\206\ See Angel Letter, supra note 168, at 3.
    \207\ See id. at 9.
    \208\ See Cutler Group Letter, supra note 134, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission has found that the Filing
Participants have not justified the rationale they have used to set the
proposed fees for auction information, and therefore it is not
necessary for the Commission to make a finding about the absolute level
of the proposed fees.
    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
fees for Auction Data provide for the distribution of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms that
are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory consistent
with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS. Thus, the Commission cannot find
that, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 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.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users
    For each of the three categories of data described above, the
Filing Participants propose a Professional Subscriber Charge and a
Nonprofessional Subscriber Charge. With respect to Level 1 Core Data,
the Filing Participants propose to charge the same Professional
Subscriber and Nonprofessional Subscriber fees for the new Level 1 Core
Data product under the distributed consolidation model as are charged
for the existing Level 1 Core Data SIP data product that the Plans
generate and disseminate. With respect to depth-of-book data,
Professional Subscribers would pay $99.00 per device per month for each
Network's data,\210\ and Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $4.00
per subscriber per month for each Network's depth-of-book data.\211\
The Filing Participants are not proposing per-quote packet charges or
enterprise rates for either Professional Subscribers or Nonprofessional
Subscribers use of depth-of-book data.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67518.
    \211\ See id. The Filing Participants applied the 3.94x ratio to
the current fees charged for Nonprofessional Subscribers taking all
three Networks ($3.00). This resulted in the total fee level for
depth-of-book data for Nonprofessional Subscribers equaling $12.00
(i.e., $3.00 x 3.94 = $11.82, rounded to $12.00). This fee was then
split evenly among the three Networks, resulting in a proposed
Nonprofessional Subscriber fee of $4.00 per Network. See id. at
67520.
    \212\ See id. at 67518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to auction information, both Professional Subscribers
and Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $10.00 per device/subscriber
per month for each Network's auction information data.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters, including a Non-Supporting Participant, question
the classification of fees by professional or non-professional user
type under the Proposed Amendments.\214\ One commenter states that it
is unreasonably discriminatory to charge non-professional users the
same fees as professional users for auction data because professionals
make far more use of the data,\215\ and that the filing contains no
justification as to why the Filing Participants propose to charge
professionals the same as non-professionals for auction data.\216\ One
commenter opposes non-professional and professional user
classifications on the grounds that they prevent competing
consolidators from being able to offer products at competitive prices
compared to the proprietary data feeds.\217\ One commenter states that
the inclusion of multiple tiers, user types with bespoke definitions,
and high compliance costs does not amount to fair and reasonable terms
and in fact unreasonably discriminates against competing consolidators
who seek to bring competition, innovation, and broader access to
consolidated market data.\218\ According to the commenter, simplifying
the pricing structure to allow for enterprise caps at multiple tiers
should be considered, along with easier-to-track proxies for usage
based on data already reported by firms or other existing regulatory
reporting.\219\ Another commenter suggests slowing down the data feeds
by 15 milliseconds to mitigate the risk of professionals
``masquerading'' as non-professionals utilizing the cheaper data.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See Angel Letter, supra note 168; BlackRock Letter, supra
note 57; MIAX Letter, supra note 57; Polygon.io Letter I, supra note
126, at 2-3; MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57.
    \215\ See Angel Letter, supra note 168, at 9-10.
    \216\ See id. at 10.
    \217\ See Polygon.io Letter I, supra note 126, at 2-3.
    \218\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57, at 8.
    \219\ See id.
    \220\ See Angel Letter, supra note 168, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters support moderately priced or free non-professional
user fees. Two Non-Supporting Participants support the proposed low
fees for non-professional users.\221\ One commenter supports the
proposed ``moderately priced'' non-professional rate for depth-of-book
information because this aspect of the proposal ``levels the playing
field'' for retail investors by providing them with access to the same
information that is available to professionals traders at an affordable
price, which will help broaden adoption of this new category of
data.\222\ Another commenter states that free or moderately priced non-
professional data, including depth-of-book and auction data, is in the
best interest of brokers and exchanges because it may increase retail
order flow and thus profits into the industry.\223\ The commenter
further states that free or moderately priced non-professional data is
in the best interest of the Commission as well, because providing
``better data to retail investors at low cost will reduce the amount of
SEC resources devoted to dealing with complaints based on
misunderstandings of market function.'' \224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 2; MEMX Letter, supra
note 57, at 3.
    \222\ BlackRock Letter, supra note 57, at 1, 3.
    \223\ See Angel Letter, supra note 168, at 11.
    \224\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Filing Participant states that distinguishing between
professional and non-professional subscribers is fair, as well as
efficient.\225\ According to this commenter, professional fees are
higher than those for non-professionals because professionals realize
greater value from the data than non-professionals.\226\ The commenter
states that applying the same fees to both categories would result
either in low-value users subsidizing high-value users, or in fees that
are not economically sustainable for producers.\227\ According to the
commenter, setting professional and non-professional fees based on the
value of the data is efficient, fair, and well established by the
industry, and setting those fees based on cost is likely to be
unworkable.\228\ Another Filing Participant states that it is fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonable discriminatory for ``Wall Street to
pay higher fees than Main Street.'' \229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See Nasdaq Letter II, supra note 75, at 3.
    \226\ See id. The commenter further states that Non-
Professionals are provided a discount to encourage their use of the
data. See id.
    \227\ See Nasdaq Letter II, supra note 75, at 3.
    \228\ See id.
    \229\ NYSE Letter, supra note 71, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific fees proposed, one Non-Supporting

Participant states that the proposed professional user fees are based
on a flawed methodology that results in excessive fee levels that would
discourage firms from registering as competing consolidators and would
hinder the formation of the decentralized consolidation model that the
MDI Rules seeks to create.\230\ Another Non-Supporting Participant
states that the proposed fees are ``plagued by double counting and
other significant issues'' that raise questions about the process used
to design the Proposed Amendments.\231\ For example, this commenter
states that, as proposed, the $70 Professional User fee for depth-of-
book information comes with access only to aggregated depth-of-book
information and does not include top-of-book information, even though
the calculation of that fee is based on a depth-of book product that
includes top-of-book information.\232\ This, the commenter states, ``is
straightforward double counting, plain and simple.'' \233\ The
commenter also states that while auction information is included in the
depth-of-book feed used to calculate the proposed fees, the proposal
also charges additional fees, including Professional and Non-
Professional Fees, for auction information.\234\ The commenter states
that even exchanges that offer separate feeds for auction information
generally do not charge Professional user fees.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 4.
    \231\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 10.
    \232\ See id. at 12. According to the commenter, the value of
top-of-book information is therefore already embedded in the cost
proposed for depth-of-book information. See id.
    \233\ See id.
    \234\ See id. at 13-14.
