB: Letter from Larry Tabb, CEO, TABB Group, Nov. 23, 2015.
Themis First: Letter from Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Themis Trading
LLC, Nov. 3, 2015.
Themis Second: Letter from Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Themis Trading
LLC, Jan. 27, 2016.
Themis Third: Letter from Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Themis Trading
LLC, Mar. 10, 2016.
Thielmann: Letter from Todd Thielmann, Dec. 20, 2015.
Thomas: Letter from Jon Thomas, Dec. 19, 2015.
Thompson: Letter from Johnna S. Thompson, Dec. 18, 2015.
Tidwell: Letter from Leslie A. Tidwell, Jan. 22, 2016.
Tondreau: Letter from Claire L. Tondreau, Dec. 14, 2015.
Trainor: Letter from Daniel Trainor, Dec. 14, 2015.
Trirogoff: Letter from Ed Trirogoff, Mar. 28, 2016.
TRS: Letter from Britt Harris, Chief Investment Officer, and Bernie
Bozzelli, Head Trader, The Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Jan.
13, 2016.
Turner: Letter from Kyle Turner, Dec. 13, 2015.
Tyson: Letter from Jon Tyson, Ph.D., May 11, 2016.
Upson: Letter from James E. Upson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Finance, University of Texas at El Paso, Jan. 14, 2016.
Vaughan: Letter from James Vaughan, Dec. 10, 2015.
Verchere: Letter from David Verchere, Dec. 10, 2015.
Verret: Letter from J.W. Verret, Assistant Professor of Law, George
Mason University School of Law, Nov. 20, 2015.
Virtu: Letter from Douglas A. Cifu, Chief Executive Officer, Virtu
Financial, Nov. 6, 2015.
Walworth: Letter from Andrew Walworth, Mar. 11, 2016.
Warneka: Letter from Patrick J. Warneka, Dec. 15, 2015.
Warren: Letter from Joseph Warren, Dec. 13, 2015.
Watson: Letter from Lane C. Watson, Dec. 15, 2015.
Wayne: Letter from Anthony Wayne, Dec. 18, 2015.
Weldon First: Letter from Kevin J. Weldon, Dec. 15, 2015.
Weldon Second: Letter from Kevin M. Weldon, Apr. 20, 2016.
Wichman: Letter from Paul K. Wichman, Dec. 17, 2015.
Wilcox: Letter from Richard C. Wilcox, Dec. 13, 2015.
Williams: Letter from Bruce A. Williams, Dec. 10, 2015.
Wills: Letter from Dennis Wills, Dec. 14, 2015.
Wolberg: Letter from Jay Wolberg, Dec. 11, 2015.
Wolfe: Letter from Brian A. Wolfe, Assistant Professor of Finance,
The State University of New York, University at Buffalo School of
Management, Feb. 12, 2016.
Workman: Letter from Michael R. Workman, Jan. 10, 2016.
Wright: Letter from Fred W. Wright, Dec. 16, 2015.
WSIB/OST: Letter from Marcie Frost, Chair, Washington State
Investment Board and James L. McIntire, Washington State Treasurer/
Board Member, May 5, 2016.
Yeoumans: Letter from Dr. Jerry Yeoumans, Jan. 3, 2016.
Young P.: Letter from Patrick L. Young, Nov. 2, 2015.
Young R.: Letter from Robert Young, Apr. 2, 2016.
Zevin Asset Management: Letter from Robert Zevin, Chairman, Zevin
Asset Management LLC, Jan. 8, 2016.
Zoeger: Letter from Linda Zoeger, Feb. 8, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2016-14875 Filed 6-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ATTACHMENT - SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

   SIP Submitted by:

     Date Submitted:                Subject:     Confirmation of
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 8-Hour ozone NAAQS Requirments in the Current Alabama
SIP

110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements Checklist – Alabama

Section 110(a) element	Summary of element	How Addressed in Submittal

§110(a)(2)(A)	include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.	State
confirmed adequate in their letter.