    \235\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Non-Supporting Participant states that the proposed non-
professional user fees were a step in the right direction, but points
out that, while the proposed fees would be lower for the limited subset
of Non-Professional users that consume depth-of-book quotation
information, the proposed fees are higher than the fees currently
charged for proprietary data products that offer similar
information.\236\ This commenter adds that, even where the proposed
fees are lower than the fees charged for comparable proprietary data--
as is the case for Non-Professional users--the fact that the other fees
are higher than proprietary offerings is likely to reduce incentives
for competing consolidators to actually offer that data content to
their customers.\237\ According to the commenter, there is unlikely to
be any demand for the new data elements included in consolidated market
data at prices that exceed the fees charged for proprietary data feeds
today.\238\ In response to this commenter, a Filing Participant argues
that this analysis does not account for the fact that purchasers of the
new data would be receiving a consolidated data product that aggregates
all exchanges' data together to determine an NBBO and the five best
levels of depth among all the exchanges and that the analysis
disregards that the Proposed Amendment includes much lower fees for
non-professionals.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ See id. at 7.
    \237\ See id. at 9.
    \238\ See id. at 17. The commenter further states that the
Operating Committees should analyze whether it is fair and
reasonable to continue to charge professional and non-professional
user fees that exceed the fees charges for similar proprietary
market data. See id.
    \239\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 71, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the Filing Participants have not
demonstrated that the proposed fees for professional and non-
professional subscribers are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory. With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Filing
Participants state they are not proposing to change the Professional
Subscriber and Nonprofessional Subscriber fees currently set forth in
the Plans. But, as discussed above,\240\ in the context of the MDI
Rules, the Proposed Amendment is in fact proposing fees applicable to a
new data product--the data content underlying the top-of-book data
product to be collected, consolidated, and disseminated by competing
consolidators--that differs both with respect to content and
administrative expense from the existing top-of-book product generated
and disseminated by the exclusive SIP. In taking the position that they
are not proposing to do more than add content to the existing Level 1
Core Data product offered by the exclusive SIP, however, the Filing
Participants have not even attempted to explain or justify how the
proposed Professional and Non Professional Fees for the new Level 1
Core Data satisfy the statutory standard of being fair, reasonable and
not unreasonably discriminatory.'' \241\ Significantly, the Filing
Participants have not taken into account that the current
consolidation, processing, and dissemination expenses incurred by the
Equity Data Plans would be inapplicable to the data content underlying
consolidated data offered through the new Level 1 Core Data product to
be collected, consolidated, and disseminated by competing
consolidators.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See supra Section IV.C.1.
    \241\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 11, 86 FR at 18684.
    \242\ See id. at 18682 (stating that ``the proposed new fees
[filed pursuant to Rule 614(e)] will need to reflect . . . that the
effective national market system plan(s) is no longer operating the
exclusive SIPs and is no longer performing collection,
consolidation, and dissemination functions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to depth-of-book data, the Filing Participants have
not demonstrated that the proposed Professional and Non Professional
depth-of-book fees are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The Filing Participants have attempted to justify the
proposed Professional and Non-Professional fees for depth-of-book data
by using the same multiplier (i.e., 3.94x) employed to calculate the
proposed fees for data content underlying consolidated depth-of-book
offerings,\243\ but, as explained in detail above, the Filing
Participants have not demonstrated that the use of this multiplier is
appropriate in the first place because, among other things, the
proprietary depth-of-book feeds contain top-of-book data and auction
information, which the data content underlying consolidated depth-of-
book feed would lack, leading to ``double-counting,'' as several
commenters have pointed out.\244\ In addition, with respect to auction
information, other than describing the proposal, explaining the
methodology used to generate the proposed fees,\245\ and arguing that
the resulting fees are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory, the Filing Participants have not attempted to explain
or otherwise justify why it is fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory to set both the Professional Subscribers and
Nonprofessional Subscribers fee at the same rate of $10.00 per device
per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ See supra note 211.
    \244\ See supra Section IV.C.2 for a discussion on issues
associated with the application of the multiplier used by the Filing
Participants to generate certain proposed fees.
    \245\ See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67517-18, 67520-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
fees for professional and non-professional users provide for the
distribution of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks on terms that are fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation
NMS. Thus, the Commission cannot find that, consistent with Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS, 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.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Fees for Non-Display Use
    The Filing Participants propose Non-Display Use fees relating to
the three categories of data described above: (1) Level 1 Core Data;
(2) depth-of-book data; and (3) auction information. With respect to
Level 1 Core Data, the Filing Participants propose to apply the Non-
Display Use fees currently set forth in the Plans to the data content
underlying consolidated market data in the new Level 1 Core Data data
product to be offered by the competing consolidators \247\ for each of
the three categories of Non-Display Use.\248\ With respect to depth-of-
book data, Subscribers would pay Non-Display Use Fees of $12,477.00 per
month for each category of Non-Display Use per Network.\249\ With
respect to auction information, Subscribers would pay Non-Display Use
fees of $1,248.00 per month for each category of Non-Display Use per
Network.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ See Exhibit E to the CTA Plan; Section IX(b)(ii) of the CQ
Plan.
    \248\ The Filing Participants propose that access to odd-lot
information would be made available to Level 1 Core Data subscribers
for the same fees currently charged for Level 1 Core Data provided
by the exclusive SIP. See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67518. See
also supra note 35 (describing the three categories of Non-Display
Use recognized under Exhibit E to the CTA Plan).
    \249\ See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67518.
    \250\ The Filing Participants state that, as is the case today,
Subscribers would be charged for each category of use of depth-of-
book data and auction information. See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR
at 67518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters, including a Non-Supporting Participant, state that
the proposed Non-Display Use fees result in excessive fee levels that
would discourage firms from registering as competing consolidators,
thereby hindering the formation of the decentralized consolidation
model that the MDI Rules seeks to create.\251\ One commenter states
that the fees in the Proposed Amendment, including the non-display
fees, would place competing consolidators at a disadvantage because
they will not be able to offer products at prices competitive with
those of proprietary feeds.\252\ One commenter asks that the Commission
reject the Proposed Amendment and any future proposal that maintains
display/non-display classifications.\253\ The commenter states that, if
the Proposed Amendment is not rejected, competing consolidators will
not be able to offer products at competitive prices to proprietary data
feeds.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 3; Polygon.io Letter I,
supra note 126, at 2-3.
    \252\ See Cutler Group Letter, supra note 134, at 1-2.
    \253\ See Polygon.io Letter I, supra note 126, at 2.
    \254\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Filing Participant states that distinguishing between Display
and Non-Display use is fair, as well as efficient.\255\ According to
this commenter, algorithms, dark pools, and electronic traders pay
higher fees than human professionals because they realize greater value
from the data.\256\ The commenter argues that, because Non-Display
users realize greater value from the use of market data than Display
users, applying the same fees to both categories would result either in
low-value users subsidizing high-value users or fees that are not
economically sustainable for producers.\257\ The commenter states that
the Proposed Amendment thus sets the Display Fee and Non-Display Fee
according to the value of the data, which is efficient, fair, and well-
established in the industry both nationally and globally.\258\
According to the commenter, any alternative based solely on cost is
likely to be unworkable.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ See Nasdaq Letter II, supra note 75, at 3.
    \256\ See id.
    \257\ See id.
    \258\ See id. at 2.
    \259\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not explained or justified how the
proposed Non-Display Fees are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory. With respect to the new Level 1 Core Data, the Filing
Participants state they are proposing to charge the same fees for Non-
Display Use of Level 1 data that are currently set forth in the Plans
with respect to data disseminated by the exclusive SIP. But, as
discussed above,\260\ in the context of the MDI Rules the Proposed
Amendment is in fact proposing fees applicable to a new data product--
the top-of-book data product to be collected, consolidated, and
disseminated by competing consolidators--that differs both with respect
to content and administrative expense from the existing top-of-book
product generated and disseminated by the exclusive SIP. In taking the
position that they have not proposed to do more than add content to the
existing Level 1 product offered by the exclusive SIP, however, the
Filing Participants have not even attempted to explain how the proposed
Non-Display Use fees for Level 1 Core Data satisfy the statutory
standard of being fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory.\261\ Significantly, the Filing Participants have not
taken into account that the current consolidation, processing, and
dissemination expenses incurred by the Equity Data Plans would be
inapplicable to the data content underlying the new Level 1 products to
be offered by competing consolidators.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ See supra Section IV.C.1.
    \261\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 11, 86 FR at 18684.
    \262\ See supra note 242 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the content underlying depth-of-book data, the
Filing Participants state that they applied the 3.94x multiplier to the
current fees charged for Non-Display Use for all three Networks,
resulting in a proposed Non-Display Use fee of $12.477.00 per
Network.\263\ With respect to depth-of-book data, the Filing
Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed Non-Display Use
fees are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. The
Filing Participants have attempted to justify the proposed Non-Display
Use fees for depth-of-book data by using the same multiplier (i.e.,
3.94x) employed to calculate the proposed fees for the data underlying
the consolidated depth-of-book feed, but, as explained in detail above,
the Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the use of this
multiplier is appropriate in the first place because, among other
things, the proprietary depth-of-book feeds contain top-of-book data
and auction information, which the consolidated depth-of-book feed
would lack, leading to ``double-counting,'' as several commenters have
pointed out.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67520.
    \264\ See supra Section IV.C.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to auction information, Filing Participants propose
that Subscribers would pay Non-Display Use fees of $1,248.00 per month
for each category of Non-Display Use per Network.\265\ The Filing
Participants state that, as is the case today, Subscribers would be
charged for each category of non-display use of auction
information.\266\ The Filing Participants, however, have not explained
the basis for the proposed Non-Display Use fees for auction
information, and the Commission therefore has no basis on which it can
find that the proposed fees are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory. And even if the unstated rationale is that the

proposed fees are 10% of the proposed Non-Display Use fees for depth-
of-book data--consistent with the derivation of auction information
fees from the fees for the content underlying depth-of-book data--that
rationale would suffer from the same weaknesses as the rationale
underlying the proposed fees for Non-Display Use of depth-of-book data
and for the content underlying depth-of-book data. The Filing
Participants have not demonstrated that is fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory to calculate the fees by comparison to the
current charges for proprietary depth-of-book products, which are
substantially different products than those at issue in the Proposed
Amendment.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ The Filing Participants state that, as is the case today,
Subscribers would be charged for each category of use of depth-of-
book data and auction information. See Notice supra note 6, 86 FR at
67518.
    \266\ See supra note 35 (describing the categories of Non-
Display Uses recognized under Exhibit E to the CTA Plan).
    \267\ See supra Section IV.C.2 for a discussion on issues
associated with the application of the multiplier used by the Filing
Participants to generate certain proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
fees for Non-Display Use provide for the distribution of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms
that are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory
consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS. Thus, the Commission
cannot find that, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 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.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Access Fees
    The Filing Participants propose to charge Access Fees to all
subscribers for the use of the three categories of data: (1) Level 1
Core Data; (2) depth-of-book data; and (3) auction information. With
respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Filing Participants to apply the same
Access Fees that currently set forth in the Plans with respect to data
disseminated by the exclusive SIP. With respect to depth-of-book data,
the Filing Participants propose to charge Subscribers a monthly Access
Fee of $9,850.00 per Network. With respect to auction information, the
Filing Participants propose to charge Subscribers a monthly Access Fee
of $985.00 per Network.
    Some commenters oppose the access fees in the proposed fee
schedule. One Non-Supporting Participant states that the proposed
access fees result in excessive fee levels that would discourage firms
from registering as competing consolidators and would hinder the
formation of the decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rules
seeks to create.\269\ Another Non-Supporting Participant states that
the proposed access fees are not fair and reasonable because they are
more expensive than those charged by exchanges for their proprietary
products.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 3.
    \270\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 6, 8. See also Cutler
Group Letter, supra note 134, at 1-2 (noting that it supports the
comment letter written by MEMX and that the Proposed Amendments make
market data less accessible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
access fees for depth-of-book information are fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory. With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the
Filing Participants are proposing to charge the same Access Fees for
Non-Display Use of Level 1 Core Data that are currently set forth in
the Plans with respect to data disseminated by the exclusive SIP. But,
as discussed above,\271\ in the context of the MDI Rules, the Proposed
Amendment is in fact proposing fees applicable to a new data product--
the top-of-book data product to be generated and disseminated by
competing consolidators--that differs both with respect to content and
administrative expense from the existing top-of-book product generated
and disseminated by the exclusive SIP. In taking the position that they
have not proposed to do more than add content to the existing Level 1
Core Data product offered by the exclusive SIP, however, the Filing
Participants have not even attempted to explain or justify how the
proposed Access Fees for Level 1 Core Data satisfy the statutory
standard of being fair, reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory.'' \272\ Significantly, the Filing Participants have not
taken into account that the current consolidation, processing, and
dissemination expenses incurred by the Equity Data Plans would be
inapplicable to the data content underlying the new Level 1 Core Data
products to be offered by competing consolidators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ See supra Section IV.C.1.
    \272\ See MDI Rules Release, supra note 11, 86 FR at 18684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Access Fees for the content underlying depth-of-
book data, the Filing Participants have attempted to justify the
proposed Access Fees by using the same multiplier (i.e., 3.94x) to the
Access Fees charged for all three Networks, resulting in a proposed
Access Fee of $9,850.00 per Network.\273\ But, as explained in detail
above, the Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the use of
this multiplier is appropriate in the first place because, among other
things, the proprietary depth-of-book feeds contain top-of-book data
and auction information, which the consolidated depth-of-book feed
would lack, leading to ``double-counting,'' as several commenters have
pointed out.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67520.