335-3-1-.03 “Ambient Air Quality Standards” - emission limits for
ozone, schedule for compliance

335-3-1-.05 “Sampling and Testing Methods” – means and techniques

335-3-1-.06 “Compliance Schedule” – schedule for compliance

§110(a)(2)(B)	provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile,
and analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon request, make such
data available to the Administrator;  	State confirmed adequate in their
letter.

335-3-1-.04 “Monitoring, Records, and Reporting”

335-3-1-.05 “Sampling and Test Methods”

§110(a)(2)(C)	include a program to provide for the enforcement of the
measures described in subparagraph (A) and regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air
quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required
in parts C and D;	State confirmed adequate in their letter.

335-3-14-.04 “Prevention of Signification Deterioration in
Permitting”

335-2-14-.05 “Air Permits Authorizing Construction in or Near
Non-attainment Areas”

§110(a)(2)(D)	contain adequate provisions—

   (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--

     (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or

     (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility,

  (ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement);	State confirmed adequate in their letter.

Alabama’s CAIR rule was published on October 1, 2007.

Prong 4 – draft Regional Haze SIP was submitted to EPA November 2007.

§110(a)(2)(E)(i)	provide

   (i) necessary assurances that the state (or, except where the
Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government
or governments, or a regional agency designated by the state or general
purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state (and, as appropriate,
local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such
implementation plan or portion thereof);	Yes.

§110(a)(2)(E)(ii)	(ii) requirements that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and	Yes.

§110(a)(2)(E)(iii)	(iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for
the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision;	SIP is
adequate because it does not rely upon local or regional governments.

§110(a)(2)(F)	require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator—

   (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and
the implementation of other necessary steps by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources,

   (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such sources, and

   (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this Act,
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public
inspection;  	State confirmed adequate in their letter.

Chapter 335-3-12

§110(a)(2)(G)	provide for authority comparable to that in section 303
and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority;	State
confirmed adequate in their letter.

335-3-2-.02(f)

§110(a)(2)(H)	provide for revision of such plan—

    (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and

   (iii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the
national ambient air quality standard which it implements, or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under this
Act;  	Yes.  Submitted with each SIP revision.                         .

§110(a)(2)(I)	in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of
part D (relating to nonattainment areas);	Yes.

§110(a)(2)(J)

(§ 121 consultation)

	meet the applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to
consultation), …	Yes.  Included in official SIP submittals.

§110(a)(2)(J)

(Section 127 public notification)	meet the applicable requirements of
section 7427 of this title,	Yes.  Included in official SIP submittals.

335-3-14-.01(7) “Public Participation”

335-3-14-.05 “Air Permits Authorizing Construction in or near
Nonattainment Areas”

§110(a)(2)(J)

(PSD)	meet the applicable requirements of … part C (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection);	Yes.

335-3-14

§110(a)(2)(K)

	provide for:

   (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator
may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and

   (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator;	State confirmed adequate in their
letter.

335-3-1-.04 “Monitoring, Records, and Reporting”

335-3-4-.04 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (11) “Air
Quality Models”

§110(a)(2)(L)

require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to
the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under
this Act, a fee sufficient to cover—

   (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application
for such a permit, and

    (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the
reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions
of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval
of a fee program under title V; 	State confirmed adequate in their
letter.  Part of State regulations.  Not approved in Federal SIP.

§110(a)(2)(M)

	provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the plan.	State confirmed adequate in their
letter.

335-3-17-.01

§§110(a)(2)(C) & 110(a)(2)(J)	Part C Permit program:

§110(a)(2)(J) meet the applicable requirements of … part C (relating
to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection);

§110(a)(2)(C) …  regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary
to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved,
including a permit program as required in parts C and D;

40 CFR 51.166:  Amend PSD regulations as required by the November 29,
2005 final rule (70 FR 71612 at 71699-71700).  See also 70 FR
71671-71684.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 69057]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2687-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Chisholm View
Wind Project II, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Chisholm View Wind Project II, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 19, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24110 Filed 10-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P