    \274\ See supra Section IV.C.2 (discussing issues associated
with the application of the multiplier used by the Filing
Participants to generate certain proposed fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to auction information, the Filing
Participants have not explained the basis for the proposed Access Fees
for auction information, and the Commission therefore has no basis on
which it can find that the proposed fees are fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory. And even if the unstated rationale is that
the proposed fees are 10% of the proposed Access Fees for depth-of-book
data, consistent with the derivation of auction information fees from
the fees for the content underlying depth-of-book data, that rationale
would suffer from the same weaknesses as the rationale for Non-Display
Use of depth-of-book data and for the content underlying depth-of-book
data. The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that is fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory to calculate the fees
by comparison to the current charges for proprietary depth-of-book
products, which are substantially different products than those at
issue in the Proposed Amendment.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
Access Fees provide for the distribution of information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms that are fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory consistent with Rule
603(a) of Regulation NMS. Thus, the Commission cannot find that,
consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 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.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Redistribution Fees
    The Filing Participants propose that the existing Redistribution
Fees would apply to all three categories of core data (i.e., Level 1
Core Data, depth-of-book, and auction information), including any

subset thereof.\277\ The Filing Participants are not proposing to
change the amount of the Redistribution Fees. The Filing Participants
also specify that Redistribution Fees would be charged to competing
consolidators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ The Filing Participants state that, currently,
Redistribution Fees are charged to any entity that makes last sale
information or quotation information available to any other entity
or to any person other than its employees, irrespective of the means
of transmission or access. The Filing Participants propose to amend
this description to make it applicable to core data, as that term is
defined in Rule 600(b)(21). See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at
67518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of their proposal to charge Redistribution Fees to
competing consolidators, the Filing Participants argue: (1) that the
comparison the Commission made in the MDI Rules Release between self-
aggregators (which would not pay Redistribution Fees) and competing
consolidators is not appropriate in determining whether a
redistribution fee is not unreasonably discriminatory; and (2) that the
Commission's comparison is not consistent with the current long-
standing practice of the Plan that redistribution fees are charged to
any entity that distributes data externally.\278\ The Filing
Participants state that a self-aggregator, by definition, would not be
distributing data externally and would therefore not be subject to such
fees, which, according to the Filing Participants, is consistent with
current Plan practice that a subscriber to consolidated data that only
uses data for internal use is not charged a Redistribution Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ See, e.g., Cover Letter, supra note 1, at 4; Notice, supra
note 6, 86 FR at 67518. The Filing Participants state that the
current exclusive SIP is not charged a Redistribution Fee. The
Filing Participants state, however, that unlike competing
consolidators, the processor has been retained by the Plans to serve
as an exclusive SIP, is subject to oversight by both the Plans and
the Commission, and neither pays for the data nor engages with data
subscriber customers. The Filing Participants state that, by
contrast, under the competing consolidator model: The Plans would
have no role in either overseeing or determining which entities
choose to be a competing consolidator; a competing consolidator
would need to purchase consolidated market data just as any other
vendor would; and competing consolidators would be responsible for
competing for data subscriber clients. Accordingly, the Filing
Participants argue, competing consolidators would be more akin to
vendors than to the current exclusive SIPs. The Filing Participants
state that if any entity that is currently an exclusive SIP chooses
to register as a competing consolidator, that entity would be
subject to the Redistribution Fee. See Cover Letter, supra note 1,
at 4 n.7; Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR at 67518 n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants argue that the more appropriate comparison
would be between competing consolidators and downstream vendors, both
of which would be selling consolidated market data directly to market
data subscribers. The Filing Participants state that vendors are and
would still be subject to Redistribution Fees when redistributing data
to market data subscribers and argue that it would be unreasonably
discriminatory and would impose a burden on competition if competing
consolidators--which would be competing with downstream market data
vendors for the same data subscriber customers--are not charged a
Redistribution Fee for exactly the same activity.
    One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment should treat
competing consolidators as replacements to the exclusive SIPs, not as
data vendors.\279\ The commenter states that subjecting competing
consolidators to the same fees as data vendors and subscribers that
receive consolidated market data from the exclusive SIP fails to
recognize that competing consolidators are SIPs and are not similarly
situated to today's data vendors.\280\ This commenter further states
that competing consolidators should not be charged redistribution fees
because they are not redistributing consolidated market data, but are
instead generating and distributing consolidated data for the first
time.\281\ According to this commenter, redistribution fees should not
be charged by the Plan because the Plan would no longer govern the
distribution of consolidated market data.\282\ The commenter states
that not recognizing competing consolidators as SIPs places competing
consolidators at a competitive disadvantage relative to data vendors,
given that they take on expenses and risks that data vendors do not,
such as the costs for generating consolidated market data, disclosing
operational and performance metrics, registering with the Commission,
and complying with Rule 614 of Regulation NMS.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57, at 3.
    \280\ See id. at 3-4.
    \281\ See id.
    \282\ See id. at 5.
    \283\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Non-Supporting Participant states that the redistribution fee
for competing consolidators is inconsistent with the MDI Rules, is not
fair and reasonable, and is unreasonably discriminatory.\284\ This
commenter states that the proposal's attempt to justify the
redistribution fee based on the current centralized model that charges
fees to downstream vendors is unsound because, under the decentralized
MDI Rules, competing consolidators would be ``stepping into the role
that the SIPs hold today as the primary sources of consolidated market
data.'' \285\ According to this commenter, to charge a redistribution
fee on top of the other proposed fees would ``unquestionably put
competing consolidators at a further competitive disadvantage as
compared to aggregated proprietary data products offered by
exchanges,'' thus targeting them in an unfair and unreasonable
manner.\286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 2 (citing the MDI Rules
Release statements that ``imposing redistribution fees on data
content underlying consolidated market data that will be
disseminated by competing consolidators would be difficult to
reconcile with the standards of being fair and reasonable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model,'' and
that ``fees proposed by the SROs should not contain redistribution
fees for competing consolidators because this would hinder their
ability to compete.'').
    \285\ Id.
    \286\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states the Proposed Amendment directly contradicts
the Commission's directive in the MDI Rules that competing
consolidators not be treated the same as market data vendors.\287\ The
commenter states that the Filing Participants are ``engaged in a
strategy to undermine the Commission's authority over market data as
enumerated in the CT Plan and MDI Rule[s] in order to preserve their
current revenues from proprietary and SIP data.'' \288\ The commenter
further states that the Filing Participants' position that the
competing consolidators should be charged redistribution fees just like
any market data vendor undermines the efforts of the MDI Rules.\289\
The commenter cites the Commission's statement in the MDI Rules Release
that the fees for the data content underlying consolidated market data
should not include redistribution fees for competing consolidators.''
\290\ The commenter argues that by treating competing consolidators
differently than the exclusive SIPs, the Filing Participants are acting
in an unreasonably discriminatory manner, effectively disregarding the
Exchange Act mandates in addition to the Commission's directive in the
MDI Rules.\291\ The commenter argues that imposing redistribution fees
on competing consolidators imposes an undue burden on competition.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 4-5.
    \288\ Id. at 6; see also SIFMA Letter II, supra note 57, at 3.
    \289\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 7; SIFMA Letter II,
supra note 57, at 2.
    \290\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 7; SIFMA Letter II,
supra note 57, at 2.
    \291\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 7; SIFMA Letter II,
supra note 57, at 2.
    \292\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 7; SIFMA Letter II,
supra note 57, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters also suggest that the imposition of redistribution
fees on

competing consolidators would place competing consolidators at a
competitive disadvantage.\293\ One commenter states that by charging
redistribution fees to competing consolidators, the Proposed Amendment
creates a barrier to entry to technology solution vendors becoming
competing consolidators.\294\ Two other commenters, including a Non-
Supporting Participant, also argue that the redistribution fees charged
to competing consolidators are in contravention of the Commission's
express direction in the MDI Rules.\295\ Another Non-Supporting
Participant states that the proposed redistribution fee that would be
charged to competing consolidators is inconsistent with the purposes
and structure of the MDI Rules, and that this aspect of the proposal
represents a ``further indication that the intent of the majority [of
the exchanges] was to subvert the purpose of the Commission's order.''
\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ See NBIM Letter, supra note 79, at 2; Cutler Group Letter,
supra note 134, at 1-2.
    \294\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 125, at 1.
    \295\ See FINRA Letter, supra note 156, at 5; MEMX Letter, supra
note 57, at 21.
    \296\ IEX Letter, supra note 57, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Filing Participant states that, although the Commission in the
MDI Rules Release compared competing consolidators to self-aggregators,
a more appropriate comparison would be between competing consolidators
and downstream vendors.\297\ According to this commenter, because these
vendors would be subject to redistribution fees when redistributing
data to their subscribers, it would impose a burden on competition and
be unfair to vendors not to charge a redistribution fee for exactly the
same activity by competing consolidators.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 71, at 7.
    \298\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission stated in the MDI Rules Release, ``the fees for
the data content underlying consolidated data should not include
redistribution fees for competing consolidators,'' \299\ and imposing
redistribution fees on competing consolidators ``would be difficult to
reconcile with statutory standards of being fair and reasonable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model.'' \300\ The
Filing Participants' attempt to justify the Redistribution Fee--basing
it on the long-standing practice within a centralized model that
charges fees to ``any entity that distributes data''--is misplaced.
Unlike current vendors that take consolidated data generated by the
exclusive SIP, distribute it, and pay redistribution fees, the
competing consolidators will ``take the place of the exclusive SIP,
which is not charged a redistribution fee.'' \301\ The competing
consolidators will take underlying data content from the exchanges and
will themselves generate the consolidated data. Thus, there is no
``redistribution'' when a competing consolidator sells consolidated
data--at fees set forth in the Plan--to a subscriber. Moreover, like
the exclusive SIPs, competing consolidators will take on expenses,
risks, and obligations that data vendors do not, such as the costs for
collecting, consolidating, generating, and disseminating consolidated
equity market data.\302\ Additionally, like the exclusive SIPs and
unlike vendors, competing consolidators will be subject to the
registration, disclosure, and other regulatory requirements under Rule
614 and Form CC of Regulation NMS,\303\ as well as to the requirements
of Regulation SCI.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ MDI Rules Release, supra note 11, 86 FR at 18685.
    \300\ Id.
    \301\ Id.
    \302\ See id. at 18603-04, 18662-76 (discussing registration and
responsibilities of competing consolidators).
    \303\ See id. at 18603-04, 18662-76 (discussing registration and
responsibilities competing consolidators).
    \304\ In the MDI Rules Release, the Commission amended
Regulation SCI to expand the definition of ``SCI entities'' to
include ``SCI competing consolidators'' that are subject to the
requirements of Regulation SCI after an initial transition period if
they meet a threshold based on certain share of gross consolidated
market data revenues. See id. at 18604-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Filing Participants have not adequately explained or
justified how the proposal to impose Redistribution Fees reflects,
consistent with the MDI Rules, that ``that the effective national
market system plan(s) is no longer operating the exclusive SIPs and is
no longer performing collection, consolidation, and dissemination
functions.'' \305\ The Filing Participants have not explained how
keeping the proposed Redistribution Fees unchanged from the current
fees under the Plans is an appropriate means of establishing the
proposed fees, or how the resulting fee levels are fair and reasonable
and not unreasonably discriminatory. Additionally, the Filing
Participants have not explained how charging Redistribution Fees--
layered atop the other fees described above--to competing consolidators
(thus subjecting them to the same fees as vendors and subscribers) 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.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ Id. at 18682.
    \306\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed
Redistribution Fees provide for the distribution of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms that
are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory consistent
with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS. Thus, the Commission cannot find
that, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 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.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Other Comments Regarding the Proposed Fees \308\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ In addition to the other comments discussed in this Order,
the Commission also received a letter in the comment file that is
not germane to the Proposed Amendments. See Letter from Charles L.
Groothoff (Apr. 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the proposed fees for the content
underlying consolidated market data would be too high whether a cost-
basis or value-basis were used as a justification by the Filing
Participants.\309\ A Non-Supporting Participant states that any
analysis of current SIP fees should include a discussion of what
structural changes could be made to SIP fees to eliminate or reduce the
incentives that firms have today to avoid providing SIP data to their
customers.\310\ One commenter favors expanding the broker-dealer
enterprise cap that is part of the current fee schedule of the Plan,
stating that the Proposed Amendment provides no depth-of-book
enterprise cap and that the Level 1 enterprise caps are out of reach
for most market participants.\311\ Another commenter states that it
supports the proposed a la carte fee structure for the expanded
elements of consolidated data because, in the commenter's view, market
participants should be able to select from a variety of market data
products and pay only for the content they consume.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57, at 6.
    \310\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 20.
    \311\ See MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57, at 8.
    \312\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 57, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Non-Supporting Participant compares the proposed fees for
content underlying consolidated data to fees currently charged for
proprietary data fees and argues that at any given price

a subscriber would be better off subscribing to the proprietary data
fees listed instead of purchasing data from the Plan, given the
additional information included on those feeds.\313\ This commenter
states that, because the proposed fees are generally more expensive
than current proprietary data offerings, the Proposed Amendments
clearly fail the ``fair and reasonable'' test required by the Exchange
Act.\314\ This commenter further argues that it is unlikely that there
will be any demand for the new data elements included in consolidated
market data at prices that exceed the fees charged for proprietary data
feeds today.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 7.
    \314\ See id. at 8.
    \315\ See id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission in this Order is not taking a position on what
structure or level of fees--either on an absolute basis or in
comparison to existing proprietary data products--would be appropriate,
but finds that the Filing Participants have failed to demonstrate that
the proposed fees provide for the distribution of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms that
are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ See Sections 11A(c)(1)(C)-(D) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C 78k-1(c)(1)(C)-(D); Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters, including Non-Supporting Participants, also argue
that the proposed fees would have an adverse impact on competition, and
on competing consolidators in particular.\317\ One Non-Supporting
Participant states that, even where the proposed fees are lower than
the fees charged for comparable proprietary data, the fact that other
fees are higher than proprietary offerings is likely to reduce
incentives for competing consolidators to actually offer that data
content to their customers and would limit the potential customer base
for competing consolidators and inappropriately impede the viability of
competing consolidators under the infrastructure rule.\318\ Another
commenter expresses concern that if the Proposed Amendment were
approved, the exchanges would entrench a high cost for market data that
has no relation to underlying expenses, is not subject to effective
competitive forces, and serves as a formidable barrier to entry for
newer firms.\319\ One commenter states that the current proposal will
favor current market data vendors who already pay for these fees and
have large customer bases, but will not necessarily use the most
efficient data consolidation solutions.\320\ This commenter states that
all of the equity market data plans should have a unified feed and
price list because most end users today consume all of the plans'
feeds.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 1, 3; MEMX Letter,
supra note 57, at 2, 9, 10-17, 21-22, 25; NBIM Letter, supra note
79, at 2; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 125, at 1; IEX Letter, supra
note 57, at 5; SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 8; FINRA Letter,
supra note 156, at 5; MayStreet Letter I, supra note 57, at 5;
BlackRock Letter, supra note 57, at 1-4; Polygon.io Letter I, supra
note 126, at 3; Proof Services Letter, supra note 57, at 3; Cutler
Group Letter, supra note 134, at 1.
    \318\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 9, 17.
    \319\ See Proof Services Letter, supra note 57, at 1.
    \320\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 125, at 1.
    \321\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has considered these comments regarding the
competitive challenges of the current market environment and the role
the Plan and these proposed fees would play under the competing
consolidator regime. As discussed above, the Commission has found that
the Filing Participants have not demonstrated that the proposed fees
for content underlying consolidated market data are fair, reasonable
and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Commission agrees that unfair,
unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory fees for this data content
would decrease the likelihood that it would be economically feasible
for firms to become competing consolidators. That in turn would
undermine the Commission's goals in ``fostering a competitive
environment for the provision and dissemination of critical market data
to investors and other market participants'' that will ``better achieve
the goals of Section 11A of the Exchange Act and help to ensure broad
availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks that is
prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair.'' \322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ MDI Rules Release, supra note 11, 86 FR at 18605-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. NMS Plan Governance

    Some commenters, including Non-Supporting Participants, state that
the MDI Rules should be implemented through the new CT Plan,\323\
rather than through the existing equity market data plans (i.e., the
CTA/CQ Plans and the Nasdaq/UTP Plan).\324\ One commenter reiterated
its continued support for the provisions of the CT Plan overall.\325\
The commenter states that the real and potential conflicts of interest
that currently exist relating to the provision of market data directly
relate to the decision-making problems at the Plan's Operating
Committee.\326\ One commenter states that the conflicts of interest
that led to the creation of the Proposed Amendment are apparent from
the resounding lack of support it has received from anyone but the
exchange groups that stand to benefit from creating a system where
competing consolidators are not viable.\327\ According to this
commenter, the exchange groups are disincentivized to create a fair and
reasonable fee structure, so additional attempts under the same system
are unlikely to create better results.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ See supra note 18 (describing CT Plan).
    \324\ See BMO Letter, supra note 57; MEMX Letter, supra note 57;
MIAX Letter, supra note 57; IEX Letter, supra note 57; and
Polygon.io Letter I, supra note 126; Polygon.io Letter II, supra
note 67.
    \325\ See BMO Letter, supra note 57, at 1.
    \326\ See id. at 2.
    \327\ See id.
    \328\ See Polygon.io Letter II, supra note 67, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter supports expanding the voting representation
under the CT Plan to non-SROs and having them participate as full
voting members of the Operating Committee.\329\ The commenter states
that the Commission cannot approve the Proposed Amendment given the
inherent conflicts of interests of the Filing Participants that
developed the proposals.\330\ The commenter states that, if the
Commission approves the Proposed Amendment, it would be giving tacit
approval to the shortcomings in the governance structure of the current
Plans.\331\ This commenter also states that the proposed fee amendments
are explicitly stated by the Filing Participants to be unrelated to the
cost of providing the data, but instead related to subscriber
value.\332\ The commenter states that this is a clear example of the
Plan's Operating Committee failing to ensure that the public service
mandates of the SIPs are achieved and is a failure in governance
through the unmitigated conflicts of interest by voting members who
just want to maximize profits.\333\ The commenter states that further
evidence of the failure of the governance structure of the Operating
Committee is that the fee proposals have been proposed while the
remaining reforms of the CT Plan are stayed pending resolution of
challenges in federal court.\334\ The commenter states that it is
``somewhat shocking'' that the Proposed Amendment was filed
notwithstanding that other members of the Operating Committee ``have
stated publicly that the proposals contradict

the Exchange Act standards for consolidated data, which require that
the fees be fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ See BMO Letter, supra note 57, at 2.
    \330\ See id.
    \331\ See id.
    \332\ See id.
    \333\ See id. at 2-3.
    \334\ See id. at 3.
    \335\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Non-Supporting Participant also encourages the Commission to
consider whether the CT Plan is a more appropriate body for setting
fees for consolidated market data.\336\ This commenter states that
placing the responsibility for setting fees in the hands of the CT Plan
would allow SIP fees to be set by an operating committee that better
reflects the constituencies affected by the Proposed Amendment,
including non-SRO representatives.\337\ Another Non-Supporting
Participant states that the fee proposals are ``the result of a
conflicted and unbalanced voting process,'' adding that it agrees with
the recommendation that the responsibility for setting the proposed
fees should be placed on the CT Plan.\338\ Another Non-Supporting
Participant recommends that the Commission disapprove the proposal and
reassign responsibility for the filing to the operating committee for
the CT Plan, which the commenter states would have a ``broader set of
voting stakeholders and a fairer and less conflicted governance
structure,'' and argues that the Proposed Amendment shows that this
change is ``badly'' needed.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \336\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 57, at 23-24.
    \337\ See id.
    \338\ MIAX Letter, supra note 57, at 5.
    \339\ IEX Letter, supra note 57, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asks the Commission to reevaluate the process that
led to the creation of the Proposed Amendment and to make substantive
changes to avoid the amendment process being used to derail timely
implementation of the MDI Rules.\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ See Polygon.io Letter I, supra note 126, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some commenters suggest that the CT Plan is the appropriate
mechanism for implementing the changes required by the MDI Rules, that
mechanism is not available at this time because the D.C. Circuit has
vacated the Commission order approving the CT Plan.\341\ And additional
discussion on this topic in this Order is unnecessary, as it does not
bear on the basis for the Commission's decision to disapprove the
Proposed Amendment. On the record before us, for the independently
sufficient reasons discussed in more detail above, we have concluded
that the Filing Participants have not demonstrated that approval of the
proposed NMS plan 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ See The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, et al. v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Consideration of Other Actions Under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS

    In connection with recommending disapproval of the Proposed
Amendment, one commenter states the Commission could consider potential
action under Rule 608(a)(2) of Regulation NMS, which allows the
Commission to directly propose amendments to effective national market
system plans.\342\ The commenter states that in connection with a
Commission disapproval of the Proposed Amendment, it would ``support
the Commission's efforts to ensure that the newly expanded consolidated
market data (i.e., new core data) under the Commission's Infrastructure
Rule is disseminated in a manner consistent with the Exchange Act
standards to ensure the investing public and all market participants
have fair and reasonable access to it.'' \343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ See SIFMA Letter I, supra note 57, at 2.
    \343\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Filing Commenter states that it would be inconsistent with the
Exchange Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS for the Commission to
change sua sponte any or all of the proposed fees, as any such change
would be material to the Proposed Amendment.\344\ This commenter states
that, if the Commission intends to revise the Proposed Amendment in any
material way, it must do so through rulemaking under Rule 608(b)(2) of
Regulation NMS, by providing public notice of the specific changes it
proposes and giving the Plan's participants and the general public an
opportunity to comment.\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 71, at 8.
    \345\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the Commission should provide guidance in
terms of the requirements of the MDI Rules as well as the application
of the terms ``fair and reasonable'' and ``not unfairly
discriminatory'' in the context of supplying competing consolidators
with the underlying content of consolidated market data, adding that,
without such guidance, any refiling of the amendments will result in
proposals that do not meet standards under the Exchange Act.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ See MayStreet Letter II, supra note 58, at 1-2, 4, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that these comments bear on potential future
Commission action, rather than on the basis for the Commission's
decision to disapprove the Proposed Amendment, further discussion on
these topics is unnecessary in this Order.

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find,
pursuant to Section 11A of the Act, and Rule 608(b)(2) thereunder, that
the Proposed Amendment is consistent 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. 2022-20833 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50670-50672]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to

section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location and case                                                                                Community
  State and county           No.          Chief executive officer of community    Community map repository         Date of modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    Arapahoe (FEMA   City of Aurora (18-  The Honorable Steve Hogan, Mayor,     Engineering Department,       September 17, 2018...........       080002
     Docket No.: B-   08-0169P).           City of Aurora, 15151 East Alameda    15151 East Alameda Parkway,
     1840).                                Parkway, 5th Floor, Aurora, CO        Suite 3200, Aurora, CO
                                           80012.                                80012.
    Arapahoe (FEMA   City of Centennial   The Honorable Stephanie Piko, Mayor,  Southeast Metro Stormwater    September 17, 2018...........       080315
     Docket No.: B-   (18-08-0169P).       City of Centennial, 13133 East        Authority, 76 Inverness
     1840).                                Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO         Drive East, Suite A,
                                           80112.                                Englewood, CO 80112.
    Arapahoe (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable Jeff Baker, Chairman,   Arapahoe County Public Works  September 17, 2018...........       080011
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Arapahoe    Arapahoe County Board of              and Development Department,
     1840).           County (18-08-       Commissioners, 5334 South Prince      6924 South Lima Street,
                      0169P).              Street, Littleton, CO 80120.          Centennial, CO 80112.
Florida:
    Alachua (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Lee Pinkoson,           Alachua County Public Works   September 7, 2018............       120001
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Alachua     Chairman, Alachua County Board of     Department, 5620 Northwest
     1834).           County (18-04-       Commissioners, 12 Southeast 1st       120th Lane, Gainesville, FL
                      2705X).              Street, Gainesville, FL 32601.        32653.
    Collier (FEMA    City of Naples (18-  The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor,    Building Department, 295      September 12, 2018...........       125130
     Docket No.: B-   04-3246P).           City of Naples, 735 8th Street        Riverside Circle, Naples,
     1840).                                South, Naples, FL 34102.              FL 34102.
    Pinellas (FEMA   Town of Indian       The Honorable Patrick Soranno,        Building Department, 19305    September 17, 2018...........       125118
     Docket No.: B-   Shores (18-04-       Mayor, Town of Indian Shores, 19305   Gulf Boulevard, Indian
     1840).           2638P).              Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, FL     Shores, FL 33785.
                                           33785.
    Sarasota (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable Nancy Detert, Chair,    Sarasota County Building and  September 10, 2018...........       125144
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Sarasota    Sarasota County Board of              Development Services
     1834).           County (18-04-       Commissioners, 1660 Ringling          Department, 1001 Sarasota
                      2561P).              Boulevard, Sarasota, FL 34236.        Center Boulevard, Sarasota,
                                                                                FL 34240.
Georgia:
    Catoosa (FEMA    City of Fort         The Honorable Earl Gray, Mayor, City  Building, Planning and        September 13, 2018...........       130248
     Docket No.: B-   Oglethorpe (18-04-   of Fort Oglethorpe, 500 City Hall     Zoning Department, 500 City
     1840).           2533P).              Drive, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742.     Hall Drive, Fort
                                                                                Oglethorpe, GA 30742.
    Catoosa (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Steven Henry,           Catoosa County Planning and   September 13, 2018...........       130028
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Catoosa     Chairman, Catoosa County Board of     Inspections Department, 184
     1840).           County (18-04-       Commissioners, 800 Lafayette          Tiger Trail, Ringgold, GA
                      2533P).              Street, Ringgold, GA 30736.           30736.
Mississippi:
    Rankin (FEMA     City of Brandon (18- The Honorable Butch Lee, Mayor, City  City Hall, 1000 Municipal     September 14, 2018...........       280143
     Docket No.: B-   04-0648P).           of Brandon, 1000 Municipal Drive,     Drive, Brandon, MS 39042.
     1840).                                Brandon, MS 39042.
    Rankin (FEMA     City of Pearl (18-   The Honorable Jake Windham, Mayor,    Community Development         September 14, 2018...........       280145
     Docket No.: B-   04-0648P).           City of Pearl, 2420 Old Brandon       Department, 2420 Old
     1840).                                Road, Pearl, MS 39208.                Brandon Road, Pearl, MS
                                                                                39208.
New Mexico:
    Bernalillo       City of Albuquerque  The Honorable Tim Keller, Mayor,      Development Review Services   September 12, 2018...........       350002
     (FEMA Docket     (18-06-0370P).       City of Albuquerque, P.O. Box 1293,   Division, 600 2nd Street
     No.: B-1840).                         Albuquerque, NM 87103.                Northwest, Albuquerque, NM
                                                                                87102.
    Bernalillo       Unincorporated       Ms. Julie Morgas Baca, Bernalillo     Bernalillo County Public      September 12, 2018...........       350001
     (FEMA Docket     areas of             County Manager, 1 Civic Plaza         Works Division, 2400
     No.: B-1840).    Bernalillo County    Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102.     Broadway Boulevard
                      (18-06-0370P).                                             Southeast, Albuquerque, NM
                                                                                87102.
Ohio: Warren (FEMA   City of Mason (17-   The Honorable Victor Kidd, Mayor,     City Hall, 6000 Mason         September 10, 2018...........       390559
 Docket No.: B-       05-6435P).           City of Mason, 6000 Mason             Montgomery Road, Mason, OH
 1840).                                    Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040.     45040.

Oklahoma: Tulsa      City of Tulsa (18-   The Honorable G.T. Bynum, Mayor,      Engineering Services          September 10, 2018...........       405381
 (FEMA Docket No.:    06-0745P).           City of Tulsa, 175 East 2nd Street,   Department, 2317 South
 B-1834).                                  15th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103.          Jackson Avenue, Tulsa, OK
                                                                                74107.
Rhode Island:        Town of Barrington   Mr. James J. Cunha, Manager, Town of  Town Hall, 283 County Road,   September 6, 2018............       445392
 Bristol (FEMA        (18-01-0572P).       Barrington, 283 County Road,          Barrington, RI 02806.
 Docket No.: B-                            Barrington, RI 02806.
 1840).
Texas:
    Bexar (FEMA      City of San Antonio  The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor,   Transportation and Capital    September 17, 2018...........       480045
     Docket No.: B-   (17-06-3172P).       City of San Antonio, P.O. Box         Improvements Department,
     1840).                                839966, San Antonio, TX 78283.        Storm Water Division, 1901
                                                                                South Alamo Street, 2nd
                                                                                Floor, San Antonio, TX
                                                                                78204.
    Bexar (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar  Bexar County Public Works     September 17, 2018...........       480035
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Bexar       County Judge, 101 West Nueva          Department, 233 North Pecos-
     1840).           County (18-06-       Street, 10th Floor, San Antonio, TX   La Trinidad Street, Suite
                      0285P).              78205.                                420, San Antonio, TX 78207.
    Tarrant, (FEMA   City of Fort Worth   The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor,     Transportation and Public     September 10, 2018...........       480596
     Docket No.: B-   (17-06-0155P).       City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas         Works, Engineering
     1834).                                Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.         Department, 200 Texas
                                                                                Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                                                76102.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Saginaw (17- The Honorable Todd Flippo, Mayor,     Public Works and Community    September 10, 2018...........       480610
     Docket No.: B-   06-0155P).           City of Saginaw 333 West McLeroy      Development Department, 205
     1834).                                Boulevard, Saginaw, TX 76179.         Brenda Lane, Saginaw, TX
                                                                                76179.
Virginia:
    Prince William   City of Manassas     Mr. William P. Pate, Manager, City    Department of Public Works    September 13, 2018...........       510090
     (FEMA Docket     (17-03-2321P).       of Manassas, 9027 Center Street,      and Engineering, 8500
     No.: B-1834).                         Suite 401, Manassas, VA 20110.        Public Works Drive,
                                                                                Manassas, VA 20110.
    Prince William   Unincorporated       Mr. Christopher E. Martino, Prince    Prince William County         September 13, 2018...........       510119
     (FEMA Docket     areas of Prince      William County Executive, 1 County    Department of Public Works,
     No.: B-1834).    William County (17-  Complex Court, Prince William, VA     5 County Complex Court,
                      03-2321P).           22192.                                Prince William, VA 22192.
Wyoming:
    Laramie (FEMA    City of Cheyenne     The Honorable Marian J. Orr, Mayor,   Engineering Department, 2101  September 10, 2018...........       560030
     Docket No.: B-   (17-08-1565P).       City of Cheyenne, 2101 O'Neil         O'Neil Avenue, Cheyenne, WY
     1840).                                Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001.           82001.
    Teton (FEMA      Town of Jackson (18- The Honorable Pete Muldoon, Mayor,    Public Works Department, 450  September 13, 2018...........       560052
     Docket No.: B-   08-0346P).           Town of Jackson, P.O. Box 1687,       West Snow King Avenue,
     1840).                                Jackson, WY 83001.                    Jackson, WY 83001.
    Teton (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Mark Newcomb,           Teton County Public Works     September 13, 2018...........       560094
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Teton       Chairman, Teton County Board of       Department, 320 South King
     1840).           County (18-08-       Commissioners, P.O. Box 3594,         Street, Jackson, WY 83001.
                      0346P).              Jackson, WY 83001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-21928 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26353-26355]
[DOCID:fr09my07-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0094; FRL-8123-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption
Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use
Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances; EPA ICR No. 0574.13,
OMB Control No. 2070-0012

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements
for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting
Requirements for Chemical Substances'' and identified by EPA ICR No.
0574.13 and OMB Control No. 2070-0012, is scheduled to expire on
December 31, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0094, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0094. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2007-0094. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only

available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Rose Allison, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
companies that manufacture, process, or import chemical substances.
    Title: Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements
for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting
Requirements for Chemical Substances.

    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0574.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0012.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires manufacturers and importers of new chemical substances to
submit to EPA notice of intent to manufacture or import a new chemical
substance 90 days before manufacture or import begins. EPA reviews the
information contained in the notice to evaluate the health and
environmental effects of the new chemical substance. On the basis of
the review, EPA may take further regulatory action under TSCA, if
warranted. If EPA takes no action within 90 days, the submitter is free
to manufacture or import the new chemical substance without
restriction.
    TSCA section 5 also authorizes EPA to issue Significant New Use
Rules (SNURs). EPA uses this authority to take follow-up action on new
or existing chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment if used in a manner that may result in
different and/or higher exposures of a chemical to humans or the
environment. Once a use is determined to be a significant new use,
persons must submit a notice to EPA 90 days before beginning
manufacture, processing, or importation of a chemical substance for
that use. Such a notice allows EPA to receive and review information on
such a use and, if necessary, regulate the use before it occurs.
    Finally, TSCA section 5 also permits applications for exemption
from TSCA section 5 review under certain circumstances. An applicant
must provide information sufficient for EPA to make a determination
that the circumstances in question qualify for an exemption. In
granting an exemption, EPA may impose appropriate restrictions.
    This information collection addresses the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated with TSCA section 5.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR parts 700, 720, 721, 723, and 725). Respondents may claim all or
part of a document confidential. EPA will disclose information that is
covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by,
and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR
part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 105.5
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 443.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
3.3.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 146,060 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $34,298,675. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $34,298,675 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is a decrease of 17,731 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's experience with the
numbers of submissions since the most recent OMB approval of this
collection. This change is an adjustment.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce
the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. E7-8941 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S